This document is protected by copyright. It may be used and reproduced only for non-profit educational use.

Sample Argument on Capital Punishment

In this argument that is all refutation, the attributions to the opponent are green underline, the opponent’s objections are red italic, the transition signal is in purple bold, and the writer’s answer to the objection is in blue small caps.

Protect Society, Not Sociopaths

Should we eliminate capital punishment? The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) thinks so, but it is wrong.

The ACLU naively believes that capital punishment is too extreme. The ACLU insists that killing murderers violates Constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the founding fathers were worried about atrocities like using ropes and horses to pull off arms and legs or slicing huge wounds and pouring hot molten lead into them. They were not against a death penalty. They hanged traitors, didn’t they? The ACLU points out that if later evidence clears an executed person, the state has no way to remedy the mistake. This is a valid point, and the state should use its powers of investigation, arrest, and prosecution with skill and responsibility. If they still make a mistake, the appeals process can remedy errors. If after a fair trial and a thorough appeals process, a few innocent people are mistakenly executed, this is the cost of protecting society. The state’s goal can only be justice, not perfection.

The ACLU claims that the death penalty ignores the possibility of rehabilitation; however, death row is filled with repeat offenders. Expecting a pedophile to give up molesting or murdering children is like expecting an NBA player to give up sex. Rehabilitation has not worked. Half the criminals released from prison are convicted again within three years. Do you believe the murderers will do any better? The ACLU argues that no study shows that capital punishment works as a deterrent to others. Maybe not, but gassing a rapist-murderer will deter that creep from ever raping and killing again. The ACLU believes that we need to study the minds of these monsters so we can learn how prevent others from developing. But this is nonsense. What good comes of hearing serial killer Ted Bundy’s claim that “Pornography made me do it”? If an intruder is in my house, I don’t want to know about his lousy childhood. I shoot to protect my family. So should the state execute the intruders in our society.

The ACLU argues that each execution costs taxpayers $2 million, about half the jail cost of a life sentence. True, but the solution is to streamline the expensive appeals process by eliminating technicalities. The ACLU says that life without a possibility of parole will protect society. Who can believe this promise when murderers have been released after eight years because prisons are overcrowded? Who can feel safe after seven prisoners convicted of violent crimes (kidnapping, robbery, sex assault, child abuse, and murder) in Texas achieved trusty status and then escaped from a maximum security prison in 2000? Consider also the possibility of a fire or a war or a revolution setting monsters like these free to rape and torture and kill again.

Finally, the ACLU objects because a disproportionate number of minorities and poor get the death sentence. Again, their complaint is valid, but their solution of eliminating the death penalty is invalid. If rich whites are convicted of murder and other heinous crimes, we must execute them, too.

Monsters who give in to their basest impulses simply have no right to live.

Last updated 02/06/2007