• 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!

Death Penalty

Should there be a death penalty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 47.0%
  • No

    Votes: 45 38.5%
  • Under certain circumstances, please explain

    Votes: 17 14.5%

  • Total voters
    117
I believe it encourages violent crime by justifying the rationalization of murder.



I find the most pragmatic arguments to be:

1. Targetting captives is wrong.
2. The DP encourages violent crime (as above).

Please explain further.

This is generalizing and can be just as sour as your view on someone's justification.
 
Last edited:
If the State can kill a helpless and harmless (captive) person for good enough reasons, then so can I. By officially sanctioning the behavior, the State it is encouraging it.

It's not generalizing. It is a specific act that the State says is ok.
 
Last edited:
If the State can kill a helpless and harmless (captive) person for good enough reasons, then so can I. By officially sanctioning the behavior, the State it is encouraging it.

Yes, states have been seen abusing this power and it should be stifled at state levels.

Thanks for the clarification!
 
Last edited:
Yes, the death penalty should be used when particularly monstrous crimes are committed. The standards of proof to deliver a death sentence should be higher than in a normal criminal case though.
 
Yes, the death penalty should be used when particularly monstrous crimes are committed. The standards of proof to deliver a death sentence should be higher than in a normal criminal case though.

If you refer to the weak ass cases that states throw together you have me on your side.
 
Last edited:
It is easy to throw an emotional argument against the convicted and even easier to have the sentence served because it is a stranger making the ultimate decision, a stranger being put to death, a stranger carrying out the sentence. I feel if those that are for the death sentence were called in to meet and get to know the person, make the decision, and personally carry out the sentence that many may have a different outlook on the whole situation. It is easy to become detached from the situation when it is someone else paying the price.
 
It is easy to throw an emotional argument against the convicted and even easier to have the sentence served because it is a stranger making the ultimate decision, a stranger being put to death, a stranger carrying out the sentence. I feel if those that are for the death sentence were called in to meet and get to know the person, make the decision, and personally carry out the sentence that many may have a different outlook on the whole situation. It is easy to become detached from the situation when it is someone else paying the price.

I am sure you would have found plenty enough people that would have obliged this with McVeigh, and yes even after getting to know him it wouldn't have helped him out of sentence but convinced the person even more of why it just needed to be done. AND these people would not have even known the family of the victims much less had any type of relation to the victims.
 
Thank you for your answer. What legal work goes into it?

The endless appeals made by criminals who simply don't want to die. So they appeal over and over and over on every conceivable basis except being factually innocent and the taxpayer takes it up the backside. Eliminate all appeals except for the first mandatory one, unless they are able to present evidence that the criminal is factually innocent of the crime. The DP will be positively cheap at that point.
 
If the State can kill a helpless and harmless (captive) person for good enough reasons, then so can I. By officially sanctioning the behavior, the State it is encouraging it.

It's not generalizing. It is a specific act that the State says is ok.


LMAO sorry IMO people that would be encouraged by the death penalty are mentally deficient and are the people that need locked up. IMO theres no rational logical adults that go "hey look they just killed that guy for killing 15 people, i guess that makes it pk fopr me to kill who ever i want" lol
 
"States not only are having an increasingly difficult time getting the injectable drugs to carry out death sentences, they're also paying as much as 10 times more for the chemicals as in years past."

States: Death-penalty drug scramble, higher cost - BusinessWeek

New lethal injection drug drives up cost of execution | News - Home

That's only true because they've eliminated a lot of drugs that are just as effective, requiring a very specific cocktail. No lie, they stopped one drug because it was carcinogenic. Guys, it's the DEATH PENALTY! Getting cancer down the road is the least of their worries.
 
What I see to be the most important thing to do is generally balance out the good and bad consequences; will this "encouragement" of killing people (as a result of the death penalty) trump the amount of deaths avoided via levels of deterrence and recidivism that the death penalty implements?
 
I know! Damn that Bill of Rights!

This is why I say that it should be implemented only on the most heinous of crimes and should be exclusive prosecution at a federal level. That way when it is implemented, sorry but that guy can take his last crap, again like McVeigh.
 
What do you think of the death penalty.

Well, I for one think it's hilarious that when you talk to a lot of conservatives they will tell you they are pro-life and then, in the next sentence, tell you they are pro capital punishment. If we can't take a life in the beginning, what makes it better later on? Would I love to just execute child molestors, murderers, and rapists? Sure I would. But, as a pro-lifer, I can't hold a double standard. It's God's place to take life, no matter when it is taken.
 
What I see to be the most important thing to do is generally balance out the good and bad consequences; will this "encouragement" of killing people (as a result of the death penalty) trump the amount of deaths avoided via levels of deterrence and recidivism that the death penalty implements?

I suppose the imbecile sniffing the bike seats in a school yard should be spared his life, but then he comes rapes your little boy then what. Ya you can cure him alright, pack him away for a few years and let them go and re-repeatedly re-offend.
 
This is why I say that it should be implemented only on the most heinous of crimes and should be exclusive prosecution at a federal level. That way when it is implemented, sorry but that guy can take his last crap, again like McVeigh.

Justify it all you want with your own reasons, it still is a blatant violation of the 8th Amendment.
 
Justify it all you want with your own reasons, it still is a blatant violation of the 8th Amendment.

So what your saying is this we should house these type of dangerous people for another 40 years to see if he won't maybe kill another person, like a guard? No that is not protecting the innocent IMO, these type of dangerous people will continue to be a threat.

Look some dogs bite but are not put to sleep, great that is fine. There does come a time that no matter how much you loved Old Yeller you knew it was best it ended the way it did.
 
I know! Damn that Bill of Rights!

It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. They had their trial by a jury of their peers. In fact, they had two of them. They were found guilty twice. How many times, at taxpayer expense, do we have to do it over and over and over again before we stop?
 
It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. They had their trial by a jury of their peers. In fact, they had two of them. They were found guilty twice. How many times, at taxpayer expense, do we have to do it over and over and over again before we stop?

I think it is almost = to 8 trials :stars:, but if states don't get the first one right the rest will follow like a domino effect. The DP I view is implemented to loosely but it should not be abolished. There may be a time that these people apposed of it may decide they want to use it.
 
So what your saying is this we should house these type of dangerous people for another 40 years to see if he won't maybe kill another person, like a guard? No that is not protecting the innocent IMO, these type of dangerous people will continue to be a threat.

It is possible to avoid guard murders through effective prison reform and proper staffing. There are many violent criminals who pose a threat to guards, but we can't kill them all. And we should follow the constitution. Too many innocent people have been put to death.

Look some dogs bite but are not put to sleep, great that is fine. There does come a time that no matter how much you loved Old Yeller you knew it was best it ended the way it did.

Dogs are not humans.
 
Yes, states have been seen abusing this power and it should be stifled at state levels.

Thanks for the clarification!

While I am not familiar with State vs. Federal prosecution in DP cases and I did not mean to refer to States as opposed to Fed, you're welcome.

Bonus clarification:

If the State used rape as a punishment, I think that would encourage rape.
 
It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. They had their trial by a jury of their peers. In fact, they had two of them. They were found guilty twice. How many times, at taxpayer expense, do we have to do it over and over and over again before we stop?

It is a violation of the 8th Amendment to put anyone to death. It is a violation of due process to eliminate the appellate system.

How many innocent people have been saved from execution because of the appellate system?
 
It is possible to avoid guard murders through effective prison reform and proper staffing. There are many violent criminals who pose a threat to guards, but we can't kill them all. And we should follow the constitution. Too many innocent people have been put to death.

:spin: Dogs are not humans.

Ya the most inescapable prison is only inescapable until someone escapes, again these guys will continue to be dangerous and it seems they get crazier after years behind bars. That's all they have to do is think in there until something happens,then it is too late.

You understood the dog part too :wassat1:
 
Ya the most inescapable prison is only inescapable until someone escapes, again these guys will continue to be dangerous and it seems they get crazier after years behind bars. That's all they have to do is think in there until something happens,then it is too late.

You understood the dog part too :wassat1:

Thats a reason for prison reform, not executions.

We don't need to break the constitution in order to build a better prison. Executing criminals will not (and has not) make the job any easier for the guards. It will not prevent attacks. It will not prevent escapes of dangerous criminals.
 
Back
Top Bottom