Cst Debate on Capital Punishent
Dan Cartolin
CST 2o
Mr. Brennan
Capital Punishment
Today’s debate on Capital Punishment was well delivered by both sides, But the Pro side of the argument delivered better. The Pro side of the argument brought up many good arguments and delivered fairly well. The points that stuck out were those on deterrents, the twist on Aquinas, and the constitution. Its plain and simple that if the criminal is dead, he/she won’t be able to commit a crime again, and could possibly instill fear into other criminals to stop their ways. The twist on Aquinas’ statement about the infected body part really did make logical sense and seemed objective. The argument about the Due process of law clause got them the win; saying that the use of capital punishment after due process of the law is justifiable by the constitution was pretty much unarguable.
Although the opposition brought up good points in saying that capital punishment destroys the dignity of life, Jesus’ teaching is against “eye for an eye”, and murder rates in states were CP is legal and illegal, the lethal injection argument was their best. Their evidence about the lethal injection causing pain to the criminal while they die was solid. Also the point brought up about the system being flawed was weight behind it. With new technology coming up, past cases have been re-opened and have ruling overturned. Some people on death row plead for this and some do get it, but others don’t. This causes for possible innocent people getting murdered.
The debate came down to delivery, and the “pro” side of the debate delivered better. They appeared more calm and rebutted
CST 2o
Mr. Brennan
Capital Punishment
Today’s debate on Capital Punishment was well delivered by both sides, But the Pro side of the argument delivered better. The Pro side of the argument brought up many good arguments and delivered fairly well. The points that stuck out were those on deterrents, the twist on Aquinas, and the constitution. Its plain and simple that if the criminal is dead, he/she won’t be able to commit a crime again, and could possibly instill fear into other criminals to stop their ways. The twist on Aquinas’ statement about the infected body part really did make logical sense and seemed objective. The argument about the Due process of law clause got them the win; saying that the use of capital punishment after due process of the law is justifiable by the constitution was pretty much unarguable.
Although the opposition brought up good points in saying that capital punishment destroys the dignity of life, Jesus’ teaching is against “eye for an eye”, and murder rates in states were CP is legal and illegal, the lethal injection argument was their best. Their evidence about the lethal injection causing pain to the criminal while they die was solid. Also the point brought up about the system being flawed was weight behind it. With new technology coming up, past cases have been re-opened and have ruling overturned. Some people on death row plead for this and some do get it, but others don’t. This causes for possible innocent people getting murdered.
The debate came down to delivery, and the “pro” side of the debate delivered better. They appeared more calm and rebutted