Instigator

Firing Squad is the best form of capital punishment

Debating

Waiting for instigator's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Description
"Best" will be defined on basic pro and con analysis. While other execution types shall be discussed for comparison, our two methods will be the only under consideration for "best".
Round 1: Summary of our proposed form of capital punishment and outline of Round 2 main points.
Round 2: Explanation of why there is a need for reform plus opening arguments(can include pre-rebuttals, but no rebuttals).
Round 3: Rebuttals/Further Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals/Closing(no new arguments)
Round 1
Published:
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I wish him the best of luck in making his arguments.

Many people disagree on whether or not we should continue to practice capital punishment. However, since it is currently in place, everyone can agree that we should use the most humane, cost-effective, and historically proven method available. These are terms that do not describe lethal injection as I will show later, which is why we must examine other methods that do meet this criteria.

That is why my chosen method is Firing Squad.

The criminal will be strapped to a chair with a bag placed over his or her head and a target placed on their heart. Five .30-30 Winchester rifles will be fixed in place behind a wall, aiming at this target. One gun will be loaded with a blank so that no one knows who killed the criminal, and no one can see the effect from behind the wall.

Round 2

I will begin by elucidating some of the more egregious issues with our current use of lethal injection as a means of execution. 

These will include how historically ineffective it has been, how painful it is, and how expensive/difficult to perform it is. 

My main points for Round 2 will go as follows: 

1. Less Painful/Quick death
2. Easily affordable
3. Historically proven
4. Tools for execution are abundant
5. Trained people will perform
6. Prisoner choices are irrelevant

These points will be used to prove both how firing squad remedies these problems, as well as some reasons why I believe my method of execution surpasses the benefits of utilizing my opponent's.

Thank you to everyone who chooses to read this, and I hope you enjoy the debate!
Published:
I would similarly like to thank my opponent, as he suggested this debate and I’m excited to see how it plays out.
 
As he states, and as I agree, we need a better system of capital punishment. I will get into the criteria that should define what the technique we use should be momentarily, though first, I will introduce my technique.
 
My chosen method is Nitrogen Asphyxiation.
 
To be clear, this will function in one of two ways depending on the facilities available. Either the condemned will be strapped to a chair and have a mask affixed to their face that feeds pure nitrogen gas into their lungs upon inhalation, or available chambers will be filled with this same gas, resulting in suffocation. Early efforts at this will require medical and engineering personnel on site to ensure the uninhibited flow of nitrogen gas and to monitor patient response. After this has been repeated several times without incident, prison staff may administer this method following protocols that have been clearly established during this period.
 
For the next round, I will begin by comparing my method to commonly (and uncommonly) used methods, including lethal injection, and establish what makes a poor method of capital punishment. These will be based on the following criteria:
 
1. The degree to which the method causes the condemned pain and suffering
2. The degree to which suffering is felt by those administering the punishment
3. How successful the method is at ending the life of the condemned
4. How expensive the method is
5. How difficult it is to apply the method consistently
 
Needless to say, I believe my analysis of these points will show that my method outstrips his in improving upon executions, though I will state outright that I believe both of our methods would be improvements.
 
Looking forward to a good debate, and I hope anyone reading this is as well!

Round 2
Published:
I would once again like to thank my opponent for debating this fascinating and important topic with me. Now onto my arguments/pre-rebuttals: 

Why Replace Lethal Injection?

Lethal injection is currently the main execution method of choice, despite its many shortcomings. The chemicals used for it are the primary concern. They have become scarce as companies have begun refusing to sell to prisons[1], which has made each execution cost nearly 15 times more in the period of one year. A Texas lethal injection costs around $1300 now, as opposed to $83[2].

Lethal injection has also has been proven to be rather inhumane. Autopsies of lethal injection victims in Ohio have been found to suffer pulmonary edema, as fluid rapidly and painfully filled the victims' lungs. Prisoner Robert Van hook was reportedly gasping for air during his execution[3]. Not only is this method painful, but it is the least effective out of any available method. It has a staggering 7% failure rate, which is worse than hanging[4]!

Finally, lethal injection is rather difficult to perform. It sometimes takes two hours before a suitable vein is found for execution[5]. We should not be poking and evaluating prisoners for hours before their execution. We need a simplistic and effective form of execution to remedy these issues. An obvious choice is firing squad.

1. Less Painful/Quick death

As I stated, lethal injection can be a rather painful way to die. This is not the case with firing squad. Adrenaline is a natural pain killer[6]. As a result, many people report not feeling any initial pain from gunshot wounds. This first-person example from a New Orleans reporter states just that. He said "That felt like someone just chunked a small pebble at me" and said it surprised him that it didn't hurt at all[7]. Pain comes later, which means that to make this form of execution humane, prisoners must die very quickly so that they do not suffer. Luckily an execution has been timed: murderer John W. Deering's heart stopped after 15.4 seconds[8]. Once the heart stops beating, unconsciousness will occur within 20 seconds[9]. So, this death will occur well under a minute. How about lethal injection and what my opponent propose? Lethal injection deaths occur within seven minutes barring complications[16]. Nitrogen gas asphyxiation, again, has never been utilized, so we don't have much evidence outside of conjecture as to the length of such an execution. However, gas executions in the past have taken ten to eighteen minutes[19].

2. Easily affordable

Firing Squad is one of the cheapest forms of execution. .30-30 Winchester bullets cost between $.70-$1.35 each[9]. This means each execution would cost at most $6.75[10]. Prisons already own guns, so no further startup cost should be necessary. But to be fair, let us presume that we must also purchase new firearms. The price range on Cheaper Than Dirt is $398.70-$1,062.32[17]. With the given ammo and bullet prices, this would cost between $1997-$5,318.35. My opponent, on the other hand, would need to build many new facilities to prevent guards and visitors from inhaling the toxic fumes[11]. Oklahoma's new gas chamber will cost $300,000 for one room[12]! Cost is clearly an issue for my opponent's case, as one room would cost more than 56x my worst case scenario.

3. Historically proven

My method is also historically proven to be effective. It has a 0% failure rate[4]. Gas has had a 5.4% failure rate, and my opponent must argue one of two things based off of this: either he accepts a higher failure rate or he must state that nitrogen gas is completely unrelated to other gassing executions. The latter brings up an interesting moral question for my opponent's case. There is not one piece of evidence to prove that nitrogen is good to use for execution because it has never been tried before[13]. Can we ethically use prisoners as guinea pigs as we kill them? Guns are designed to kill people, and have always done a great job of doing so. I suggest we don't experiment when lives are at stake, and that we go with a method that has never failed before.

4. Tools for execution are abundant

This is a simple argument: we have more guns that people in the US(40% of world guns are in this country)[20]. As stated before, drug companies had moral qualms about selling their drugs for executions, which has led to a shortage of the drugs. This won't happen with guns and ammo because their express purpose is to kill, and these companies therefore won't have moral qualms about selling to prisons that shall kill with them. Guns and ammo also have more purposes, such as stopping prison riots and fights, so they could argue that execution isn't the express purpose of the guns and ammo. However, nitrogen gas companies could have an issue with their product being re-purposed to execute criminals. Public pressure has proven to be rather crucial in starting such shortages for lethal injection[11]. 

5. Trained people will perform

It is quite easy to be trained with a gun. You need to fire a few hundred rounds at a range and know a few basics about gun safety. Lethal injection and my opponent's method are rather scientific in nature. They often include drugs and they would need someone with a medical degree, which requires years of education and is very expensive to obtain. It may be difficult for my opponent to find such an individual, as has been the case with prisons who use lethal injection. According to this Slate article, professional associations for doctors and nurses have banned their members from aiding in executions[14]. So my opponent, like most prisons, will have to rely on unqualified individuals to carry out the task. There isn't some overbearing professional shooter organization that will prevent gun-savy people from carrying out executions. In fact, normal prison guards can carry out this task. Correctional officers, like police officers, receive firearms training before they begin serving[18].

6. Prisoner choices are irrelevant

This may seem like an odd point, but it is crucial to consider during capital punishment reform. Drug abusers' veins are much harder to find[5] and they can have a resistance to some of the drugs. Fortunately, nobody can take a drug that makes them bullet-proof. My opponent may find difficulty in ensuring a quick, painless death because of the prisoners choices during the execution. Anesthesiologist, Dr. Joel B. Zivot says "Nothing is known about what might happen if the prisoner resists by thrashing or breaking the seal of his mask — or by refusing to breathe, which could lead to a painful accumulation of carbon dioxide in the lungs."[15] Refusing to breathe for a few more moments of life may cause immense pain for the inmate. However, in my method, they cannot thrash around, as they are bound to the chair. Their choices before prison and during the execution cannot impede them receiving a quick, humane death.


I hope that I have given sufficient evidence as to why we should utilize firing squad as our main form of execution. There are so many benefits to this method, and it has been historically proven to work, unlike that of my opponent's. I look forward to seeing the proposed benefits of nitrogen asphyxiation, and I once again wish my opponent the best of luck in making his arguments.

Sources: 


Published:
As I mentioned in my opening round, there are five criteria that I will use to suss out what is the “best” means of meting out capital punishment. Luckily, many of these overlap with my opponent’s criteria, so we will likely find common ground on the type of assessment, even if we disagree on how to use it. I will spend this round detailing why each of those methods is best met by nitrogen gas.
 
1.  Causing the condemned pain and suffering

We agree that suffering should be as limited as possible in order to ensure we do not impose cruel and unusual punishment or step outside the bounds of justice to pursue vengeance. So, which of these methods imposes the least amount of pain before the condemned is killed?
Lethal injection (LI) is tricky. Sodium thiopental induces unconsciousness, pancuronium bromide causes muscle paralysis and respiratory arrest, and potassium chloride stops the heart.[1] This may take many minutes, but if all the drugs are successful, the patient won’t be conscious of any pain or suffering. If any of these drugs fail, particularly the thiopental, they can die in a much more gruesome way (often due to an inability to breathe) and feel it the whole way.[2]

Nitrogen asphyxiation (NA) is more straightforward. According to the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation board, in humans, “breathing an oxygen deficient atmosphere can have serious and immediate effects, including unconsciousness after only one or two breaths. The exposed person has no warning and cannot sense that the oxygen level is too low."[3] Note that that is just one or two breaths of gas to induce full anesthetic effects. It’s physiologically inert, meaning that the sole effect of breathing it in is a reduction of total oxygen content in the body. Since they are still breathing out carbon dioxide, they don’t experience the pain or trauma normally associated with suffocation.

Firing squad (FS) is also mostly straightforward. If the condemned is shot in the heart, then the effect is very rapid, with electrical activity usually stopping in under 30 seconds.[4] That, of course, assumes good aim. A report out of the Salt Lake City Tribune provides an example of a condemned individual who took several minutes to die after being shot in the hip and abdomen, during which he no doubt suffered painfully.[5]

2. Causing collateral suffering

The condemned is not the only person in the room when the death penalty is administered. Other people who are hired for the purpose are brought into some form of contact with the condemned and administer the given method to end the life of the condemned. While they accept a certain degree of risk from their jobs, it should be taken as a given that their suffering should be as close to 0 as possible. Any degree of suffering on their part falls well outside of the bounds of justice.

Currently, executioners have higher rates of PTSD than Iraq war veterans (31% to 20%).[6] That toll is with a system that largely relies on LI.

Surmising the likely effect of a different execution method on psychology is, admittedly, difficult. This is largely due to a lack of studies comparing these, primarily because there are so few FS executions.[7] However, what makes these different is the degree to which one is separated from the outcome. Vietnam totally abandoned the FS in favor of LI for this reason: the distress their shooters experienced was simply overwhelming.[7] The process of watching someone bleed out because of a shot you fired is enough to elicit psychological trauma. Regardless of the justification, it can have long-standing emotional impacts.[8, 9] The psychological effects are not limited to the executioner. Executions are often viewed by the family of the victim, who would be subjected to watching a bloody and destructive death. Even the process of cleaning up these corpses is traumatic and results in both PTSD and Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder, often due to repeatedly cleaning up after bloody, brutal murders.[10, 11] Considering that these are suffered by people with little to no context on the cause of these deaths, there is no reason to believe that the outcome would differ for those cleaning up after an execution.

This problem is amplified by going beyond those directly involved. Polls conducted of people in the US found that 53% view the FS as cruel and unusual punishment, while only 18% would ascribe the same to LI.[12] That might not sound like a big problem, but a full-on switch to FS against public interest is bound to bring a legislative response, making it much more difficult for prisons to enforce the death penalty without reprisal. While the gas chamber does have a similar disapproval rating, that rating does not take NA into account, and considering its implementation and effects do not resemble other gas-based executions, that number is likely to change drastically if applied to NA alone.

3. Botch rates

We want to end a life consistently. So, what are the error rates for each method?

LI has about a 7% botch rate. FS has a 0% botch rate. NA hasn’t been tried yet, so there is no data for it.

However, let’s be clear about that number for FS. It represents just 34 of the almost 9,000 executions between 1890 and 2010. We can’t extrapolate much from such a small number, especially since most of them took place in a single state, and we’re talking about nationwide implementation.[7]

4. Expense

A method that puts the least financial strain on the system is more beneficial than another that does not. The more strain it places on the system, the more likely that different systems may implement it differently.

LI costs about $1,300 per inmate.[13] As might be expected, this prohibitive cost leads to the use of a lot of experimental drugs that treat the condemned like guinea pigs.

Given my lack of knowledge on firearm costs, I will defer to my opponent’s numbers on this.

As for NA, a facility only needs 2 things: a nitrogen gas tank and a clinical plastic face mask to deliver it through. The former can be refilled, latter can be sterilized and re-used (though, given the cost, this may not be necessary). Large tanks of nitrogen gas tend to cost between $60 and $80 through Airgas, with prices varying based on shipping.[14]A simple oxygen mask costs $7-10 from Walmart, nicer ones for about $50.[15] If a facility already has a chamber on hand, they could choose to use that instead.

5. Result of inconsistent application

Before I get into the specifics of this, I need to clarify what I mean by “inconsistent” here. In this case, it doesn’t just mean the effective death rate following application (as with #3). It addresses what results from failures of the method. How long will it take to determine that the given method has failed? Can the method be re-applied, and in the process, are you causing the condemned undue harm?

For injections, the answers to these questions are obvious: once the drugs are in their systems, they must either end the person’s life or be eliminated from their systems. If it’s a failure, they will likely suffer egregious physical harm in the process and may be a subject to yet another set of drugs in the future that could cause a similar outcome. A failure of any single one of the drugs injected could mean excruciating pain that is both undue and excessive.

How about the FS? In instances where the squad misses the heart, even though the condemned has terminal wounds, they would bleed out slowly. It would take time to verify their survivorship, and therefore any necessary follow-up shots would also be delayed. In the meantime, the condemned may be suffering from multiple gunshot wounds for minutes at a time.

Now, let’s look at nitrogen gas. Assuming a failure (i.e. not enough gas entering their lungs to end their lives), there are two possible outcomes. Either they receive enough nitrogen gas to render them unconscious but not dead, in which case the apparatus can be checked for holes and reapplied without harm or incident, or the condemned remains conscious because they receive some nitrogen gas, which may cause some of the symptoms of hypoxia (headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea and euphoria), but nothing else. The degree of undue harm that can be caused to the condemned by botching is minimal.[16]
 

Given all of this evidence, nitrogen gas is not just a better method than those commonly used today, but is the best available method for enforcing the death penalty. I look forward to both seeing my opponent's responses and rebutting his points on my case.


Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @Alec
I don't think that's how PTSD works. It's not that someone is "scared." It's that someone has recurring mental trauma that seeps into their daily lives. Some people may be more resistant to PTSD than others, but it can affect others regardless of perceived "empathy." In fact, comorbid diagnoses, previous childhood tragedies, lacking social support, and a slew of other factors can affect the likelihood that someone develops PTSD. Even GAD or other conditions related to anxiety could develop under routine methods of execution.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd
In the end, I'd be curious as to who this benefits. A person is still dead regardless of the crime they commit. Rubbing it in by chucking the killer into a bond-villain death pit seems redundant and hard to clean up. Also, as dustryder pointed out, this could violate the 8th amendment. (See cruel and unusual punishment clause.)
In the event that a person is posthumously proven innocent, it would be an awkward thing to discuss with the family.
"Hey, uh, remember that time I threw your husband/wife into the pit of deadly fish? It turns out we might have been to presumptuous. Don't worry. When we find the guy we'll throw him in the piranha tank to avenge you!"
Also, The Shining is a movie directed by Stanley Kubrick. Look it up.
BTW, wouldn't the person who has to overlook the execution to make sure it actually works would still suffer from psychological trauma with or without robots? Or are we just going to assume it worked?
#29
Added:
--> @Alec
I would think that setting a swarm of piranha on someone definitely counts as both unusual and cruel. Honestly if you're going down a route that inhumain you may as well go with one of the alleged medieval methods of execution which, while no less cruel and unusual are infinitely more interesting. Bronze bull or rat cage anyone? Also you wouldn't need to import the piranha which I suppose is a bonus
#28
Added:
--> @blamonkey
"If my job were to end people's lives on a daily basis, I'd imagine that scary movies wouldn't do much to alleviate the psychological torment of actually experiencing someone eaten by carnivorous fish."
Some people can handle it better then others. You might not be able to execute a mass murderer in this way, but some people lack the empathy to get PTSD. Since the executioners would be used to being scared of things, they would probably get used to it and would therefore be less likely to get PTSD. If necessary, a robot could be made to be able to deal with executions.
"If it worked so well, we would have been subjecting soldiers to "The Shining" years before active service to stave off PTSD."
What are the Shining years?
"There is a severe disconnect between contrived, virtual violence and real executions of living, breathing people."
You might be right. Since most murderers only murder 1 to 2 people, my piranha fish execution method would only be used for people like Dylan Roof, that have destroyed many lives and many families. Since few executioners would deal with such executions, most wouldn't get PTSD. Do you know what percentage of executioners get PTSD?
"This isn't even mentioning the constitutional challenges that would emerge."
The 8th amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment doesn't have to be overturned. There are many places that execute people for more trivial things, like being gay or committing adultery. Executing a mass murderer, even if that method is painful, isin't unusual and it isin't unjustifiably cruel.
#27
Added:
--> @blamonkey
I agree with a lot of what you said. It has been quite definitively proven there is no causal link between playing violent video games and being violent.
I think that being more independent is good. I'm not sure people have become more independent with all of this growing government and entitled attitudes.
There must be absolute certainty when calling for the death penalty and the crime must be rather egregious.
Thanks for the good wishes! I need revenge on whiteflame. He beat me last time. :)
Instigator
#26
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
In general, violent media can desensitize. However, people generally can differentiate between what is real and what isn't. Those that can't are already suffering from immense psychological issues. The bulk of studies on the subject seem to indicate that perhaps violent people play more disturbing video games, but there is still a plethora of perfectly healthy people who enjoy violent content. There is correlation, but causal links between violence and video games are not well established. There is a similar argument often made which implicates porn as a primary cause of sex crimes, which is not convincing to me either.
I think man has distanced themselves from their fellow man. This could be a legitimate good as people become more independent. It could also mean we are losing the ability to empathize with others. In the context of the death penalty though, I have a few concerns with administering such a final penalty at all. Systemic problems related to finding competent indigent legal counsel and implicit racial bias in jury selection has tarnished the criminal justice system with erroneous, fatal verdicts. Even with the amount of experts, DNA testing, and resources dedicated to finding the truth, many still slip through the proverbial cracks and into an electric chair if you catch my drift. But I'm ranting. Good luck! Whiteflame is tough.
#25
Added:
--> @omar2345
If we are going to mention mental suffering, let me ask you this: what if the family of the victim wants the death penalty? What if it would put their mind at ease? Would you support it then? In that circumstance, it would help mitigate the wrong doing as well as offer a punishment commensurate with their crime.
Eh, I would say that intelligence helps with comprehension. You brought up gardening as a form of intelligence. I would say that is more of menial labor that anyone can do if taught.
I don't know what statistics you are referring to, but I'll take your word for it that rehabilitation can help stop a cycle of crime. I feel that while it won't solve the problem, but it would definitely help. I have seen statistics that once weed was legalized in Colorado, more people smoked weed. That is why I believe that punishment is important. It helps prevent some crime.
Instigator
#24
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
>>Mental suffering was referring to the victim's family suffering as you stated. The basis for you saying punishing one person wouldn't be justice for a murderer.
Well yeah given it would be equal on both side. The murderer most likely took more.
>>Intelligence and reading comprehension are related.
Can be related. Not are.
>>Mental suffering cannot be quantified. How do you prove that one person suffered from the loss of a relative more than another or at all? Kinda tough.
I say if people are traumatized and are seeking help from a therapist. That is enough for me. Traumatized can be seen with them crying and a therapist can give evidence of their mentality. Yeah sure we don't understand the mind that much but with what we do understand it is enough to say X was mentally impacted by an event or not.
>>Are you saying that if an activity was made legal that more people wouldn't do it? Not one? Because that is what a deterrent is.
No. I am saying if we focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation it doesn't actually reduce crime if I am correct on the data so it is best to put little effort in determining a just punishment instead of rehabilitation which can stop a cycle of crime which can be passed onto future generations.
#23
Added:
--> @blamonkey
Yeah, I think that leaving animals to eat someone is quite a bit gruesome... also scary movies probably wouldn't work. I know that video game violence can desensitize us. I think that applies more to hearing about it in the news, not actually killing someone, yourself.
Instigator
#22
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
I won't add much to the argument since you are debating it. I was actually refer bring Alec's plan of using carnivorous fish to execute people and using scary movies to desensitize executioners. Good point though.
#21
Added:
--> @blamonkey
The conscience of the executioners is a big concern. That is why my method puts a blank in one of the guns. You never know if you contributed to the killing.
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @omar2345
Mental suffering was referring to the victim's family suffering as you stated. The basis for you saying punishing one person wouldn't be justice for a murderer.
Intelligence and reading comprehension are related.
Mental suffering cannot be quantified. How do you prove that one person suffered from the loss of a relative more than another or at all? Kinda tough.
Are you saying that if an activity was made legal that more people wouldn't do it? Not one? Because that is what a deterrent is.
Instigator
#19
Added:
--> @Alec
If my job were to end people's lives on a daily basis, I'd imagine that scary movies wouldn't do much to alleviate the psychological torment of actually experiencing someone eaten by carnivorous fish. If it worked so well, we would have been subjecting soldiers to "The Shining" years before active service to stave off PTSD. There is a severe disconnect between contrived, virtual violence and real executions of living, breathing people. People who, for instance, may be posthumously be granted innocence after an executioner got acquainted with his/her pulpy corpse.
Also, it's not just one "scary thing" happening that can influence someone's mental state. Doing these executions on a regular basis could cause PTSD or related psychosis. This isn't even mentioning the constitutional challenges that would emerge. Death row inmates havebless rights than other people, but they still have rights.
#18
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
>>" I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question."
I went through what I thought was what happened. That wasn't being rude. That was me laying out what I thought happened.
>>but you questioned his intelligence/if he even read it(which you quite obviously know he did).
Intelligence is not tied to reading. A gardener can be the best gardener without reading a single book. I simply said he might have not read it given how he didn't really answer what I said instead gave a question.
>>I don't know how you would bring mental suffering into the question when you mention the victim's family.
When and what you do mean by this? Can you state this in a different way or bring in a quote to so I might understand what you are saying.
>>That isn't something that can really be quantified.
Yes it does.
>>Eye for an eye isn't always precise. They used to cut off a thief's hand.
Didn't think anything was in the first place.
>>Punishment is a deterrent, which is good.
I don't think this is true. If that is the case we would see for every punished criminal an impact on future crime. The stats I don't think layout punishment being an effective way at deterring crimes. I guess if you had crime stats and showed how a lot of people were in jail then it has been steadily I'll believe it but I doubt that is the case.
>>I see no use in keeping people in prison on the taxpayer dime if they could be productive.
Well yes.
#17
Added:
--> @omar2345
"I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question."
That suffices for the rude to Alec and word choice question. You could have just said no, but you questioned his intelligence/if he even read it(which you quite obviously know he did).
I don't know how you would bring mental suffering into the question when you mention the victim's family. That isn't something that can really be quantified.
Eye for an eye isn't always precise. They used to cut off a thief's hand.
Punishment and rehabilitation are important. Punishment is a deterrent, which is good. No one wants to go to prison. Rehabilitation is also good if it works. I see no use in keeping people in prison on the taxpayer dime if they could be productive.
Instigator
#16
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
>>Word choice is a big giveaway.
What word specifically?
>> Don't be rude to Alec
Quote me being rude.
>>Your comment #8 is saying you don't believe the death penalty is a punishment that is appropriate for murderers. You say more lives were affected by the murderer.
Yes and I don't think it will ever be given that only 1 life will be impacted by the murderer whereas the person dead would have more than likely 1 more person that cared about them.
>>An eye for an eye, correct?
Well yes but it is definitely more complex than that.
What if it was manslaughter?
The only way to meet a just punishment if we value an equal answer is if that person was also manslaughtered.
This value is me borrowing from Alec's. I don't personally take the side that we should value punishment over rehabilitation. I take the opposite which is why I don't really care about punishment but with what Alec said I found it didn't really make sense.
#15
No votes yet