Banning the death penelty.

## Round 1

italia4356: "If we sentence a person to death then we are no better then the criminal and deserve to be punished our selves. We need to set an example for people. By letting the person live we show that we are above that persons current state of mind and stand by what we preach that taking a persons life is wrong."

Ivisman96: "For people to have an appreciation for 'being above them' they wouldn't have committed murder in the first place. They know (unless they are mentally incompetent for which they are then not held accountable)that the world as a whole does not advocate murder by the actions and laws of the citizenry. So the idea of 'setting an example' is lost on them as they don't respect it and commit murder anyway. Taking a person's life is not wrong; murder is. I subscribe to the 'eye for an eye', 'tooth for a tooth' mentality. It was good enough to be included in the original guide (The Old Testament) for most of the world's non-secular community, it's good enough for me. Criminals commit murder outside the law, community terminates life within the law. Probably most important is that with death there is no possibility of parole, escape, sentence overturning on technicalities, etc. Current studies that seem to show that the death penalty is not a deterrent are flawed as they are done within the confines of the US's system, which is rife with flaws. Death penalty will only mean something to criminals if it is swift. The current US system can have prisoners on death row for years, if not decades, before final sentence is carried out. For a more accurate picture, take a look at Saudi law, or other such country where sentencing and execution are swift. Their murder rates are very low. People need to be accountable for their actions, and if their actions are to murder other people, they should be judged by the same measure that they used with their victims."

## Round 2

italia4356: "so what your saying is if a parent tells his child to not smoke, and then chooses to set a good example to his child and back up his message through his own actions by not smoking, but then the child even though has had positve verbal instruction to not smoke and positive visual example of never seeing his father smoke chooses to light up a cigarette anyway that now the father should forget everything that he has tried to teach his child and start smoking because all hope is now lost and their is no saving his child.

Is that like what your saying? We should instead be a father who has a cigarette in his mouth and telling his kid not to smoke. Do you think that will be more effective.

"Taking a person's life is not wrong; murder is. " (lvisman96) Are you serious? Does that realy make sense to you?

Your all about killing people and more laws lvisman. I see you believe in abortion too. You definitly believe in the quick fix but you must relize that your sollutions are just that quick fixes and they don't realy solve the problem. You have to ask yourself what is the RIGHT sollution not the easiest sollution."

Ivisman96: "Hi Italia.

I think you'll agree that smoking is different than murder. Even so, using your example, I don't think a father should smoke to 'spite' the kid. What they should do, and the analogy is perfect for this debate, is give the kid a taste of his own medicine (I am assuming the child is of legal age, etc). I would have the kid smoke 3 packs in a row and see if he still likes it. That worked in the old days.

I am not about 'quick fixes' as you put it. I do believe that the current system is not efficient and should be made such. Years and decades of sitting on death row is not much better than a life sentence...the 'death' sentence should be just that-death. Found guilty, goodbye. Why must our society's resources be wasted on the non-deserving. Those that have forsaken their humanity ? Room, board, cable, etc. There are much more deserving people that the money pumped into the prison system could help. To say nothing of the victim's family. A society where the punishment fits the crime.

Death and murder are not the same. Every being in the animal kingdom lives by killing (even vegetarians-the exception being certain types of bacteria that live on sulphur salts). Murder is unlawful killing. What about war ? Why isn't that classified as 'murder' ? According to dictionary.com, murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." Being 'unlawful' infers that there is a 'lawful killing of one human by another'--such as state-sanctioned execution.

On the subject of abortion (which I'd love to debate), that deserves some clarification...as it is listed on debate.org, I believe it is asking abortion "RIGHTS". Personally, for myself and my wife, I believe that it is wrong and we would not take that route. However, until the legal community or scientific community comes right out and says that a glob of cells has the same rights as a human being, then I don't believe that I should impose my BELIEFS on someone else. BELIEFS cannot be proven to be the correct answer. And in America, people are entitled to their own BELIEFS.

See ? Sometimes things are not as they seem. Concurrently, sometimes the easiest solution IS the right solution."

## Round 3

italia4356: "So lvisman what would you do for the person who has killed someone would you have the criminal kill three packs of people, and see if he still likes it?

People don't just do things they do it for a reason. There is a reason a child smokes a cigarette and there is a reason why a person kills someone. The question is why. You have to find out why and until you find out why you have little hope of ever solving the problem. Though it may seem easier to just take lvismans route and just kill everyone who makes a mistake.

Murder is a horrible thing. The experience of losing a loved one because they were murdered is unimaginable, which I fully understand. But one horrible act does not justify another. I believe strongly in two wrongs do not make a right.

Another point that needs to be addressed is maybe the person who has committed a crime, even murder deserves some sympathy. Committing a crime as serious as murder deserves serious punishment, no debate is needed. No matter what circumstance a peron was brought up in, a person who commits a crime of murder has let their environment and any other problems get the best of them. But the environment from which a person grows up in is the reason I say criminals should deserve some amount of sympathy.
I want to ask you lvisman, if a person who grows up with in a bad, unsafe environment, with bad schools, little money, uneducated parents, and winds up killing someone during a bank robbery. Do you think if you took that same person from a baby and had that baby grow up in a completely different family. A family who was upper middle class, they lived in a large nice house, in a nice clean neiborhood and the child was sent to a good, safe school. Would that person who in reality robbed a bank and killed someone still commit some other horrible crime or would that person more then likely have a completely different life and wind up being a valued citizen in our country instead of a now criminal being sentenced to death?
I go to school in Camden NJ and I can't believe some of the houses people live in. I don't want to roll down my windows when I drive though that city. It is a real shame how alot of people have to grow up and what I am trying to accomplish through this debate is for people to think more before they aggree give up on a person and throw them out with the trash. You can't just give up on people becuase one day someone might give up on you."

Ivisman96: "The point is people don't understand consequences unless they're shown them. Give the person a taste of their own medicine. Wanna smoke ? Let's see how you really like it. Kill someone ? We kill you.

Below is a summation to this point based upon various arguments.

Biological Argument: In America, people are free to believe in what they want. Some people believe that humans are nothing more than organisms that live, then die. From that perspective, a person that has become a danger to society is eliminated, there is no morality about it.

Morality Argument : Nowhere are morals preached more than in a religious context. Given the number of religions in existence, it's impossible to scrutinize all for deathpenalty issues so I will only concentrate on the Old Testament, the basis for most of the world's religions from Jews and Christians to Muslims. And from Adam & Eve on, the punishment for a crime of grave proportions has been death.
Leviticus 24:20 states "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured."
(Incidentally, the commandment that is commonly interpreted to say "Thou shalt not kill" is in actuality closer in translation to "Thou shalt not murder").
Legal Argument: As we have seen from the definition of murder, there are terminating life situations that are lawful. Our Constitution was written to protect our citizen's rights, including ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. The U.S. Supreme court has deemed the death-penalty not in conflict with that document or it's tenets.
Sociology Argument: Your sympathy argument is misguided. Murderers deserve punishment not sympathy. Where is the sympathy for the relatives of a murder victim when the criminal is walking around free ? As far as mitigating circumstances (life environment, etc.) those all come out at trial. And they are still found guilty and deserving of the death penalty. As far as your hypothetical scenario about people growing up in middle class America being productive in society-murderers can be rich or poor. 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.SOURCE: US Department of Justice.
If we had executed those 1.2% that were released we wouldn't have new orphans /widows by their hand. Thinking "they're just like me" is misguided.They are not.Like the nature lover who gets mauled by a bear because they had a teddybear once. The death penalty is right when used lawfully."