Death Penalty

Now that we are both of the understanding that we are talking about people who have been issued a life sentence (without parole) and not the general prison population, I will begin my rebuttal. ____________________________________________________________________________ Morality "As I said, I am not necessarily appealing to Hammurabi's code. I do agree that forgiveness is a virtue; however, a man needs not to be alive to be forgiven. As you say, all actions have consequences. If we have the right to take away one's freedom till death, why not their lives? After all, what is life without freedom? I don't see why it is imperative that we let a man live, who have murdered countless lives, just so he can reflect on his actions. What good does that do? He is simply draining resources from society just so we can give him a chance think about what he has done. Like I said, a man who does not respect one's right to live, gives up his own right's to life. " The underlying point, is that I see death as an easy way out. By letting someone live in a confined space for the rest of their life, they will have to deal with what they have done. This give's them a chance to turn themselve's around, feel remorse for what they have done, and try to make ammend's while being punished for what they did. By leaving someone to their own thought's you get a possible three scenario's: 1: This feel regret, and eventually come to deal with what they have done, and try to make ammend's or better themselve's. Prison's offer program's and work parties in which a prisoner can be given the chance to do some good. 2: They eventually realise what they did was wrong, their own thought's punish them enough, as they have to live with themselve's knowing that all this was brought upon by themselve's. When you spend every hour, of every day with yourself, confined in a room, very few people won't crack. At the end of the day, whether they feel remorse, or to better themselve's, they are still being punished. 3: They feel no remorse, or empathy for those they harmed. They live out the rest of their day's cut of from the world. Whereas for the death penalty, there is only one outcome. I believe in justice, but I also believe in second chance's no matter how horrible the person is. Call me naive, but I believe there is good in everyone, and sometime's they need the chance to actually show it. But justice is justice, just because someone revolutionise's the way they think, does not mean they have a chance for parole. "Of course, but I'm sure you will also agree that some deaths are justified" Please give me an example of when a death is justified. (On a side note, one person's death to save a hundred, like in the movie's, doesn't count in this scenario) "Again, what good does it do to let him repent? It doesn't bring back the dead or is beneficial to the rest of society in any way. Surely, he understands that to murder is wrong morally and is against the law with consequences? And yet despite this should this man choose to murder, and ignore another's right to live, then to what do we owe this man such a right to life? " Again, we differ because I advocate justice, with a kind hand, while you advocate justice with a measured hand. I disagree with the point you just made, it is generally accepted that not everyone has such a clear cut, black and white view on morality. To some, they cannot comprehend why it is wrong to murder. And that is the sad truth, some people's perspective's are so warped, so perverted and egotistical that they cannot differeniate between good and evil deed's. "A fishermen on a trip have death rates of "1.07 deaths per 10,000 full-time fishermen"[1] does this mean we should stop fishing? My point is accidents happen. We can't anticipate them, and by the time we do, it's too late. This does not mean we should stop doing things that can lead to taking an innocent man's life. Simply driving can lead to the same result. " Yes, I concede that accident's do happen, and they ar usually unavoidable, but NOT in a court of law. That number should be 0% not 2.3%. A fisherman being killed in an accident while working is one thing, a innocent person being condemned to death by a jury of their peer's, fo a crime they didn't commit is astronomically different. In justice, there should be no room for error, nevermind accepting it and supposing it is the same as a natural accident. "While agreeably, it is a hefty responsibility, I disagree that it is too much responsibility. Furthermore, if we stopped doing things that we deemed were too much responsibility, what would we accomplish? We would always stay in our comfort zone, never advancing. That said, I agree, no one has the right to another's life, until that individual gives up their right to life. As I said before, I believe they give up this right when they deny other's that VERY right. " While I agree that when you murder, or worse, you forfeit your right's to freedom, to liberty and to integrity, you do not lose your right to live. As I have explained at the start of this round, dealing justice and second chance's go hand in hand. The person serve's their time (life) but they should alway's be given a chance to better themselve's. If someone murdered a member of my family. I would want that person to spend life in jail, but I would also want them to learn that what they did was wrong, because not everyone that does these thing's know's that. As in regard to your comment on responsibility, giving an institution or individual the right to another person's life can be easily manipulated and perverted. Staying in your comfort zone and taking chance's are completely different. Risking your own life to do something (rock climbing? ) is one thing, as you have the right to prolong end your life whenever you please, however, having the key's to another's mortality is something that no individual can handle responsibly. Human's are not completely rational, we often act on impulse, and we make mistake's. With justice you can't afford to make mistake's. I won't even go into detail with how it can be dangerous for an institution that has the right to execute prisoner's. E. G. 1: Iran, which is a Muslim theocracy. Sharia law is the governing hand. People can be brutally executed, for crime's that are regarded as minimal in the west. Such as adultery. Infact there is a infamous struggle going on right now for the asylum for Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who claim's that she was tortured into giving a confession. That is why I don't trust establishment's with the live's of other's. . http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2:Stalinist Russia: The great purge's and show trial's where people were executed left right and center without being given a fair trial. That's how far justice can be warped. . http://en.wikipedia.org... _________________________________________________________________________ Cost "And I disagree with you in terms of morality, though you advocate a reasonable one. So as long the death penalty remains, we should simply seek to make it cost effective, like most things. For instance, the trial of 9/11 could very well cost more than 400 million[2]. Not very cost effective at all. " Agreed, that trial's should be made more cost effective, and yes as long as the death penalty is present, it too, should also be made to be more economically efficient, even though we agreed that it is actually cost's less to imprison someone for life, than execute them, but I guess you can't win every battle. Sometime's improvement is better than revolution. ________________________________________________________ Life Imprisonment I've actually already addressed everything in this section, in the morality part. Although you did reiterate some of my