• 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
Cephus said:
Stop playing stupid word games. If it's state-sanctioned, it cannot, by definition, be murder. Words have meanings for a reason.
Click to expand...

Word games? Serious? Just because it is "state-sanctioned" does not mean that it is not murder. It simply makes it state-sanctioned murder. It actually is state-sanctioned first degree murder because it is deliberate and premeditated.
 
John said:
BTW for tankgirl, Murder is to kill an INNOCENT person. Therefore to execute someone for commiting murder is not murder in and of itself.
Click to expand...

I have never seen a murder statute that defines Murder as the killing of an "INNOCENT" Person. Just because you make it up...does not mean that it is the law.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Are you not responding for any particular reason? Defeated even before it begins? ;)
Click to expand...

Were you asking if I wasn't repsonding to them or you? I have not repsonded to you because in the post where you finally addressed issues concerning the DP you began with the beginning of life again. You know my stance on abortion and the "life" issue and you just had to poke once more. Until you can discuss the DP as its own independent crisis, with very real concerns and consequences.

This is how you opened your post after I said I did not wish to discuss those items for the 4th time and tried to redirect you to the subject of the post.
Bodhisattva said:
:lol:

human being 
noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

Human being | Define Human being at Dictionary.com

life
/laɪf/ Show Spelled [lahyf] Show IPA noun, plural lives  /laɪvz/ Show Spelled[lahyvz] Show IPA, adjective
noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Life | Define Life at Dictionary.com

I always laugh when I see comments like yours. It is a life. Fact. It is of the species Homo Sapian and we call that human. Fact. It is a human life.

And before you get too confused once the sperm meets the egg the human life is indeed an individual life form up for person status just as conjoined twins are considered individual persons. You want valid arguments and make pathetic threats yet you just responded with essentially nothing more than a "nu-huh" rebuttal. Well done. :roll:
Click to expand...

That is not the beginning of a discussion on the death penalty.
 
disneydude said:
Word games? Serious? Just because it is "state-sanctioned" does not mean that it is not murder. It simply makes it state-sanctioned murder. It actually is state-sanctioned first degree murder because it is deliberate and premeditated.
Click to expand...

The very definition of murder means that it is a killing that is unlawful.

Murder | Define Murder at Dictionary.com
murder legal definition of murder. murder synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

As long as the DP is legal, then it is not murder. You can believe it is an unjustified killing or want it to be murder, but it doesn't change the fact that legally, the DP cannot be murder if it is state-sanctioned.
 
taxigirl said:
For John and Cephus:

Language is fluid, like changes in life. Language changes depending on the who, what, when, where and why of it's context and on who is interpreting it. I never said there was a "standard". Depending on whose definition you look at "murder" is "to kill".
John-- if we hang on to your definition then tell me how we "prove" 100% that the person is guilty.

As far as I am concerned the government should not be killing someone in my name, the argument is ridiculous that killing is wrong and then you go and kill. Inflamatory or not-- the state sanctions these "killings",l to me they are murder.

Now, what about arguments for or against the DP instead of semantics?
Click to expand...

But the argument the state makes is not "killing is wrong". The laws are based on one citizen taking away another citizen's right to life without a valid reason (determined by laws) or due process. The state says that killing people for reasons not allowed by law is wrong. It is a subtle but definite distinction.
 
roguenuke said:
But the argument the state makes is not "killing is wrong". The laws are based on one citizen taking away another citizen's right to life without a valid reason (determined by laws) or due process. The state says that killing people for reasons not allowed by law is wrong. It is a subtle but definite distinction.
Click to expand...

So... there are rules for killing? The state has decided that killing is wrong, it is murder (some states have Castle Laws that allow for deadly force in self defense and some states do not, some states accept battered persons defenses, some do not) and in order for that state (or fed) to prove that they mean it (killing is wrong), the consequence -- not punishment, because it is never fairly or evenly applied -- is being killed? "Killing is wrong, but I will kill to show you that killing is wrong" What? Premeditated killing is murder, it does not matter to me that you may not think so, I do and that is my opinion. We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

The DP exists for a variety of reasons:
1. Punishment - if you really want to argue semantics this is where to do it as the basic justifications for any form of punishment are deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, restoration and incapacitation. I will list them separately here because most people do not think of "punishment" this way.
2. Deterrence
3. Retribution / revenge, whatever you would like to call it
4. Closure (we can see this as restoration -- or "righting the wrong" for the families)
(there's another one I will mention but not list -- I recently read that it is "good for the environment" --oh the lengths we will go to....)

Again -- instead of semantics why don't we discuss the issues that make up the death penalty? I have listed a few above -- what are some others?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Word games? Serious? Just because it is "state-sanctioned" does not mean that it is not murder. It simply makes it state-sanctioned murder. It actually is state-sanctioned first degree murder because it is deliberate and premeditated.
Click to expand...

If it's legal, it's not murder...however unjust it is.
 
taxigirl said:
So... there are rules for killing? The state has decided that killing is wrong, it is murder (some states have Castle Laws that allow for deadly force in self defense and some states do not, some states accept battered persons defenses, some do not) and in order for that state (or fed) to prove that they mean it (killing is wrong), the consequence -- not punishment, because it is never fairly or evenly applied -- is being killed? "Killing is wrong, but I will kill to show you that killing is wrong" What? Premeditated killing is murder, it does not matter to me that you may not think so, I do and that is my opinion. We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

The DP exists for a variety of reasons:
1. Punishment - if you really want to argue semantics this is where to do it as the basic justifications for any form of punishment are deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, restoration and incapacitation. I will list them separately here because most people do not think of "punishment" this way.
2. Deterrence
3. Retribution / revenge, whatever you would like to call it
4. Closure (we can see this as restoration -- or "righting the wrong" for the families)
(there's another one I will mention but not list -- I recently read that it is "good for the environment" --oh the lengths we will go to....)

Again -- instead of semantics why don't we discuss the issues that make up the death penalty? I have listed a few above -- what are some others?
Click to expand...

It's not just semantics....saying that the Death Penalty is state sanctioned murder is an appeal to emotion. A talking point, and more importantly...untrue. Making such statements hurts your cause if your cause is to actually change minds. I believe the death penalty is wrong, unjust, and little more than revenge. It's not murder, though.
 
mac said:
Yes, there is a contradiction. Both deal with taking a life. The reasons behind the decision to take a life are immaterial to the statement "Taking a life is wrong."
Click to expand...

by the same logic there should only be one type of "murder" since "the reasons behind the decision to take a life are immaterial"

Only one type of murder then we would be stuck with putting everyone in prison. If there is only one kind, then there is only one punishment (unless you want to execute grandpa who accidentally ran over a kid in the driveway and oh my, he had jhad a drink.)
 
Meathead said:
Definition of MURDER - Webster
1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...

You guys are the ones giving power to my statement about "state sanctioned murder", you are arguing about and it looking for definitions. Why not say "OK, we disagree" and move on? That is the terminology I use that is how I see it, I already explained how I arrived at that conclusion. I could be digging connotative meanings and historical meanings, especially when done in the "name of the people" etc... so keep you hats on. It is what I call it and you call it what you want -either way it is the taking of a life by the state -- there, how about that can we compromise and use that for the purposes of this thread?
 
taxigirl said:
You guys are the ones giving power to my statement about "state sanctioned murder", you are arguing about and it looking for definitions. Why not say "OK, we disagree" and move on? That is the terminology I use that is how I see it, I already explained how I arrived at that conclusion. I could be digging connotative meanings and historical meanings, especially when done in the "name of the people" etc... so keep you hats on. It is what I call it and you call it what you want -either way it is the taking of a life by the state -- there, how about that can we compromise and use that for the purposes of this thread?
Click to expand...
Someone put a definition of On Line Dictionary and argued the death penalty as defined was murder. Anyone can call it whatever they like, I prefer execution as in "He was executed yesterday" rather than "His life was taken by the state yesterday". Anyway, either is better than murder which I expect only from shills.
 
Meathead said:
Someone put a definition of On Line Dictionary and argued the death penalty as defined was murder. Anyone can call it whatever they like, I prefer execution as in "He was executed yesterday" rather than "His life was taken by the state yesterday". Anyway, either is better than murder which I expect only from shills.
Click to expand...

So now I am acting as a trickster of some sort? I have genuine interest and concern in the topic of the death penalty, Is that not why you are in this thread as well>
 
taxigirl said:
So now I am acting as a trickster of some sort? I have genuine interest and concern in the topic of the death penalty, Is that not why you are in this thread as well>
Click to expand...
I don't understand the premise to your first question. Of course would be the answer to your second.
 
Mensch said:
If that were true, then the Nazis killing undesirables would be "not murder."
Click to expand...

It was determined that their actions were murder in accordance with international law. It was a war crime, and illegal. Murder.
 
taxigirl said:
by the same logic there should only be one type of "murder" since "the reasons behind the decision to take a life are immaterial"

Only one type of murder then we would be stuck with putting everyone in prison. If there is only one kind, then there is only one punishment (unless you want to execute grandpa who accidentally ran over a kid in the driveway and oh my, he had jhad a drink.)
Click to expand...

There is only one type of murder. There are many types of killing.
 
mac said:
It was determined that their actions were murder in accordance with international law. It was a war crime, and illegal. Murder.
Click to expand...

The majority of countries have eliminated the death penalty or put it under a moratorium. And, according to the UDHR (Article 1), our death penalty is illegal and therefore murder.
 
Mensch said:
The majority of countries have eliminated the death penalty or put it under a moratorium. And, according to the UDHR (Article 1), our death penalty is illegal and therefore murder.
Click to expand...

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

???
 
Meathead said:
Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

???
Click to expand...

I misread. In the UDHR, it is article 3, not article 1.

What I read came from a different source:

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
 
Mensch said:
I misread. In the UDHR, it is article 3, not article 1.

What I read came from a different source:

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Click to expand...

Arbitrary | What is the Definition of Arbitrary? | Dictionary.com

Death sentences may be many things, but hardly arbitrary at least in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom