Death Penalty and Torture Debate

Pro Death Penalty/Capital Punishment
I agree with death penalty. Death penalty prevents future murders, it is an ultimate warning against all crimes, the society requires death penalty for taking a life; “eye for an eye”, it provides closures for the victim’s families and friends, and it contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.

Argument
1. Death penalty prevents future murders.
- Even if the criminals are given a life sentence, if they’re actions are good in prison, they are able to leave the prison. Yes, even after they leave, they will be released on a license, which means that they are subject to certain conditions for the rest of their life. But the fact that they committed a crime does not change. They could make the same mistake and harm innocent people.
- http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/sentencing-myths.htm
2. Death penalty is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminals know that if they commit any intolerable crime, the justice system won’t stop at putting them to death.
- In a sense, opponents of capital punishment who argue that it is not a deterrent are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal rather than to the victim.
- The poet Hyman Barshay: o “The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down."
- http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5410739/k.C212/Capital_Punishment.htm
3. A society requires death penalty for the taking a life. When a criminal takes an innocent life, the balance of justice is unbalanced. To balance the justice, it is only by taking the murderer’s life and it will allow the society to show that committing a intolerable crime, they will be punished.
- Charles E. Rice, JSD, Professor Emeritus at Ave Maria School of Law at the University of Notre Dame, in a June 22, 1987 The New American article titled "Retribution is an Obligation": o "As an exercise in retribution, punishment serves to right the balance of justice that is disturbed by the crime, provided that the punishment is appropriate."
- http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001004
4. It provides closure for victims, who have suffered so much.
- There are many victims from a single murder. The criminal eventually gets caught and is brought under justice, but the victim no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the victim has people who love him such as their family and friends. By putting the murderer to death, the surviving victims grief towards the criminal will not end, but the execution could engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal.
- http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/vengeance.htm
5. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.
- Prisons across the world are having problems with overpopulation. Even if they are criminals, they still need all the essential things to live even if it is in a prison. Such as portion of a cell, food, water, clothing, hygiene, guards to watch them, and a lot more things. If people remove the death penalty as an option to punish the criminals, there will be a lot more criminals who are going to be crammed in to prisons. This only adds to the problem of overcrowded prisons.
- http://www.howardleague.org/overcrowding/

Counter Argument
1. The risk of executing the innocent.
- People claim lots of innocent people are wrongly executed, but there is no evidence that any innocent people have actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals that were added to the death penalty system in the 1970s.
- Even if such executions happen, they are very rare.
- Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk.
- If improvements are needed to prove that people are innocent with technology, such as DNA testing, then those should be instituted. But the need of development is not a reason to abolish death penalty.
2. Even the criminals have the right to live.
- Everyone has the right to live if they didn't commit any crime that will lead them to death penalty. Yes maybe we have no right to take the criminals life, but firstly, they had no right to take the victims life. If we spare the criminals life, then
3. Life sentence is a worse punishment then death penalty and is more of an effective deterrent.
- Life sentence does not last for the rest of the criminal’s life. If their actions are good in prison, they are able to get out of prisons and live out side with few limitations. Even after they served their several years of their life in prison, the fact that they committed an unthinkable crime does not change. Giving the criminals a life sentence instead of death penalty, then you are giving them another chance to choose the wrong path and harm the innocents.

Because of death penalty, it prevents future murders, it is an ultimate warning against all crimes, the society requires death penalty for taking a life; “eye for an eye”, it provides closures for the victim’s families and friends, and it contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. I believe that people who are against capital punishment is wrong because by giving the criminals a second chance and let them live, it is not fair for the innocent victim whom their life was taken because of that criminals wrong decision. Also, even if the criminal spends his time in prison, it doesn't change the fact that they were once a criminal and they could do the same thing again and hurt the innocents.

Pro Alternative Torture
Torture is a way to get information out of criminals who refuse to speak, we are able to give the criminals the experience of whatever pain they give to the victims, it is a way of protecting many innocent lives and preventing from any future attacks, being tortured is better than not living, and it is a way of comforting people.

Argument
1. It is a way to get information out of criminals who refuse to speak.
- It is an “advanced interrogation technique”.
- Information or confessions are easily retrieved from criminals through torture.
- Information is sometimes very important if lives are in stake or if it is for the good of the society or country.
- Able to get valuable information about many things such as battle tactics.
- http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=134
2. It gives the criminal a feeling of knowing what victims felt.
- Way of revenge
- They should be subjected to the pains that they have caused the others.
- Being executed is a much easier way for the criminals to get through than being tortured. But if the criminals did these horrible crimes for no reason, than they should know what kind of pain the victims went through.
- http://helid.digicollection.org/en/d/Jh0223e/10.html
3. It is a way of protecting innocent people or preventing from future attacks.
- By torturing, it provides the safety of many lives in the world.
- Torture is only way to get information quickly enough to possibly prevent from any future attacks.
- By getting information, they are able to get ready and save many innocent lives.
- http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=134
4. A way of punishing criminals.
- Being tortured is better than not being able to spend the rest of your life. Life sentence is not enough for criminals who did something terrible, they should be tortured and make them regret for what they did.
- http://www2.springfield.k12.il.us/schools/springfield/eliz/Torturepun.html
5. It is a way of comforting people.
- There are people and organizations that are willing to hurt anyone to get their own way. The nation needs to feel safe to live a happy, undisturbed life.
- http://helid.digicollection.org/en/d/Jh0223e/10.html

Counter Argument
1. Torture is wrong.
- Yes, torture may be wrong, but if by torturing someone and getting all the information needed to save innocent lives, then we must use torture to get everything we need to save lives.
2. The risk of torturing an innocent.
- I believe in torture if there is certain evidence that the person is not innocent and is or was involved in criminal activity that will endanger innocent lives.
3. Torture is cruel.
- Yes, torture may be cruel, but if by torturing someone and getting all the information needed to save innocent lives, then we must use torture to get everything we need to save lives and prevent form anything awful happening.

Torture is very important under certain circumstances. Torture is a way to get information out of criminals who refuse to speak, we are able to give the criminals the experience of whatever pain they give to the victims, it is a way of protecting many innocent lives and preventing from any future attacks, being tortured is better than not living, and it is a way of comforting people.