![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
School is almost over for the semester. Monday I turned in a paper, and last night was final project debates. I love to talk, and I love to discuss, but I long ago learned that you don't discuss controversial issues unless you know that the person you're discussing the issues with are of the exact same opinion as you. *g* Cowardly, maybe. But the few times I dared get into a discussion with someone not of the same opinion as me, it got heated and ugly. And only half of those discussions actually involved fact (why on earth discuss a topic that you know nothing about? I don't get that).
So last night's debate was going to be interesting. I already knew that I'm extremely liberal in comparison to my classmates. You saw my post from earlier this week in which I realized that in actuality, I'm most likely quite moderate. Well, my classmates are extreme conservative. Extreme pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-prayer in schools...the list could go on.
The first debate was the abortion debate. The one guy in the class was on standby because it almost turned into a fist fight. Seriously, it got ugly. The pro-choice woman had an outstanding opener. Beautiful. Unfortunately she failed to back it up with any facts in the debate portion. Her arguments were all emotion (which was funny, considering she was in fact pro-life, she just got assigned that side to argue). The pro-lifers kept getting mad because she would interrupt their facts (which were solid and well researched) to rant about something that may or may not be pertinent.
Scarily enough, I think Lynn (my debate partner) and I would have been safer with the abortion debate.
The school prayer debate was fairly calm, because everyone was in agreement (and you really couldn't find much to argue on that one).
Now, we were warned going in that everyone was excited about this one and ready to argue. Of course they were all pro-death penalty, so they were ready to argue with me. Unfortunately, whereas with the abortion debate (and side note, the class/audience got to get involved with the debate portions to - they were supposed to interject topical questions, to play devil's advocate) the questions they asked were on topic, pertinent, and in keeping with the line of questioning, with the death penalty, it was all about emotion.
The one fact though that they all wanted to argue with, that I *still* do not understand how they can ignore, is the cost. This group has, over and over, claimed that it's cheaper to just execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. Completely setting aside the value of a human life (whether they're a murderer or not), cost analysis, for the state of NC, revealed that because of the trial process, it is actually more expensive over the long haul (the entire time, from the beginning of the trial until the person is dead, either by death penalty or just dying in prison which a lifer would) to put someone to death. The trial in a death penalty case is where the money is spent.
They flat out told me I was wrong. $2.16 million more in the state of NC is spent on death penalty cases, and they told me I was wrong. I tried explaining about political careers, about how prosecuting attornies can have their careers made or broken on a death penalty case, how there's pressure by the communities to get a conviction, so they spend more time in the courtroom, bringing in experts, dragging out the trial, pulling out all the stops in order to get that conviction.
Right over their heads. It still couldn't possibly cost more money.
(Then we got into the fact that Texas refuses to offer life without parole as an option to the death penalty, even though 72% of Texans would like that as an option, and it got ugly again, because death is *good*. *rolls eyes* The prosecuters just don't want to offer an alternative to life with parole and the death penalty that means that the person can't get out of jail. Life with parole means less death penalty sentences, because there's not chance of that person ever getting out into society.)
I just have to remember, if I ever have to get into a debate again, to choose a very, very safe topic. Survey the class, find the one thing they're kind of ambivalent on, and choose that one.
So last night's debate was going to be interesting. I already knew that I'm extremely liberal in comparison to my classmates. You saw my post from earlier this week in which I realized that in actuality, I'm most likely quite moderate. Well, my classmates are extreme conservative. Extreme pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-prayer in schools...the list could go on.
The first debate was the abortion debate. The one guy in the class was on standby because it almost turned into a fist fight. Seriously, it got ugly. The pro-choice woman had an outstanding opener. Beautiful. Unfortunately she failed to back it up with any facts in the debate portion. Her arguments were all emotion (which was funny, considering she was in fact pro-life, she just got assigned that side to argue). The pro-lifers kept getting mad because she would interrupt their facts (which were solid and well researched) to rant about something that may or may not be pertinent.
Scarily enough, I think Lynn (my debate partner) and I would have been safer with the abortion debate.
The school prayer debate was fairly calm, because everyone was in agreement (and you really couldn't find much to argue on that one).
Now, we were warned going in that everyone was excited about this one and ready to argue. Of course they were all pro-death penalty, so they were ready to argue with me. Unfortunately, whereas with the abortion debate (and side note, the class/audience got to get involved with the debate portions to - they were supposed to interject topical questions, to play devil's advocate) the questions they asked were on topic, pertinent, and in keeping with the line of questioning, with the death penalty, it was all about emotion.
The one fact though that they all wanted to argue with, that I *still* do not understand how they can ignore, is the cost. This group has, over and over, claimed that it's cheaper to just execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. Completely setting aside the value of a human life (whether they're a murderer or not), cost analysis, for the state of NC, revealed that because of the trial process, it is actually more expensive over the long haul (the entire time, from the beginning of the trial until the person is dead, either by death penalty or just dying in prison which a lifer would) to put someone to death. The trial in a death penalty case is where the money is spent.
They flat out told me I was wrong. $2.16 million more in the state of NC is spent on death penalty cases, and they told me I was wrong. I tried explaining about political careers, about how prosecuting attornies can have their careers made or broken on a death penalty case, how there's pressure by the communities to get a conviction, so they spend more time in the courtroom, bringing in experts, dragging out the trial, pulling out all the stops in order to get that conviction.
Right over their heads. It still couldn't possibly cost more money.
(Then we got into the fact that Texas refuses to offer life without parole as an option to the death penalty, even though 72% of Texans would like that as an option, and it got ugly again, because death is *good*. *rolls eyes* The prosecuters just don't want to offer an alternative to life with parole and the death penalty that means that the person can't get out of jail. Life with parole means less death penalty sentences, because there's not chance of that person ever getting out into society.)
I just have to remember, if I ever have to get into a debate again, to choose a very, very safe topic. Survey the class, find the one thing they're kind of ambivalent on, and choose that one.
Tags:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}