con debates on death penalty?

[Rodrigo]

have an assignment need help!!

[huntsmaj22]

I had to do a speech on this topic in high school. I don't remember any of the sources, but I do remember that it is actually more expensive to execute someone than it is to jail them for the rest of their life. It also does not deter crimes any more than the possibility of life in jail.

I'm sure you could find plenty of arguments on the internet, or dare I say the library (do kids even use libraries for research anymore?).

[jack]

There is an argument that appeals cost more money. There is an argument that it does not deter crime. There is an argument that there is no such thing as a humane execution. Who's going to be the killer/executioner? If you're going to have an execution, then someone has to do it. There is the argument that it is revenge. Is justice served? That's an argument.

Good luck with your assignment.

I think each of these cons are also potential pros. You see, there is no good reason for an execution to be humane. That would defeat the purpose of being a deterrent. Who really knows what justice is? What's the difference between justice and revenge? It's basically who's in control.

Some of these questions, right or wrong, are answered by a society. Society has to live with the consequences.

While I do not believe in torture, I do believe that calling an execution humane is really stupid. Killing is killing. If you are going to accept executions, then you are going to accept that it is messy, that it is killing another human. You cannot have it both ways. If someone truly wanted something resembling humane, then messy is part of it.

Ropes cannot be reused. It is well documented that trying to do so has horrific results. What's worse than a botched execution?

[Jackie]

There are many cases where the death penalty is used as racism. Pick any Black the cops like and get your revenge. People who get the death penalty never look up and say maybe I shouldn't have did the murder because I got the death penalty. So who suffers? Only the living. Mourners and the like. The families hate each other and are happy when they get to point and say we got you back, didn't we. Mean while the dead people have nothing to say at all. So which murderer cared about committing the act. Not the ones who cared about the after effect. It's the ones who dread living a life of hell behind bars, so what is the point of letting them of easy. They know they won't suffer if their dead. You can kill some of the people some of the time. You can't kill every body all of the time.

[jack]

There is an argument that appeals cost more money. There is an argument that it does not deter crime. There is an argument that there is no such thing as a humane execution. Who's going to be the killer/executioner? If you're going to have an execution, then someone has to do it. There is the argument that it is revenge. Is justice served? That's an argument.

Good luck with your assignment.

I think each of these cons are also potential pros. You see, there is no good reason for an execution to be humane. That would defeat the purpose of being a deterrent. Who really knows what justice is? What's the difference between justice and revenge? It's basically who's in control.

Some of these questions, right or wrong, are answered by a society. Society has to live with the consequences.

While I do not believe in torture, I do believe that calling an execution humane is really stupid. Killing is killing. If you are going to accept executions, then you are going to accept that it is messy, that it is killing another human. You cannot have it both ways. If someone truly wanted something resembling humane, then messy is part of it.

Ropes cannot be reused. It is well documented that trying to do so has horrific results. What's worse than a botched execution?

[jack]

There is an argument that appeals cost more money. There is an argument that it does not deter crime. There is an argument that there is no such thing as a humane execution. Who's going to be the killer/executioner? If you're going to have an execution, then someone has to do it. There is the argument that it is revenge. Is justice served? That's an argument.

Good luck with your assignment.

I think each of these cons are also potential pros. You see, there is no good reason for an execution to be humane. That would defeat the purpose of being a deterrent. Who really knows what justice is? What's the difference between justice and revenge? It's basically who's in control.

Some of these questions, right or wrong, are answered by a society. Society has to live with the consequences.

While I do not believe in torture, I do believe that calling an execution humane is really stupid. Killing is killing. If you are going to accept executions, then you are going to accept that it is messy, that it is killing another human. You cannot have it both ways. If someone truly wanted something resembling humane, then messy is part of it.

Ropes cannot be reused. It is well documented that trying to do so has horrific results. What's worse than a botched execution?

[Mimi]

>eliminates opportunity/right to retrial given new evidence
>could be considered "cruel and unusual" in some minds
>not an effective deterrent to crime
>can never be undone if later discovered to be mistake

[Jackie]

There are many cases where the death penalty is used as racism. Pick any Black the cops like and get your revenge. People who get the death penalty never look up and say maybe I shouldn't have did the murder because I got the death penalty. So who suffers? Only the living. Mourners and the like. The families hate each other and are happy when they get to point and say we got you back, didn't we. Mean while the dead people have nothing to say at all. So which murderer cared about committing the act. Not the ones who cared about the after effect. It's the ones who dread living a life of hell behind bars, so what is the point of letting them of easy. They know they won't suffer if their dead. You can kill some of the people some of the time. You can't kill every body all of the time.

[Mimi]

>eliminates opportunity/right to retrial given new evidence
>could be considered "cruel and unusual" in some minds
>not an effective deterrent to crime
>can never be undone if later discovered to be mistake

[Ivette]

we should go back to hanging it would be less expensive which would mean less taxes to pay because ropes are reusable plus if you raise the penalty that way maybe ppl will actually think before they do something stupid that probably explains why there were less rapes and murders before out time.

sorry just realized that the question said con.