Speaker Geeks! discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Debate Tournaments > Purvika and Aashi vs. Evan and Maddison

Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Leah, I'm HI-larious! (Head Mod) (new)

Leah | 3478 comments Mod

The death penalty is an effective and "good" punishment for convicted murderers.

Affirmative: Evan and Maddison
Negative: Purvika and Aashi


message 2: by Purvika (new)

Purvika (frostybells) | 131 comments I need some time to calm my brain :P , it is still reeling on one child policy :P

Will come to this after I get much needed sleep sigh...

message 3: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments The death penalty is a good punishment for 4 reasons:

A/ It saves taxpayers money
B/ Jails are actually better than some living situations meaning people are actually going easy on murderers
C/ There is more space for prisoners of lesser crimes
D/ It puts off the crime for others

message 4: by [deleted user] (new)

Ok just to start with, here are my points that why Death Penalty (i.e. Capital Punishment) isn't an effective and good punishment -

Firstly, death penalty is awarded to the person who have committed crimes of unspeakable nature. Took lives, raped, abused, tortured people etc and what they get is easy non-painful death?


They Killed people, we killed them.. What is the difference then? If someone cuts arms of someone, or kills someone and takes away a person from a family, We kill that person too.. But how does it helps other family?


message 5: by [deleted user] (last edited Aug 31, 2013 10:48AM) (new)

Also, what has been said about tax payers money -

Prisoners are many times used in small scale industries as labourers and workers. A person in prison doesn't sit idle. He has to work for it.

Yes a bit of portion of Tax payers money goes in it but not much. The major consumption of Tax payers money that goes into Not-fruitable area is DEFENCE and WEAPONS. Not prisoners.

And not all crimes are liable for Death Penalty. Very few of it is covered for Capital Punishment, so like that also we need to maintain prison and wardens for other category of prisoners, so adding or deleting a few of murderers awarded with capital punishment is not going to affect Tax payers money.

message 6: by Evan (new)

Evan (sampsom) | 578 comments Many convicted murderers are given life sentences. This see's many die in prison. What is the point in feeding them and wasting state money which all taxpayers provide. To give these people a life,we pay. They will die in prison anyway. Many will kill again in prison. So by using the death penalty the tax payers money is not wasted.

Further more. There are high numbers of convicted murderers who are released and go on to murder again.

message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

See, firstly we should examine that what exactly a punishment means?

What is the purpose of punishment? We take our lead from one major source, our parents—and they no doubt took their lead from their own parents. When a young child does something wrong, you give him a stern lecture about what is real and what is not, what is acceptable in real life and what is not. When your child tries some crazy acrobatic move off a piece of furniture and hurts himself, you might spank him to be sure that he remembers never to do it again. So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison. His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants. This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it. In general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her.

message 8: by [deleted user] (new)

If the goal of any punishment, as stated above, is to teach us those things we should not do, then the justice system should more adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake in it.

message 9: by Purvika (last edited Sep 01, 2013 12:17AM) (new)

Purvika (frostybells) | 131 comments There are variety of fixed punishments which is neccessary, however , it is also not wrong that, the death penalty deprived the living right of humans and sometimes the individuals who are innocent are sacrificed because of poor judgement. I know that particular crimes like rape is entitled to capital punishment but all the murderers are not rapist, sometimes the convicted are those who have done it because of something that changed their notion of life. Our society plays a major role is creating a murderer. I am in no way justifying the murder or I am not the devil's advocate but it is our responsibility to see what was the reason behind the murder before asking for capital punishment. In Taiwan, there are various cases where people with loads of bank balance use their power to get rid of their crimes while who are underprivileged are jailed or even sentenced to death. 

Sometimes due to lack of proper investigation the innocent is convicted because as the one who is actually responsible for crime is intelligent enough to plan his every move and the one who was at the wrong place at the wrong time is held accountable for the murder and when asked for evidence he has nothing to prove from his side or sometimes the evidence does not match up. For example the accused DNA is nowhere near the scene, the chain of evidence (a document that establishes the proof and integrity of evidence being collected, including search, seizure, who has control of it, the analysis at a lab, from the time case starts to time it over) has been broken or tainted (say the evidence at the crime scene was tampered with or contaminated by someone, or evidence has been lost). We have to remember that the judges are human too and they sometimes do mistakes too. Their judgements is always based on evidences and witnesses which can both be created and bought, so, who can be sure whether the convicted is actually a murderer or not. The media, the investigation department and the jury all depend on evidences and witness.

WHAT IF the convicted had nothing to prove his innocence,
WHAT IF the actual murderer framed someone else to save himself.

Now a days we see so many movies, TV series based on forensic departments, crime and criminal, they often show the unusual way in which the actual criminal cover up his crime but since it is movies and TV we often see the right person winning but does it happen in reality ? Is our legal department and investigation department dedicated enough to cross check the one who is convicted. Mostly, what happens is when a crime happens the media makes it front page news or breaking news that add additional pressure to our investigation department to solve the case so, the first person they find at fault is held and shown as convicted. Sometimes to save their pride even investigation department create evidences to show the media that they are capable enough to catch a criminal within days, but who can say for sure whom they held is actually a criminal or someone underprivileged. 

I will give example : A very famous Indian case : Aarushi-hemraj double murder case where her own parents were held accountable for the murder of their only child.
Source: http://www.tehelka.com/framed-the-aar...

Do check the link and read fully, it will show you the cruelty of justice system, cruelty of investigation department.

This case was made breaking news "Parents kill their only child brutally"
And public believes because media says so, police says so.
Every evidence is against them, witnesses are against them but they still say they did not kill her. It gives me goosebumps to think about that case. They are still fighting for justice. What if they are convicted, what if they are given capital punishment, will it be justified ?

Will you still say thank god my tax was saved ? 
Would you still say now there is space for lesser crimes ? 
Would you still say this will put of another parent to murder off their only child ?

message 10: by Evan (new)

Evan (sampsom) | 578 comments That is one incident YES, people are convicted wrongly. But this is because in most cases they are linked with the case or share 15 STR's with the killer giving them enough evidence to convict them.

However there are cases in the reverse of this. How would you feel if a convicted murderer got parole and started living on your street. You would never be able to trust him, if anything happens, someone goes missing your suspicion will immediately jump to him and more often than not this is the right attituded to have. Take Kenneth McDuff. Who murdered three teenagers. He went to prison for this. After ten years he was paroled. Three days after release he killed again. After being released he is suspected to have killed another 19 people. The majority teenage girls. Thankfully he was caught and got the punishment he needed.

Will you say then that not using the death penalty was a good decision? 19 innocent people were killed because he was not executed. That is a whole lot worse than two people being misjudged and executed.

message 11: by Evan (new)

Evan (sampsom) | 578 comments (P.S sorry this is late. My school had worship this morning so that wasted my first free and then we got locked out of our center for the first half of my second free. Then at lunch and break my friend was having a dilema)

message 12: by Purvika (new)

Purvika (frostybells) | 131 comments (( it is ok will submit our post after having dinner, enjoy your school :D ))

message 13: by [deleted user] (new)

Evan wrote: "That is one incident YES, people are convicted wrongly. But this is because in most cases they are linked with the case or share 15 STR's with the killer giving them enough evidence to convict them..."

You talking about a convicted murder who was given a life sentence instead of death penalty and he might go out again and kill people?

Well then, very very simple solution to this - LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT A CHANCE OF PAROLE.


message 14: by Purvika (new)

Purvika (frostybells) | 131 comments Kenneth McDuff: After studying the case of Kenneth Mcduff, I came to conclusion that after murdering three teenagers he was given death penalty. And due to lack of place in prison he was left of parole after 10 years. Don't you think he should have been kept in prison instead of leaving on parole. He was not some regular burglar or anything. They left him open keeping in knowledge that he is a serial killer? Isn't it a poor decision ? And it is also suspected that his mother bribed for the parole. So, still it doesn't justify the death penalty for all convicted murderers. Last time I gave example of those who are still fighting they might be proven innocent but what I am about to give, it will definitely question this decision of death penalty.

Teng Xingsh was a Chinese citizen who was executed for supposedly having raped, robbed and murdered Shi Xiaorongo, a woman who had disappeared. An old man found a dismembered body, and incompetent police forensics claimed to have matched the body to the photo of the missing Shi Xiaorong. The execution was carried out on 28 January 1989 by the Huaihua Intermediate People's court. In 1993, the previously missing woman returned to the village, saying she had been kidnapped to Shandong. The absolute innocence of the wrongfully executed Teng was not admitted until 2005.

Timothy Evans was tried and executed in 1950 for the murder of his baby daughter Geraldine. An official inquiry conducted 16 years later determined that it was Evans's fellow tenant, serial killer John Reginald Halliday Christie, who was responsible for the murder. Christie also admitted to the murder of Evans's wife, as well as five other women and his own wife. Christie may have murdered other women, judging by evidence found in his possession at the time of his arrest, but it was never pursued by the police. Evans was posthumously pardoned in 1966. The case had prompted the abolition of capital punishment in the UK in 1965.

Johnny Frank Garrett of Texas was executed February, 1992, for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In March, 2004, cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four months prior.[15] Immediately following the nun's murder, prosecutors and police were certain the two cases were committed by the same assailant.[16] In both cases, black curly head hairs were found on the victims, linked to Rueda. Previously unidentified fingerprints in the nun's room were matched to Rueda. The flawed case is explored in a 2008 documentary The Last Word.

There are many such cases that question the decision, and moreover there ARE those who does change when in prison. And giving death penalty robs off the option of second chances. Everyone is not a serial killer. Some murder happens in the state of anguish, and later realization hit them hard. If they are given death penalty then they will never get the chance to correct what they did wrong. They would be deprived the chance to change. What good it does to the society. Keep in mind that most murder happens in such conditions and they do not think of death penalty at that time but only about revenge. So, instead of giving death penalty they should be given life long imprisonment and if you say that why should we pay tax for these criminals then I just tell you a death penalty trial is much more costlier than any other crimes. And moreover if you say that the prison should have place for lesser crimes then I want to ask you according to you what is lesser crime. Few examples and you tell me which is lesser crime according to you ? 

Example no1. Two prisoners first A person in prison held for rape where as second prisoner who is convicted murderer who killed someone for the first time for revenge. Which is lesser a rapist or a murderer ? Who should get a second chance ? 

Example no2. Two persons, one who smuggled weapons and drugs ( keep in mind that smuggling criminals don't get death penalty, infact they sometimes don't even get life imprisonment. Another person who is a convicted murderer. Which according to you is lesser crime ? A person who provides a means to kill while knowing that someone IS going to kill using his weapons. Isn't he equally responsible in murder? If you say that if the murderer want to murder he can find many sources, then I must say if he isn't provided weapons to kill the victim may survive ? 

Now tell me what according to you is lesser crime. There is no such thing as lesser crime. A crime is a crime no matter what. Ever crime committed leaves the victim destroyed for life. Which is more horrible. When a murderer kill someone the person is dead. He cannot feel anything or do anything but in other so Called lesser crime the victim is left mentally broken for life. 

Child abuse, robery, dowry, eve teasing , rape, ragging. There are many more cases that leaves the victim in a condition where they disconnect themselves from the society and sometimes commit suicide. Is it lesser than a murder ? 

There was a case where a boy throws acid on girl because she rejected him. She survived but her face damaged for life. Her soul damaged for life. That guy will easily live on parole and at some point of time he will be free. Isn't it more gruesome than a murder ? Will that girl ever have a happy life? Will that girl ever live with confidence ? She will be shattered . This is our society who think only death is gruesome enough for capital punishment but actually it is not. I might sound cruel to you but death release you it is one time pain to physical body but these other lesser crimes it shatters the life physically and emotionally, and the criminals lead there life happily after paying fines and few years in prison.

message 15: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments Aashi has left

message 16: by Purvika (new)

Purvika (frostybells) | 131 comments I know

message 17: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments So is that default?

message 18: by Purvika (new)

Purvika (frostybells) | 131 comments Default ?

message 19: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments Does that mean we win by default?

message 20: by Purvika (last edited Sep 06, 2013 02:11AM) (new)

Purvika (frostybells) | 131 comments Why would you think so ? I am still capable enough to compete for the day since today is the last day. And you guys still have to post your reply. Lets leave it on mods to decide.

And just because my partner is no more around I don't think you get to win by default. Because except the very first comment that was on august 30(the start of debate day) you haven't contributed anything, it was as if ~~~>>me and ashi VS Evan . And now since she left for some personal reason instead of replying (last of the debate day) you ask do you get to win by default. I say let us leave it on judges.

message 21: by Maddison (new)

Maddison (Brainyboots) | 463 comments Oh ok I was just curious

back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.