The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.

This House supports the death penalty

Capital punishment is the sentence of death, or practice of execution, handed down as punishment for a criminal offence. It can only be used by a state, after a proper legal trial. The United Nations in 2008 adopted a resolution (62/149) calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, however fifty-eight countries, including the United States and China, still exercise the death penalty. As such, the topic remains highly controversial. Abolitionist groups and international organizations argue that it is cruel and inhumane, while proponents claim that it is an effective and necessary deterrent for the most heinous of crimes.

Curator:

Michael Meranze

Riva Gold

State-sanctioned killing is wrong.

Against

Point:

The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the government is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the process. Such acts violate the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights¹ and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment².
On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a life, which can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, a humane state cannot be one that exercises the death penalty.
¹ Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011. [1]
² European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011. [2]

Counterpoint:

A just state regularly abrogates people's rights when they intrude upon the rights of others. By sentencing people to prison, for instance, the state takes away rights to movement, association, and property rights from convicted criminals. The right to life should be no different. When you commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life. This does not devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal. Certain crimes are so heinous that the only proportionate sentence is execution.
As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple executioners which might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to become an executioner, and people who choose to take on that role do so with full awareness of the risks involved.

The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.

Against

Point:

Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far outweighs the costs of alternative punishments such as life in prison¹.
A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million as a result of the intensive jury selection, trials, and long appeals process that are required by capital cases². The cost of death row presents an additional financial burden associated with the death penalty.
Savings from abolishing the death penalty in Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000 for every case in which the death penalty is not sought¹.
In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life².
This money could instead be better spent on measures that are of much greater benefit to the criminal justice system- greater policing, education, and other crime-preventing measures that are far more cost-effective.
¹Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times. November 18, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2011 [3]
²"High Cost of Death Row." The New York Times. September 27, 2009. [4]

Counterpoint:

Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations.
Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs¹.
^{1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.}

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 991