How would you argue against this pro-death penalty point?

P

PocketS

New member
How would you argue against this pro-death penalty point?

In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.
Yes, I do -_-' I'm having a debate tomorrow and I'm afraid my opponents are going to ask me this question.
 
I DO AGREE, HOWEVER I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE A BIGGER DETARANT...

PERMANENT ISOLATION 24/7/365 WITH 3 MEALS, AN INBUILT SHOWER, SHITTER, AND ALL THET SHIT WITH SHEETS AND CLOTHS. BUT NO TELEVISION, NO BOOKS NO PENS, NO RADIOS, NOTHING APART FROM WHAT THE BODY REQUIRES TO CONTINUE LIVING. NO POSIBILITY OF POROLE, NO PHONE CALLS, NO VISITORS, NO YARD TIME, NO CONTACT WITH ANYONE, NO CONTACT EVEN WITH THE GAURDS WHO FEED HIM, THAT WOULD BE WORSE THAN THE CHAIR. PLUS IT PLAYCATES THE ANTIDEATH PEOPLE AND FAIRLY HUMANE
 
i would not

but if i had to i would say something gay like "who are you to take a life"
 
You can always point out the most horrific case as an example for any point of view. But, there are also countless stories of the wrongly accused being sentenced to death. How horrible must it be for an innocent man to sit in a cell, last appeal denied, counting the minutes before he will be walked down the hall to his death. A death that will follow the reading of a death warrant accusing him one more time of a crime he did not, would not commit. It's the last thing he'll hear.
 
Back
Top