View Single Post
Old 07-23-2011, 09:34 PM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Yes, accurate information--for California. And only California. Which, as the article itself stated, is the epitome of a terrible, inefficient judicial system. California's costs are not representative of the use of the death penalty in other states or other countries. The article you linked makes no mention of any of the facets I mentioned.
It doesn't need to mention anything you cited because your information was outdated.

An unprovable statement. You cannot prove that this is even relevant with modern forensics. While it is certainly theoretically possible for someone innocent to executed, the likelihood of such a thing occurring cannot be measured. Past statistics for convicts later being exonerated are not relevant because of the vast advances in forensic techniques that have occurred.
That's beside the point. It's happened before and the chances of it happening again still exist. You can't escape that fact.

Irrelevant. The health care system in Canada is the health care system in Canada. You can not improve it by being middle-class. Furthermore, your argument in no way makes the death penalty less appealing. If jail is theoretically an improvement for some murderers, then it only makes sense to execute them.
The point I was making was that for those who are impoverished and can't afford health care, which is a large percentage of people, have a higher chance of committing a crime that sends them to prison. And it's there that they receive the health care that they could never afford before.

Also entirely irrelevant. Simply because someone people oppose a certain action in no way should influence whether that action should be taken or not.
Don't go calling my argument irrelevant when you were the one who brought it up in the first place o_o
The first one I have already responded to. The rest are a matter of opinion and in no way can be objectively proven. As for clogging the court system, that is the problem of the court system, not the death penalty.
You've proven nothing against the financial aspects. Your source if from 1997. It is outdated. Also, you can't explain that killing somebody isn't a cruel and/or unusual punishment and that it doesn't clog the court system. I mean if you want be super technical, then yeah sure, they're opinions, but those opinions are ones that are accepted by most people.

Abolishing the death penalty would honestly make no difference whatsoever. Europeans have far more pressing reasons for their image of America.
That doesn't mean that they wouldn't know about it. They have world news too.

Once again, a matter of opinion on whether these even matter or not.
Once again, opinions that most people agree with.

Once again, a fault of the court system, not the death penalty.
The court system is related to the legislative branch which determines whether to invoke the death penalty or not therefore it is partially their fault.


How is this relevant in any way whatsoever?
Because just because you kill the criminal doesn't mean the victim will come back to life. What's there not to get?

^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987
Reply With Quote