Death Penalty

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." Most prisoners will fight hard against the death penalty, the reason being, the most important thing to them is their own lives. I think taking that away from them is indeed punishment enough. "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." In fact, most are treated like slaves whether they repent or not. [1] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [1] "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." But we have both agreed that prison isn't as bad as it used to be. Prisoners don't spend every hour, of everyday with themselves confined in a room. There is solitary confinement, but they are only used under special circumstances. The effect of solitary confinement shows that it doesn't make them repent, but more so insane and mentally ill. [2] That said, the majority of life sentenced prisoners have their TV, exercise, and social life. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] "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." The same effect of being cut off from the world can be achieved through death. "Whereas for the death penalty, there is only one outcome." Actually, I could list some scenarios myself. 1.They feel no remorse or regret, but dread and despair as death comes its way. You may believe this is an easy way out, I, however, think this is a sufficient punishment. The reason being that most prisoners try to avoid the death sentence. As Kant said, "there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life". 2.Some prisoners do remorse and regret their actions as they are put to death. Many of their last words are words filled with regret. In both case 1 and 2, the punishment is sufficient, and without ridding them the chance to repent. "I believe in justice, but I also believe in second chance's no matter how horrible the person is." I agree, but realistically speaking, that person is going to be locked in a cage for the rest of his life. What good does it do to give him a second chance? "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)" Some cases of self-defense, and of course as I already described, death does serve as a sufficient punishment. "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." True, but arbitrarily murdering someone being morally offensive is hardly controversial. Such a person who disagrees cannot survive as a member of modern society. Most sane people will know that raping an infant is wrong. "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." Honestly, if a person, raised in modern society, doesn't understand that to murder is wrong or at the very least, against the law, then that person is most likely mentally ill. He should be placed in a mental hospital. But right now, we are talking about criminals who simply do not care for other's rights. Not because they fail to understand common ethics or the law, but because they are selfish. "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." I agree, but accidents do happen. Humans are imperfect, and therefore, are unable to carry out perfect justice. I agree that there is no room for error in justice, but it happens. It's reality. Sad but true. However, we shouldn't stop trying to carry out justice, in fear of error. "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." Take those three things away, and you have yourself a very hollow life. Why not let them accept their transgressions and die with dignity for what they have done? "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." And some people want the criminal to be put to death, to give them closure. To know that justice has been served. "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." A lot of things can be manipulated and perverted, like the government for example, doesn't mean we should be anarchists. Furthermore, we already DO have an institution that can end a person's life, if it is perverted, I ask my opponent to prove this claim. "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." But that's just an ideal, as we both agree, justice indeed has no room for error, and as we both agree, humans is imperfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to enforce justice at all. "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. http://www.bbc.co.uk...... 2:Stalinist Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org...; Both countries aren't democratic at all. They both have a perversely corrupt government, and therefore corrupt justice system. How can we compare a communist and Muslim theocracy to democracy? The three are completely different systems of government. Both Iran and Stalinist Russia do not appeal to American Justice System at all. The only similarity is that the three allow the death penalty. We don't see people being brutally executed in America as in Iran. We don't see the "great purge" in America as we do in Stalinist Russia. The reason is because America has a constitution and a Bill of Rights that we adhere to. I look forward to my opponent's conclusions in the next round.