Resolved: Criminals convicted of violent crime should be executed

Thanks, DSWD, those are some really good points.RE: Death penalty is killing innocent peopleThis may have been the case in the 70's. Considering your source doesn't include data after 2004, it's hard to really tell the accuracy of the judicial system nowadays. We don't have data for over a decade on the accuracy of the judicial system, and in that 10+ year span, the technology we have has changed substantially. What I can provide is factually-based, up-to-date statistics on all forms of crime exonerations [1]. For a more detailed report on the approximately 900 exonerations from 1989-2012, read this [2]. And after subtracting the non-violent crime, we're left with about 800 exonerations. The judicial system isn't perfect, so I'll explain how the pros outweigh the cons. Keep in mind, my argument is not based around a "punishment" standpoint, but more around a "bettering society" standpoint. In the end, we would lose several innocent people, who, mind you, were "proved" guilty during the hearing, but we would also save several million people from re-offenders.Using my sources, approximately 70 people are exonerated (who were charged with committing a violent crime) a year, giving the impression that that would be the sacrifice we would have to deal with to better our society. And looking at these statistics and reading the stories, a lot of the wrongfully accused were associated somehow with the crime, usually being friends with the actual criminal. Although association isn't a crime, it reflects the character of the person in question. And as heartless/morally wrong as this sounds, 70 "innocent" people executed a year (this number would drastically decrease per year as the number of actual criminals would also decrease) is, in my eyes, a reasonable sacrifice to take, to end the lives and to prevent future victims of millions of actual criminals. Calculating the number of future victims using my recidivism rates [3], losing 70 innocent lives in order to prevent the killing, rape, torture and beatings of millions of other innocent lives is reasonable.The racial bias is irrelevant in this debate, as anyone convicted of any violent crime would face death. The judge would not choose whether or not the convict would face death or jail time, as that wouldn't be an option. Either death or innocent.RE: More guilty people would be allowed to go freeThis is an unexpectedly good point. However a few things are kind of "off" with it. Overturning death sentences may not have a correlation with prejudice or biases, and can simply relate to the crime committed and history of the offender. Currently, the death penalty decision is chosen by a panel of judges, as well as a jury, where the majority rules. If the sentence is not death, like you said, it is life imprisonment. But that is the choice the judges have: death, or life imprisonment. When the option is death or set free, the panel of judges (who will adapt to this law, or be held in contempt of court) most likely will not set anyone free who they feel is a danger to society. And although again, can be considered inhumane to some, putting down the people who have done harm to innocent people, and who are dangerous to society, is not a bad thing. Again, preventing millions of crimes by "taking out the trash" and saving money (minimal prison populations) is beneficial to the whole of the country, and will have nothing but positive impacts on the years to come.RE: Death penalty does not reduce crime ratesI feel my exoneration statistics [3] fully dispute this. If 75% of people return to prison within 5 years, that's 75% less crime committed in those 5 years, if the offender is killed after their first offense. I see you're mostly referring to first offenders though. Most people don't want to die. I'm not too sure what you're saying regarding the rapist killing the victim afterwards. If you mean the rapist can have fun killing the person, then that's usually just not the case. I can't find a single thing that currently shows rapists also killing their victims to be "normal." Usually rapists are strictly performing the act for power/sexual reasons. Also, the chance that they're caught and proved guilty for murder is greater than that of rape, so if they don't want to die, they probably won't kill the person. And on top of that, rapists/sex offenders are likely to re-offend [4]. So if prison isn't a strong enough deterrent, maybe death would be, and if the death penalty was implemented to anyone who commits a violent crime, that would save hundreds upon hundreds of women from being raped.RE: Death penalty is condemned by the international communityUnfortunately we're strictly discussing Canada and America here. It's irrelevant that some Islamic countries may have different ideas of what to implement - we're strictly talking about convicted violent criminals being put to death in America and Canada.RE: Extended death row period is neededAs long as it takes to come to the final verdict (guilty or not guilty) in violent crime cases is long enough. When the judge makes the final ruling, the chance of the person being innocent is so low that, like I said before, it's worth the sacrifice, to make the country a better place. The amount of innocent people executed in comparison to the amount of victims of violent crime would be about 70:500,000+, taking in to my 70 exonerations per year combined with the 75% of criminals to re-offend. So by taking a few possible innocent lives, we would prevent the death and torment of a few million innocent lives in the long run.RE: RE: Money saved in deathI see what you mean, but like I said for the sake of this argument, we'd be cutting the cost of executions down to a minimum. I agree that cutting spending on certain areas would definitely save a little bit, but we need to pay all the prison staff, keep the prisons' power on, showers running, etc. If we killed at least half of the prisoners, the sizes of the prisons would be cut in half, the amount of staff needed would be cut in half, the amount of resources required would be cut in half - the overall cost would be cut in half.Simply "saving money" isn't my point. It's the ability to put that saved money in to other areas, such as education, police forces, hospitals, better community housing, even helping the poor and getting everyone in the country up on their feet. It's a fact that areas with higher average household incomes are less violent [5]. What can be done about this? Well, by saving tens of billions of dollars annually, we can put that money toward...Education - children raised with a good education are more likely to seek legitimate jobs and career paths that they can use their intelligence for. This will also create jobs in the area, more reason not to follow a life of crime.Housing - communities with little housing have a higher homeless rate, leading to higher rates of crime, to earn money or power or property/areas of land to live in. Implementing more housing will keep people off the streets, lowering the crime rate in the areas.Hospitals - diseases run rampant in areas with high density to low income rates. Implementing hospitals will again create jobs, generate an income, and keep the general public healthy.Police force - implementing small police departments or security forces is obviously a good way to keep crime down, and more importantly, keep people safe. With the implementation of a police force, more violent criminals will be "taken out of society," innocent people will not be afraid of going outside, more can be accomplished in the area, and more jobs will be created....There's lots more, but these are four main things that can be implemented to keep the city/area/country as a whole incredibly more safe, clean, and overall happy. And this can be accomplished by saving tens of billions of dollars by cutting down on prison costs by taking out the trash and eliminating people who are a serious threat to the well-being of society. RE: RE: No more re-offendersBecause other options are available doesn't mean my option is all of a sudden not an option. We pick the best option out of all the options. You have not argued against this point at all. Plus, giving life in prison to anyone who commits a violent crime would cost the country tens of billions of dollars more - #30,000 per inmate, and instead of maybe a year or less, you're looking at 50+ years on average. 30,000 multiplied by 50 is $1,500,000 total per inmate, and that multiplied by the amount of people found guilty of committing any kind of violent crime... well, you're looking at overflowing prison populations and much, much higher amounts of money gone to prison expansions, staff additions, etc.RE: RE: Crime-free futureThe death penalty, as we have now, could be connected with higher murder rates, as that is the only thing that currently warrants the death penalty. However with the implementations of a death penalty awarded to anyone who commits a violent crime, instead of strictly murder, people wanting to rob stores or play the knock-out game would be less inclined to do so, as people like that tend to not want to die for the crimes they commit, and a lot are "okay" with going to jail, such as this guy [6].So all in all, killing anyone who is detrimental to the well-being of other citizens is beneficial in the long run.Sources[1] http://www.law.umich.edu... [2] http://www.law.umich.edu...[3] http://www.bjs.gov... [4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [5] http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com...[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...