Capital punishment? What a joke.

[Lozal]

Capital punishment, aka the death penalty, is the highest form of punishment in America. It is, quite simply, putting a condemned person to death for his crimes. However, this form of punishment does not work and has many flaws with it.

I suppose I'll start with explaining the financial information associated with the death penalty. It is ten times more expensive for a death penalty case to be completed rather than the person to be sentenced to life in prison. In 1963, New Jersey spent $4.2 million on each death penalty case. It was later abolished there because it was so expensive. Yet, countless other states still allow -- and promote -- this wasteful form of punishment. I thought that it was important to save money, especially now since we're in a global recession. It doesn't stop there with its cost. The trials themselves are especially expensive. The accused is more likely to use the complete appeal system if he is sentenced to death. The trials require extra lawyers. Those lawyers require special training. Whilst the accused waits for an appropriate lawyer, the court system gets clogged. Security costs are higher to ensure that the accused doesn't escape. All the evidence must be checked with DNA checking equipment to ensure that as many innocent lives are preserved as possible. Finally, it just costs more to house a death row inmate: $90,000 more. This is because he is kept in an individual cell rather than a group cell with other criminals. People are greedy by human nature: if they knew that they were paying taxes that go straight to being wasted in this sort of way, I'm sure they would oppose the death penalty. Sixty-nine percent of Americans are in favor of the death penalty. If people were properly educated on its cost, I'm sure they'd be opposed to all the waste it generates.

"Twenty-three innocent people have been mistakenly executed this century. Each year, approximately 4.5 people are convicted of capital crimes that are actually innocent. Over 100 people have been released since 1972 as a result of being wrongly convicted." Just the fact that one innocent person can die from this makes it not worth it. If a toy was found to contain lead paint, it would be recalled. Why? Because an innocent child may die. Why does the same logic not apply to the death penalty?

In 1992, there was a man named Roger Keith Coleman. When he was on appeal, his new attorneys misread the state statute governing the time for submitting an appeal and filed their appeal a day too late. The Virginia courts assumed that his late filing was the same as no filing and wouldn't review his issues. The federal courts couldn't help because he had "waived" his state appeal. The Supreme Court stated that they could not help him because it was his attorney that was mistaken. Coleman was executed without a full review of his case.

What happened to due process rights and the right to a fair trial? Coleman was denied both. This goes against the very Constitution of the United States: denying a person of his due process rights is unconstitutional.

All judicial systems make mistakes because they consist of humans. As long as the death penalty persists, innocent people will be executed. The death penalty itself is an encouragement to a culture of violence. It is not a solution to it, as is often claimed, and it does not deter crime more than other punishments. Eighty-four percent of criminologists believe that the death penalty does not deter crime.

In Norway, there is a prison called the Bastøy Prison, which houses murderers and rapists. The prisoners are treated humanely. All prisoners work. They can work in any of the following areas on the island: farming, machine and building maintenance, cleaning, cooking in the kitchen, working on the institutionââ,¬â,,¢s ferry and fishing boat, in the library, or in the church. There are also numerous seasonal jobs that are completed. There are no locked gates or barbed wire. The maximum prison sentence in Norway is 21 years (no death penalty), and very few prisoners actually serve the entire sentence. Though surprising, by using this method of punishment, Norwayââ,¬â,,¢s crime rate is shockingly low. This in itself proves that the death penalty is pointless.

The rate of murder was less in states without the death penalty. Death penalty states often have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states. This is yet another proof of how the death penalty doesn't deter crime.

There is obviously discrimination involved in deciding who gets the death penalty. There are far more minorities who are executed rather than the number of Caucasian people. All 37 people executed in the US in 2008 were men. In 78% of death penalty cases, the victim was white. In 15% of the cases, the victim was African American. In 5% of the cases, the victim was Hispanic, and in only 2% of cases when the victim was of another race. It doesnââ,¬â,,¢t offer the criminal a chance to reform, which is proven effective by Norway. At the end of the year 2007, the youngest inmate under the sentence of death was 19; the oldest was 92. Sentencing a 19 year old to death is ridiculous because they could change later in life. This is the same with any criminal with the death penalty. They arenââ,¬â,,¢t given the chance to change. The average age at time of arrest was 29; nearly 1 in 9 inmates were age 19 or younger at the time of arrest. One in 12 people on death row in 2007 had a prior homicide conviction. This means that 11/12 had never committed a murder before their death penalty case.

"Who pays the ultimate penalty for crimes? The poor. Who gets the death penalty? The poor. After all the rhetoric that goes on in the legislative assemblies, in the end, when the net is cast out, it is the poor who are selected to die in this country. And why do poor people get the death penalty? It has everything to do with the kind of defense they get. Money gets you good defense. Thatââ,¬â,,¢s why youââ,¬â,,¢ll never see an O.J. Simpson on death row. As the saying goes: ââ,¬ËœCapital punishment means them without the capital get the punishment.ââ,¬Â�

This is completely unfair and represents a class struggle between the bourgeois (the rich) and the proletariat (the poor). The rich get better lawyers because they can afford them; the poor get whatever they can afford or whatever is appointed to them by the government, which may or may not be good defense.

I have formed my opinion about the death penalty based on the above. The death penalty is wasteful, unfair, discriminatory, and overall, uneffective. It's time we stop this form of punishment.

[Travis]

yeah well killers deserve to die

[YPrrrr]

yeah well killers deserve to die

Everybody dies

[rdl]

Well shit, how am I supposed to argue with that?

That's the kind of thing you bring up in a debate that causes the other side to go "oh fuck"

[Daddy]

I only support it for war criminals.

[Det in F♯ Major]

I'm confused on the discrimination paragraph; if I'm reading it correctly, the second sentence contradicts the other sentences about race. 

Well shit, how am I supposed to argue with that?

That's the kind of thing you bring up in a debate that causes the other side to go "oh fuck"

All you have to do is prepare. There are two sides to everything. 

[ME##]

I'm confused on the discrimination paragraph; if I'm reading it correctly, the second sentence contradicts the other sentences about race. 

By 'victim' I think it means the original victim of the crime, not the executed.  So, by that logic, if you kill a white person and you're a minority, you're more likely to end up getting the death penalty.


I also think there are many other reasons that contribute to Norway's low crime rate besides the fact that 'lol they're nice to their criminals and stuff' and the fact that they lack a death penalty.  I'm also interested in knowing what the percentage of inmates who become repeat offenders in Norway is.

[rdl]

All you have to do is prepare. There are two sides to everything. 

Whoa! No way!

[wawi]

I also think there are many other reasons that contribute to Norway's low crime rate besides the fact that 'lol they're nice to their criminals and stuff' and the fact that they lack a death penalty.  I'm also interested in knowing what the percentage of inmates who become repeat offenders in Norway is.

I agree 
That isn't the reason why they have fewer criminals. If criminals were treated badly, wouldn't that scare people into not committing crimes? I'm sure if criminals in the U.S. were treated that nicely, as in Norway, then there would actually be more people in prison.

[j o e i n c]

a bullet costs less than a cent

[Det in F♯ Major]

By 'victim' I think it means the original victim of the crime, not the executed.  So, by that logic, if you kill a white person and you're a minority, you're more likely to end up getting the death penalty.

Gotcha. It makes sense when you explain it like that, but given your information and putting it back into her essay, she still worded it so it doesn't sound the way you explained it.

[ME##]

Gotcha. It makes sense when you explain it like that, but given your information and putting it back into her essay, she still worded it so it doesn't sound the way you explained it.

Yeah, she could have really worded it better.

I agree 
That isn't the reason why they have fewer criminals. If criminals were treated badly, wouldn't that scare people into not committing crimes? I'm sure if criminals in the U.S. were treated that nicely, as in Norway, then there would actually be more people in prison.

Yes, that makes sense.  You really don't want prisoners to feel like they're at some retreat from their normal life by more or less removing everything that makes a prison a prison, do you?  How would that convince them that they did something wrong in the first place?   

[Lozal]

Well shit, how am I supposed to argue with that?

That's the kind of thing you bring up in a debate that causes the other side to go "oh fuck"

thank you<3

By 'victim' I think it means the original victim of the crime, not the executed.  So, by that logic, if you kill a white person and you're a minority, you're more likely to end up getting the death penalty.

yes. sorry, i worded that badly

I agree 
That isn't the reason why they have fewer criminals. If criminals were treated badly, wouldn't that scare people into not committing crimes?

no. 84% of criminologists say that the death penalty doesn't prevent crimes.

Yes, that makes sense.  You really don't want prisoners to feel like they're at some retreat from their normal life by more or less removing everything that makes a prison a prison, do you?  How would that convince them that they did something wrong in the first place?   

rehabilitation makes the person into a productive member of society rather than a low-life murderer.

I also think there are many other reasons that contribute to Norway's low crime rate besides the fact that 'lol they're nice to their criminals and stuff' and the fact that they lack a death penalty.

what is your explanation?

[Daddy]

what is your explanation?

Lower poverty rates.

[ME##]

rehabilitation makes the person into a productive member of society rather than a low-life murderer.

Not every person can be rehabilitated to become a 'productive' member of society, so what would you do with those individuals?  Or those who continue to commit crimes because even after their imprisonment they are unable to be successful end up committing another crime?


And as I stated earlier, I'm still really interested in knowing the rate of repeat offenders in Norway.

what is your explanation?

As JMV said, lower poverty rates.  If you're well to do, what reason would you have to commit a violent crime such as murder or rape?