I'm doing a research on capital punishment!?

It doesn't really matter which side you take. You may want to figure out how you feel about it. The stronger you feel about one side the easier it is to argue for it.

Moral relativism is a common defense of crimminals of all sorts, and made popular by the Nazis. One major problem with moral relativism is that it denies that harming others is wrong in an absolute sense. So it's completely impractical, whether it's true or not.

Let's say you choose to be for capital punishment. Your opponents might say, "well, according to moral relativism, the accused was acting in accordance with their culture when they raped and killed their neighbor's 3 year old daughter, and as such, should not be punished". You, being a sensible person, could say "seeing as this person lives in a society where such acts are not tolerated, and killing murderers will appease the masses, executing this person is not so much a matter of punishment, but of satisfying a cultural desire for retribution, which, according to THIS society, is absolutely moral.

See how that works? Moral relativism is circular and ultimately worthless. Now, say you are in favor of capital punishment. You can argue a couple of points.

1) Child molesters that kill children, mass murderers, sociopaths, generally are never successfully rehabilitated, and as such, have no place in society. Living in a given society requires that you obey certain rules. Not obeying some of those rules terminates your "agreement" with that society in terms of your rights. So, it should follow that once you cross that line, you can be executed.

2) The benefit of capital punishment is a) elimination of harmful members of society, b) satisfies a natural desire for retribution, and c) if done consistently and quickly, acts as a deterrent. Consider that Singapore has an extremely low crime rate, because the punishment for crimes there is nearly instantaneous, it is assured, without appeals, and usually very harsh and pretty cruel. There might be some grey area between Singapore and the US where punishment can serve as a deterrent.

3) Prisons are over crowded as it is, which is a terrible burden to tax payers. An improved, speedier execution of crimminals would cut millions of dollars that could go towards education, jobs, or any number of social programs.

4) The claim that lethal injection, hanging, the electric chair are cruel and unusual do not reflect on whether or not capital punishment should exist, only the way by which it should be carried out. There are plenty of ways to kill a person, many of which are painless. It's just a question of finding a relatively inexpensive way of introducing it to the execution process.

Well, I'm out of steam on this. Good luck.

I would write/speak on the positives. How do you research? Research both sides.

So, here are some starters:

Arguments against:

1. Innocent get executed

2. Costs more to execute than life in prison

3. Cruel and unusual

4. Not a deterrant

Answers for.

1. With DNA, forensics, and the modern burden of proof, this is highly unlikely.

2. It only costs more due to the abuse of a system which allows unlimited appeals. This was never guaranteed in the Constitution and should be ended. 1 trial...1 appeal, if you cannot prove your innocence by then, execution within 30 days.

3. Modern executions are like putting an animal to sleep. If there is anyone that this passive death punishes, it is the memory of their victims.

4. There is a great study out by the Heritage Foundation that shows it is IN FACT a deterrant, look it up. And if it were not a deterrant, it would guarantee that one inhuman slime will never kill again.

Good luck.

I'm for it... I'd rather have murderers killed than pay for them the rest of their life in prison.. or goodness forbid see them get out one day on parole

Fire up O'l Sparky and pull the switch. Next question.

push for it. killers deserve to be killed. a life for a life.