5. For Decision not made lightly Certain of guilt - DNA testing Allowed one appeal Usually takes years (decade +) for execution to be followed out Safeguards Society First-Degree Murder (with aggravating factors) heinous, atrocious, cruel, or depraved (or involved torture) grave risk of death for one or more persons (excluding victim) for gain Rape of children under 14 (with previous convictions)
6. For: Case Study Theodore Frank – molested over 100 children in 20 years 1978: Amy Sue Seitz: 24 months old kidnapped, raped, tortured, mutilated while alive Continued to molest other children after convicted and released 1985: first verdict overturned 1987: second verdict issued September 5, 2001: Theodore Frank died while awaiting execution
7. Against Annual Costs: includes trial, hearings, and sentence California: current cost - $137 mil lifetime incarceration (would be) - $11.5 mil Maryland: average cost per execution – 3 million Cases perused 1978 to 1999 - $186 million Only 5 executions Texas: average death penalty cost - $2.3 million 40 years, maximum security – 1/3 of the cost
8. Against Botched Execution / Unfairly administered Hard to find a suitable vein Injected into vein, clogged needle -> pain Angel Diaz - December 13, 2006. Florida. 2 doses administered. 34 minutes until death. Needle had gone through vein Injected into soft tissue Curtis Osborne - June 4, 2008. Georgia: Vein finding: 35 min Time to death: 14 min
9. WOK Perception: Many different perceptions Convicts on death row Victim’s family Uninvolved people Reason: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning False dilemma (execute or not) Post hoc ergo propter hoc (death penalty dissuades crime, no correlation) Circular reasoning (immoral to decide life -> immoral to decide death penalty)
10. WOK cont. Emotion: Affects other WOK Empathy: victims, victim’s families, convicts Rationalization subject-specific intuition: intuition in various areas of knowledge Language: Emotionally-charged language Connotations, Euphemisms Death row, capital punishment, execution
11. MLA Citation Chronicle Staff Report. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco Chronicle. September 7, 2001. Web. October 18, 2010. Death Penalty Information Center. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006. Web. October 18, 2010. Lota, Louin. The Washington Post. The Washington Post. September 8, 2001. Web. October 18, 2010. Pro-Death Penalty.com. 2010. Web. October 18, 2010.
Editor's Notes
Introduce basic moral dilemma: What is life worth? and Who decides who lives and dies?
“Death results from anesthetic overdose and respiratory and cardiac arrest while the condemned person is unconscious.”
Aggravating factors: different factors for each states. (listed = only examples) In some states, the accused needs to have displayed at least 4 factors. In others they only need to have 1.
Many different perspectives, but the main dilemma is the WORTH OF LIFE.Victims: see the life (of the murdered/raped/abused) as already lostAgainst: see the convict’s lives as equal. Deductive: general laws -> specific people (It’s immoral to decide to lives and dies, therefore the death penalty is immoral / Person committed X crimes, therefore he should be sentenced to death. )Inductive: specific -> general (A few people continued to commit crimes after caught, therefore the death penalty is the only way to protect people. / Since a few inmates suffered with lethal injection, all inmates will suffer. Therefore, the Death Penalty is immoral) subject-specific intuition: various areas of knowlede
Rationalization: e.g. pro death penalty response of claims that innocent people are put to death - question how “innocent” the people were / (legally innocent, set free by courts and not DNA evidence) - claim that DNA evidence now keeps innocent people from being accused
![Methods ,[object Object]]()