Death Penalty

Great Debates
1

For English, I had to argue FOR Capital Punishment, but im not happy about how it was written, its not one of my better works. Anyway, the Teeming Millions being good debators, I was wondering if you had any way to critique my work here::

For thousands of years, humans across the world practiced the death penalty for serious crimes. Today, Americans still practice this concept as with almost all other countries of the world. Several State Congresses have outlawed the death penalty in their states leaving some states with and some without the death penalty. Which raises the question, Should the National Government enforce the death penalty? Many politicians have been in favor of the penalty because it is necessary to maintain the current favorable domestic security. This is true because the punishment dissuades potential murderers, disables more murders from the convicts, and gives the victim’s family proper retribution.

Some argue that this is too harsh a punishment, however it is necessary, and one reason that capital punishment is positive is that it disables current murderers from repeating the crime. There are many references in the past to jail house killings. A convicted murderer repeats his crime and kills a fellow inmate. It is the duty of the government to protect their inmates, especially those who will some day be a normal citizen again.

Capital punishment has been seen necessary for several reasons. One reason is to dissuade potential murderers. An example of this is a bank robber restrains from shooting the banker because, if caught, the punishment for stealing is much “better” then the possible death penalty. This is just one of many cases in which a victims lives had been saved from the capital punishment laws.

Death penalty also helps in keeping the peace that could be disturbed by victim’s family’s feel for a need of retribution. One story stands perfect example of this. A known drug dealer murdered a young teen’s brother. The boy, being devastated, looked for revenge, even if it meant his own arrest. He got a gun and was going to kill the murderer when he realized that he could get the same reprisal from the court system, but not sacrifice his future. Capital punishment, in this case, prevented another tragic street- murder.

Capital Punishment has been seen effective in keeping the peace, dissuading potential murderers, and preventing violent convicts from more killing. Abolishing the Capital punishment laws would see to the increasing of fatal incidents and tragedies. Therefore, while seemingly harsh, it is necessary for maintaining the peace and order that we so desire in America.

Too many examples? Doesnt flow right? I need some help here.

-P.K.
<im new here>

2

I won’t critique your grammar.

As to your argument: it is not the case that “almost all countries” practice the death penalty. Almost all of Europe has abolished it, in fact. Also, states do not have Congresses (they have legislatures).

On deterrence: There is considerable controversy over whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent. The majority of capital offenses committed in the United States are nonpremeditated killings of the sort for which capital punishment is not clearly an effective deterrent. States which have abolished the death penalty have not seen substantial increases in crime rates as a result; in fact, most have seen lower crime rates. (Of course, most states that have not abolished the death penalty have also seen lower crime rates, which means that this is not conclusive). In addition, people who believe that they will not be caught, or if they are not caught will not be convicted, are not generally affected by the magnitude of the punishment risked. Note also that the existence of the death penalty increases the chance of juries acquitting guilty defendants (due to jurors who do not wish to be responsible for putting another person to death). In addition, many people who commit murders as part of another crime (often theft) do so because they are desparate, often irrationally so. Deterrence relies on rationality; where rationality is absent, so too is deterrence.

On recidivism: It needs to be pointed out that death row inmates spend years in prison before their executions due to the nature of the American criminal justice system. The risk that a death row inmate will be involved in a “jailhouse murder” is, however, quite low due to enhanced security on death row. If the death penalty were abolished, these higher-security facilities could be converted to the use of “lifers”. The argument that we need to execute people because we can’t safely imprison them is mainly economic (we can safely imprison them, we just don’t, as a society, want to spend the money required to do so).

The retribution argument you offer is more of a deterrence argument. Ethicists are divided on the proper role of retribution in criminal sentencing. Most people, however, feel at least a bit guilty claiming that there is a generalized right to retribution.

You need to back up your arguments with more than anecdote. There are studies that are relevant here; you should cite them. You might also want to look at Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area, and maybe also the history of the current moriatorium on the death penalty in the state of Illinois.

3

Welcome Polski King

Some points:

1/ Asking for help with school work tend to attract derision.

2/ Most Western countries have abolished the death penalty, so your comment on this is inaccurate; the US stands alone amongst developed nations in this matter.

3/ Hi Opal! (Someone will explain in a few moments)

4/ I predict that this will start the first CP thread of the Boards Redux!

4

Oddly enough it currently costs more to keep an inmate on death row for the several years it takes till execution than it does to imprison someone for life (that is total cost…e.g. 12 years on death row costs the state more than 40+ years in prison).

5

Death penalty or not, it seems to me that people will still murder other people. I think most commit crimes with the intention of getting away with it, without thought to the penalty.

“All of the graveyards, all of the tears,
all of the reasons for the things that we fear,
one mother weeping, another’s gonna follow,
there’s so much killing, justice is hollow.”

David Childers

6

If this is your major argument, I think you may be in trouble. I was under the impression that murder was a state offense, not a federal one. If you have cites or references to the contrary, please show them. Most of my recollections of the federal government’s use of the death penalty involve treason. If this is the case, you neeed to change your supporting arguments. If it were my paper, I’d look it up to find out if I’m right. Since it’s yours…

7

Because I am strongly in favor of people doing their own homework:

Pro Death Penalty Resources

8

Not sure I agree here. A capital case requires that the state show special circumstances. Double murder, muder during commision of robbery, laying in wait, killing a witness to a crime…all of which are premeditated.

LokiTheDog, there is a federal murder offense (mostly for federal employees killed and such)as well as a DP.

9

It appears that capital punishment does NOT act as a deterrent (except perhaps that it prevents a convicted person from committing the crime again). If you were to check the rates of murder in states/countries that endorse CP with those who don’t, you will find that there is no appreciable difference…EXCEPT
…, there is some evidence (and I haven’t got a cite, so SUE me) that when the death penalty is used regularly, it may INCREASE the murder rate of the citizens. Now whether this is because those states/countries experience a lot more of the social-ills that may predispose its citizens to perpetrate violent crimes (and the death penalty just being another example of such barbarism) could be open to conjecture, (and an interesting topic for your essay)!

In a civilized world, the death penalty is almost never necessary, except to save the ‘state’ money. I live in a country that does not have CP, and while there have been a couple of times in the last 30 years or so that I would have PERSONALLY liked to get my hands on a particular scumbag, I value the system we have. In many ways, locking someone up for the rest of their natural lives is a far greater punishment than zapping or gassing them.

10

It shouldn’t, as long as the person is not asking us to actually do their homework.

I consider the Straight Dope Message Board to be valid as a source of research material.

Polski King…

From the opening line of your post, I assume that your teacher has, pehaps arbitrarily, charged you with writing a pro-death penalty paper.

My advice is simply to polish it by writing at least two more drafts, and to cite the studies mentioned above at least as often as you cite anecdotes.

A bit more transition between ideas would also lend more fluidity to the reading, bearing always in mind that most English teachers love the words “lastly” and “inasmuchas.”

Best of luck,
David

11

For thousands of years, humans across the world have practiced the death penalty for serious crimes. Today, Americans still practice this concept , as do almost all other countries of the world [see comments by previous posters regarding accuracy of this statement]. Several state congresses have outlawed the death penalty in their states, leaving some states with and some without the death penalty. With the states divided in their support for the death penalty, the question “Should the national government enforce the death penalty?” arises. Many politicians have been in favor of the penalty, arguing that it is necessary to maintain the current favorable domestic security. This is true because the punishment dissuades potential murderers, prevents more murders from the convicts, and gives the victim’s family proper retribution.

While some argue that this is too harsh a punishment, ["however" deleted]it is necessary, and one reason that capital punishment is positive is that it prevents current murderers from repeating the crime. There are many references in the past to jail house killings, in which a convicted murderer repeats his crime and kills a fellow inmate. It is the duty of the government to protect their inmates, especially those who will some day be a normal citizen again.

Another reason that capital punishment has been seen as being necessary is to dissuade potential murderers. An example of this is a bank robber restraining from shooting the banker because, if caught, the punishment for stealing is much “better” then the possible death penalty for murder. This is just one of many cases in which a victim’s life had been saved by the capital punishment laws.

Death penalty also helps in keeping the peace that could be disturbed by victim’s family’s feeling a need for retribution. One story stands as a perfect example of this. A known drug dealer murdered a young teen’s brother. The boy, being devastated, looked for revenge, even if it meant his own arrest. He got a gun and was going to kill the murderer when he realized that he could get the same reprisal from the court system,without sacrificing his future. Capital punishment, in this case, prevented another tragic street- murder.

Capital Punishment has been seen to be effective in keeping the peace, dissuading potential murderers, and preventing violent convicts from killing again. Abolishing the Capital punishment laws would cause an increase in the number of fatal incidents and tragedies. Therefore, while it seems harsh, the death penalty is necessary for maintaining the peace and order that we so desire in America.
12

What about cases where two people are comitting a felony together, one of them commits capital murder, and they both get the death penalty? Many felonies are not premeditated.

13

Even as a die-hard anti-capital punishment person, I would be very careful citing the “brutalization effect,” which is, at best, speculative. To me, it’s as statistically foundationless as any study showing that the death penalty, in fact, deters people. As capital punishment is currently implemented, I think it is impossible to statistically determine if either of statements are correct. If we were to isolate a locality, implement a death penalty in 100% of murder cases, then we might begin to figure out the psychological effect of capital punishment. But since that’s not gonna happen, a battle of statistics is without merit for this specific point.

A good debate on the subject can be found on Eric Zorn’s website:
http://ericzorn.com/rhubarb/death/
Eric Zorn is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, and in this column he debates Dudley Sharp, of the Houston-based Justice for All legislative reform association.

It’s also worth checking out http://www.jfa.net and http://www.prodeathpenalty.com to understand the arguments supporting capital punishment.

Amnesty International reports on which countries officially have a death penalty in place. Among the more recent countries which have abolished the death penalty are: Turkmenistan and the Ukraine, with a moratorium put in place in the Philippines.

Here’s a list on which countries are officially abolitionist, de facto abolitionist or retentionist: http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/abret.html

According to this website, 110 countries are abolitionist in law or practice, 85 are retentionists. 76 of the 110 countries are abolitionist in law for all crimes.

Among notable developed countries, we have the US and Japan as retentionist countries.

14

I don’t think the one that didn’t kill would get the DP. He’d still be guilty of felony murder. Do you have cite to this situation happening?

If, in your example, the murder is commited during a robbery, and that was the special circumstance, than the felony was certainly premeditated.

15

Heres an example. In this case, the defendant was merely the driver, did not himself kill anyone, and was not aware of any plans to kill anyone. He was, nonetheless, sentenced to death.