Death Penalty: Pro or Con
Here is another policy debate and another chance for you to think about where you stand on another major issue.
The economic argument in favor of the death penalty is rather simple. Economists assume that individuals weigh the expected costs and benefits when deciding to undertake any activity. Thus, rational individuals considering criminal activities would weigh the expected benefits against the expected cost of the criminal endeavor. The expected cost of any given crime is affected by the probability of being detected, the probability of being convicted given detection, and the expected penalty that results from a conviction. Since the death penalty provides a higher cost than alternative punishments, it is expected to generate a larger deterrent effect, ceteris paribus.
Go to the website and use two sources to justify whether you are for or against the death penalty.
Evan Young
ReplyDelete2nd Period
I am against the death penalty. While I do believe that criminals should be punished for their actions, up to life in prison, I do not think that people should be executed. My biggest issue with the death penalty is the amount of botched executions that have been happening lately and the execution of people who are later found to be innocent. The ACLU article points out that many innocent people have been executed, and the death penalty has not lowered capital crimes like rape and murder.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Becker_Chapter/Becker_Chapter.html
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Aadithya Srivatsav
ReplyDelete6th period
I am for the death penalty for crimes that are truly outrageous. How is it fair that someone who can rape and murder a person can be put into prison where they are supported by taxes that are paid by the family of the victim? It is ridiculous to think that a grieving family who may never be the same again due to their loss are also the ones responsible for paying for the housing and food for the criminal in the form of taxes. Furthermore, the death penalty isn't even used that much. Since 1967, only 0.06% of criminals have been handed the death penalty. The death penalty can be justified when used sparingly only for the most grievous and irreversible actions.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
Elyssa Buntzel 4th p
ReplyDeleteI am against the the current death penalty system. I agree that some crimes may be punishable by death, however we need a more concise way to determine these crimes and then be able to follow up with unquestionable convictions of these crimes. Overall the criminal justice system is questionable, and I feel many revisions are required to create a more effective death penalty that will deter people away from those crimes.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/individual_rights.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
Mackenzie Boudreau
ReplyDelete2nd period
The main problem I have with the death penalty is the psychological effect it has on the inmate. Whether the person is guilty or not, an inmate on death row sits there for an average of 12 years before being executed. In that time some inmates will gain "death row syndrome" that provokes agitation, psychosis, delusions, paranoia, and self-destructive behavior. Not only that, but the methods of execution still used by some states should be considered cruel and unusual. While lethal injection is offered in all states with the death penalty, lethal gas is still allowed in the states of Arizona, Missouri and Wyoming. Firing squads are still acceptable in Oklahoma and Utah and above all, hanging people is still acceptable in the states of Delaware, New Hampshire and Washington.
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
I am against the death penalty because I feel that death should be the absolute last resort of punishment for any individual; some other sort of punishment should be chosen. Also, individuals given the death penalty are often innocent. I think that the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
http://www.web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/index?openview
I am for the death penalty but only to an extent. I believe that punishment in general should be equal to the criminals action. If there is direct and viable evidence (like a video or multiple witnesses) and the accused man killed a truly innocent person (like a home owner killed by a criminal breaking into his/her home) then the death penalty should be taken into consideration, but only for these reasons. Like if there is no real or conflicting evidence or if the accused killed a gang member who has done multiple crimes, then the penalty should not be in the question.
ReplyDeletehttp://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
I actually am against the death penalty because I think it is a lazy way to get rid of criminals. Throwing something out means someone is done working on. In performing criminal acts, most people who do them way the benefits more than the costs because that is what they want most. I do understand a life for a life, but that still doesn't solve anything. For one thing, people make mistakes, even the victims. It's not justice if only one party wins, unless the other party actually wants to die and that other party wants to kill that party. That's some heavy guilt in that case. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
ReplyDeleteEveryone deserves to speak out because their is a reason for everything. We shouldn't have to kill each other because some people have more of a refined societal since than others. Equality is still not here if stereotyping still exists. I understand the correlation clause, but that doesn't mean it's justifiable. http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/12/10/death-penalty-and-race/
And besides, not everyone is terrified of death. It is the circle of life, and maybe we would be more useful dead. Thus, the death penalty may not even be considered as a cost to some, depending on what they are risking it all for.
Amy Krauhs
Period 4
I’m against death penalty because ever since the beginning of recorded history, it has been proven that this method has been used for such a long period of time. However, we haven’t seen any real and factual report that death penalty is an effective method diminishing crimes. Even now, people still commit crimes even though most individuals are aware of the consequences made. The death penalty is not a viable form of crime control. And also in a world of imperfect information, innocent individuals may be convicted and executed before exonerating information is discovered. Innocent individuals can be convicted of capital crimes frequently have little education and may not possess sufficient information about the consequences of crimes associated with capital offenses.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/individual_rights.html
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Angela San Juan
2nd Period
Gage Roberts 4th p
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with death penalty use. No life should ever be taken, and I see this as cruel punishment. I believe they should be given life in prison instead, because everyone deserves to live. This is the view of many others, including certain philosophies such as Buddhism like myself. Also, it does not even reduce the capital crime rate to a significant degree. ('http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/death.htm')('http://www.facts.com/cd/i00015.htm')
4th period
ReplyDeleteI am for the death penalty because some people will not stop harming other people until they are dead. Some people have nothing to lose, feel no remorse for their cruel actions, and/ or find pleasure in watching the world burn. Certain countries such as Singapore enforce strict rules with a death penalty for some crimes to deter people from crime. As a result, Singapore owns a low crime rate since the country strikes fear into their citizens. It is better to be feared than to be loved as a ruler. The benefits out-weigh the costs.
http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg148/bg148a.html
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
Cailin O'Connell
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I am against the death penalty at the moment, because contemporary medicine and science do not allow for a 100% success rate in providing a quick and painless death. Anything other than this would be cruel and unusual punishment, which our constitution bans. These botched executions, like that of Clayton Lockett last year in Oklahoma, go against everything we stand for as a nation.
"On April 29, Oklahoma inmate Clayton Lockett died of a heart attack approximately 40 minutes after the state began administering a new lethal injection protocol. Lockett received an injection of midazolam, the first drug in a three-drug protocol, at 6:23 pm. At 6:33, Lockett was declared unconscious, but about three minutes later, witnesses said he began to nod, mumble, and writhe on the gurney"
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/5760
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled six years ago that such injections did not violate the Constitution's provisions against cruel and unusual punishment, clearing the way for states to administer the lethal cocktails under their own, sometimes secretive, protocols.
But a gruesome lethal injection gone wrong in Oklahoma has dealt death penalty supporters a potentially stunning setback this week, coming at a time when popular support for capital punishment has fallen and reliable lethal-injection chemicals are becoming harder and harder to get."
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oklahoma-execution-20140501-story.html#page=1
Find and watch the video for yourself if you do not believe this is cruel and unusual. Personally, I don't have the stomach to watch someone die that way. And the fact that people still murder even after this horribly botched execution exemplifies that death is not a deterrent. Life imprisonment may be, but that is another debate.
Felix Chang
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I am against the death penalty. On an economic standpoint the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment, thus it should be used for greater crimes. However, following this logic, life imprisonment seems to be the better choice because the cost for the perpetrator is much greater. Money isn't the only resource at play, time is one of the scarcest resources for humans. Therefore, a greater crime should mean that the criminal should give up more of his time by spending it in prison.
Among the reasons given for abolition were the high cost of death penalty trials and the lengthy appeals required in death penalty cases. The nine inmates on Washington's death row have spent an average of 17 years awaiting execution.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
Under this rule, criminal punishment functions as a probabilistic price system. Each crime has a price-a certain probability of a certain fine-set so that the average fine equals the damage done. Someone willing to pay that price will commit the crime-and, from the standpoint of economic efficiency, should. In just the same way, on an ordinary market, each good has a price.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Becker_Chapter/Becker_Chapter.html
Samantha Chan
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I am against the death penalty. On an economic perspective, it is simply not efficient due to how expensive it is. Of course, money is not the only problem with the death penalty.
There have been multiple cases of death penalties being carried out on individuals who are later proven innocent as seen on both the ABA and Death Penalty Information Center. Not only that, but discrimination plays a role in the decisions as well. Rather than spending money to kill an individual, money should be directed toward understanding criminals better. If one looks at a psychopath's action, the truth is that some schemes are very well thought out and take an enormous amount of logic and understanding. While I am not saying that murder is a good thing, I am saying that those who commit murder have more complex minds than many of us see.
In addition, most killers and murderers are aware of the penalties and commit crimes anyway. Why? Money should be aimed towards studies which should be conducted to find out why, not towards lethal injections or firing squads.
http://www.abanet.org/irr/rec107.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
External Reading: http://theconversation.com/why-violent-psychopaths-dont-get-punishment-36837
Kennedy Ford
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I don't agree with it because I think by doing that you do that person a favor. Instead of living the rest of their life regrating or thinking what wrong thing they have done, they just get kill and have it over with. That is not a punishment. A punishment should be about to allow the person to think over and over again what they did wrong, and have them think what if I can go back I would do something different. But death penalty doesn't do any of these.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames Mai
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
I have no real stance on death sentence when it comes to my mind. Both sides have both their pros and cons. The death sentence will help eradicate people who are not suitable for society and may cause potential criminals to think twice. However, the death sentence may punish the innocent and may not be able to provide a chance at truly punishing and/or rehabilitating criminals.
Despite myself not having a real standpoint on this debate, I choose to be against the death sentence from an economical standpoint. The costs of the resources used for executions exceed the costs of life imprisonment without parole by a lot, in some cases, the millions. With those millions of dollars saved, the United States could use the money it has saved for other purposes, hopefully for regulating the economy.
http://www.cybervillage.com/ocs/penalty.htm
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Jacqueline Gann
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I support capital punishment. I think that certain crimes are severe enough to where those who commit them deserve death as a punishment. Despite the opposition's argument that the psychological effects of lifetime in prison are worse than death, the actual cost of the capital punishment, as opposed to life in prison, is significantly less. I would rather my tax dollars go to lethal injections and electrocution methods than a rapists's or murderer's cable and laundry bill. Although I understand the arguments of "why stoop to their level?" or "the psychological toll is bad enough" I feel as if those who are convicted and eligible to receive capital punishment should receive the same level of mercy they gave their innocent victims- none. The states that offer the death penalty as a punishment for severe crimes perform it in as humane a way as scientifically known, causing as little pain to the offender as possible. The bottom line is that those who seek to cause intentional harm to others do not deserve to have my tax dollars buying their meals and health care until they die comfortably in a cell, or worse outlive me.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/individual_rights.html
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
Madeline Alcock 6
ReplyDeleteI am against the death pentalty and I do not think it deterrents crime. In fact the FBI has proven that the states with death penalty have the highest murder rate. Also I think that the slight possibility that the criminal could be innocent should eliminate the death penalty altogether. According to ACLU for every ten people executed at least one is exonerated. The fact that at least 10% of people on death row are proven innocent shows how easy it could be accidentally execute an innocent individual. By getting rid of the death penalty and sentencing criminals to life in prison allows the individual to be pardon, if the evidence finds them not guilty, while he or she is still alive. Rage and a desire for revenge often causes jury's and prosecutor's to look past the facts and not look at the situation objectively. Basically executing someone can only do more wrong than it can do right.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
https://txcommie.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/death-penalty-kills-the-innocent/
I am against the death penalty because it is not completely full proof and the action cannot be reversed. “The capital punishment system is discriminatory and arbitrary and inherently violates the Constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment.”Although the death penalty may act as a deterrent citizens are not necessarily in their right mind when taken these actions which is why murder still takes place. The death penalty may work, but there is no way of measuring the people who change their mind about murdering thus it is only a deterrent and not a solution.”Innocent people are too often sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 140 people have been released from death rows in 26 states because of innocence. ”
ReplyDeleteI truly believe other methods can be employed.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment
http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/12/10/death-penalty-and-race
From the point of an economist I agree that if a person is willing to give up the cost to commit the crime, the criminal should be willing to suffer the consequences that the court system decides. Plus, the victim's loved ones over 75 percent of the time want the murderer on the death penalty. On the other hand, I believe the consequences should be dealt with a prison sentence in jail instead of the death penalty. The murderer is not technically suffering if they are killed, but if they are to have a life sentence in prison their judgment can be made with God and themselves. Plus, many prisoners do go through suffering mentally, physically, and verbally while staying isolated in jail from the rest of the world. Also some prisoners who get their sentence shorten have a difficult time adjusting to life out of prison. They are tracked, some are on home arrest, and others can never receive a job so regardless of the death penalty prisoners will suffer.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://crime.about.com/od/current/fl/The-Joseph-McStay-Family-Murders.htm
I do not agree with the death penalty. The United States needs to abolish the death penalty. It’s archaic, costly, ineffective, and most importantly, unjust. The first place to start with the death penalty may be philosophical. The purpose of our criminal justice system is to deter crime, rehabilitate convicts, and incapacitate hardened criminals. Philosophically speaking, life in prison serves these functions better than the death penalty. Life imprisonment is certainly a deterrent — in fact, it may be worse than death itself. Life in prison allows for rehabilitation, whereas death is final. And with supermax prisons, escape is no longer a real possibility, so incapacitation is served equally well by both. "In a world of imperfect information, innocent individuals may be convicted and executed before exonerating information is discovered" (Bedua).
ReplyDeleteHugo Adam Bedau, "The Case Against the Death Penalty"
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
In this online essay, Hugo Adam Bedau argues that the death penalty:
is inconsistently applied,
has little deterrent effect because it affects such a small proportion of murderers,
has no effect on unpremeditated crime,
is no more effective than life imprisonment as a deterrent but is more costly, and
encourages violence in society.
Brikitta Hairstom
ReplyDeletehttp://deathpenalty.procon.org/
proponents of the death penalty are essential for maintaining law and order, murder should and always will be punishable by death. life in prison will do nothing and in fact cost more than death and it gives someone a life that they did not deserve.criminal justice is meant to keep crime away, not enhance it.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
"The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise" this quote depicts the importance of death as the penalty for murder, it is not a matter of economics or revenue, but of justice and right and wrong.
I am caught between a rock and a hard place on this issue. on the one hand a believe that no human being can willing decide weather someone should die or not. However, I believe that there are some crimes are so herendues that death almost seems like an insult to tax payers and the victims families. So if I had to pick I would be pro death penalty.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
Alan Pham
ReplyDelete2nd Period
I support the death penalty. Life without parole still costs more than the death penalty. The justice system pretty much feeds and houses the inmates till death and far surpasses the price of the death penalty. If someone did a far crime that is worth the death penalty, sitting in a empty room for the rest of their life is not good enough for the harm they have done to the society. The crimes these inmates have done affect people all around them and scar the victims for the rest of their lives that they would have to deal with.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
Amanda Salmon 2nd period
ReplyDeleteI am against the death penalty, for several reasons. One reason as to why I don't believe in it is the fact that I don't think human beings should legally be able to kill another human being. Also there is a bias in the system that is against criminals who are too poor to afford a good lawyer. There is also a racist bias that has caused the death of innocent people. Finally, for economic reasons the death penalty uses very expensive drugs and it has not caused a decease in the number of crimes.
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/dunham1.html
Patrick Pecson
ReplyDeletePeriod 6th
I am against the death penalty mainly because of two reasons. One is that why should we fight fire with fire, and kill killers? What gives us the right to take away a human life, we would just be in a cycling of killing that would lead us nowhere. The second is that why kill to teach criminals a lesson when we can make them contribute to society like they should. Inmates should be forced to serve a correctional period in which they can, for instance, cultivate food for society and themselves. Also, the death penalty wrongly accuses about 13% of criminals each year for acts they didn't do, so that is also another flaw in why the death penalty should be abolished.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100216150808AA85YS9
I am against the death penalty not because I feel it is morally wrong but because I feel that the people who are sentenced to the death penalty should suffer a more serious fate. By taking the life of a criminal away what suffering has he or she been put through? If the killer knew that the penalty for killing someone is death, than clearly he or she does not care to die for the crime they commit. By putting the killers into death row you would only be making it easier for them, put them through some suffering. Make them rot the rest of their lives away in a prison cell, its honestly what they would deserve.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/12/10/death-penalty-and-race
Jocelyn Dang
ReplyDelete4th period
I am against the death penalty because I feel like it is morally wrong to punish a crime with another crime that is "justified". Though criminals on death row have done heinous crimes like murder and such, how is it correct for our justice system to also murder them for what they do? It doesn't do anything to show how morally wrong murder is. Murder or killing in general is not a way to solve anything. In addition, it lets the criminal off too easy. They should be sentenced to life in prison without parole in order to reflect and live with the guilt of the pain that they caused to others. By receiving the death penalty, they don't have to live with the guilt and instead, the people affected must deal with the pain and suffering for the rest of their life. So, I do not support the death penalty.
http://www.cybervillage.com/ocs/penalty.htm
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
I am pro death penalty mainly because of the fact that why should we give a serial rapist/killer a tax free living environment, free food, and take care of them when they messed up with their life and ruined it, at that point I believe they should be "dealt with" appropriately.
ReplyDeletehttp://www3.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/wilson.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
When I saw the prompt, I was originally for the death penalty because I assumed it was a deterrent for would-be criminals. However, a quick Google search turned up some very interesting information. According to 'Death Penalty Information Center' aka DPIC, (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/657), 10 of the 12 states that DO NOT use capital punishment have lower homicide rates that the national average, while half of the states do use the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average.
ReplyDeleteSome people who are pro-death penalty argue that they don't want to waste taxpayers' money to house and feed a criminal who deserves death. I got a newsflash for you: a death penalty case isn't exactly free. Not even close.
DPIC states that "Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases." (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty)
Now, lets talk numbers.
In Maryland, the average cost to taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million dollars, which is $1.9 million dollars MORE than a non-death penalty case, which includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty).
In California, experts have concluded that the costs of death penalty cases since 1978 have totaled to $4 billion:
- $1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
- $925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
- $775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
- $1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
Each execution in:
- Washington costs $24.7 million. Total spent since 1978:$120 million.
- Maryland costs $37.2 million. Total spent since 1978: 186 million.
Guess how much the small state of New Jersey spent of on death penalty costs since 1983.
- $253 million
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty)
So what about life without parole? How much for those guys?
- The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation states that the current annual cost of maintaining an inmate at a state prison is $44,563.
(http://www.mountain-news.com/news/crime_log/article_4f1e45f8-5630-11e0-93da-001cc4c002e0.html)
Ok, what about a person that has life in prison? To get the point across, I'll be a bit drastic.
The average life span of a person in the U.S. is 80 years. So if a person spent their WHOLE LIFE in prison, from birth to death, it would cost $3,565,040. Which is slightly higher than the cost of one death penalty case, as mentioned above.
Conclusion: The death penalty is ineffective because states that use it have higher homicide rates than states that don't. Also, one execution costs more than 6 times the price of maintaining a person who spends their entire life in prison, from birth to death.
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
http://www.cybervillage.com/ocs/penalty.htm
I'm personally indifferent to the topic of the death penalty because no one in my personal bubble of life has been affected by it. If I absolutely had to chose a side, I'd say that the Death penalty serves as a definite deterrent in reducing crime as well as bringing justice to the criminals and innocent. In order to serve its purpose, it must be adjusted and made more effective and efficient. The justice system has changed dramatically in the past thirty years in order to make sure that the rightly accused is brought to justice. I believe that death penalty should not be abolished, as it ensures the safety of the society, brings justice to those who have suffered and most importantly helps in reducing crime and criminals in our society. Death penalty is important to keep the brightness of justice and public safety shining brightly on our society.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg148/bg148a.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
Siobhan Simmons 4th Period
ReplyDeleteI am for the death penalty when it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed an unforgivable crime. If I was in the shoes of a family member who just had their siblings brutally murdered, I wouldn't want them to be able to basically live for free and have everything taken care of for them with money that I worked for. Also, death penalty will deter murder because people will be terrified to get caught and put their own life at risk. It is the only way to insure justice for the victims while jail cannot have the same satisfactions.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pro-death-penalty-arguments.html
I am personally indifferent to the death penalty. I believe as a society, we are not ready to hold the power of someones life in our hands. While we have made amazing strides in many fields of subject, I still do not believe that we completely understand the actual value of a human being. Sure, killing a person who had killed a fathers entire family without a reasonable doubt may morally seem like the right thing to do, but in essence the justice that the father receives can not be worth as much as the person who did the killing can put back into society. Personal pleasures should not be justified against taking someones life. I believe that there are many more rational solutions that could be put in place of the death penalty.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/index?openview
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Karen George
ReplyDelete4th period
I am against the death penalty. I do not think it is an efficient way to justify a crime because it does not bring peace to the victim's family. There have been many cases that have stated how the families would not be able to live with the death penalty even though their family member is gone. I think a better punishment would be life in prison or some other form that is equal to the death penalty because it is not worth taking the life of the murder because the crimes keep occuring.
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawlibrary/death/default.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~gdegeest/8200book.pdf
Ayesha Wahid
ReplyDelete2nd period
I am against the death penalty and I think that the people who commit these heinous crimes should be given life in prison with no possibility of getting out. I think this not only because it is more cost effective but also by executing the criminals it will not give them any time to live with the guilt or burden of killing another innocent human being. By putting the criminal in prison for life it will give them all the time in the world to think about what they've done. They will live with the guilt of what they have done until they die and in my opinion that is a worse punishment than the death penalty.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
Marvin Puac
ReplyDelete4th period
I am against the death penalty. I believe that using the "eye for an eye" punishment in this case is not the best form of punishment. While I do agree that crimes should be punished according to their severity, the death penalty does not help lower similar crimes. "The death penalty...has no public safety benefit...capital punishment does not deter violent crime" and it officers "rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime." Additionally, the death penalty may not always be fair because there have been plenty of incidents where people have gone through the procedure and found innocent later on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Tojo Malayil
ReplyDelete6th Period
I am against the death penalty. The reason I say this is because, death penalty is is racially biased. according to death penalty 101, defendants who are accused of killing white people are more likely to receive death penalty, while people who kill black people are less likely to receive death penalty. also according to death penalty 101, it costs more to sentence people to death while sentencing them to life in prison is cheaper. I believe that the highest punishment should be life in prison rather than death. No one should be able to choose who should live and who shouldn't.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/death-penalty-101
Axel Cuypers
ReplyDelete4th Period
I am against death penalty for monetary purposes solely. It is fact that it costs less to house a criminal worthy of the death penalty for the duration of their life than to it would to put them on death row. As taxpayers, we should all be concerned with where our money is going and how efficiently it is being utilized. The death penalty is a moral controversy and is simply more expensive. The moral discussion as well as expenses could be avoided by simply getting rid of the death penalty in it's entirety.
javascript:remoteStart('http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/')
javascript:remoteStart('http://www.facts.com/cd/i00015.htm')
Keanu Florence
ReplyDelete4th Period
I agree with the death penalty for crimes that have been unquestionably committed by the suspect or defendant. However, for crimes that may not have been totally proved as committed, which can be a large amount of them, I am on the fence. I think that one of the worst feelings for an individual and their family is for them to be executed for a crime they had not committed.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Crystal Lam
ReplyDelete4th period
I am against death penalty as well. Just because people have committed to far more serious crime doesn't mean other people should be the ones to choose whether or not we should live or die. There is a reason why we have the option to be sentence life in prisons. They may be criminals but that is still someone's spouse, child, or parent whose life people choose to end. Although the crime they caused was unquestionably terrible, don't you think killing someone is far more worse? & for what? Just to know you killed off one more person where there's thousands of people who have been still in the world who are just as worse and might deserve penalty.
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
http://justice.policy.net/jpreport/finrep.PDF
Jayson Varughese
ReplyDelete4th Period
I disagree that the death penalty is a good way to justify another crime. I believe that it's morally wrong to punish a crime with another crime that is people considered justified. Not only does it make the suspect evil for doing wrong, but it also makes the family of the victim morally evil for allowing another person to die at the power of their hands. Also, killing a prisoner through the death penalty costs far more money than keeping them in jail with a life sentence. With this money, much can be done to solve other world problems.
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
Frankie Smith
ReplyDelete6th Period
I disagree with the death penalty because: 1) it is cheaper to house criminals in lifetime confinement rather than them on death row. 2) being imprisoned for a lifetime is much more of a punishment than the death penalty because who would want to be locked up for the rest of your life? It would be horrible.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
I am for the death penalty only in the most extreme of cases. I think that if a person has committed a truly heinous crime then he should be given the death penalty and it would also allow the victims family to get closure and see that the person got the justice that they deserved.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawlibrary/death/default.htm
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/death-penalty-101
Martin Nguyen
ReplyDelete4th Period
I disagree with the death penalty--it is less taxing morally and less taxing on taxpayers themselves. The death penalty is more expensive than lifetime imprisonment.
http:www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Zoheb Hirani
ReplyDeletePeriod Cuatro
I am for the death penalty
1)The past few decades have seen the establishment of public defender systems that in many cases rival some of the best lawyers retained privately... Many giant silk-stocking law firms in large cities across America not only provide pro-bono counsel in capital cases, but also offer partnerships to lawyers whose sole job is to promote indigent capital defense.
2)JFA [Justice for All] estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million-$3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. The cost going into the injection or death method compared with the cost of the life is not that easy to calculate economically. However, what is easy to calculate economically is that the crime rate will drop if the death penalty is used. People are super afraid of it, and I firmly believe that crime rates do drop according to the use of death penalty.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
ReplyDeleteErin Keir
ReplyDelete6th Period
I am personally pro death penalty because although most people do not weigh the outcomes when committing a serious crime punishable by death, most have the logical sense to eventually know what they have cost themselves. I also support the death penalty when used correctly. The death penalty is not just handed out, it is mostly given to those with previous records. There is an opportunity cost in committing a crime, one of which should have been realized before said crime was committed. The death penalty is okay when used fairly and in an un-biased manner.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/individual_rights.html
http://www.facts.com/cd/i00015.htm
Shawn Sabu
ReplyDeletePeriod-6
Personally I support the death penalty. Although one may argue that people can change over time or that one may be wrongly accused to recieve the death penalty, usually the ones who get it deserve it. Mainly i believe the death penalty is a good intimidator to not commit a crime because it may bring fear up on people to stay away from getting in trouble.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
Chris Abraham
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I am not a supporter of the death penalty, no matter what method is used to carry it out. To me, the fact that court room proceedings and such things are not guaranteed to be accurate means that the implications of something going wrong with the death penalty are too heavy. If an innocent person is thrown into federal prison, then they might still have a chance of returning to their previous life after some time. However, if an innocent person receives the death penalty, that's one man who will never see the light of day again. Additionally, in an economic perspective, these prisons which these people are put into are good places for people to find jobs. If we go down the path of avoiding them, there is a potential of unemployment going up.
http://www.ncjrs.org/
http://oyez.nwu.edu/cases/cases.cgi?case_id=131&command=show
I do in fact support the death penalty, and in fact feel that if it was handed out more leniently, it would increase the deterrent. With mass shooters like James Holmes in the about.com article, it could easily deter more people when they see how often it gets handed out. Now, it is rare to see the death penalty and more often its life in prison. When you see that your life is not on the line when thinking about committing a crime, there is more incentive to do it knowing you will probably not be killed for your actions.
ReplyDeleteReuben Kuruvila
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I am for the death penalty. Although it may seem a harsh punishment, it is the only way to have justice for the rape and murder victims. Rather than be thrown in a jail where they are supported by the tax money of the people and get to live comfortably inside a cell, they deserve a more severe punishment. Plus, since the concept of the death penalty is quite frightening, it also reduces crime rates, making it more useful.
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
Personally, I am a supporter of the death penalty. Even though it may not be considered the best option for an economist point of view, I believe that if you deliberately take some one else's life that you do not deserve to live. People say that being locked up for the rest of your life is worse than than being killed, but in many cases criminals are given the opportunity of parole, which would mean they eventually get to see the light of day again, which is usually more than can be said for their victim.
ReplyDeletejavascript:remoteStart('http://www.abanet.org/irr/rec107.html')
javascript:remoteStart('http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/')
Personally, I am a supporter of the death penalty. Even though it may not be considered the best option for an economist point of view, I believe that if you deliberately take some one else's life that you do not deserve to live. People say that being locked up for the rest of your life is worse than than being killed, but in many cases criminals are given the opportunity of parole, which would mean they eventually get to see the light of day again, which is usually more than can be said for their victim.
ReplyDeletejavascript:remoteStart('http://www.abanet.org/irr/rec107.html')
javascript:remoteStart('http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/')
I dont agree with the death penalty because its too complicated of a desicion for a jury to make. When people are put to death for crimes, and later found out to be innocent, a large outcry is sparked and people cry injustice. It's easier to avoid this possible complication all together. Some criminals are put to death while others, such as charles manson, spend life in prison for even worse crimes. The state should only have so much power, and putting citizens to death should be out of its reach.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
Leslie Reglos
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
I support the death penalty. Although some individuals may argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional or immoral, citizens' tax dollars are going towards feeding and providing other necessities to criminals. Others may also argue that life sentences without parole serve as the best punishment because these criminals are left to suffer in prison, burdened by the guilt of the crime they've committed. However, is there a guarantee that the criminals will even reflect on what they've done? Do they even feel the remorse that people expect them to feel? Or are they simply enjoying their television access, recreational time, and free food? While the families and friends of their victims are left, traumatized by their experiences, the criminals would simply be living the easy life in prison. The death penalty can serve as a way to bring justice to some families, and at the same time, it serves as an incentive for people to veer away from criminal activities that could possibly sentence them to death.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
Muizz Soomar
ReplyDelete6th Period
I am against this horrible death penalty since many deserve a right to live and no one has the right to tell someone that their life must end. Even though people may do things that do deserve a punishment of death, they should suffer and not go easily to the death penalty. The death penalty does also cost way more than to keep the person alive and it enforces more violence in society. The cost itself of killing someone with the death penalty does exceed the social benefits also.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
Muizz Soomar
ReplyDelete6th Period
I am against this horrible death penalty since many deserve a right to live and no one has the right to tell someone that their life must end. Even though people may do things that do deserve a punishment of death, they should suffer and not go easily to the death penalty. The death penalty does also cost way more than to keep the person alive and it enforces more violence in society. The cost itself of killing someone with the death penalty does exceed the social benefits also.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html
Lillian Wang
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I'm against the death penalty for several moral and pragmatic reasons. Firstly, I don't think under any circumstance that any entity should be allowed to take the life of a person. It's understandable that these people deserve their deaths, but that doesn't mean that legal bodies should be the ones to dole out said punishments. Additionally, many people on death row are often wrongfully convicted, which leads to many deaths that were in fact undeserved, in which case there's no way to reverse the permanent effect of killing someone.
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/opinion/columnists/cruel-and-unusual-punishment
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm
Ingrid Curtom 4th period
ReplyDeleteI am against the death penalty because I believe it is unethical. Since the average death row inmate waits 12 years between sentencing and execution & some have to wait for up to 30 years, this may cause the “Death Row Syndrome” which is a severe psychological illness. In my opinion, this is just wrong and the criminal should just stay in jail for life instead of risking getting this illness.
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Along with this, it has been proven that “killers of black victims are less likely to be sentences to death than killers of non-black victims.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/12/10/death-penalty-and-race/
sentenced*
DeleteI do not support the death penalty. Since there have been times were people have been falsely convicted and executed, I cannot wholeheartedly agree with it. The life of one innocent person is worth eliminating the option all together. Furthermore a recent study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reported that 88% of the country’s top criminologists surveyed do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. Eighty-seven percent of them think that the abolition of the death penalty would not have a significant effect on murder rates and 77% believe that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
* Amber Alex
ReplyDelete4th Period
Kevin Zhang
ReplyDelete2nd Period
I could care less about legalisation of the death penalty or not. The issue isn't the end to justify the means, it is the fact that we even reached the end and have to work our way backwards. Take a look at modern crime rates. Similarly, look at the recent outrages of police brutality. There is a long held feud between law and people. Poor socioeconomic areas are bound to have more crimes, we have to fix the cause of crime.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www3.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/wilson.htm
Yea I don't agree with the death penalty since there is a chance that they might have the wrong person, if that ever happens an innocent person will die and nothing can be done about unlike if a person was imprisoned can be taken out. If this ever happens what can anyone do, what do we do, absolutely nothing. And that's why boys and girls we shouldn't do anything irrational without rational thinking, so next time you don't want to study for a test think rationally, it helps.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6032
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/5993
Emmitt Penelton
Delete2nd period
I disagree with the death penalty because I believe that is cruel and that it is like getting even. Even though getting even sounds right to the person affected, it is not the right way. Also, the death penalty doesn't always affect the people who actually committed the crime. Many people are wrongly accused. The death penalty is also very expensive. I believe an alternate solution should be found.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGrace Cha
ReplyDelete2nd period
I am against the death penalty because I think its more of a warning "revenge" tactic. Many times lethal injections are used to "gradually" put the person "to sleep" in a non painful way. These lethal injections are done in 3 steps. First to shut down the body muscles, then the heart, then the brain. However, there have been multiple times where the lethal injections were not effective enough for the person and double or triple the recommended dose was given. Later in the autopsy, the person had multiple chemical burns/evidence of struggling. I argue against the death penalty because of the moral issues that this practice brings up.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/lethal-injection-moratorium-executions-ends-after-supreme-court-decision
https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
I give you reddit gold, my good friend. You have provided me with Top level Keks
ReplyDeleteGerard Barrientos
ReplyDelete2nd Period
I am personally against the death penalty mainly due to the fact that there have been accounts of those who have been executed, only later on to be found innocent. An incident such as this is simply too much to simply ignore. There is never a proper justification that can come from killing an innocent person. By killing an innocent person's life, there is no chance for them to redeem themselves : when they are wrongly accused, their lives are simply over.
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
http://www.abanet.org/irr/rec107.html