• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Death Penalty Murder?

Is the Death Penalty Murder?

  • Total voters
    70
I do not think I agree with the death penalty. It's not a hot button issue for me, but the whole "eye for an eye" idea irks me.
 
DashingAmerican said:
No, as long as it can be proven, without a doubt that the person is guilty of a heinous crime, it is a legitimate form of justice.
Click to expand...

Is killing an innocent murder? and shouldn't the government be held responsible for murder?
 
Paschendale said:
The False Confession | Psychology Today

An interesting read and relevant to this topic. Plenty of convicted criminals are convicted because they confessed to the crime, but false confessions are actually pretty common. Yet another piece of evidence leading us toward the inevitable conclusion, that our system executes innocent people. The killing of an innocent person is murder, so yes, sometimes the death penalty can be murder. And it's quite a leap of faith to think that we've never executed an innocent person.
Click to expand...

Thats not so much an issue as it was and police are tuned into false confessors...every case that its possible they hold something back that no one else knows just for that reason....dna made false confessions even easier to discredit
 
whysoserious said:
I do not think I agree with the death penalty. It's not a hot button issue for me, but the whole "eye for an eye" idea irks me.
Click to expand...

Dunno. Some of the folks at the Republican candidate debates cheered for Perry, who has had 254 deaths carried out. Of course he also claims to be a "PRO-LIFE" guy, too. Confusing, huh? Wonder about "war"? Is that murder? Some say it is.

I mean - taking a life is taking a life is taking a life. Or is it? Humans sure seem to have "selective ethics".
 
The government kills people including innocent people, and because it's the government, it's legal.


btw... that should sound absurd. It's murder if a person kills an innocent person. Kind of funny how we the entity with the most authority in society a free pass to kill us and without consequence.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Dunno. Some of the folks at the Republican candidate debates cheered for Perry, who has had 254 deaths carried out. Of course he also claims to be a "PRO-LIFE" guy, too. Confusing, huh? Wonder about "war"? Is that murder? Some say it is.

I mean - taking a life is taking a life is taking a life. Or is it? Humans sure seem to have "selective ethics".
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's the government... Yes, government sets it's own rules but it doesn't change reality. It's like all the murders in Syria right now. The government is ordering killings and torture of people, it doesn't make it right under international law. That's why we had Nuremberg trials, and why Gadaffi is an international criminal. None of them broke the laws of their own government. Everything they did was considered legal.

If our government opening started executing innocent people, it would be murder. The fact that the government sets it's own rules, doesn't change anything. Arguing that the government says it ok, or the government says anything is ok for that matter, isn't really an argument.
 
whysoserious said:
I do not think I agree with the death penalty. It's not a hot button issue for me, but the whole "eye for an eye" idea irks me.
Click to expand...

The idea of "an eye for an eye" doesn't irk me so much as the fact that innocent people get ****ed. If our criminal justice system worked I'd be all for it.
 
whysoserious said:
I do not think I agree with the death penalty. It's not a hot button issue for me, but the whole "eye for an eye" idea irks me.
Click to expand...

I agree, but many will argue its been the tradition among radical religious countries for centuries. Take Iran for example:

"Capital punishment is legal and applied in Iran.[1] Capital crimes are murder, rape, adultery, pedophilia, sodomy, drug trafficking, moharebeh (waging war on people or God) and mofsed-e-filarz (spreading corruption on earth).[2] Various sources claim that up to 312 people were executed in Iran in 2010, the commonly accepted number being around 180.[3] The overwhelming majority were drug traffickers, and virtually all executions are carried out for murder, aggravated rape, large scale drug trafficking, and armed robbery (cases usually resulting in rape/death)."
Capital punishment in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its legal, but is it right?
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
What I've always been in awe of are the people who want to call abortion murder, but get riled up when the DP is called murder, and, on the flip side, people who want to call the DP murder, but get all riled up when abortion is called murder.

The people who don't call either of those murder, or call both murder (I believe Mac considers both to be murder) are at least consistent in their application of the word.
Click to expand...
I dont think either is murder. I do think one is the execution of an individual convicted of murdering someone while the other is the slaughter of an unborn individual at the whim and convenience of another...but not murder. Murder involves the legal component.

On the other hand, I'm not an advocate for banning either practice.
 
SheWolf said:
Is killing an innocent murder? and shouldn't the government be held responsible for murder?
Click to expand...

If an innocent is murdered through the death penalty, it isn't on the governments hands, it's on the jury's hands.

Are we going to imprison 12 people for making a decision based on what they were showed?
 
Removable Mind said:
Dunno. Some of the folks at the Republican candidate debates cheered for Perry, who has had 254 deaths carried out. Of course he also claims to be a "PRO-LIFE" guy, too. Confusing, huh? Wonder about "war"? Is that murder? Some say it is.

I mean - taking a life is taking a life is taking a life. Or is it? Humans sure seem to have "selective ethics".
Click to expand...
Whats confusing is how easily people excuse justify and stand for the slaughter of an unborn child yet get their silkies twisted over the execution of a murderer. I mean...come on...how twisted do you have to be?

Yes...this IS a fun game...isnt it.
 
VanceMack said:
Whats confusing is how easily people excuse justify and stand for the slaughter of an unborn child yet get their silkies twisted over the execution of a murderer. I mean...come on...how twisted do you have to be?

Yes...this IS a fun game...isnt it.
Click to expand...

Considering the embryo is unable to sustain life on its own at that point, I'd say say you're just trying to murk the water with an entirely different issue. You should probably start an abortion poll if you want to talk about abortion.
 
whysoserious said:
Considering the embryo is unable to sustain life on its own at that point, I'd say say you're just trying to murk the water with an entirely different issue. You should probably start an abortion poll if you want to talk about abortion.
Click to expand...
tomato, tomahto...how many future scientists have you allowed to be slaughtered? Artists? And yet you care about a rapist/murderer?

Hey...i didnt bring up the abortion connection...that was brought up with a left leaning bent...take it up with the correct person.
 
X Factor said:
Recent high profile executions have resulted in a resurgence of debate about the death penalty. One thing I'm noticing is that, several times now, I have seen a post by someone who has told me in the past that it's wrong to call abortion murder (because abortion is legal) yet calling an execution murder. I do concede that abortion is not legally defined as murder, but then, wouldn't the same be true of the death penalty?

So, what do you think? Is carrying out the death penalty murder? Explain why or why not.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, no, the death penalty is NOT murder.

Rather, the death penalty is state sanctioned killing. Because it is sanctioned by the state it is not murder. As long as it fulfills legal requirements and is not inhumane.

However, that does not mean that the death penalty is moral. I feel that it is no longer required in a civilized society. Now some advocates say that some people are too dangerous or commit crimes so heinous that should not be allowed to live. And to them I would concede a compromise that allows the death penalty but only if it's an anonymous vote by the jury and a juror is not dismissed for being a critic of the death penalty.
 
By the definition of murder, it's not murder. It's hard to argue that, in the scheme of things, it's worth arguing against anyway.

The US had 46 executions in 2010, 52 in 2009, and 37 in 2008. Assuming around a 20 year average from murder to execution, that still leaves about 60,000 murderers for '88, '89, and '90 that didn't get the death penalty. I realize that's a pretty broad brush with statistics, but there's small chance those that make it to the execution didn't get plenty of help to prove their innocence. Crime has come down since the '80's and '90's. But, does anyone really think that putting 46 people to death in the US for crimes they were committed of after having full trial and multiple appeals compared to 2.5 million deaths annually in the US is really a huge concern? The normal population of the US has about 800 deaths per 100,000 a year. In prison, the death rate is about 250 deaths per 100,000 a year. If you're just considering adults, 250/year is about 20% lower than regular people. Meaning, you're 20% less likely to die in prison than you are out of prison. Now, apply that to the people we're discussing - typically violent men with past felonies. They probably only lasted the 20 or so years until they were executed because they were in prison. The death penalty is a major factor in plea-bargaining. It should not come off the table. If you'd like to save someone from being "murdered", I'd spend the effort on the 60,000 instead of the 130.
 
Anyone that commits murder....And is Guilty of Murder....They should be put to death. FAST.:lol:
 
DashingAmerican said:
If an innocent is murdered through the death penalty, it isn't on the governments hands, it's on the jury's hands.

Are we going to imprison 12 people for making a decision based on what they were showed?
Click to expand...

No, actually it's not all on the jury. That's why we all have the constitutional right to appeal our case. The government doesn't answer to the jury. If it did, Troy Davis wouldn't be dead right now, because the jury went back on their guilty verdict and disputed the evidence. The government makes the ultimate decision on whether or not somebody on death row walks or dies.
 
Murder is not only illegal, it is immoral. These two things make it distinct from and worse than killing. The death penalty in probably the vast majority of cases is killing, but not murder. But when the inmate facing the penalty is innocent, I consider it murder even though it may be legally sanctioned.
 
VanceMack said:
Whats confusing is how easily people excuse justify and stand for the slaughter of an unborn child yet get their silkies twisted over the execution of a murderer. I mean...come on...how twisted do you have to be?

Yes...this IS a fun game...isnt it.
Click to expand...

What if some rabid anti death penalty opponent survives a home invasion in which everybody in their family is killed but them? Would they experience a change in their believes about death penalty? Would you ever use a phrase like "slaughter of an unborn child" if you woke up in a difference life and in different circumstances? Abortion isn't all black and white... nor is the death penalty. All moral issues have grey areas. Abortion and death penalty really don't have much in common other than that.

And while you're pointing out irony and using hyperbole, let me throw this out there... I bet you're against the slaughter of unborn children, but for the slaughter of walking breathing people in handcuffs... am I right?
 
whysoserious said:
Considering the embryo is unable to sustain life on its own at that point, I'd say say you're just trying to murk the water with an entirely different issue. You should probably start an abortion poll if you want to talk about abortion.
Click to expand...

If abortion is murder, then so is removing the plug on a life support system...
 
Death penalty involves government action and government enforced death.

Abortion rights is the removal of government from medial and reproductive decisions. Abortion ends a life, but unlike with death penalty, death is not the motive or the main intention of abortion, similarly death is not the intention of war. If we could find a way to end pregnancies without ending life, that would be the ideal course to abort a pregnancy.
 
DashingAmerican said:
If an innocent is murdered through the death penalty, it isn't on the governments hands, it's on the jury's hands.

Are we going to imprison 12 people for making a decision based on what they were showed?
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is the state and/or federal government that has legalized executions for its jurisdiction. The jury had nothing to do with that. Besides, although in some, not all, jurisdictions the jury may be able to recommend a sentence, it is the judge who makes the actual decision.

If a government does not want capital punishment, it has only to remove execution as an option for its jurisdiction. Easy peasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom