Dog breeding can be a sensitive issue, so let's be clear here: I'm not going out of my way to be controversial. I support animal rights, but not to the extent that I, say, don't enjoy a good steak every once in a while. There are practices I agree with—and many that I don't agree with—but the point of this article isn't to be political. On the contrary, this list aims to present certain facts about breeding dogs—particularly breeding dogs for show—which I happen to find unsettling. You might disagree with my point of view—and that's what the comments section is for, after all. The facts themselves, however, are objective. Here are ten of them:
10 It's a Slap In Evolution's Face 
The process of natural selection is the means by which organisms naturally evolve—as described, of course, by Charles Darwin. In a nutshell, every living thing has an associated set of genetic traits. Eye color, body shape, thickness of the tongue—all of these are determined by set of genes. According to the theory of natural selection, those traits most beneficial to a species are more likely to be passed on, by virtue of their carriers being more likely to survive. Thus, every species is constantly improving itself. That's Evolution 101—and it's the mechanism by which humans evolved the linguistic capacity to write things like "Evolution 101." So let's get back to selective breeding, otherwise known as artificial selection. It's the exact opposite of natural selection, and it completely disrupts the purpose of evolution. Nature, as a general rule of thumb, knows what's best for itself. If left alone in a healthy environment, a species of dog (or anything) would arrive at the best possible version of itself. But put a dog breeder in the middle of that process, screwing around with the formula, and you can end up with some pretty messed up side effects. Selective breeding isn't always a bad thing, to be fair, but the things it's done to certain dogs is downright disturbing (more about that shortly).
9 It Takes Away Business From Animal Shelters 
You know how at the end of every Price is Right episode, Bob Barker always said to get your pets spayed or neutered? Well, there's a reason for that: rampant overpopulation. Each year in the United States alone, three to four million dogs are put down in shelters because they have no one to adopt them. Spaying or neutering pets may sound cruel, but it helps to keep the number of them limited to the number of households that are actually willing to accommodate them. Dog breeders, of course, exist specifically to breed more dogs. As innocent as the concept sounds, the problem is that when the market for dogs is being filled by professional breeders, the shelters trying to rescue animals get pushed further to the margins. If purebred dogs weren't so readily available, then people looking for pets would have no choice but to adopt them from a shelter (which, it should be noted, would also be less crowded in the first place).
8 Show Dogs Can't Be Spayed Or Neutered 
The American Kennel Club (AKC), a pedigree registry in the United States, is also in charge of putting on the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show that you can see every year on TV. Now, there's nothing wrong with being proud of your dog and wanting to show him or her off to the world—that's downright adorable. The problem is that when it comes to shows like this, being proud of your dog is not what it's all about. According to the AKC website itself: "Spayed or neutered dogs are not eligible to compete in conformation classes at a dog show, because the purpose of a dog show is to evaluate breeding stock." Now, putting aside how cold and clinical that description sounds, the issue is that this policy encourages overbreeding. "Keep making puppies until you find one that's perfect," is basically what the message is—and it adds to the rampant overpopulation discussed in the last entry.
7 Inbreeding Leads To Genetic Disorders 
The act of incest is actually illegal in many parts of the world, and punished severely (with up to a life sentence in prison, depending on where you are). This can include consensual sex not resulting in a pregnancy—despite pregnancy being the justification behind prohibiting incest in the first place. So incest is certainly taken rather seriously when it comes to human beings, because it can lead to things like Joffrey Baratheon. When it comes to dogs, however, inbreeding is actually encouraged. It's easy to mate two dogs with good DNA when they share most of it. And while this might give the offspring a desired trait (at least in appearance), it also increases the chances of giving the offspring an easily avoidable genetic defect. For example, deafness is common in Dalmatians, and heart disease is a big problem for Boxers. The problem of inbreeding is widespread, thanks to pedigree registries (like the AKC) that limit registration to small populations of "purebred" dogs. And they are indeed pure; a recent study showed that a population of twenty thousand Boxers had the genetic variance of a population of seventy.
6 Traits Are Selected for Appearance, Not Functionality 
As I mentioned, there's nothing inherently evil about the practice of selective breeding. It may be unnatural, by definition, but if done properly it could be a quick way to propagate the best and healthiest traits possible throughout the breed. The problem is that when it comes to purebred dogs, the list of desired traits is determined fairly arbitrarily. Take a look at the English Bulldog, for example. The "official standard" (as judged and determined by Kennel Clubs) is that they have "massive, short-faced heads" with "broad and square" skulls. This description produces the squashed-looking faces commonly (but not always) seen in bulldogs—and surprisingly enough, faces like that don't exactly lead to very healthy dogs. Such selective, appearance-oriented breeding has led to a plethora of problems for bulldogs—even the "perfect" ones—including cancer, respiratory diseases, blindness, and heart problems. They also have severe trouble giving birth, which seems like the kind of thing breeders would actively want to avoid. And that's just one type of dog. To take another example, the bulging eyes of pugs are prone to developing a slew of horrible diseases, mostly leading to blindness—and yet they remain the official standard.
5 Tail Docking and Ear Cropping 
Here's an extreme example of the prevalent focus on aesthetics in dog breeding. It seems that not all desirable traits can be passed on genetically—or at least not fast enough for some breeders. This is where surgeries like tail docking and ear cropping come in. The practice of cutting off dogs' tails was originally carried out to avoid paying taxes on them (because "dogs with tails" used to be a reasonable thing to impose taxes on). The practice has continued ever since, but with the new justification that it pre-emptively prevents tail injury later in life. This is quite similar to the procedure we use on human babies, which involves cutting off their feet at birth so that they don't stub their toes as adults. The terrible thing is that practices like tail docking and ear cropping are big parts of many breeds' official standards. The boxer, for example, should have a "high, docked" tail, and "an undocked tail should be severely penalized." That's from the official website, by the way. And the story only gets worse from there: most countries have banned or at least restricted the practice of tail docking, but in the United States it's not only common, but frequently performed without any kind of anesthesia. All of this is done in spite of the numerous studies showing how beneficial tails are to dogs (they help with balance and social cues, for example). If it's any consolation, the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes the practice. Or maybe that just makes things worse, because it gives untrained breeders an excuse to cut off the tails themselves.
4 Behavior is Pretty Much an Afterthought 
So let's get back to those dog shows, which is the ultimate destination for dogs bred to the "official standards" of Kennel Clubs. We've seen that the primary focus for these standards is arbitrary, cosmetic, and often unhealthy—but what about the actual behavior of the dogs themselves? Surely how they act is just as important as how they look, right? Well, it turns out that in dog shows, the behavior of the dogs being judged is barely taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters, really, is that the dog doesn't actively attack anybody, which would lead to a disqualification. Of course, this is up to the discretion of the judges, and thus dogs can be excused from the show simply for "showing their teeth" or "rolling their eyes." The only real, useful test of a dog's temperament is during a part of the show called "sparring," when two dogs are placed in front of each other and are supposed to react accordingly, i.e. not at all. And this is only done with Terrier breeds, by the way—so for the rest of them, behavior isn't all that important.
3 Seriously, Judges Don't Care About Behavior 
The last entry doesn't even get to the root of the problem. The "official standards" actually specify what a breed's temperament should be like—and this actually does make a difference when judging them. Bulldogs, for example, should be "equable and kind, resolute and courageous . . . pacific and dignified," and this accounts for precisely three percent of their total points in show (they can accrue twice as many points by having a perfect nose). So, once again, the dog's personality barely matters. The worst part is that those vague, idealistic personality traits are the only things the judges are supposed to care about. Boxers, too, are supposed to be dignified, as well as "playful, patient, and stoical with children." Pointers? Dignified and congenial. Dalmatians? Dignified. Bloodhounds? Take a guess. It's dignified. And that's where the real problem starts to emerge: bloodhounds are not designed to be dignified. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but bloodhounds are designed to hunt. Hunting a skill deemed unimportant by the official standard—nor does the Pointer need to be good at pointing, nor the fox terrier good at tracking down foxes. The historical attributes of these and every other breed are ignored in favor of arbitrary cosmetics and, apparently, the "dignity" of their bearing. The closest the AKC gets to recognizing dogs' original utility is by not penalizing "honorable wounds" from hunting dogs like dachshunds. Which seems okay, until you realize that they must get docked points for dishonorable wounds, whatever that means.
2 Health Is Essentially A Non-Issue 
Here's the deal: the AKC doesn't at all care about their dogs' health. Their one health requirement for registration is that a dog be up to date with its inoculations—but apart from that, the health of a given dog is irrelevant. In their own words: "AKC registration means a dog, its parents, and its ancestors are purebred. It does not indicate health or quality." To be sure, they're just a registry—but they're giving absolutely no incentive for a show breeder to take care of their dogs. In fact, the AKC almost seems actively against ensuring the quality of their breeders. They employ only nine field inspectors, who have on more than one occasion certified breeders who were jailed for animal cruelty just months later. These overtly lax health standards have led to some kennel clubs dissociating themselves from the AKC, which of course responded by prohibiting them from showing their dogs. There's nothing in the rules that prevents a healthy dog from competing, obviously, but to show a dog with the AKC is to support their lack of health standards. And this is awful, because there are countless professional breeders out there who care about that sort of thing, and who should be supported for doing their jobs properly. Worst of all, this isn't simple passivity. The Humane Society of the United States has cited more than eighty proposed bills that the AKC has publicly opposed, all of which were designed to increase the basic care standards for dog breeding. Basic in the sense of "regular feeding" and "veterinary " Because who needs food and medicine when you have pure blood?
1 Pure Breeding Is The Racism of The Animal Kingdom 
This is probably the most subjective entry on the list, which is why I saved it for last. All the health concerns, and the needless focus on aesthetics, are valid criticisms against breeding dogs for show—but this last one is essentially just opinion. It's a fairly common one, though, at least among animal lovers, and it goes like this: judging the worth of an animal by its blood is wrong. There's a reason this thinking is frowned upon when it comes to humans: it's awful. It's the reasoning that led to separate drinking fountains and bans on interracial marriages. It's akin to saying whites are better than blacks, or that brown hair and dark eyes are the inferior combination. It's like calling someone a Mudblood—you just don't do it unless you're a terrible person. And yet we have mutts and mongrels, and countless Kennel Clubs keeping track of which dogs are better than them. To be clear, I'm not trying to be dramatic or oversensitive; I know this isn't on the same level as human racism. I'm simply pointing out the elitist line of thought that exists in the world of professional dog breeding, especially when the biggest kennel club in the US cares solely about appearance. But is it wrong to instantly disqualify a show dog for having the wrong-colored nose (as with the bulldog) or for being half an inch taller than the average (as with the whippet)? I think so. I think that professional dog breeding—and showing, especially in the United States—could strive to be a little better. Because dogs are seriously awesome. Let's start treating them like the best friends they're supposed to be. MJ Alba has two dogs on his Twitter page @MattJAlba. Follow him and he'll tell you which one he owns legally. The post 10 Terrifying Facts About Professional Dog Breeding appeared first on Listverse. 
|
In Ancient Athens, theater was considered to be the most significant form of art. The stories that were performed in front of the public incorporated elements of poetry, dance, music and acting. Theater nowadays has become a force of creativity and inspiration in every corner of the planet. Most of us are familiar with Broadway in New York, Bolshoi Theater in Moscow, La Scala in Milan, and the Sydney Opera House—but what about the theaters of yesterday, and all the glory they once carried on their stages? The following list includes ten of the best-preserved and significant ancient theaters, mainly of Greek and Roman antiquity. Amazingly, you can still visit them today.
10 The Theater of Side 
The Roman ruins of Side—which are still in fairly good condition—include a temple, city gate, and a large theater which could seat about 15,000 people. Side is a popular resort town on the Mediterranean coast of southern Turkey. The city was founded by Greek settlers in the seventh century B.C., and was one of most important trade centers in the region. In 25 B.C., Side became part of the Roman province of Galatia, and prospered through its trade in olive oil and slaves. The theater existed as the main cultural spot in the city for many years, and attracted notable people from all over the Mediterranean region. The remains of the theater would later be used for gladiator fights—and even, during the explosion of Christianity, as a church.
9 The Roman Theater of Bosra 
Bosra is an ancient city located in modern-day Syria, just south of Damascus. It is one of the oldest cities on Earth, mentioned in the fourteenth century B.C. by Egyptian hieroglyphs. The city was conquered by the Romans in A.D. 106, and made the capital of Roman Arabia. The Theater of Bosra was built soon afterwards, seating up to 15,000 people. Because a fortress was built around the theater by the Ayyubid Dynasty, it is now one of the best preserved Roman theaters in the world. It has amazing acoustics, a three-storey-high proscenium, and thirty-five rows of seating.
Delphi, as many people know already, was one of the most important sites in Ancient Greek religion, home to the sanctuary and oracle of Apollo. The shrine to Apollo at Delphi was dedicated in the eighth century B.C., and the site played an important role in the Pythian Games. Important architectural pieces of Delphi today include the Temple of Apollo, the Treasury of the Athenians, the stadium, and—which is our concern—the theater. The ancient theater of Delphi was built on a hill, giving spectators a view of the entire sanctuary and the spectacular landscape surrounding it. It was originally built in the fourth century B.C., and could seat five thousand spectators. Although excavated and restored, the theater is in a poor condition; the cavea has subsided, the limestone blocks are cracking and flaking, and many of its architectural features remain scattered throughout the area.
7 The Roman Theater of Amman 
The most impressive monument of Jordan to this day is probably the theater, which was built during the reign of Antoninus Pius, and could hold six thousand people. The theater and odeon were on two sides of a colonnaded forum, of which only a small part remains today. These originally stood beside a stream and a major road, the Decumanus Maximus; the stream is now in an underground culvert and the road has long since been built over. A triple-arched gate that once stood to the north of the forum has also disappeared; it was the entrance to the processional stairway up to the citadel, and was mentioned by travelers as late as the 1900s. In 1948, the theater provided a temporary safe haven for thousands of Palestinian refugees fleeing their homes in what became Israel. Within two weeks, Amman's population nearly doubled.
6 The Greek Theater of Taormina 
Taormina was a Greek colony on the east coast of the island of Sicily. The theater there was built by the Greeks in the second century B.C. It commands a fantastic view of all the beautiful places in the vicinity: Etna, the Bay of Naxos, Castelmola, and the crystal-clear Mediterranean. The theater was renovated and extended by the Romans, and today it is one of the largest ancient theaters in Sicily, second only to the one in Syracuse. This wonderful monument is now the seat of Taormina Arte, the International Film, Theater, and Dance Festival.
Mérida has a quite a few notable buildings, but the theater—sponsored by Consul Marcus Agrippa—is undoubtedly the most significant in the city, and perhaps through the whole Iberian Peninsula. It's a good example of classic Roman theater design. It features three horizontal seating sections, which corresponded to the social class of the spectators. It is estimated that the capacity of the theater was about five and a half thousand spectators. In later centuries, the theater underwent several restorations which introduced new architectural elements and decorations. The structure was restored again in the 1970s, and has remained in its current state ever since. It still serves today as a place of performance, thanks to the celebration of a yearly festival of classical theater.
4 The Theater of Dionysus 
The Theater of Dionysus, which lies practically in the shadow of the Acropolis, is believed to be the most ancient theater in the world. During the Classical era, Athenian drama was performed here during the celebration of the Great Dionyssia, one of the major religious festivals of the city. Believed to have been built by descendants of the tyrant Peisistratos, it has seen many subsequent alterations and expansions, meaning that its architectural evolution remains a mystery. Today's remnants derive from the late Roman period of the theater, with only a few rows of benches dating from its Classical Greek period. An effort is currently underway to restore the ancient theater using fragments of the original Corinthian stone which have been scattered throughout the site.
3 The Roman Theater of Orange 
Originally built under Emperor Augustus in the first century A.D., the Roman theater of Orange was closed by official edict in 391 A.D., due to the Christian Church's opposition to what it regarded as uncivilized spectacles. The ancient theater was restored in the nineteenth century, and today it is home to the Chorégies d'Orange, a summer opera festival. The free audio guide provides visitors with interesting information about the shows and social life in the Provencal city during Roman times.
2 The Theater of Epidaurus 
The theater of Epidaurus is undoubtedly the most famous and best-preserved ancient theater in the world—many people would expect it to rank as number one in this list. It functioned as both the religious and political centre of Epidaurus, a city-state of rather minor importance which lived under the shadow of more powerful hubs like Corinth, Sparta, and Athens. The excavations, which began in 1880 and were completed along with restorations in the twentieth century, revealed the most perfect sample of ancient Greek theater. It has fifty-five rows of seats, which are divided into twelve tiers at the lower landing and twenty-two on the upper one, giving the theater a capacity of more than twenty thousand viewers. The legendary acoustics of the theater has long been the source of academic and amateur speculation; some theories suggest that prevailing winds carried sounds or masks amplified voices, while others say that the secret lies in the design of the seats. No theory has been entirely proven, even after decades of research.
1 The Odeon of Herodes Atticus 
If this list was based only on cultural and historical impact, then Epidaurus would get the number one spot without question—but since we're also taking into account its unique story and location, the Odeon of Herodes Atticus gets the nod instead. Carved into the southern slope of the Athenian Acropolis, the odeon was built in 161 A.D. by Herodes Atticus in memory of his wife, so it's foremost a memorial which also happened to function as a theater. It's very possible that Herodes was the richest Athenian at the time. Though he was Greek in blood, he was an honored and privileged Roman citizen. His vast wealth and education (he was a philosopher, sophist, and rhetorician) made him very popular, even among the royal Roman families. It is said that he was also the teacher of two Roman emperors: Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. He lived a distinctly Roman lifestyle, and married a young and very beautiful Roman woman named Rigillia, who unfortunately died while she was still quite young. The mourning of Herodes Atticus was so unbearable that he painted every wall and curtain of his house black and refused to leave it for a whole year. When he finally got over his depression, he made various dedications to the memory of his wife. One of them was a monument right under the Parthenon, which he first called "The Odeon of Rigilla" after his wife, but which he then rather selfishly renamed "The Odeon of Herodes Atticus." Theodoros II is a collector of experiences and a law graduate. He loves History, Sci-Fi culture, European politics, and exploring the worlds of hidden knowledge. His ideal trip in an alternative world would be to the lost city of Atlantis. His biggest passions include writing, photography, and music. You can view his photostream here. The post 10 Incredible Ancient Theaters That You Can Still Visit appeared first on Listverse. 
| The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one underlying question: have we established our justice systems out of a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution? The lister has set out to examine both sides of the debate over the ethics and legality of capital punishment, especially in the US, and chooses neither side in any of the following entries. They are not presented in any meaningful order.
5A Against: It Teaches the Condemned Nothing 
What is the purpose of punishment? We take our lead from one major source, our parents—and they no doubt took their lead from their own parents. When your young child emulates what he just saw in a Rambo movie, you give him a stern lecture about what is real and what is not, what is acceptable in real life and what is not. When your child tries some crazy acrobatic move off a piece of furniture and hurts himself, you might spank him to be sure that he remembers never to do it again. So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison. His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants. This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it. In general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her.
5B For: It is the Ultimate Warning 
Nevertheless, if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will be put to death should they murder with premeditation, very many of them are much less inclined to commit murder. Whether or not would-be criminals are wary of committing the worst crime is an important—and probably impossible—question to answer. Murder still happens very frequently. So some criminals disregard this warning for various reasons. But the fact does remain that many criminals who ride the fence on committing murder ultimately decide to spare the victim's life. In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place.
4A Against: It Does Not Dissuade 
If the foreknowledge of any punishment is meant to dissuade the criminal from committing the crime, why do people still murder others? The US had a 2012 murder rate of 4.8 victims per 100,000—meaning that nearly 15,000 people were victims of homicide that year. Capital punishment does not appear to be doing its job; it doesn't seem to be changing every criminal's mind about killing innocent people. If it does not dissuade, then it serves no purpose. The warning of life in prison without parole must equally dissuade criminals.
4B For: It Provides Closure for Victims 
There are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderer's execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal—a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on. A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer himself is put to death.
3A Against: It Is Hypocritical 
It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same act. By doing so, we're essentially championing the right to life by taking it from others. True—as a whole, we are not murderers, and understandably refuse to be placed in the same category as someone like Ted Bundy. But to many opponents of the death penalty, even Ted Bundy should have been given life without parole. The fact that he murdered at least thirty people—for the mere reason that he enjoyed doing it—has no bearing on the hypocrisy, the flagrant dishonesty, of the declaration that such a person deserves to be killed because he had no right to kill. If the goal of any punishment, as stated above, is to teach us those things we should not do, then the justice system should more adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake in it.
3B For: It Is All That Would-be Criminals Fear 
If you read about Bundy's life in prison, waiting nine years for his execution, you will see that the man exhausted every single legal point he and his lawyers could think of, all in an attempt to spare him execution. He "defended" himself in prison interviews by blaming pornography for causing his uncontrollable teenage libido, and for causing him to think of women as objects and not humans. He attempted to have his death sentence commuted to life without parole by explaining that it was all pornography's fault, and that had it never existed, he would have been a good person. When that didn't work, he pretended to come clean and tell police where the bodies of unfound victims were, so that their families could have closure. He never once admitted that he was a bad person, and just before his execution, he claimed that he hadn't done anything wrong. It was obvious that he feared being put to death. He did his best to avert it. This means that he did not fear life in prison—at least not as much as he feared capital punishment. He had many opportunities to kill himself in his cell, but he did not. He might have done it a month before his execution, when all hope for clemency was gone—but he was afraid of death. How many would-be murderers have turned away at the last second purely out of fear of the executioner's needle?
2A Against: It Is Always Cruel 
In the end, though, death is always at least a little painful. Perhaps the only truly peaceful way to go is while asleep—but no one has ever come back to say that this didn't hurt. If your heart stops while you sleep, it is certainly possible that your brain will recognize a problem and wake you up at the very moment when it is too late. So what we cannot help but let Nature do, we ought not to force on others for any reason. If we do so, it might be fair to say that we law-abiding people, who embody the justice system, are guilty of equal cruelty towards criminals who commit murder. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for one, dictates that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In the US, there are five legal methods of execution: lethal injection, electrocution, firing squad, hanging, and gassing. These are all intended to be as painless as possible, but they all run the risk of accidents. John Wayne Gacy, who was not afraid of death, was executed via lethal injection—the most efficient, risk-free method. Yet his death did not go as planned. The sodium thiopental entered his bloodstream successfully and put him to sleep. The pancuronium bromide was then administered successfully to paralyze his diaphragm. This would cause asphyxiation if the next chemical, potassium chloride, were not immediately administered to stop the heart. But the potassium chloride had congealed in its tube before Gacy was brought into the room. He was unconscious and unable to breathe for several minutes while the last drug's tube was changed. His death took eighteen minutes, instead of the usual seven. And whether or not he was in great pain is impossible to determine.
2B For: It Is Not Always Cruel 
It's true that cruelty should not be legally tolerated—and the five methods listed above are very efficient in killing the condemned before he or she is able to feel it. Granted, we are not able to ask the dead whether or not they felt their necks snap, or the chemicals burn inside them—but modern American executions very rarely go awry. It does happen, but the reported accidents since 1976 number about ten nationwide, out of 1,328. When the condemned is fastened into the electric chair, one of the conductors is strapped securely around the head with the bare metal flush against the shaved and wet scalp. This permits the electricity to be conducted directly into the brain, shutting it off more quickly than the brain can register pain. Hanging causes death by snapping the neck of the condemned around the second vertebrae—instantly shutting off the brain's ability to communicate with the rest of the body, and causing the heart to stop within seconds. The firing squad involves five men shooting the heart of the condemned with high-powered rifles. The heart is completely destroyed and unconsciousness follows within seconds. The gas chamber is now no longer forced on the condemned, because it frequently appeared to cause more pain than was expected or acceptable. The gas is usually hydrogen cyanide, which inhibits mitochondrial respiration in every cell of the entire body, theoretically shutting off the brain like a light switch. But it requires that the condemned breathe deeply.
1A Against: Prison Is Hell on Earth 
Consider a pedophile who kills an infant girl by raping her. There is an unwritten "code of honor" in prisons that virtually requires inmates to kill such offenders. Probably half of America's prisoners were in some way abused as children, and harbor a seething hatred for those who abuse children. The murdering pedophile is given the death penalty, but will probably spend ten years beforehand in prison. He will most likely be housed in solitary confinement for his own protection, but there are frequently holes in such protection, and the inmates may find their way to him. And if this happens, pedophiles are often gang-raped, castrated, beaten to death, stabbed, and sometimes even beheaded before guards—who may deliberately ignore the scene—can save them. Most prisoners consider each other to be in the same predicament, and treat each other quite well in general. But they are still in prison, and despair about their lack of freedom. What is life like for Zacarias Moussaoui, the member of the September 11 hijacking teams who got caught a month before the attack? A single juror saved him from death. He has, since 2006, been incarcerated for twenty-three hours per day in a tiny concrete cell, with one hour of daily exercise in an empty concrete swimming pool; he has no access to other inmates, and only rare contact with guards, who say nothing to him; he can see nothing of the outside world except a tiny sliver of sky—and his will be his life. Capital punishment is an unnecessary threat.
1B For: It Is the Best Answer to Murder 
The justice system basically attempts to mete out punishment that fits the crime. Severe crimes result in imprisonment. "Petty larceny" is not treated with the severity that is meted to "grand theft auto," and the latter, consequently, receives more time in prison. So if severe—but non-lethal—violence toward another is found deserving of life without parole, then why should premeditated homicide be given the very same punishment? This fact might induce a would-be criminal to go ahead and kill the victim he has already mugged and crippled. Why would it matter, after all? His sentence could not get any worse. If murder is the willful deprivation of a victim's right to life, then the justice system's willful deprivation of the criminal's right to the same is—even if overly severe—a punishment which fits the most severe crime that can be committed. Without capital punishment, it could be argued that the justice system makes no provision in response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the victim. FlameHorse is an absolute pacifist who loves animals, but eats burgers. He will never write a list about Ted Nugent. The post 5 Arguments For And Against The Death Penalty appeared first on Listverse. 
|
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz