Death Penalty

Thanks again, OreEle.In their assessment against the DP, pundits Penn and Teller ask 4 important questions: Is it ever morally right to kill a human being if you are not at war or being immediately threatened? Is the biblical eye for an eye punishment acceptable? Do you trust the government to kill only bad people? Should we kill bad people if it saves us money? We'll be examining these and other issues throughout the debate. State sanctioned murder of one who does not pose an immediate threat is a moral proposition; not a practical or factual one. If Pro accepts that killing is wrong, then he must justify violating that moral standard as well as forcing 36% of Americans who oppose the DP to kill against their will. The desire to want to kill someone is a barbaric instinct, and the more we control it the better. In the last round, Pro acknowledged that he must prove the DP is the ideal form of punishment in some cases. Unfortunately none of his points met this burden. While I agree that certain harms cannot be compensated by monetary reparations, how does killing someone achieve that? The victim isn't even alive to receive their "compensation." Pro mentioned the value of security for society; however, as he explained there are various other options to remove threats. Additionally, not all families of victims either want the DP or feel better after the DP has been carried out, proving that this is merely my opponent's opinion of what would constitute as just compensation. The Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation and Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights are national organizations of family members who oppose the DP in all cases [1, 2]. They released a report called "Creating More Victims: How Executions Hurt the Families Left Behind" [3]. Parents of murder victim Shannon Schieber have said, "For us, the DP is not the way to honor our daughter’s life.” Other families have said that although they initially supported the DP soon after the crime, they later changed their mind [4]. As you can see, just compensation is subjective. Not everyone feels that revenge is the best value to achieve justice. Moreover, just because it might make some people feel good to kill another does not necessarily make it a just or moral form of punishment which Pro has the burden of proving logically. No amount of money can bring a victim back, and killing the assailant will not bring the victim back either. As such, there is no sufficient "compensation," including the DP. Pro contends that because inmates have the potential to escape, killing them provides a better sense of security to society. However Pro by his own admission presents a completely random statistic about the likelihood of someone escaping from prison. The most recent year for which data about prison escapees available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics is 1998, in which it was reported that just 0.5% of inmates escaped. However, (a) the numbers are declining every year, and (b) that figure consists mostly of inmates from community corrections facilities that have minimal supervision [5]. Corrections experts agree that more guards and better technology are largely responsible for the very low chance that someone can actually escape a maximum security prison [6]. Pro also contends that the DP can and should cost less than keeping someone in jail. While the actual cost of the execution can be cheaper, the cost of appeals is an integral part of the criminal justice system. If Pro suggests that defendants facing death row should not have access to these appeals and due process, then he is inhibiting and weakening the justice system - not strengthening it. Killing someone is not to be taken lightly, especially if you're arguing that killing violates the ultimate moral value hence warranting the DP to begin with. Vengenace is immediate while the law is slow and methodical. The criminal justice system ought to keep in mind that fallible, biased and emotionally volatile jurors with potentially weak or misleading evidence can and have mistakenly condemned innocent people to death. This is especially because most defendants cannot afford the best attorneys. A prosecutor that loses a number of cases will not be a prosecutor for long. As such, problems of prosecutor misconduct, police falsifying evidence, etc. has contributed to wrongful convictions in numerous instances. For obvious reasons, this is more permanent and drastic than mistakenly sentencing someone to LI where they could be be exonerated upon new evidence. A 2004 study by Samuel Gross found 4 cases of posthumous exonerations between 1989 and 2004. Posthumous exoneration numbers appear to be very small in comparison to the whole number of documented executions largely because of the difficulty of gaining access to cases after an inmate has been executed. In most instances, all case files and evidence are destroyed following an execution. Despite that, research indicates that in that 15 year time span, there have been at least 74 cases in which wrongful executions have most likely taken place [7]. It's interesting that Pro wants us to ignore the possibility of taking an innocent life, but expects us to care about the even smaller likelihood of someone escaping from maximum security prison. This is contradictory. If we must accept the small chance of someone escaping from jail, then we must accept the chance of killing an innocent person on death row. Another problem: If taking an innocent life is the worst possible crime you can commit regardless of the assailant's motive - and as such warrants death for doing so - then do those who either sentence or carry out the sentence of killing an innocent person on death row also deserve the DP? Most would say no, which presents another obvious and convenient contradiction. Many cases throughout history have been won on appeals. Pro's suggestion that the cost for trials be equal for different defendants is unrealistic as individual cases require different resources. This is especially true for a potential death sentence. While I agree that those facing LI should have access to a fair trial as well, the obvious discrepancy is not only the permanence of the sentence, but the fact that it requires us to take a human being's life which for most people is the ultimate moral absolute. It makes sense that a sentence so final and morally questionable requires a degree of certainty that may require a more drawn out legal process. However, if Pro is so concerned about those on death row being more espensive prisoners, this could easily be resolved by eliminating the DP all together. While it's true that the DP would stop killers from ever killing again, it would also stop thieves from stealing again yet most only advocate the DP for the most serious crimes, i.e., murder. Pro must explain why the eye for an eye mentality ought to apply to murder but not any other crime. For example, a rapist's punishment is not rape. To say that murder is the only crime that warrants "equal" punishment proves that this is an appeal to emotion and not reason. Furthermore, Pro must explain why the purpose of the justice system IS punishment, especially since it's been demonstrated that the DP fails to serve as an effective deterrent against murder. As such, what does it actually accomplish that benefits or protects society? Why kill people to prove that killing people is wrong? Even if Pro manages to persuade us that punishment is an integral part of the justice system, he will have to convince us that inmates are not in fact punished. Fortunately I've responded to all of Pro's contentions before running out of characters, though I will make several points in the next round about potential alternatives and why they are superior. So far it has not been demonstrated that the DP is the ideal form of punishment. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...