How do go about asking neutral questions about capital punishment?
Ultimately, on issues such as these, there are no "neutral perspectives." - When it comes to issues that invoke issues that incorporate elements of morality in their ambit, subjectivity usually comes in to play. On the other hand (and if you do not want to raise the said point), "taking a position" does not necessarily mean one is foregoing neutrality. - A neutral argument would be one that, upon consideration of the facts, draws a conclusion based on the available evidence, and is not emotive. I would suggest using Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.com) to find information on this issue (assuming, of course, you have not done so already). Here are some links I have found (they are scholarly in nature) http://www2.law.columbia.edu/fagan/cours... http://www.econ.jku.at/members/Buchegger... http://time.dufe.edu.cn/jingjiwencong/wa... http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cp/p04a/p0433.pdf http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Murders_of_Passion,_Ex_Delays,_and_the_Dete_of_Capital_Punish.pdf http://rci.rutgers.edu/~tripmcc/phil/greenberg-vandenhaag-harvardlawreview.pdf
Rhetorical questions against the death penalty?
All human institutions get it wrong some of the time. The death penalty is no exception and its worst mistakes are irreversible. There are non lethal ways to remove the worst criminals from society. Why should we continue to use the death penalty? (Some people think the death penalty saves taxpayer money. But, Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The process is much more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.)
How is capital punishment justified?
The pro/anti capital punishment debate is so detailed that any evidence presented can be used in either argument. Any evidence presented still goes through the moral processors and will be judged as good, bad, or irrelevant accordingly. The debate is not about evidence, it's about moral justification. The pro side tries to morally justify CP..."It costs $XXX to put someone down rather than X times that amount for imprisonment." The anti side tries to morally justify CP..."It costs $XXX to put someone down rather than X times that amount for imprisonment." The arguments are the same, except that one side finds moral acceptance at different decimal points. That aside you have one large thing to throw in the debate...Hammurabi's Code. Eye for an eye, and it worked for so long, we should not mess with it. If I were debating the pro side I would do this. Be prepared to mention and even use the train of thought I said above it's all just a moral debate to prove your point. Hold it on the back burner as a last resort. Use it to say, basically, no matter what the opponent tosses out, his evidence is immaterial, because it's a moral debate. Second, be prepared to use all evidence your opponent mentions to your benefit. Actually start by using the train of thought. Whatever the opponent has for evidence, repeat it, but then explain why it supports the opposite viewpoint. Third, have your "evidence" ready... 1. Hammurabi's Code - if it ain't broke don't fix it 2. Without severe punishment, the crime is lessened. Shall we lower all crimes punishments by one or two steps to maintain our system? 3. Repeat offenders. 4. A gory photo of a murder victim...a picture speaks a thousand words. 5. Wouldn't you rather have the punishment available and not use it, then to not have the punishment available when you do need it? (The Fire Extinguisher Principle - which I have just created and named - which exemplifies peoples' need for security even in times of peace. Think of the Patriot Act, think of Lefty's Fire Extinguisher Principle.) Also, remember these things to use as part of an argument or rebuttal... DNA has come a long way, this is 2011. Our system of appeals hasn't been removed. Everybody has a fair chance. Everybody has a mother. Everybody, good and bad. Deal with it. What if your mother was murdered?
What the ethical issue of capital punishment?
The ethical question here is "Should a government be able to kill one of its citizens regardless of whatever crime the citizen has committed." Many religions believe that murder is murder and that no one has the right to end the life of anyone else for any reason. While others believe that there are certain crimes for which the only appropriate punishment is death. That some people are unable to be rehabilitated and are not worth the monetary cost of keeping them alive and feed in prison for the rest of their lives.
I need help writeing a thesis statement on capital punishment in america?
You haven't said if this is supposed to be fact based. Many people, including me, have heard about the growing number of innocent people sentenced to death. It’s made us take another look at the death penalty, ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and look at alternatives. 128 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, isn't a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t. We have a good alternative, life without parole, on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty. The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. (upfront=before and during the initial trial) The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed? The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative. Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people. Sources: Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members. FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/tab... The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcostte... page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-surviv... for statements of victims’ families
Capital punishment arguments?
I'm not going to do your homework for you, but here are the arguments for and against: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_pe... I think the "against" arguments are less emotional and therefore more compelling: - Mistakes happen. In the last 35 years in the U.S., 133 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA and other new evidence (DNA is not available in most homicide cases). - It costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. - It is not a deterrent - violent crime rates are consistently HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions. - It is inconsistently and arbitrarily applied. - Jesus was against it (see Matthew 5:7 & 5:38-39, James 4:12, Romans 12:17-21, and John 8:7). - Life without parole (LWOP) is on the books in most states now, and it means what it says. People who get this sentence are taken off the streets. For good. The site below has tons of great info if you need to "complete some additional research to add to your knowledge." Good luck on your assignment!
Judith Jarvis Thomson's view on abortion and the death penalty?
I don't know who Judith Jarvis Thomson is or what her view is. However, I can tell you that there's no evidence that the death penalty deters people from murdering. Most people who commit murder are either caught in the moment and not thinking at all, or have rationalized to themselves that they won't get caught. States with the death penalty do not have lower murder or crime rates than those without it. Punishment is actually not effective in changing any kind of human behavior. Research shows that kids who are spanked misbehave MORE than those who aren't. Human often don't act rationally.
Was it fair that Hillary Clinton got the questions for the democratic debate beforehand?
No, it’s not fair, if that is what happened. Having said that, Clinton has been in politics and public life for a long time, so it’s likely her staff had anticipated the subject matter of just about any question that might be asked, and so she was going to be well prepared in any event.Senator Sanders has also been in politics and public life for a long time, and would also have been well prepared in any event.None of this excuses the sharing of questions with one candidate but not the other in advance of a debate; it’s a terrible thing to do, even if the bottom line effect of the unfairness was not very substantial.