• 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
Of course they are arbitrary. It is up to the discretion of a judge (i.e. individual). The jury simply makes a recommendation.

This doesn't deviate from the point of either the UDHR article 3 or ICCPR article 6.1

It also doesn't disprove the point I made against mac.
Judges decisions are not made arbitrarily. Arbitrary is like when the Red Queen said, "Off with her head!". The restrictions of working within state and federal laws and appeals to other courts which are part and parcel of the process makes the claim nonsense by any definition.
 
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

Article 6

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.
In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
 
Judges decisions are not made arbitrarily. Arbitrary is like when the Red Queen said, "Off with her head!". The restrictions of working within state and federal laws and appeals to other courts which are part and parcel of the process makes the claim nonsense by any definition.

Again, we're picking at semantic issues within a broader context.

I believe you and I are both correct on this. While judges are subject to certain limitations and guidelines, they are free to make the ultimate decision. The purpose of the court of appeals is really only to ensure the law was carried out during the trial, not necessarily to judge the appropriateness of sentencing.
 
Article 6

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.
In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

What is your point? The convention only made such caveat in order to ensure that power was not abused in countries with a death penalty. They still would rather prefer no death penalties. You really can't ignore the "inherent right to life" rule.

Also, in many states (I believe it is more than 20), we do execute juveniles and/or mentally retarded individuals.

Also, since when do we dictate our laws based on the whims of the international community? You're conveniently using international law to prove that state-sanctioned killing is murder in certain circumstances, while ignoring state-sanctioned killing in our own country.
 
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.
This is where we disagree. If something is illegal, or murder as you stated, there would not be guidelines for its use as you pointed out above.

This seems like it could become one of those never-ending exchanges which I am not disposed to. I really don't want to quibble about semantics, but I have found your statement above to be erroneous not only on the article, but also factually incorrect.
 
Judges decisions are not made arbitrarily. Arbitrary is like when the Red Queen said, "Off with her head!". The restrictions of working within state and federal laws and appeals to other courts which are part and parcel of the process makes the claim nonsense by any definition.

I believe it is arbitrary. Looking at the definition you provided, there are many situations that can determine arbitrariness. In sentencing and appellate decisions it is left up to a judge, who may be biased and is not allowed to consider all the information available. Some of it has been excluded due to various rulings and law.
 
This is where we disagree. If something is illegal, or murder as you stated, there would not be guidelines for its use as you pointed out above.

This seems like it could become one of those never-ending exchanges which I am not disposed to. I really don't want to quibble about semantics, but I have found your statement above to be erroneous not only on the article, but also factually incorrect.

I misread a statement and immediately admitted to the correction. Other than that, there is NOTHING factually incorrect about what was referenced. You may disagree with my opinions, but up till now, I haven't made any erroneous statements that have not been immediately corrected. And to my defense, it was only a misreading of two different international conventions. Both of them want the death penalty to be abolished worldwide. And I have already explained that these "guidelines" are only there to ensure no abuse of power takes place.

Besides, I was responding to mac, not you. Mac originally argued that a state-sanctioned killing is not murder, to which I directed him to the Nazis killing undesirables as murder. He then brought up international law which acknowledged those killings as murder. In turn, I brought up various international conventions. One of those conventions materialized with the UDHR, a direct consequence of the trials of WW2 and Nazi Germany.
 
What is your point? The convention only made such caveat in order to ensure that power was not abused in countries with a death penalty. They still would rather prefer no death penalties. You really can't ignore the "inherent right to life" rule.

Also, in many states (I believe it is more than 20), we do execute juveniles and/or mentally retarded individuals.

Also, since when do we dictate our laws based on the whims of the international community? You're conveniently using international law to prove that state-sanctioned killing is murder in certain circumstances, while ignoring state-sanctioned killing in our own country.

It clearly says that the death penalty is not illegal in countries that have not abolished it. Therefore, our death penalty is not murder or illegal according to international law.

That is my point.
 
It clearly says that the death penalty is not illegal in countries that have not abolished it. Therefore, our death penalty is not murder or illegal according to international law.

That is my point.

It said no such thing. Like our constitution, the UDHR gives explicit guidelines that are not always followed. What else do you infer from "EVERY human being has an inherent right to life?"

Also, consider the fact that you brought up the international consensus regarding Nazi war crimes, while the UDHR was inspired largely because of those crimes and was even adopted on the same day as the genocide convention.
 
It clearly says that the death penalty is not illegal in countries that have not abolished it.
That is my point.

This proves my original point. The death penalty is not illegal in certain countries, but that is not legislated by a world power. Instead, it is left to the individual countries. Likewise, the Nazi extermination of Jews (or, if you need another example which wasn't punished by any UN resolution, you can look at the Stalin campaign to systematically starve Ukrainians) was legal under that nation's laws.
 
Yes, for certain murders. There are some crimes people can commit that are so heinous the perps forfeit their right to life, in my opinion. These "certain murders" might include, off the top of my head, the murder of a child and serial killers. If I thought about it longer, I could probably come up with a longer list. But rarely.

Let most of them rot in jail and die alone without family and friends at their sides. Lethal injection? Much too easy. Hell, I'd like that way out, and I haven't killed anybody. ;)

The problem with your scenario is if you lock them up for life, even without parole there are instances down the road where some liberal judge has decided they have been reabilitated and released them to rape and muder again.
 
I not only believe in the death penalty for all capital crimes but it should be expanded to include certain criminal convicted of rape and child abuse.
 
Does anyone but me find it ironic that alot of our friends on the left are so adament against the death penalty for people who have raped and murdered but have no problem with butchering 42,0000,000 innocent, defenseless infants in the womb since Roe V Wade was passed?

Does anyone see a double standard but me?
 
Does anyone but me find it ironic that alot of our friends on the left are so adament against the death penalty for people who have raped and murdered but have no problem with butchering 42,0000,000 innocent, defenseless infants in the womb since Roe V Wade was passed?

Does anyone see a double standard but me?

as a hated leftist on this board I support the death penalty and have posted this many times
 
Does anyone but me find it ironic that alot of our friends on the left are so adament against the death penalty for people who have raped and murdered but have no problem with butchering 42,0000,000 innocent, defenseless infants in the womb since Roe V Wade was passed?

Does anyone see a double standard but me?

There is no contradiction. An embryo is not an infant. One has to deal with women's right to own her own body and decide what she wishes to do with it, and the other deals with a government overstepping its boundaries in order to decide who lives and who dies.

Is it a contradiction to be pro-life and simultaneously pro-death?
 
It said no such thing. Like our constitution, the UDHR gives explicit guidelines that are not always followed. What else do you infer from "EVERY human being has an inherent right to life?"

Also, consider the fact that you brought up the international consensus regarding Nazi war crimes, while the UDHR was inspired largely because of those crimes and was even adopted on the same day as the genocide convention.

First, you brought up the Nazi's. Second, don't quote one line of the UDHR and ignore the rest. The very next sentence following the one you've been quoting (which is one of my favorites, btw) says that the death penalty is not illegal in countries that have not abolished. It's plainly written. :shrug:
 
This proves my original point. The death penalty is not illegal in certain countries, but that is not legislated by a world power. Instead, it is left to the individual countries. Likewise, the Nazi extermination of Jews (or, if you need another example which wasn't punished by any UN resolution, you can look at the Stalin campaign to systematically starve Ukrainians) was legal under that nation's laws.

It's agreed to by international law and clarified as not illegal in those countries. It's very easy to read and understand.
 
There is no contradiction. An embryo is not an infant. One has to deal with women's right to own her own body and decide what she wishes to do with it, and the other deals with a government overstepping its boundaries in order to decide who lives and who dies.

There is a contradiction. The example you specify is only appropriate if she is trying to kill herself, not the ZEF she's carrying which is a separate body.

Is it a contradiction to be pro-life and simultaneously pro-death?

Imho, yes. However, endorsing the death of the innocent while condemning the death of the guilty is beyond contradiction.
 
First, you brought up the Nazi's. Second, don't quote one line of the UDHR and ignore the rest. The very next sentence following the one you've been quoting (which is one of my favorites, btw) says that the death penalty is not illegal in countries that have not abolished. It's plainly written. :shrug:

First of all, I misquoted. The UDHR does not give exception to the rule. Look it up. Second, the civil and political rights convention promotes the abolition of death penalty, but gives a caveat to those who insist on keeping the death penalty. They do this in order to prevent (and I've said this already) an abuse of power. FINALLY, it is a recognition of legalized murder in specific states. It does NOT legitimize state-sanctioned killing. Let me use anti-abortion conservatives in red states under a Roe v. Wade federal precedence legalizing abortion. Abortion is legal on a federal level and anti-abortion conservatives can't fully criminalize abortion in their own states. But given that it is legal, they try to set guidelines and regulations which make it harder for abortions to occur on-demand. Instead of trying to criminalize countries who perform death penalties, the convention does its best to denounce those who perform routine executions for thieves and drug addicts. It does not criminalize the death penalty. Look at China. Look at their draconian laws and how often people are executed for seemingly nonviolent crimes. Does the UN take any steps, other than official denouncement, to criminalize the entire country of China? NO!

It is legal in China to kill at the discretion of the authoritarian government. This is true in many parts of the world, and the UN is powerless to stop it. The only reason the Nazis were ever punished for their crimes was because the allies beat them in a war. Yet, it still doesn't deviate from the basic fact that the final solution was legal in Nazi Germany. Starvation of Ukrainians was legal in the Soviet Russia. State-sanctioned murder is legal in North Korea. And the rest of the world is powerless to stop it.
 
There is a contradiction. The example you specify is only appropriate if she is trying to kill herself, not the ZEF she's carrying which is a separate body.

You do not have rights over another person's body parts. Until it is able to survive outside the womb, it is a part of the woman's body.



Imho, yes. However, endorsing the death of the innocent while condemning the death of the guilty is beyond contradiction.

According to Christian doctrine, aren't we all born into sin?
 
It's agreed to by international law and clarified as not illegal in those countries. It's very easy to read and understand.

And I can recognize that state-sanctioned killing in other countries, as well as our own, is both legal and MURDER.
 
as a hated leftist on this board I support the death penalty and have posted this many times

Who hates you? Not me.............I thank you and would say judging by the results of this thread you are the exception rather then the rule.
 
First of all, I misquoted. The UDHR does not give exception to the rule. Look it up. Second, the civil and political rights convention promotes the abolition of death penalty, but gives a caveat to those who insist on keeping the death penalty. They do this in order to prevent (and I've said this already) an abuse of power. FINALLY, it is a recognition of legalized murder in specific states. It does NOT legitimize state-sanctioned killing. Let me use anti-abortion conservatives in red states under a Roe v. Wade federal precedence legalizing abortion. Abortion is legal on a federal level and anti-abortion conservatives can't fully criminalize abortion in their own states. But given that it is legal, they try to set guidelines and regulations which make it harder for abortions to occur on-demand. Instead of trying to criminalize countries who perform death penalties, the convention does its best to denounce those who perform routine executions for thieves and drug addicts. It does not criminalize the death penalty. Look at China. Look at their draconian laws and how often people are executed for seemingly nonviolent crimes. Does the UN take any steps, other than official denouncement, to criminalize the entire country of China? NO!

It is legal in China to kill at the discretion of the authoritarian government. This is true in many parts of the world, and the UN is powerless to stop it. The only reason the Nazis were ever punished for their crimes was because the allies beat them in a war. Yet, it still doesn't deviate from the basic fact that the final solution was legal in Nazi Germany. Starvation of Ukrainians was legal in the Soviet Russia. State-sanctioned murder is legal in North Korea. And the rest of the world is powerless to stop it.

The simple truth is that the Death penalty is not murder under US law, nor is it made illegal by international law. . Murder is an illegal killing, the death penalty is not an illegal killing however unjust we may think that is.
 
And I can recognize that state-sanctioned killing in other countries, as well as our own, is both legal and MURDER.

Then you don't understand what murder means.
 
There is no contradiction. An embryo is not an infant. One has to deal with women's right to own her own body and decide what she wishes to do with it, and the other deals with a government overstepping its boundaries in order to decide who lives and who dies.

Is it a contradiction to be pro-life and simultaneously pro-death?


OK can you tell me what crime and innocent defenseless infant in the womb has committed to kill it....Now a person who is sentenced to death has committed a capital crime such as first degree murder where in a lot of cases he has raped and murdered someones daughter, mother or sisiter............

I wonder if you can see the difference?
 
Back
Top Bottom