Death penalty

[rongo]

I was just asked by our high school's JSA club to debate a really sharp faculty member next Wednesday night in the lecture hall, with $3-$5 tickets sold. Knowing the colleague, I'm  probably going to have my head handed to me (he's really sharp).  

I am supposed to take the negative side of the question "Should the death penalty be abolished?" (In other words, I'm supposed to argue in favor of it). I actually don't have strong feelings on this subject. I think my views on this subject have become a little more liberal over the years, but I'm not rabidly anti-death penalty.

Off the top of my head, the arguments in favor of it are:

1) Deterrent effect (questionable, in my opinion)

2) Satisfaction and retribution for victim families (what I suspect is the main reason for it, whether people want to admit it or not)

Arguments opposed would be:

1) Morally wrong

2) Ineffective

I'm sure some here have given this a lot more thought (or feel much more strongly about it). 

What are the strongest points on both sides of the question? Good studies or resources? Since they're charging admission, I think they want this to be something better than amateur night at the high school. I'm flattered and honored that they asked me to go up against this colleague. Any expertise or opinions from anyone here are very welcome!  

No, I'm not going to get into blood atonement,  but what is everyone's sense of where most LDS come down on this? I would think that a majority of U.S. LDS support it, but not fervently. I would think that LDS outside of the U.S. oppose it, as much of the world thinks it is barbaric. Just curious.

Thanks in advance!

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, I'm not going to get into blood atonement,

Well there goes my whole argument...

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well there goes my whole argument...

Interestingly, we are house-sitting for a couple of years for a couple in our ward (they're living in Malaysia). The brother, Russell Marsh, is a recording artist and wrote and sang the actual song that was "The Executioner's Song" (it was Gary Gillmore's favorite song, and he requested it when he could; it was the last song he listened to before his firing squad execution in Utah). 

http://nodepression.com/article/memory-gary-gilmore-haunts-history-russ-marshs-classic-country-ballad

[Ahab]

3. Satisfies justice.

4. Is cheaper, monetarily speaking.

Note that the deterrent effect applies in and/or out of prison.

 

[CA Steve]

Some uninformed thoughts off the top of my head.

 

1. It is a permanent. 

Given the advances in DNA over the years it seems we are finding more and more people on death row who are innocent or, at least cast some doubt on their guilt. If we are going to put someone to death, we need to be sure he/she is the guilty party. 

2. Another problem is it seems to be enforced quite arbitrarily with those of color and poor most often given the penalty. Why should a crime in one state be worthy of a death penalty when the same crime elsewhere is not? Of why should what color a person is or how good of lawyers decide whether or not he/she gets to live or die?

3. We also have questions regarding how it is to be administered humanly.

4. I think it actually cost more to put someone to death than it does to keep them locked up for life.

 

No CFR's please I am not here to argue it,  just trying to provide Rongo with some thoughts.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think it actually cost more to put someone to death than it does to keep them locked up for life.

Bullets are cheaper when purchased in bulk.

[clarkgoble]

I don't have moral qualms about the death penalty. Honestly if I personally had a choice between death or spending my time in a violent maximum security prison I know which I'd want. However the chance of locking somewhat up in error does matter (although I wish the people focused on that with regards to the death penalty would support more criminal justice reforms especially with regard to prosecutorial misconduct). To me though the bigger issue is just the cost. Charging someone with the death penalty is ridiculously expensive. It's not at all clear the satisfaction a segment of society gets from killing someone as justice is worth the cost in actual dollars. (Again especially considering the state of maximum security federal prisons)

Put more simply, while I'll fully agree there's a lot of problems with the death penalty in terms of problems with our justice system I see that as getting undue attention when many far more serious matters get insufficient attention.

Edited March 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[bsjkki]

I think corruption within the justice system is my argument. Some defendants can afford better counsel and better expert witnesses. Some prosecutors care more about a 'win' than the truth. http://www.rawstory.com/2011/09/pandagon-the_death_penalty_and_our_corrupted_justice_system/

[Danzo]

On the bright side, the they don't actually have to be guilty for the deterrent effect to work.

All they have to do is look guilty.

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

I was just asked by our high school's JSA club to debate a really sharp faculty member next Wednesday night in the lecture hall, with $3-$5 tickets sold. Knowing the colleague, I'm  probably going to have my head handed to me (he's really sharp).  

I am supposed to take the negative side of the question "Should the death penalty be abolished?" (In other words, I'm supposed to argue in favor of it). I actually don't have strong feelings on this subject. I think my views on this subject have become a little more liberal over the years, but I'm not rabidly anti-death penalty.

Off the top of my head, the arguments in favor of it are:

1) Deterrent effect (questionable, in my opinion)

2) Satisfaction and retribution for victim families (what I suspect is the main reason for it, whether people want to admit it or not)

Arguments opposed would be:

1) Morally wrong

2) Ineffective

I'm sure some here have given this a lot more thought (or feel much more strongly about it). 

What are the strongest points on both sides of the question? Good studies or resources? Since they're charging admission, I think they want this to be something better than amateur night at the high school. I'm flattered and honored that they asked me to go up against this colleague. Any expertise or opinions from anyone here are very welcome!  

No, I'm not going to get into blood atonement,  but what is everyone's sense of where most LDS come down on this? I would think that a majority of U.S. LDS support it, but not fervently. I would think that LDS outside of the U.S. oppose it, as much of the world thinks it is barbaric. Just curious.

Thanks in advance!

Not a big fan of it either, but looking on the bright side:

It has a preventative effect, whether in prison or not – the crime certainly won’t be repeated!

It directs more expensive penal resources to the victim’s or society’s broader interests.

Surviving perpetrators and victims, associates of either, those involved with the execution, witnesses and the general public (via the news) can ponder on issues larger than themselves.

Every condemned prisoner gets one last, all-expenses-paid, genuine dream dinner:

Edited March 2, 2017 by CV75

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think corruption within the justice system is my argument. Some defendants can afford better counsel and better expert witnesses. Some prosecutors care more about a 'win' than the truth. http://www.rawstory.com/2011/09/pandagon-the_death_penalty_and_our_corrupted_justice_system/

I consider that a side issue and would suggest they stick to the penalty, itself.

Whether or not the death penalty should ever be applied, in any situation.

Getting off that issue could lead to a very long debate with multiple side issues rather than a focused debate dealing with the penalty, itself.

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I consider that a side issue and would suggest they stick to the penalty, itself.

Whether or not the death penalty should ever be applied, in any situation.

Getting off that issue could lead to a very long debate with multiple side issues rather than a focused debate dealing with the penalty, itself.

I think the fallibility within the system is integral to the debate.

...but I realize this is an argument against it and not for. Oops

Edited March 2, 2017 by bsjkki

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I was just asked by our high school's JSA club to debate a really sharp faculty member next Wednesday night in the lecture hall, with $3-$5 tickets sold. Knowing the colleague, I'm  probably going to have my head handed to me (he's really sharp).  

I am supposed to take the negative side of the question "Should the death penalty be abolished?" (In other words, I'm supposed to argue in favor of it). I actually don't have strong feelings on this subject. I think my views on this subject have become a little more liberal over the years, but I'm not rabidly anti-death penalty.

Off the top of my head, the arguments in favor of it are:

1) Deterrent effect (questionable, in my opinion)

2) Satisfaction and retribution for victim families (what I suspect is the main reason for it, whether people want to admit it or not)

Arguments opposed would be:

1) Morally wrong

2) Ineffective

I'm sure some here have given this a lot more thought (or feel much more strongly about it). 

What are the strongest points on both sides of the question? Good studies or resources? Since they're charging admission, I think they want this to be something better than amateur night at the high school. I'm flattered and honored that they asked me to go up against this colleague. Any expertise or opinions from anyone here are very welcome!  

No, I'm not going to get into blood atonement,  but what is everyone's sense of where most LDS come down on this? I would think that a majority of U.S. LDS support it, but not fervently. I would think that LDS outside of the U.S. oppose it, as much of the world thinks it is barbaric. Just curious.

Thanks in advance!

Personally I would suggest that you argue it from a position of strength and compassion...that while you are personally opposed to the death penalty in most circumstances...even some murders are so egregious and horrific that they do warrant the death penalty.  The infamous Hi Fi Shop murders...come to mind and certainly rise to the level of demanding the death penalty.

http://www.standard.net/News/2014/04/22/Forty-years-later-Ogden-Hi-Fi-Murders-are-still-the-worst

[CA Steve]

Interesting factoid.  

Quote

Take 2013, for example, the latest year for which BJS published capital punishment data. Of the 2,979 people on death row in that year, 39 were executed, and 31 died of natural causes, suicide or murder by another inmate, according to BJS numbers.

 

So not a very efficient system of punishment if you have a good chance of dying from something other than the punishment.

Here’s How Many Death Row Inmates Die Waiting To Die

[CA Steve]

Regarding how much it costs to enforce versus a non death penalty case.

Quote

The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)

Quote

The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State of Nebraska: A Taxpayer Burden?, also estimated that each death penalty prosecution cost Nebraska's taxpayers about $1.5 million more than a life without parole prosecution.

See here for more.

Financial Facts About the Death Penalty

 

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think the fallibility within the system is integral to the debate.

I'd just mention that the death penalty applies only when the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime that has the death penalty as one possible outcome, and that it is the judge of that trial who determines if and when to apply that penalty.

Then get into the positives and negatives of the death penalty, itself.

The question of whether or not to overhaul the legal system or remove the death penalty as a possible outcome of any crime is beyond the scope of the debate on the death penalty, itself.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Regarding how much it costs to enforce versus a non death penalty case.

See here for more.

Financial Facts About the Death Penalty

 

 

Sounds like they are paying WAAAAYY too much just to kill somebody.

One bullet can do it pretty cheap.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

1) Deterrent effect (questionable, in my opinion)

Very questionable. The idea that even longer prison sentences serve as a deterrent has been found to be false. If people think they are going to get caught they don't get involved.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

2) Satisfaction and retribution for victim families (what I suspect is the main reason for it, whether people want to admit it or not)

Generally a bad reason. We stopped letting victims decide appropriate punishment a long time ago in most cases.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

1) Morally wrong

Questionable, though I think there is an argument to be made with the racial bias regarding the death penalty, the number of wrongly convicted felons, and the bloodlust you can see when people cheer about executions that America is not currently capable of responsibly handling the death penalty.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

2) Ineffective

Not sure what you mean here. It effectively prevents repeating the offense. If you mean it is ineffective as a deterrent you are right but I don't like the deterrent being the main factor in a judicial decision. Justice should rank highest. Is the punishment fitting for the crime?

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It directs more expensive penal resources to the victim’s or society’s broader interests.

Getting a case through the legal system for a death penalty conviction and the mandatory and automatic appeals involved usually ends up costing more in lawyer fees and court costs then it would to keep the prisoner incarcerated for the rest of their life.

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Every condemned prisoner gets one last, all-expenses-paid, genuine dream dinner:

Not really, you can get a decent meal but there is a budget cutoff and restrictions that vary by state. You cannot get a $1000 a plate dinner.

 

Your best bet is to deemphasize the vengeance angle, the deterrent angle, and the victim satisfaction angle, and focus on basic justice. Point out that in most of the world and throughout most of history the penalty for murder has been death in both secular and religious law. It is the deserved and equal response.

Best I got, I am not morally opposed to the death penalty if used responsibly for heinous crimes and high crimes like treason but defending the US implementation is a bit beyond me.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sounds like they are paying WAAAAYY too much just to kill somebody.

One bullet can do it pretty cheap.

It is not the killing that costs the money, it is the legal costs.

One solution would be to follow the verdict with immediate execution as you seem to suggest but there are some ethical problems there.

[Ahab]

Just now, The Nehor said:

It is not the killing that costs the money, it is the legal costs.

One solution would be to follow the verdict with immediate execution as you seem to suggest but there are some ethical problems there.

Then those costs should be associated with keeping that person alive.  The cost of actually killing that person shouldn't be very much at all.

[The Nehor]

Bonus Point: You could argue that due to the increasing pervasiveness of private prisons and the increased abuses and privations associated with them that death is a mercy to avoid going to one.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Then those costs should be associated with keeping that person alive.  The cost of actually killing that person shouldn't be very much at all.

No, the state usually ends up paying for both the side trying to keep them alive and the side trying to kill them so it is really both. Most death row inmates are not paying their own legal fees.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

No, the state usually ends up paying for both the side trying to keep them alive and the side trying to kill them so it is really both. Most death row inmates are not paying their own legal fees.

My point is that the higher cost is associated with keeping that person alive, not the death penalty itself.

To save some money the state could just carry out the sentence imposed by the judge after the jury found that person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I was just asked by our high school's JSA club to debate a really sharp faculty member next Wednesday night in the lecture hall, with $3-$5 tickets sold. Knowing the colleague, I'm  probably going to have my head handed to me (he's really sharp).  

I am supposed to take the negative side of the question "Should the death penalty be abolished?" (In other words, I'm supposed to argue in favor of it). I actually don't have strong feelings on this subject. I think my views on this subject have become a little more liberal over the years, but I'm not rabidly anti-death penalty.

Off the top of my head, the arguments in favor of it are:

1) Deterrent effect (questionable, in my opinion)

2) Satisfaction and retribution for victim families (what I suspect is the main reason for it, whether people want to admit it or not)

1) Deterrent effect has probably lost virtually all power in the United States. Now in countries like Saudi Arabia, where they hang headless bodies up in public, there is probably a deterrent effect. To have much of a deterrent effect the perpetrators would have to feel an immediacy to their actions, and in the states I think most criminals are just worried about not getting caught. Then they hear in the news that most people on death row sit there for years while filing appeals. The process has become so legally encumbered that the death penalty has little feeling of immediacy for perpetrators. To keep it, I think this needs to change - for instance in cases proved by strong scientific data or video surveillance, etc, the appeals might get limited somehow. The problem of cruel and unusual punishment might get solved by offering perpetrators a variety of execution choices.

2) I don't feel retribution in the sense of revenge is a valid reason in favor of the death penalty. Governments should not be in the business of bringing retribution on its citizens. However, justice does demand equality, and governments do have a strong need to maintain the societal framework, or order breaks down, and society begins to fall apart. Therefore governments have a strong interest in providing justice to its citizens. This is probably your best argument in favor of the death penalty.

3) I do believe individual states should have the right to impose this penalty if they wish. Circumstances may arise which makes the death penalty the most judicious solution.

Quote

Arguments opposed would be:

1) Morally wrong

2) Ineffective

Thanks in advance!

1) This really is not a good or at least a consistent argument. If it is morally wrong then is it morally wrong to forcibly take away people's freedoms, or punish them at all? If society is morally justified in locking up people and punishing them, then there is some moral justification for the death penalty for heinous crimes such as murder.

2) Ineffective - this is really the flip side of 1) reasons favoring the death penalty. In our current state of law, it is MHO that it is not very effective since perpetrators just really don't feel any immediacy of this punishment when they are angry and stabbing their spouse's lover for example. Therefore perhaps it would be more effective if the penalty were limited to the most heinous pre-meditated crimes with the best evidence which would tend to limit appeals.

 

 

[bsjkki]

41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

53 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

 

I'd just mention that the death penalty applies only when the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime that has the death penalty as one possible outcome, and that it is the judge of that trial who determines if and when to apply that penalty.

 

 

It depends on the state whether the death penalty is determined by a judge or the jury.  In federal court, a jury decides on the death penalty. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/23/us/who-decides-who-will-die-even-within-states-it-varies.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?openagent&nav=menu1&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/233