To: el_doctor2
Go to Google and put in "Debate on Death Penalty." Lots of threads come up. I don't know how good any of them are though. You will have to do the reading. :-)
2 posted on
04/12/2005 6:19:56 PM PDT by
Spunky
("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
To: el_doctor2
I'm not anti-death penalty, but I know one of the talking points is that you can NEVER really know if a suspect is guilty unless you have a film or videotape of the actual crime. Even confessions have turned out to be false.
3 posted on
04/12/2005 6:20:29 PM PDT by
FreeKeys
("Most of the 40-odd wars going...right now are being fought in the name of religion." - Paul Harvey)
To: el_doctor2
This is exactly why I couldn't do debate. I couldn't drop my beliefs and argue something that is 180 degrees out of phase with who I am. That being said, o0ne of the arguments the pro-let the murderers live side uses is that it is ultimately more costly to put someone to death than to just have life sentences. Don't know the veracity of that claim, though.
To: el_doctor2
I think your best bet is to focus on the idea that due to diminished culpability (because of youth), retribution does not provide sufficient justification of the DP. As an example: we don't allow juveniles to make the momentous (and admirable) decision to enlist in the Armed Forces without parental permission. Thus, the U.S. Congress has made a policy decision that juveniles do not have the mental capacity to make such important decisions. The same can be argued about murder: do juveniles (in general) have sufficient mental capacity to form the requisite intent to commit murder? If the answer is no, then retribution (the primary goal of punishment) is less important because the juvenile could not form the level of intent that we as a society seek to punish.
To: el_doctor2
Oh, you know the standard talking points. It's not a deterrent, it costs more to kill them than it does to keep them in prison, what if an innocent person is executed, it's cruel and unusual, it's just revenge, blah blah blah.
My sister is anti-death penalty. I hear it all the time. I still insist that it is a rather effective deterrent, because the person who is executed is deterred from ever committing another crime again.
Sometimes karma and natural selection just aren't thorough enough.
6 posted on
04/12/2005 6:23:01 PM PDT by
teenyelliott
(Soylent green is made of liberals...)
To: el_doctor2
I support the death penalty, but I can throw you a few of their arguments
1. It's cruel.
2. Europeans don't like it, and as their history over the last century shows them to be far more civilized than us, we should follow their lead.
3. Non-whites, or possibly the killers of whites as opposed to the killers of non-whites, are more likely to get fried. They're usually a little confused in this area.
4. The inevitable fact is that someday, if we haven't already done it recently, we will execute an innocent person. Therefore we shouldn't execute anyone.
5. It's cruel, and Europeans don't like it.
I won't comment on the logical content of most of these arguments. It's just too easy.
7 posted on
04/12/2005 6:23:23 PM PDT by
Restorer
To: el_doctor2
Another tact is to research the issue of how much MORE it costs taxpayers to fund lawyers that file appeal after appeal (that death row inmates are granted by law) than than it would cost to simply house them until their natural death.
I'm all for the fiscal, man.
11 posted on
04/12/2005 6:26:47 PM PDT by
PLK
To: el_doctor2
I don't think the arguments are generally honest ones. The debate talks around the issue. The most popular argument against using capital punishment right now is the "innocence" argument: Even if only one in a thousand executed criminals proves to be innocent, we should spare all the lives rather than risk executing that one innocent person. It has great popular appeal. But it often relies on questionable evidence that some convicted criminals have been "innocent" (i.e., not involved in the crime) in the classic sense. Not only that, but it is often put forward by people who really do not accept the notion of moral responsibility at all, so that (in their thinking) all of us are "innocent" (of whatever we have chosen to do) in the sense that we should not have to face the consequences of our actions.
I say that as a firm opponent of the death penalty, by the way, an activist against it, in fact. But the only argument I consider valid is the "reverence for life womb to tomb" argument advanced by Christian thinkers like the late pope. That is not an argument with much appeal in the secular world.
To: el_doctor2
Mr. Roper has no idea what he's doing!

16 posted on
04/12/2005 6:32:58 PM PDT by
struggle
((The struggle continues))
To: el_doctor2
Agree with the pro side,agree with every point,and end with this,"but where will this culture of death end,with the death of an innocent women,like Terri Schiavo?"
How the hell did you get roped into the con side?
17 posted on
04/12/2005 6:34:02 PM PDT by
mdittmar
(May God watch over those who serve,and have served, to keep us free.)
To: el_doctor2
I had a friend who was opposed to the death penalty because he didn't trust the government with the power of life or death.
My personal view is that nobody who had the death penalty carried out on them has ever committed another crime.
19 posted on
04/12/2005 6:34:44 PM PDT by
wolfpat
(Dum vivimus, vivamus)
To: el_doctor2
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. ;)
To: el_doctor2
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.
To: el_doctor2
go to DU. you'll find plenty of objections.
26 posted on
04/12/2005 7:32:32 PM PDT by
Rakkasan1
(The MRS wanted to go to an expensive place to eat so I took her to the gas station.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson