• 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
mac said:
But you support abortion, right?
Click to expand...
Our disagreement with abortion is not whether or not it is wrong, but about when life begins. If I do not believe something is alive and sentient, it cannot be killed.

I support a woman's right to choose. I do not like the idea of abortion, I wish there were no abortions, but it is not my decision to make. Killing is bad, killing is wrong, but you can only kill something if it is alive. No one has been able to sufficiently explain to me when life begins so I don't know which is why I stay out of that thread, because I do not know. If you can talk me into that thread we'll discuss. This is a DP thread.
 
Mensch said:
Ockham, do you remember our discussion regarding Christianity and peace? You argued that Christ did not stand for peace (or something along those lines), and you referenced the famous "turn thy cheek" statement made by Christ. You made some observation regarding Roman times and the fact that a back-handed slap was used to humiliate a person. Ergo, what Christ really meant was don't let a person humiliate you (or something along those lines). For a moment, I believed you. That is, until kamikaze referenced the entire statement by Christ in a post on this page.
Click to expand...

To remind you, the discussion was around how Jesus was not a pacifist. I cited Matthew, and identified that a backslap was significant but did not mean that Christians would let someone beat the hell out of them. The point was to slap someone on the right cheek, the slap would have to have been a backhand slap, which was how masters corrected slaves. It was an exertion of class and superiority. Too many misinterpret the passage as one being a pacifist. It's not true - the teaching says to not fight violence and evil with violence and evil. It doesn't mean Christians should be punching bags... Here's an adequate explanation and how it was explained to me multiple times. The interpretation is I think fairly universal... Matthew 5:38-48 - Holy Textures


Here's the link to remind you what I said then.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...punishment-not-pro-life-5.html#post1060108818


Now... what exactly does this have to do with the U.S. legal system?
 
I'm a firm believer that execution is the easy way out. Make this person sit in a jail cell for the rest of his life with the fear of being raped and shanked whenever he turns his back. What is harsher punishment? A 100 year sentence or execution? I think a 100 year sentence sitting in a 5 x 5 cell works better.

You would be surprised how little time some murders serve these days. I have a friend who went to prison for 2 years for getting 5 DUI's within 1 month. He told me there were murders serving 5-8 year sentences. Yes, murders who not only kill the victim, but the family as well, walk free within 5 years. They are labeled as felons for the rest of their days but do these people really contribute to society anyways?
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
its not hypocrisy, as this thread is about killing people.

......and you're aware of that.
Click to expand...

Thunder, please, just stop. I'm asking nicely that you don't hijack another thread. Every thread you enter turns into a series of one line posts that attempt some smarmy, sarcastic counter that falls flat. If I had a dollar for every thread I've unsubcribed from due to your entrance..........
 
MarineTpartier said:
Thunder, please, just stop. I'm asking nicely that you don't hijack another thread. Every thread you enter turns into a series of one line posts that attempt some smarmy, sarcastic counter that falls flat. If I had a dollar for every thread I've unsubcribed from due to your entrance..........
Click to expand...

if you don't like my posts, there is a way to deal with that.
 
SypherAL said:
I'm a firm believer that execution is the easy way out.
Click to expand...

I like easy... I'm PRO easy. Too many things in this world are overly complicated.

image005555.jpg
 
taxigirl said:
Our disagreement with abortion is not whether or not it is wrong, but about when life begins. If I do not believe something is alive and sentient, it cannot be killed.
Click to expand...

Then you retract your statement "Killing is wrong." and it should read "Killing sentient beings is wrong." Right?

I support a woman's right to choose. I do not like the idea of abortion, I wish there were no abortions, but it is not my decision to make. Killing is bad, killing is wrong, but you can only kill something if it is alive. No one has been able to sufficiently explain to me when life begins so I don't know which is why I stay out of that thread, because I do not know. If you can talk me into that thread we'll discuss. This is a DP thread.
Click to expand...

That's the same thing as saying I don't like executions, but I support the State's right to choose. Whether or not you think a fetus is a person or not has no bearing on the fact that it is a living human organism....one that's ok to kill, in your opinion.
 
mac said:
Then you retract your statement "Killing is wrong." and it should read "Killing sentient beings is wrong." Right?....
Click to expand...

how about "killing innocent people is wrong". Or "killing innocent human beings is wrong".

happy now?
 
Thunder said:
how about "killing innocent people is wrong". Or "killing innocent human beings is wrong".

happy now?
Click to expand...

Does taxi have her hand up your ass?
 
mac said:
Then you retract your statement "Killing is wrong." and it should read "Killing sentient beings is wrong." Right?



That's the same thing as saying I don't like executions, but I support the State's right to choose. Whether or not you think a fetus is a person or not has no bearing on the fact that it is a living human organism....one that's ok to kill, in your opinion.
Click to expand...

there is no "fact" that it is living. Our definition of living may be different or our belief of what constitutes life may be different.

This is a DP thread, if you want to talk about abortion go to the abortion thread, if you want to talk about when life begins you first need to convince me that I need to engage in that argument. When you have formulated your argument PM me.
 
taxigirl said:
...This is a DP thread, if you want to talk about abortion go to the abortion thread, if you want to talk about when life begins you first need to convince me that I need to engage in that argument. When you have formulated your argument PM me.
Click to expand...

indeed, we have MORE than enough abortion threads.
 
Ockham said:
To remind you, the discussion was around how Jesus was not a pacifist. I cited Matthew, and identified that a backslap was significant but did not mean that Christians would let someone beat the hell out of them. The point was to slap someone on the right cheek, the slap would have to have been a backhand slap, which was how masters corrected slaves. It was an exertion of class and superiority. Too many misinterpret the passage as one being a pacifist. It's not true - the teaching says to not fight violence and evil with violence and evil. It doesn't mean Christians should be punching bags... Here's an adequate explanation and how it was explained to me multiple times. The interpretation is I think fairly universal... Matthew 5:38-48 - Holy Textures


Here's the link to remind you what I said then.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...punishment-not-pro-life-5.html#post1060108818


Now... what exactly does this have to do with the U.S. legal system?
Click to expand...

I believe the bold damn near defines pacifism, within a degree or two. You're contradicting yourself.
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, have I offended you somehow?
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
indeed, we have MORE than enough abortion threads.
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
this thread is about killing people.

you posted in the wrong thread.
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
its not hypocrisy, as this thread is about killing people.

......and you're aware of that.
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
if you don't like my posts, there is a way to deal with that.
Click to expand...

Excellent thoughts from an excellent DP member. You're so awesome Thunder. In the last two pages of this thread we've found out that this thread is about killing people and not abortion. Mind you, thats on pages 33 and 34. I'm pretty sure that was established on say, page 2. So now, lets move on to what the thread was attempting to evolve into, a logical discussion about the pros/cons of the death penalty. Well, we can move on as long as other posters don't devolve the thread to what it was on pages 1 and 2. Alright, just to make it clear. Yes Thunder, this thread is about killing people. No, its not about abortion, although that does have relation to the argument if you are pro life yet also pro death penalty. Still with me? Okay, continuing. Yes, your posts offend almost everyone that reads them and has an IQ over 1. We good Thunder? Alright, off you go!
 
MarineTpartier said:
...Yes, your posts offend almost everyone that reads them and has an IQ over 1. We good Thunder? Alright, off you go!
Click to expand...

ok, so you're clearly offended by my posts.

you under the impression that I give a ****.

well that's too bad. cause honestly, I don't.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
ok, so you're clearly offended by my posts.

you under the impression that I give a ****.

well that's too bad. cause honestly, I don't.
Click to expand...

I'm not offended. What's there to be offended about? A 5-10 word sentence that really contributes nothing, takes up a post slot, and reveals nothing more than what can already be deciphered by the title of the thread doesn't even have potential to be offensive. Offensive is like a bee that stings you. Your posts are more like the gnat that buzzs in someones ear. You're trying to do something, trying to concentrate, but that stupid gnat just keeps humming in your ear. You know what I'm saying?
Anyway, can someone on this thread give a good, logical reason for the death penalty? It costs more and doesn't deter. So what's the logic? Besides the "it serves justice" argument, which also makes no sense. The death penalty is the only punishment that is the same as the crime. We don't have the rape penalty or the drug dealer penalty.
 
Should there be a death penalty?

Yes absolutely, there are crimes and criminals that we'd all be better off without.
I think the evidence to get the death penalty should be more stringent and the penalty itself expanded.
 
Thunder said:
I don't know. You tell me.
Click to expand...

That was a good attempt Thunder. Very good. Though, you overlooked the almost everyone. Almost would mean not everyone but close to it. I would be one of the few who isn't offended by you and views you a an irritant much like the aforementioned gnat. Care to debate any or are you doing your usual. Posting 5-10 words. At least that was 2, 3 word sentences you just posted. You're getting better Thundeeerrrrr.
 
MarineTpartier said:
That was a good attempt Thunder. Very good. Though, you overlooked the almost everyone. Almost would mean not everyone but close to it. I would be one of the few who isn't offended by you and views you a an irritant much like the aforementioned gnat. Care to debate any or are you doing your usual. Posting 5-10 words. At least that was 2, 3 word sentences you just posted. You're getting better Thundeeerrrrr.
Click to expand...

um..whatever you say.
 
Hare said:
The appeals process is far too important to compress into such a short time period, especially when innocent people have been executed having far more opportunity and time to build a defense. Mob rule isn't the answer.
Click to expand...

no one suggested mob rule, and the appeals process can indeed be streamlined to move directly from one trial to the next. Three strikes and you're out.
 
kamikaze483 said:
In the case of the death penalty, how can it be argued that adequate justice and revenge are separable? If the punishment is adequate, then it is revenge. :) If it is inadequate (in some people's opinion) then the punishment is merciful. If it is a Christian's biblical duty to forgive and be merciful, and a large base of society are Christians, and the government is supposed to mirror the sentiment of society in legislation and application of the law, wouldn't it then stand to reason that if the Christians are forgiving and merciful, that the government would reflect that in the criminal justice system?
Click to expand...

Your premise is wrong. If my child misbehaves, and I punish them, am I seeking revenge? No. In that case, I am seeking to deter my child from future poor choices. Punishment can be adequately metered out without an ounce of revenge being present. In fact, inadequate punishment, in the same case, would not be merciful - if the punishment failed to teach about justice and and/or to deter from future poor choices, the child could suffer a much worse fate later on - my lack of punishment would actually be cruelty and/or a lack of care.

Justice is establishing a rule with some level of measured punishment for breaking the rule. Cheat? - punishment measured by loss of opportunity for the test or class or the harm done to the institution. Steal? - punishment measured by value of item and harm to society for such actions.

How else can the value of taking a life be adequately measured except with life?

The Bible very clearly teaches about love and mercy, yes. But it is equally clear about justice. It's the very premise of the need for Christ's sacrifice. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I'm not offended. What's there to be offended about? A 5-10 word sentence that really contributes nothing, takes up a post slot, and reveals nothing more than what can already be deciphered by the title of the thread doesn't even have potential to be offensive. Offensive is like a bee that stings you. Your posts are more like the gnat that buzz's in someones ear. You're trying to do something, trying to concentrate, but that stupid gnat just keeps humming in your ear. You know what I'm saying?
Anyway, can someone on this thread give a good, logical reason for the death penalty? Yes, of course....but its neither good , nor logical.Conservatives are noted for living in the past, and in the past, A so-called law breaker had a rough go of things....but this should be well known...nothing new here..It costs more and doesn't deter. So what's the logic? Besides the "it serves justice" argument, which also makes no sense. The death penalty is the only punishment that is the same as the crime. We don't have the rape penalty or the drug dealer penalty.
Click to expand...
Our conservatives also write the laws, but, this too is public info...
Now we have a President, Barak "Change" Obama and he is discovering that change is anathema to conservatives....and to many so called liberals.
Note that the more socially advanced states have no death penalty.
In other states, vengeance rules the day..
Would you believe, a trillion dollars was spent to execute Osama bin Laden......
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
Your premise is wrong. If my child misbehaves, and I punish them, am I seeking revenge? No. In that case, I am seeking to deter my child from future poor choices. Punishment can be adequately metered out without an ounce of revenge being present. but this is very difficult for man to do In fact, inadequate punishment, in the same case, would not be merciful - if the punishment failed to teach about justice and and/or to deter from future poor choices, the child could suffer a much worse fate later on - my lack of punishment would actually be cruelty and/or a lack of care.

Justice is establishing a rule with some level of measured punishment for breaking the rule. And the same applies to both adults and children ??? Cheat? - punishment measured by loss of opportunity for the test or class or the harm done to the institution. Steal? - punishment measured by value of item and harm to society for such actions.

How else can the value of taking a life be adequately measured except with life?The value of a man's life cannot be "measured".

The Bible very clearly teaches about love and mercy, yes. But it is equally clear about justice. It's the very premise of the need for Christ's sacrifice. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same.
Click to expand...

We need a better balance between mercy and "justice"..
We need to use a lot more than just a bible to guide us.
Punishing children without "love" is much the same as vengeance.
 
Mensch said:
I believe the bold damn near defines pacifism, within a degree or two. You're contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

Speak to a pastor sometime about it sometime. Perhaps I'm not explaining it correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom