THW allow prisoners sentenced to life chose death instead PRO: Definitions: “prisoners sentenced to life” as Humans who are accused and convicted of a • serious crime (murder) and be prosecuted by law which states that they should be isolated in prison for the rest of his/her life. The judge is reluctant to give death penalty and so they gave out a life sentence instead. “ chose death instead” as giving the convict a certain amount of rights to chose • a shortcut for freedom of pain and suffering from jail. Clarifications: Applies only to prisoners who have a high probability of not being able to • adapt to prison life and die on short term. Applies only to prisoners who are mentally stable. ( One way to check is to • have a doctor under a government agency who have no link whatsoever to the prisoner diagnose him or check him up for any mental illnesses)- By doing this, we could be certain that the prisoner is making the right decision in the correct state of mind. Prisoner will be given a grace period of a year or more to be able to adapt • to prison life and then be inquired whether to chose death instead. Prisoners must NOT be forced or pressured in any way to make their • decision. Substantive Points: 1. Bene Benefi fits ts to the the nat natio ion: n: By allowing these prisoners chose death instead, and if they DO chose it. It does benefit the nation in a few ways. Firstly, death sentences are cheaper, more efficient, and uses less resources. Fact is, prisoners getting sentenced to life normally have gets a higher standard of living than a decent percentage of the nation’s citizens, especially the poor. These prisoners are provided with free meals, shelter, health care, clothing and some places even have TVs, CD players and offer jobs with a decent payment. With this knowledge at hand, wouldn’t it be fair to say that this isn’t justified, especially when when know that most of the tax’s people pay the government are channeled into “supporting” these murderers? This would give impression to the common people that “we” the government are taking away YOUR money to take care of the convicts which killed a member of your society. Is that justified? Secondly, IF these prisoners do chose death instead. Then this would suppress the number of inmates in the prison. Most prisons in the USA have reported that their prison is too over-crowded, they have limited land/cells left to contain these prisoners, or even they couldn’t control and prevent fights from breaking out as there is limited man power to do so. Or, in some cases, limited guards are available to prevent any murders from inside the prison, by letting these prisoners be given a choice to die, chances are, murders in or outside prison would decrease. Thirdly, if these prisoners do chose death instead. The amounts of jail escapes would
decrease as there would many more man power and resources to prevent it, which would prevent any case of the convict murdering another victom.
2. Individual Own Rights and Welfare: On the topic, I have two main sub-points I’d like to address. First, on the concern of the prisoners “rights”. If you think that since a person commited a crime, all his rights are ripped off from him at the instant, you are definitely WRONG. There is a limit to how much, or what the government can take away from these people, who, may we remind you are still human beings. These people MUST be given the option to choose whether they want to die, as they are aware of how their life could end up hen sentenced to life in prison. The government itself DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to chose what we should go through. Secondly, the welfare of the prisoner. Conditions in prison: • A insensitive administration and neglected prisoner demands • Dehumanizing conditions -There are also gangs that beat up other regular inmates -Commonly there are violent brawls that start up, the prison wardens do not step into save the one being beaten up until they determine that the prisoner’ s life is being endangered. -Conditions are not very clean; therefore the inmates tend to take out their frustration on the guard, or vice versa -Statistics show that at least 50%of the released inmates are re-imprisoned after a short period of time as they are mentally affected by the by the brutal environment experienced in prison -Taking into account the hardships that they are going through human rights compels us to give them a way out therefore we can and will give them the choice of death (note that this choice must be made willingly not because of the person succumbing to pressure from other people.) 3.
Mentality of the people affected in this issue.
For this point, I am referring specifically to three main subject groups. The judge, the convicts family/relatives and the society. First of all, the judge. As we all know, very few judges do give out death penalty and prefer a life sentence. This is probably due to the effects on his/her mind when giving out an order that would actually “murder” the murderer. We have to take notes that judges are still human beings, and humans beings do have emotions. By carrying out that order, judges would feel a certain amount of guilt and might be haunted day and night continuously. By allowing these prisoners to chose their own fate. It sends out a message to the judge that “the prisoner “wants” to die, so help him” …..(elaboration) Nevertheless, if judges do give out death sentences instead of allowing prisoners to chose, its would ultimately give out the wrong message to the society and “ you killed us, so we kill you”. Yes, we want to make sure that there is accountability for the crime and effective deterrent in place, but think again. The sate is actually using a murder to punish someone who committed a murder. Does that make sense? Is that
what a state “leader” should do? State leaders should give the right example to the public society and expect that they should learn from it. Is killing really what the state wants the society to learn? That’s for you to answer. Let me remind you that My purpose here to to encourage the allowance that prisoners chose their own fate, either death or life sentence so that the state wouldn’t show any sign of message that killing is what people should do or that the law supports killing. Secondly, families and relatives. By giving these prisoners a choice to chose death instead, we are actually benefitting the convicts family or relatives. If they do chose death, it would mean that there will be a closure to the victims AND the convicts family and relatives. If prisoners chose death. This would hasten the recovery process of the victims family, as it would achieve some kind of closure, they wouldn’t feel haunted by the fact that the murderer is still alive. If the prisoner chooses death. Yes, its true that the convicts family and relatives would feel a loss and be grieved by it. But it would soon lower. They would soon get over the fact and continue with life. This is much better than letting them worry day and night of what might happen to the convict in prison. This would stress them and tense them up( not so good for a person’s health). Yes, although they might be able to visit them if they remain in jail for life, there is still an controlled amount of times you can do it, and there is a curfew in most prisons. Most visits to these convicts would normally end up in tears and heart-breaks, there again, not so good for one’s health. (elaborate) Lastly, the society. The Global and nation society. By giving the prisoners a choice to chose death instead of life imprisonment( because the judge is reluctant) we are actually moving forth from the “eye for an eye” revenge mentality in the society. Let me repeat that we are not encouraging death nor life imprisonment, we are rather giving prisoners the choice to chose, so the law is not in anyway biased towards on side. For us the civilizations to advance, we need to start moving away from punishments and start looking on other alternatives. The ‘eye for an eye” mentality would not solve anything. A revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an endless circle of violence. Why do you think the Israeli- Palestine conflict has been going on for more than 50 years? Why do you think gang violence in countries never seem to end? It is important to send a message to the society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will always make matters worst. By doing this, we are showing that our country is not always full of vengeance, to kill any “imperfect” member of the group. Take for example America. Its no secret that anit-americanism is rampant around the globe. One of the main reasons is because of its continued use of death penalty. They are seen as a violent, vengeful nation for such a policy. This is pretty much the same view that Europeans had of America when they continued the practice of slavery long after it had been banned in Europe. We are asking prisoners to chose if they want death instead of life sentence. We aint forcing them a death sentence.
