• 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
Of course its murder. Taking away a persons chance to repent and forcing them to face gods judgement as early as possible is murder. Even though being on death row probably causes lots to repent thats still besides the point. I think The Lord of heavens armies might be into justice by death. But not so sure about The Spirit. Wonder what The Father would think.
 
And in my mind unicorns leap rainbows while pooping gold.

What happens in our mind isn't reality. At best, you can say in your own incorrect, misinformed, opinion of what the law is that it is murder in your mind...and I guess that would be true, just for you. It wouldn't be true in reality though, because in reality, at least in the states doing it in this country, it IS legal.

For example, lets relate your thought process to something else. "Speeding" as its generally defined is illegally expeeding the speed limit on the road. Well, if you thought Speed Limits were illegal would you not be "speeding" if you were going 75 in a 55? Maybe in your OPINION you weren't, but in reality, under the law, and by definition...yes, you would still be speeding.

Just because you don't think state executions are legal doesn't mean they aren't, at this point in time, legal and therefore at worst its an immoral killing not murder

What about a proffesional driver? With a perfectly clear view of the way ahead. What if this said person then went 75mph with 100% certianty there was no risk to anyone. Would this person not be "speeding" in the way you use it? Wouldn't his version of speeding be above the average persons. And if the awnser is yes then wouldnt a smarter persons "speeding" factor be above a dumb persons?

Hrm... Wait, how does this relate to the death penalty topic... Aww **** it.
 
Last edited:
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.

No - because it's not defined as murder.

Murder is only the killing of another per a preset list of qualifications. . .it can change.
 
What about a proffesional driver? With a perfectly clear view of the way ahead. What if this said person then went 75mph with 100% certianty there was no risk to anyone. Would this person not be "speeding" in the way you use it? Wouldn't his version of speeding be above the average persons. And if the awnser is yes then wouldnt a smarter persons "speeding" factor be above a dumb persons?

Laws are intended to apply equally to everybody. Opinions about what speeding is have no bearing on what the legal limit for velocity is.

Hrm... Wait, how does this relate to the death penalty topic... Aww **** it.

It relates to what legal and illegal mean. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Laws are not defined by an individual's opinion, they are defined by legislation.

The death penalty might be immoral to someone (I am in this camp, myself), but that doesn't make it murder.

The key is that "murder" does not mean "the immoral killing of a human".
 
What about a proffesional driver? With a perfectly clear view of the way ahead. What if this said person then went 75mph with 100% certianty there was no risk to anyone. Would this person not be "speeding" in the way you use it?

Well, if he's on a public road, with a 55 mph, and went 75 mph, then he's illegally exceeding the speed limit and the fact he's a "professional" driver doesn't matter. He may THINK that it shouldn't be illegal because he's a professional and the roads clear and he could drive it perfectly fine and therefore its not speeding....but it'd still be speeding in reality.
 
It relates to what legal and illegal mean. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Laws are not defined by an individual's opinion, they are defined by legislation.

The death penalty might be immoral to someone (I am in this camp, myself), but that doesn't make it murder.

The key is that "murder" does not mean "the immoral killing of a human".
That statement was meant to be targeting my own rambling about speeding.
 
Do you think that there is a law against naming a fetus?

lol no, but just because you name something does not mean that that it has rites. The only thing that does is makes you more emotionally attached to the fetus. My dog has a name, does he have rites?
 
lol no, but just because you name something does not mean that that it has rites.

Ah, so when your previous argument of "you are not given a name until you are born, so why are you given your rites before you are born?" was shown to be nonsense, you move the goalposts accordingly.

Noted.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so when your previous argument of "you are not given a name until you are born, so why are you given your rites before you are born?" was shown to be nonsense, you move the goalposts accordingly.

Noted.

Both would indicate that naming something has nothing to do with whether it has rites or not.

Although, I will give you that it was a very fine line.
 
Something has rights when we agree as a society that it has rights and take steps to make solid what those rights are and then defend those rights when they're threatened.

We give people rights because we want to.

The reason for granting those rights differs.
 
Alright, the government has the rite to take away someones life, why can't it take away a fetuses? and lol at the straw man comment. :)
 
Alright, the government has the rite to take away someones life, why can't it take away a fetuses? and lol at the straw man comment. :)

The obvious argument would be that the fetus does not receive the benefits of due process beforehand, whereas the executed criminal does receive due process.
 
The obvious argument would be that the fetus does not receive the benefits of due process beforehand, whereas the executed criminal does receive due process.

I am arguing that the fetus doesn't have rites; therefore, it doesn't get due process.
 
Alright, the government has the rite to take away someones life, why can't it take away a fetuses? and lol at the straw man comment. :)

I wasn't going to point it out but it is important to note that it's 'right' - with a 'ght' and not a 'rite' - a 'rite' is a religious ritual or ceremony.

And yeah sure - why can't it just not grant a fetus rights until later? It can take away your rights if it wants to :shrug: By giving too much weight to the potential rights of a developing fetus you're ignoring the rights of the woman - and on and on we go.

You might as well be arguing about animal rights and why we shouldn't kill them for food if we don't let people torture them at will.
 
That statement was meant to be targeting my own rambling about speeding.

Aha! I have translated my obtuse point.


Well, if he's on a public road, with a 55 mph, and went 75 mph, then he's illegally exceeding the speed limit and the fact he's a "professional" driver doesn't matter. He may THINK that it shouldn't be illegal because he's a professional and the roads clear and he could drive it perfectly fine and therefore its not speeding....but it'd still be speeding in reality.
Then we agree. Murder is murder is murder is murder. Only on one end its sanctioned by the gov'ment and on the other its a person doing it for whatever reasons. You think legal murder is justified. So be it but to me its still murder. Its just killing wrapped up in another word.
 
Last edited:
Then we agree. Murder is murder is murder is murder.

Correct, murder is murder is murder.

Or stated another equal way

Illegal killing is illegal killing is illegal killing

Only on one end its sanctioned by the gov'ment and on the other its a person doing it for whatever reasons. You think legal murder is justified.

Murder, IE illegal killing, that is sanctioned by the government can be murder if that sanctioned activity is illegal. For a hypothetical, if an entity of the government hired someone to assassinate someone that'd be murder sanctioned by a government entity. However, since the death penalty is LEGAL that is not a form of murder.

Also, saying "legal murder" makes no sense because for murder to have occured it requires it to be an illegal killing. What you're saying would be "Legal illegal killing" which makes zero sense. It'd be like saying a cold fire, or a liquid chunk of meat, or a truthful politician (;)). Murder by its definition is illegal killing, so you can't have "legal" murder. Just legal killing
 
So, what do you think? Is carrying out the death penalty murder? Explain why or why not.
No, it would be like calling incarceration kidnapping.

But it seems like were talking about abortion now. When I talk to pro-choice people I try to find out where thier line in the sand is. For some people partial birth aborton is barbaric, but if we can kill the little bastard (most abortions are from single women) before it has a nervous system our hands are clean.
 
Correct, murder is murder is murder.

Or stated another equal way

Illegal killing is illegal killing is illegal killing



Murder, IE illegal killing, that is sanctioned by the government can be murder if that sanctioned activity is illegal. For a hypothetical, if an entity of the government hired someone to assassinate someone that'd be murder sanctioned by a government entity. However, since the death penalty is LEGAL that is not a form of murder.

Also, saying "legal murder" makes no sense because for murder to have occured it requires it to be an illegal killing. What you're saying would be "Legal illegal killing" which makes zero sense. It'd be like saying a cold fire, or a liquid chunk of meat, or a truthful politician (;)). Murder by its definition is illegal killing, so you can't have "legal" murder. Just legal killing

Legal murder = Death by government justice. Its almost the same word repacked to make people feel better about themselves.
 
Legal murder = Death by government justice. Its almost the same word repacked to make people feel better about themselves.

MURDER = Illegal Killing

You can't have legal illegal killing. The fact its legal means it isn't illegal.

What you're saying is akin to stating a "left right hand turn" or a "downward upwards jump" or a "backwards forward step".
 
Last edited:
MURDER = Illegal Killing

You can't have legal illegal killing. The fact its legal means it isn't illegal.

What you're saying is akin to stating a "left right hand turn" or a "downward upwards jump" or a "backwards forward step".

its astounding to me that people are trying to rewrite the definition of murder. Since murder is a legal term its subjectivity isnt that large.

The death penalty is certainly not murder by any stretch of the imagination, its impossible. :shrug:

It amazes me how hard some people will argue against FACTS. I mean we are all here to talk about our opinions but at times facts present themselves and theres always a hand full of people that just ram their heads against the facts over and over again with no logic at all and act like they could change them LMAO
 
Back
Top Bottom