I'm doing this class project where as a group, we vote on an issue of our choice as if we were the Supreme Court. The issue is Capital Punishment and I'm the lone dissenter as we voted 3 to 1 for the DP. So I have to write why I dissent. I've explored deterrence and how there's no data that proves the DP is a deterrent. Also, there are higher homicide rates in DP states vs non DP states. I've also got a survey of law enforcement officials saying the DP is the lowest on the list of things that prevent murder. I've talked about the higher costs of the DP vs life imprisonment. I've talked about the morality of it, eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek and also the "unfairness" of application. IE, more minorities are murdered in this country, yet the overwhelming majority of victims in DP cases are white. Wrongful convictions, new evidence, botched investigations, etc. Am I leaving anything good out? I put this in the D&D because it'll turn to a debate eventually, but when you guys are getting up this morning, I'd appreciate if I could get a little help with my angle first. On a side note, the other girls in my group have written a crappy 7 page paper in support. Jesus, I'm against it, but I could write a better paper that could convince the staunchest anti capital punishment person to change their mind in my sleep. This thing is so jr. high, it's not even funny. It's supposed to be approached like the Supreme Court, but what they wrote looks like a weak ass pamplet. In the intro, they've got a line that says "As four dedicated Republican students...." Now, I wasn't there for the day they voted on the issue and when they wrote this, but in our initial meetings, I always explained multiple sides of the issues we considered. You'd think that would make me an independent in their eyes, not a "dedicated Republican." I'm pretty sure we're supposed to approach it as if we came to our opinions objectively. Obviously, saying the above line and then claiming the issue is "cut and dry" does not achieve that. Here's another line "Riding the fence a little on making a decision for or against the death penalty?" That's not a sentence from a college paper, that's a line from a letter to the op/ed section of a news paper. After they say that, they argue about the cost and say the DP is cheaper than life in prison. They do it by saying it would be cheaper if we set the execution date for a week after sentencing, getting rid of the cost of appeals. That's true, but it would also be unconstitutional. They also finish the paper with a Dennis Miller quote "some times you just have to thin the herd." I'm deeply offended by this thing, deeply offended at the quality of it that is. The prof looked it over and gave suggestions, I need to read their next draft later today and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have to beg them to let me work on their paper to make it more solid and proffesional.
Can somebody actually point out where in the constitution appeals come up. I'm having trouble finding that.
Oski, "other girls" are you a woman, by gosh? Is that still allowedon cc.net? What college are you at? I think you have hit every argument I can think of. Argumentatively I like to hit them with the Catholic position of being more consistently "pro-life" since so many death penalty supporters like to kill convicts, but not fetuses. You might search for statistics on the number of people on death row getting acquittals with new technologies like dna testing being used to prove their innocence. Being dedicated Republican girls, I doubt they would care that much if they "thinned the herd" a bit inappropriately. Lack of access to health care, for instance, "thins the herd", even of fetuses, but Republicans traditionally don't seem too bothered by that, given their own confidence that they won't be uninsured. I don't believe that the Constitution says you have the right to the type of appeals we have in death penalty cases. I think it is a construct of S. Ct. cases regarding the death penalty.
No, I'm not a women, I'm the only male in the group. I'm also, apparantly, the most compassionate person in the group. One of the lines I heard during our discussions was "we believe we should kill em all." I go to Texas A&M, that may explain a bit.
yikes. Oski, I have been on both sides of this issue. What has been most persuasive to me is the understanding that the criminal justice system...or even the civil system....isn't perfect. It never is. Truth and justice are ideals that are often not reached. Juries are imperfect...judges are imperfect. So even if you agree with eye for eye...tooth for tooth....you're still stuck with an imperfect system where sometimes, regretablly, even the innocent are convicted. And then sentenced to death. I, personally, can't live with that.
If we truly believed in an "eye for eye...tooth for tooth," then everyone would be walking around blind with no front teeth. sorry couldn't resist...please...carry on...
I, personally, am against capital punishment for the reasons that you and madmax have mentioned, but honestly i don't think i could make that judgement unless having actually experienced the pain of someone affected by someone who is facing capital punishment. therefore, i'm going to have to be "pro-choice" where the person or people affected by the crime are allowed to make the decision on whether or not the convicted is put to death, after a fair trial of course. I would like to hope the condition is that the convicted is guilty "without any reasonable doubt", but that itself is unrealistic. just my own two cents.
but this is why we have courts. why we have a jury system. why we don't allow the family to participate at trial at any level other than a fact witness...or in a sentencing hearing just to give their two cents. you can't leave the penalty up to the family. the other problem is...you're talking about the sentencing...which means you assume the jury got the guilty/not guilty verdict correct, to begin with.
Yes. Philosophically (abstractly), I have no problem with the death penalty. However, I cannot come close to supporting it the way it is implemented.
And in some cases the family does not want capital punishment but it happens anyway. Oski2005, here is a different angle: His Holiness, Tenzin Gyatso, The Fourteenth Dalai Lama MESSAGE SUPPORTING THE MORATORIUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY In general, death is something none of us wants, in fact it is something we don't even like to think about. When death takes place naturally, it is a process beyond our control to stop, but where death is willfully and deliberately brought about, it is very unfortunate. Of course, within our legal systems there are said to be certain reasons and purposes for employing the death penalty. It is used to punish offenders, to prevent them ever repeating their misdeed and to deter others. However, if we examine the situation more carefully, we will find that these are not the real solutions. Harmful actions and their tragic consequences all have their origin in disturbing emotions and negative thoughts, and these are a state of mind, whose potential we find within all human beings. From this point of view, every one of us has the potential to commit crimes, because we are all subject to negative disturbing emotions and negative mental qualities. And we will not overcome these by executing other people. What is deemed criminal can vary greatly from country to country. In some countries, for example, speaking out for human rights is considered criminal, whereas in other countries preventing free speech is a crime. The punishments for crimes are also very different, but usually include various forms of imprisonment or hardship, financial penalties and, in a number of countries, physical pain. In some countries, crimes that the government considers very serious are punished by executing the person who committed the crime. The death penalty fulfills a preventive function, but it is also very clearly a form of revenge. It is an especially severe form of punishment because it is so final. The human life is ended and the executed person is deprived of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or compensate for it. Before advocating execution we should consider whether criminals are intrinsically negative and harmful people or whether they will remain perpetually in the same state of mind in which they committed their crime or not. The answer, I believe, is definitely not. However horrible the act they have committed, I believe that everyone has the potential to improve and correct themselves. Therefore, I am optimistic that it remains possible to deter criminal activity, and prevent such harmful consequences of such acts in society, without having to resort to the death penalty. My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this. Therefore, I support those organizations and individuals who are trying to bring an end to the use of the death penalty. Today, in many societies very little importance is placed on education or the development of human values through social programs and entertainment. In fact, if we take television programming as an example, violence, including killing, is regarded as having a high entertainment value. This is indicative of how misguided we have become. I believe human beings are not violent by nature. Unlike lions and tigers, we are not naturally equipped to kill with sharp teeth and claws. From a Buddhist viewpoint, I believe that the basic nature of every sentient being is pure, that the deeper nature of mind is something pure. Human beings become violent because of negative thoughts which arise as a result of their environment and circumstances. I wholeheartedly support an appeal to those countries who at present employ the death penalty to observe an unconditional moratorium. At the same time we should give more support to education and encourage a greater sense of universal responsibility. We need to explain the importance of the practice of love and compassion for our own survival and to try to minimize those conditions which foster murderous tendencies, such as the proliferation of weapons in our societies. These are things even private individuals can work towards. Tenzin Gyatso His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet _
I go to Texas A&M, that may explain a bit. Oski, is A and M really as right wing as it seems? My son is starting senior year, not in the top 10% at a top public. He got off to a slow start his first year or two, but has good scores so he'll have to slog through the whole admission process at UT. The local admissions office says about a 90% chance of admission at UT. According to the A and M website he is an auto admit at A and M. His best friend is starting there in a week or two, so that makes it more appealing. Frankly my wife and I are appalled by its reputation.
MR. MEOWGI put it more concisely, I don't intend the family to make a decision until due process and a fair trial is over with, but i think if the the convicted gets the death penalty, the family or most severly affected can make the decision as to whether to have it go through. i addressed that the sentence may be incorrect, but I don't think there is much to be done about that today without better investigation abilities. Again, I don't believe in an "eye for an eye" but I know many people do. I think there should be an open possibility at the end for the victims to forgive the convicted or to change the penalty if there is any doubt, basically, the victim who suffered a loss (with the hypothetical that the convicted killed one of their close-ones) has some element of control over whether or not the convicted faces the full punishment. I don't think i was clear that the "pro-choice" meant after the court's decision.
is this really as far as we've taken our own freedoms...our own "choice?" so far that we allow the vicitim's families' the "choice" to kill someone??? seriously? it seems to me we've built quite an altar for the word "choice" in the last 20 years...and we're willing to sacrifice virtually anything for it. including other values which may be more important...like those embodied in the bill of rights.
i don't know if thats directed towards me, but i think you misread my post. my pro choice belief is aimed more towards those families who can choose not to kill the convicted if they get the death penalty. As in, an alternative to eliminating the death penalty entirely, which is unlikely.
Yes, very much so. We don't have any affirmitive action here, race has no bearing on admissions. Now, that's not why I'm saying it's conservative, because you can make cases for or against that. My point I'd like to make is that even though we already don't use race in admissions, people still geet pissed at plans to go to minority schools and recruit students to apply. You should have seen the tantrum some students threw over the creation of the position of Vice president of diversity.
