• 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
Michael Johnson said:
Spies being executed? I disagree with that since we're known for stealing information from other countries on a monthly basis. It's hypocritical to kill spies because they stole secrets that we stole from another country.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the nature of war. Stolen secrets during a time of war mean a lot of us die. I catch a rat trying to sell my Soldiers out, I'm putting his ass down on the spot. I'd rather be judged by 12, than have my comrades carried by 6.
 
Lokiate said:
Everything can be corrupted. Psychotic killers need to die, because they will not stop until they are stopped. Whether it's bullets on-site, or via the gas chamber, it matters not to me.
Click to expand...

Of course "everything" can be corrupted but that does not justify sending innocents to their deaths without making sure the facts are straight.

What would that be?
Click to expand...

I've brainstormed a few ideas but I honestly don't know.
 
Michael Johnson said:
Of course "everything" can be corrupted but that does not justify sending innocents to their deaths without making sure the facts are straight.
Click to expand...
Why do you think it takes 10-15 years to execute someone in most capital punishment states? It's not something that's taken lightly, nor should it be.
 
Lokiate said:
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the nature of war.
Click to expand...

You call this a war? This is a slaughter, started by US because the government listened to millions of blood thirsty racists and now we've wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives all for a few terrorists, when this could've taken less time by dispatching a couple hit teams after those guys.

Stolen secrets during a time of war mean a lot of us die.
Click to expand...

So then stop stealing intelligence from other countries that does not belong to us.

I catch a rat trying to sell my Soldiers out, I'm putting his ass down on the spot.
Click to expand...

Spare me the macho sociopathic rant. This type of attitude is why we're in so much deep doo-doo now.

I'd rather be judged by 12, than have my comrades carried by 6.
Click to expand...

Nah.
 
Michael Johnson said:
Spies being executed? I disagree with that since we're known for stealing information from other countries on a monthly basis. It's hypocritical to kill spies because they stole secrets that we stole from another country.
Click to expand...
With your use of 'spies" I think you may be confusing espionage in general and treason. Treason is a capital punishment but hasn't been used since the Rosenbergs' in the 50s. They were American citizens and thus guilty of treason. Espionage can be committed by an agent of a foreign power and thus not treason.
 
Michael Johnson said:
You call this a war? This is a slaughter, started by US because the government listened to millions of blood thirsty racists and now we've wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives all for a few terrorists, when this could've taken less time by dispatching a couple hit teams after those guys.
Click to expand...
lol, ok. When you earn some boots, come talk to me about how easy it is to destabilize a multifaceted enemy organization that's deeply rooted all throughout the entirety of the Middle East and North Africa, that is not only hell bent on destroying the United States and her allies, but all non-Muslim culture as a whole. Simple, right? Because we haven't been killing off their leadership for the past 11 years, or anything.


Spare me the macho sociopathic rant. This type of attitude is why we're in so much deep doo-doo now.
Click to expand...

Right, someone leaks information to the people that are shooting us, and we should buy them flowers and candy.
 
Lokiate said:
lol, ok. When you earn some boots, come talk to me about how easy it is to destabilize a multifaceted enemy organization that's deeply rooted all throughout the entirety of the Middle East and North Africa, that is not only hell bent on destroying the United States and her allies, but all non-Muslim culture as a whole. Simple, right? Because we haven't been killing off their leadership for the past 11 years, or anything.
Click to expand...

Oh please, everyone is out to get you and your ice cream parlor. Run, hit the deck!

Right, someone leaks information to the people that are shooting us, and we should buy them flowers and candy.
Click to expand...

Nobody never said that, but maybe you should consider changing your own tactics if you never wanted your country hurt in the first place.
 
Jerry said:
DebatePolitics.com only allows members in my 'permission group' 25 minutes to edit/delete a post, so my statement will remain posted forever. Besides, that is still how I feel about it, so there's no reason why I would 'retract' anything unless you want me to lie. The truth is, if you drive drunk, you're a piece of **** who needs to be put down. Public policy will never reflect that, but that's how I feel about it regardless. That's not meant to be a 'joke', I'm not looking4lulz, that's my view on the subject. I have no love for drunk drivers.

I do believe the law should be changed to make the firing squad the preferred form of execution. It's humane, cheap, and far less controversy around the method itself (leaving only the controversy regarding execution per-se).
Click to expand...

I thought by "don't take everything you read at face value," you were implying that you were joking about executing drunk drivers on the spot. Now, you're saying you're serious about that and it wasn't a joke.

This has nothing to do with the firing squad. It has to do with a gross violation of our bill of rights. I will continue to argue that as long as you seek to destroy the foundation of this country, you will be viewed by some or many as un-American. That's all I have to say.
 
Mensch said:
I thought by "don't take everything you read at face value," you were implying that you were joking about executing drunk drivers on the spot. Now, you're saying you're serious about that and it wasn't a joke.
Click to expand...

There are more options than being literal or joking around. Conversation is more dynamic than that. Strong words to reflect honest feelings are neither literal nor a 'haha' joke.

Mensch said:
This has nothing to do with the firing squad. It has to do with a gross violation of our bill of rights. I will continue to argue that as long as you seek to destroy the foundation of this country, you will be viewed by some or many as un-American. That's all I have to say.
Click to expand...

Ok well you get down wif yo bad self den.
 
Jerry said:
There are more options than being literal or joking around. Conversation is more dynamic than that. Strong words to reflect honest feelings are neither literal nor a 'haha' joke.



Ok well you get down wif yo bad self den.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could stop beating around the bush and clarify your conviction.
 
Mensch said:
Perhaps I'm misreading you.

Am I the one self-righteously pounding on a keyboard about the evils of the system my fellow compatriots have chosen?

If so, then I disagree. I am not acting self-righteous, but rather standing up for ideals upon which this country was founded. The draconian stop-and-execute proposal pushed forward by Jerry and others is about as evil as any third world dictatorship.

As for wearing the uniform and fighting a battle, my point still stands. If you still disagree, think of Benedict Arnold. Though I am not trying to equate Jerry to B. Arnold, it is evidence alone to prove that wearing a uniform and going into battle is not sufficient enough to be pro-American. Otherwise, you would have to consider Arnold and the thousands of deserters to be patriotic as well.

The bottom line is that Jerry is simultaneously fighting for this country over there while fighting against the basic foundation over here.
Click to expand...

This is sincerely not meant to be an insult, and I genuinely apologize before hand if what I'm about to say seems like one.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know exactly what fundamental freedom you're saying I'm against. I don't see any connection between capitol punishment and the type of government (you had accused me of being pro-dictatorship). I'm simply at a total loss of ability to see how you're connecting any of this.

The things I said I was against are rape, fraud and drunk driving. So when you say I'm against fundamental freedoms, you're saying rape, fraud and drunk driving are fundamental freedoms.

But it's also clear that that is not your position, even-though that's what your posts convey, hence I'm at a total loss of understanding.
 
Jerry said:
This is sincerely not meant to be an insult, and I genuinely apologize before hand if what I'm about to say seems like one.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know exactly what fundamental freedom you're saying I'm against. I don't see any connection between capitol punishment and the type of government (you had accused me of being pro-dictatorship). I'm simply at a total loss of ability to see how you're connecting any of this.

The things I said I was against are rape, fraud and drunk driving. So when you say I'm against fundamental freedoms, you're saying rape, fraud and drunk driving are fundamental freedoms.

But it's also clear that that is not your position, even-though that's what your posts convey, hence I'm at a total loss of understanding.
Click to expand...

You called for drunk drivers to be shot on spot. That is absolutely a gross violation of the Bill of Rights.
 
Mensch said:
You called for drunk drivers to be shot on spot. That is absolutely a gross violation of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
You mean this?
Jerry said:
I have no heart for drunk drivers. Execute them all on-site: waiting for trial is a compromise.
Click to expand...
Look at the context clues:
Jerry said:
I have no heart for drunk drivers. Execute them all on-site: waiting for trial is a compromise.
Click to expand...

This post is telling you how I feel about the topic. Additionally:

If you want to know what I think policy or law should be, look to my original post:
Jerry said:
Additionally: rape, involuntary manslaughter caused by a drunk driver..........should also be met with the death penalty.
Click to expand...

This does not mean that cop shoots you dead on the side of the road just because your BAQ blows over the legal limit.

This means if you actually hit and kill someone while driving drunk, that instance of you having killed someone should be treated as a capitol offence. You are not sumeraly executed, you are arrested and charged.

Just by my saying "treated as a capitol offence" you automatically know that I'm applying full Due-Process rights to the person being charged with manslaughter while DUI, which is the exact opposite of denying fundamental rights.
 
Jerry said:
You mean this?

Look at the context clues:


This post is telling you how I feel about the topic. Additionally:

If you want to know what I think policy or law should be, look to my original post:


This does not mean that cop shoots you dead on the side of the road just because your BAQ blows over the legal limit.

This means if you actually hit and kill someone while driving drunk, that instance of you having killed someone should be treated as a capitol offence. You are not sumeraly executed, you are arrested and charged.

Just by my saying "treated as a capitol offence" you automatically know that I'm applying full Due-Process rights to the person being charged with manslaughter while DUI, which is the exact opposite of denying fundamental rights.
Click to expand...

I am fine with that.... I would also say that anybody that runs from the cops in a car is taken out by high powered sniper rifles from a sniper in a helicopter or chase vehicle in order to stop car chases and save inncocent lives...
 
Lokiate said:
Not my fault you can't accept world events as they are, space boy.
Click to expand...

Oh I have no problem with it Cowboy. I'm just gonna sit back, and watch how stupid America looks when they screw with the wrong country. The only problem is that you're pissed everyone here doesn't share your shoot-on-sight view.
 
Michael Johnson said:
Oh I have no problem with it Cowboy. I'm just gonna sit back, and watch how stupid America looks when they screw with the wrong country. The only problem is that you're pissed everyone here doesn't share your shoot-on-sight view.
Click to expand...

You should have called him a "space" cowboy... that would have been a much better zinger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom