First off, many thanks to Druid42 for seeking a new opponent.
Thanks to the Mods for accepting my truant response.
Debates are, in my opinion, the best way to see both sides of a coin.
Mind you, dear reader, as I accepted this debate a relative newcomer to this forum and will debate my side as best as possible. My spelling and
grammar may be somewhat, juvenile.
This debate is on the punishment of crimes by Death. I will overview my arguments for the con position on this penalty, but I will try to remain a
neutral as possible with my own stance and refrain from revealing my own opinions on the subject, unless my opinions are being weighed for other
purposes, of which the idea of the Death penalty itself will be subtracted.
I am going to represent the Cons of the Death Penalty as best as I can, without my personal bias.
The Death Penalty: A negative stance.
Whereas my opponent believes a person forfeits their own life when they are handed down this type of sentencing, I am going to propose that is not a
forfeiture but a seizure of their life. A person did not, from oneself, give up their own life when they received this type of punishment. Their life
was taken from them without their say. Defense litigations aside, they basically had no choice in the matter. Although they may get the option to
speak "any last words" before getting the literal "Axe"...they more than likely will not win any battle if the sentence was already handed down to
them. Unless, of course, pardoned by the POTUS, but that's another debate.
Criminals should be punished for their crimes, without a doubt...but should their lives be taken in response to their actions? (rhetorical)
As with my opponents opening post, I agree that this is the main question that probably takes place more in jury's or judges minds than the public
itself from a moral standpoint. Although I can imagine alot of people have thought about that same question at some point in their lives. But, the
majority of people are not the decisive factors when it comes to sentencing a criminal in most countries. It is up to the state to choose a jury of
12, not a "mob rule" where the entire nation makes a choice in the matter.
There are reasons that only certain nations, or states within a nation, have the Death Penalty, and also why you see more or less heinous crimes in
those particular places. But in the same regard, there are also reasons why those particular places have anti-guns laws. Those statistics, in my
opinion, are somewhat bias and certainly aimed towards particular mindsets of which I will try my best to steer clear of.
I'd like to keep my entire stance free of what I believe is propagandized material.
The first thing that comes to mind when I hear people openly talk about this subject is usually the phrase, "An Eye for an Eye." Murderers should be
Murdered. When people respond with that type of answer, they are condoning the same action that the person committed in the first place. They are
condoning a crime to equal a crime. Actually, they are using an old Hebrew quote to justify an action. Which borders on defeating the separation of
church and state.
But, let us first look at the action of the Death Penalty. A state, or body of individuals representative of, must commit a crime to justify the
punishment of a criminal for a crime they determined was abhorrent enough to deserve Death itself.
Whenever I think of the Death Penalty, I honestly see the long wait of "Death Row" and the wasted tax dollars to keep the criminals alive inside a
basic, sheltered, living space. The expedition of this process is hindered by miles of red tape and usually a long trial, for which we the taxpayers,
have to pay for. It is not, nor in the immediate future going to be, a quick solution to a large problem.
We should also consider the racket today we all know as our friendly "Prison System" and think about using these people for their ability to be a
benefit to society not a deficit. Rehabilitation may be the key to successfully using the most abominable people for something constructive.
I believe we don't truly delve into this topic because of the way most governments handle the affair. It only becomes a popular conversation, it
seems, when broadcast on national television, or in the midst of a celebrity scandal, of which either could be repetitiously talked about to garner
support for whichever side needs it most.
I am going to try and convince my opponent, and the reader, that the Death Penalty isn't always the best solution and there may be other ways to deal
with such ignominious criminals.
edit on 8/30/12 by Hefficide because: Formatting issue edit approved by debate moderators and performed by Hefficide