Need Help for a Debate: Resolved, Roper v. Simmons be overturned (I'm Con) unfortunatley

[el_doctor2]

I have a debate soon, ive been assigned the Con side, are there any anti-death penalty supporters on FR...i know there must be a few. And if you arent , do you know the talking points for that side?

[madprof98]

The type of people typically being executed are the sort who rarely think more than 5 minutes ahead. It's really unlikely there's any sort of rational balancing of the punishments vs. the rewards of whatever murder they're committing.

Excellent point. There have actually been studies which concluded that the death penalty has some deterrent effect, but it is hard to see how it would impact men like the ones now on Death Row. The murders they committed were generally crimes of passion (shooting up the lady and her lover for cheating on me) or "cover up" crimes committed in the course of other crimes (killing the clerks/customers who saw the robbery I committed). These were often very cruel because the people committing them were very cruel, but they were not rational or thoughtfully calculated in any but a very few cases.

[N. Beaujon]

Ugh. You poor thing. The issue in Roper is the age of the offenders. All you can do is argue the age of reason. Just take the same arguments that the majority made (if you can do it without retching), quote the "experts", sociologists, the Europeans (read the Appendix, there should be an Appendix to the opinion) and take enough antacid to not lose your lunch.

You don't have to argue anti-DP, you might get more points by arguing the age of reason (the mens rea)since that was the entire point of the opinion. Good luck defending your position. It's indefensible. ;) (Not yours, the majority's.) JMO, as always.

I'm very familiar with the opinion by the way. If you want to ask me any questions go to http://www.nbeaujon.com. You can read my Roper article to anticipate what your opposition will say. You poor, poor thing. ;)

[Zevonismymuse]

I am an anti-death penalty conservative. I used to be on the other side until I figured out that usually some poor slob who did an armed robbery a couple of decades back gets fried more than the people who have done even more horrible things. I decided that the death penalty was just one more thing the government could not get right. I think having civil servants decide who lives and dies is not something I like to see.

I would approve of you blowing the brains out of someone who hurts your family. I would defy any jury to convict you.

Finally, I agree it is a deterent to one person; the guy who is executed will never kill again.

[teenyelliott]

I did not mean a deterrent to additional psychopaths, as I pointed out in my post. It is 100% assured that the POS who is killed will never bother anyone again.

And your point about minimal chance of escape for lifers might be valid, but if they are dead we don't have to worry. Personally, I would rather spend the additional money to put then to death (if that is true), than give them medical care and ice cream bars for the rest of their lives.

[madprof98]

There's really enormous amounts of very solid evidence that a substantial number of convicted criminals have been fully and completely innocent.

No doubt. But I'm talking specifically about the Death Row cases. There have been many claims of complete innocence, but I am not aware of any cases like that in the US since the death penalty was reinstituted. If you are, I'd appreciate the references.

[Rakkasan1]

go to DU. you'll find plenty of objections.

[Restorer]

If I remember correctly, Bundy escaped from custody at least twice and possibly three times.

He was made a hero by the counter-culture creeps in Aspen.

Each time he was arrested, it was because he was stopped for traffic violations. If he were a better driver, he might still be out there.

[Restorer]

There's really enormous amounts of very solid evidence that a substantial number of convicted criminals have been fully and completely innocent.

Perhaps of the particular crime of which they've been convicted. I suspect a high percentage of these cases involve career criminals who committed a great many crimes for which they were not convicted.

Referring to these types as "innocent" is perhaps stretching the point. Someone who goes to jail for a crime he didn't commit when he escaped conviction for other crimes is just experiencing poetic justice, IMHO.

When we think of an "innocent person," most of us think of a non-criminal, like you or I, convicted of a crime he didn't convict.