Ahab Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 1 minute ago, bsjkki said: 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 Oh, okay, thanks. Sounds better to me to have 12 people making the decision rather than only 1 person, the judge.
CV75 Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. See? It is a deterrent after all. Edited March 3, 2017 by CV75
bsjkki Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 I thought of a pro death penalty argument. Many times, prosecutors use it as a bargaining chip to entice pleading the case down. In this way they elicit testimony against others or a confession to save the time and cost of a trial. 1
carbon dioxide Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 Perhaps the best solution is put all the first degree murderers in prison for life but arm them with knives. Then they can just take each other out.
MormonVideoGame Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: even some murders are so egregious and horrific that they do warrant the death penalty. No! the death penalty is not the worst punishment. The worst punishment is life in prison, not the death penalty. US soldiers and thousands of heroes also die, what makes the death penalty worst? think about it! The death penalty only allows for mistakes that can't be fixed, it's impossible to bring an innocent person back to life. Edited March 3, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 4 hours ago, Ahab said: 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. Which sounds wonderful until you are falsely convicted of murder by a judge in a small town that hates you. To save money they hang you the next day. The whole conviction is overturned on appeal but that does not help you much at that point.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: Perhaps the best solution is put all the first degree murderers in prison for life but arm them with knives. Then they can just take each other out. There is probably an ethical problem in there somewhere. 1
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 40 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: .....it's impossible to bring an innocent person back to life. The Son of God respectfully disagrees.
Ouagadougou Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 6 hours 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! A few arguments against the death penalty are the amount of people on death row who have been exonerated, along with the costs of appeals in the US. https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/ I personally am in favor of the death penalty, but only in certain circumstances where it is 100% that an individual is guilty (for the most heinous premeditated murders). 1
Calm Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) Two reasons I would be in favor of it if I were: Victims were fearful the individual might get out of jail or send someone else to hurt/kill them. Potential death penalty cases might see themselves as nothing left to lose and so have no restraint, both before and after incarceration. Edited March 3, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Perhaps the best solution is put all the first degree murderers in prison for life but arm them with knives. Then they can just take each other out. Oh yes, such an effective way to show how we as a society are against using violence to solve our problems.
carbon dioxide Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: No! the death penalty is not the worst punishment. The worst punishment is life in prison, not the death penalty. US soldiers and thousands of heroes also die, what makes the death penalty worst? think about it! The death penalty only allows for mistakes that can't be fixed, it's impossible to bring an innocent person back to life. What if the evidence is not disputed by anyone that they are guilty? In these cases and they do exist, no innocent life is being taken.
carbon dioxide Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: There is probably an ethical problem in there somewhere. Ok fine. We can take the knives out. I have other ideas to help with prison problems. For example to lower violence in prison, take about a pint of blood from them every other day. Keep their hematocrit levels to around 25%. They have enough red blood cells to live and do basic stuff but they will be too tired to fight with each other let along stage a riot.
Thinking Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 In my opinion, when a society executes its criminals it loses the ability to forgive.
bcuzbcuz Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 11 hours ago, CV75 said: Every condemned prisoner gets one last, all-expenses-paid, genuine dream dinner: That's not actually true. I would want my final dinner to be in any restaurant in any country that doesn't have an extradition agreement with the USA.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/abolish-death-penalty The above is a link to an hour long debate on the topic put on by NPR. Might give some ideas. 1
rongo Posted March 3, 2017 Author Posted March 3, 2017 12 hours ago, bsjkki said: I thought of a pro death penalty argument. Many times, prosecutors use it as a bargaining chip to entice pleading the case down. In this way they elicit testimony against others or a confession to save the time and cost of a trial. That's one I hadn't thought of. Thanks! And thanks to everyone for their input. I'm keeping a running list. Again, this isn't an issue I have actually given a lot of thought to, either way. It does seem, though, that it's easier to come up with arguments against rather than for, doesn't it?
rodheadlee Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 6 hours ago, Thinking said: In my opinion, when a society executes its criminals it loses the ability to forgive. Yeah, a guy carjacks two women and their car. When he is all done using it, he locks them in the trunk, lights the car on fire and walks away.
rongo Posted March 3, 2017 Author Posted March 3, 2017 38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/abolish-death-penalty The above is a link to an hour long debate on the topic put on by NPR. Might give some ideas. That looks like a treasure trove on both sides! Thanks for that.
rongo Posted March 3, 2017 Author Posted March 3, 2017 So, I've never done a formal debate before. Here are more details about the format: --- Topic: "Resolved: The death penalty shall be abolished." Pro- -------- Con- rongo We are the main event, preceded by several "undercard" student debates. They have requested that we submit entrance music (I called dibs on "Gonna Fly Now" from Rocky, the theme song) to make it fun. The debate itself will be serious and formal. Pro opening statement: 6 minutes Con cross-examination: 3 minutes Con opening statement: 6 minutes Pro cross-examination: 3 minutes Pro rebuttal: 2 minutes Con rebuttal and closing argument: 6 minutes Pro closing argument: 4 minutes Structurally (setting aside the evidence and arguments, which are the most important factors), is there an advantage to either side? Pro opens and closes, but Con may have an opening in the 6 minute block at the end to seal the deal before the Pro closing (if he can pull it off). My dad and his brother did debate in high school, and really enjoyed it. Sounds like it will be fun!
CA Steve Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, rongo said: So, I've never done a formal debate before. Here are more details about the format: --- Topic: "Resolved: The death penalty shall be abolished." Pro- -------- Con- rongo We are the main event, preceded by several "undercard" student debates. They have requested that we submit entrance music (I called dibs on "Gonna Fly Now" from Rocky, the theme song) to make it fun. The debate itself will be serious and formal. Pro opening statement: 6 minutes Con cross-examination: 3 minutes Con opening statement: 6 minutes Pro cross-examination: 3 minutes Pro rebuttal: 2 minutes Con rebuttal and closing argument: 6 minutes Pro closing argument: 4 minutes Structurally (setting aside the evidence and arguments, which are the most important factors), is there an advantage to either side? Pro opens and closes, but Con may have an opening in the 6 minute block at the end to seal the deal before the Pro closing (if he can pull it off). My dad and his brother did debate in high school, and really enjoyed it. Sounds like it will be fun! Given your topic I would suggest you not allow a format where you are labeled on the "con" side, if you know what I mean. Btw it would be really funny if you could have on a stripped prison type T-shirt with a convict number on it underneath another shirt. When you started the debate you could ask for a minute, stand up and take off the other shirt revealing the prison garb. I am guessing it gets you a big laugh, given your audience. Edited March 3, 2017 by CA Steve
Buckeye Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, Ahab said: 3. Satisfies justice. 4. Is cheaper, monetarily speaking. Note that the deterrent effect applies in and/or out of prison. Um, no. Maybe this was true back in the days when capital trials lasted a day and the execution took place the next day. But that's not our system. Capital cases call for a lot of extra expense just to get the judgement - essentially an entire other trial for the punishment phase. And when its successful, the appeals process drags on for decades, tying up additional attorney and court time that could be spent on other issues. In a pure monetary sense, executions cost much more than life incarceration. And there's so much more non-monetary expense to consider. Just think of how many SCOTUS cases have dealt with the death penalty over the years. Now imagine that that time had been instead spent on a myriad of other issues. Don't trust me on this. Just run some simple Google searches and you'll see. Here's one quick reference from Forbes (""It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive,"says Donald McCartin, known as The Hanging Judge of Orange County. McCartin knows a little bit about executions: he has sent nine men to death row.") Edited March 3, 2017 by Buckeye
Buckeye Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 14 hours ago, Ahab said: 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. Unfortunately, our constitution requires due process.
Gray Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) 16 hours 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! I suspect most LDS support the death penalty. I oppose it primarily because of the risk of executing an innocent person, but also think execution is morally problematic even if the person is guilty. Edited March 3, 2017 by Gray
Freedom Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 15 hours ago, Ahab said: Sounds like they are paying WAAAAYY too much just to kill somebody. One bullet can do it pretty cheap. It cost is in the legal system, not the cost of killing the person. A death penalty case is significantly more costly, not to mention the appeals.
Recommended Posts