• 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
Paschendale said:
If the death penalty were a deterrent, then why do we have less crime in modern America than was present in more brutal cultures in the past, and in current brutal cultures around the world? Their punishments are harsher, yet we have less crime.

Every study shows that severity of punishment is not a deterrent against crime, especially not crimes like murder.

And we shouldn't kill anyone if there is any doubt? Well let me tell you, there is ALWAYS doubt. It is impossible to know for sure. Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence. DNA evidence is not nearly so cut and dry like on TV. In most cases, including murder cases, it is unavailable to determine anything. Ever fingerprinting, often portrayed as infallible, is actually pretty much guesswork. Even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard only shows us that someone probably perpetrated the crime. It is not "beyond all doubt."

No innocent person should be executed. Ever. And the only way to ensure that we do not is never to kill anyone. Any other course guarantees that we will kill an innocent person. Any other course makes us murderers.
Click to expand...

If an axe murderer killed all of your loved ones and there was complete evidence (whether infallible or not), I find it very hard to believe that you would be satisfied with them still being allowed to live and breathe on the same Earth you do. In many DP cases, the proof is either absolutely there, or the criminal has plead guilty.

Whether or not studies can prove that the DP is a crime deterrent, it is basically common sense that if there wasn't capital punishment, extreme crimes would go up. Because people would know that if they killed someone, the worst that could happen is just being stuck in a jail cell the rest of their life. What kind of study could PROVE that the death penalty does or doesn't cut down on crimes such as murders? People, even murderers and rapists, are afraid of death. Common sense
 
MaddieGreenwell said:
If an axe murderer killed all of your loved ones and there was complete evidence (whether infallible or not), I find it very hard to believe that you would be satisfied with them still being allowed to live and breathe on the same Earth you do. In many DP cases, the proof is either absolutely there, or the criminal has plead guilty.
Click to expand...

Which exemplifies the fact that the death penalty is retribution, not a deterrent.

Whether or not studies can prove that the DP is a crime deterrent, it is basically common sense that if there wasn't capital punishment, extreme crimes would go up. Because people would know that if they killed someone, the worst that could happen is just being stuck in a jail cell the rest of their life. What kind of study could PROVE that the death penalty does or doesn't cut down on crimes such as murders? People, even murderers and rapists, are afraid of death. Common sense
Click to expand...

The death penalty has not been shown it have much of any affect in the states which still allow it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The only thing that stopped me from literally torturing and murdering the guy that molested my nieces when they were children was the fact that I don't want to die. Sorry but for me the DP was and is a deterrent.

Thats the funny thing about those "studies". They only focus on the crimes that have been committed in a non-DP area vs a DP area and don't address the crimes that were prevented. Know why? Because those are undocumentable. As such we have no real understanding of just how much the DP does deter violent crime. That is why those "studies" are bunk from the get go.
Click to expand...

Sorry....but I suspect that you also didn't want to go to jail...especially for the rest of your life. I doubt highly it was the DP that was the "deterrent" for you.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The only thing that stopped me from literally torturing and murdering the guy that molested my nieces when they were children was the fact that I don't want to die. Sorry but for me the DP was and is a deterrent.
Click to expand...

You should take a more Amish approach to retribution.

Thats the funny thing about those "studies". They only focus on the crimes that have been committed in a non-DP area vs a DP area and don't address the crimes that were prevented. Know why? Because those are undocumentable. As such we have no real understanding of just how much the DP does deter violent crime. That is why those "studies" are bunk from the get go.
Click to expand...

The documentation is real. You could see "prevention" as a reduction in violent crime. By comparing states with DP versus states with no DP, deterrence should reveal less violent crime/murder in states with DP.

To me, I don't even need documentation. It's pretty obvious that the vast majority of killers don't care so much about life, not even their own.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry....but I suspect that you also didn't want to go to jail...especially for the rest of your life. I doubt highly it was the DP that was the "deterrent" for you.
Click to expand...

I've been in jail, sorry but it didn't bother me in the slightest. 3 meals a day, a bed, tv, all the books I could read and didn't have to do a thing.
 
Mensch said:
You should take a more Amish approach to retribution.
Click to expand...

Don't know what their approach would be.

Mensch said:
The documentation is real. You could see "prevention" as a reduction in violent crime. By comparing states with DP versus states with no DP, deterrence should reveal less violent crime/murder in states with DP.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't mean that there will be a reduction in crime. It is quite possible that a non-DP or DP state just has more or less people that are mentally capable of being serial killers/rapists. There are so many variables that a straight comparison of a non-DP vs a DP state is worthless.

Mensch said:
To me, I don't even need documentation. It's pretty obvious that the vast majority of killers don't care so much about life, not even their own.
Click to expand...

You could apply the same type of reasoning to any crime. So prison must not be much a deterent either considering the amount of people we have in prison.
 
It has been known for some time that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.

States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

Studies done in the US and other countries bear that out. Sometimes it has an opposite effect. People see the notoriety the convict received, or just want to die. One also has to realize that many murders are murders of opportunity, they would not have been committed if the circumstances did not present themselves. It ends up being the heinousness of an act or other crimes committed during the scenario that lead to a charge of murder 1, not necessarily premeditation.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've been in jail, sorry but it didn't bother me in the slightest. 3 meals a day, a bed, tv, all the books I could read and didn't have to do a thing.
Click to expand...

Sorry....still ain't buying it. I doubt seriously that you thought...."hmmm....I sure would like to kill that guy....and I would....except there is the possibility that I might face execution it I do, so ...with that in mind, I think that I won't do it". Sorry......
 
Kal'Stang said:
Don't know what their approach would be.
Click to expand...

Amish school shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it doesn't mean that there will be a reduction in crime. It is quite possible that a non-DP or DP state just has more or less people that are mentally capable of being serial killers/rapists. There are so many variables that a straight comparison of a non-DP vs a DP state is worthless.
Click to expand...

You cannot make a substantiated claim that the death penalty is a deterrent unless you can prove it. Period. In a formal debate about the purpose and usefulness of the death penalty, evidence does matter. And if it doesn't exist, or as you claim, it can never exist, then such a reason must not be used as a defense of the DP.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry....still ain't buying it. I doubt seriously that you thought...."hmmm....I sure would like to kill that guy....and I would....except there is the possibility that I might face execution it I do, so ...with that in mind, I think that I won't do it". Sorry......
Click to expand...

Funny how people "doubt" another persons word just because it doesn't suit their beliefs. You can doubt it all that you want but the DP is precisely why I didn't torture and kill that person.
 
Mensch said:
Amish school shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Good thing I'm not Amish. Turning the other cheek was never my strong suit.

Mensch said:
You cannot make a substantiated claim that the death penalty is a deterrent unless you can prove it. Period. In a formal debate about the purpose and usefulness of the death penalty, evidence does matter. And if it doesn't exist, or as you claim, it can never exist, then such a reason must not be used as a defense of the DP.
Click to expand...

Nor can it be used against the DP. Of course that doesn't mean that people won't use studies based on false premises right? As such making the statements that I did is a perfectly valid form of showing why those studies are false.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Good thing I'm not Amish. Turning the other cheek was never my strong suit.
Click to expand...

A violent retribution would put the victim on the same level as the offender.

Nor can it be used against the DP. Of course that doesn't mean that people won't use studies based on false premises right? As such making the statements that I did is a perfectly valid form of showing why those studies are false.
Click to expand...

You cannot use an absence of proof to justify the means.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nor can it be used against the DP. Of course that doesn't mean that people won't use studies based on false premises right? As such making the statements that I did is a perfectly valid form of showing why those studies are false.
Click to expand...

What studies are you speaking of? and how, other than through opinion did you "prove" them false?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Sometimes that is acceptable.
Click to expand...

It is never acceptable, with the sole exception being self-defense. Torturing a man to death, regardless of who it is, is no more dignified than molesting children.

Nor can you use false proof to justify the means.
Click to expand...

It is not false proof, but evidence that can be used legitimately to deteriorate the deterrent claim. It is not full-proof, but the primary burden of proof rests with those who make the claim.
 
taxigirl said:
Yes we do, but the "public" is limited to a special few. Victim's families, attorneys, police involved in the case and families of the one being put to death. My point is that they are not public to the general public who vote for the candidates that support the death penalty, the ones chanting about killing. If they are so sure what we are doing is right, if the government is so sure why they are doing is ethical (from a situational view, utilitarian, cultural, authoritarian or any other ethical philosophy) why can't we see it? By hiding it, it seems that it is shameful. The government won't even tell us about the preparation of the prisoner before the execution, when they still used the electric chair they didn't talk about the process either. Why? Because they know it is wrong and because of the public actually knew / saw what happened they would be disgusted and the support for the death penalty would wane.
Click to expand...

Yeah... people don't want to see another person killed. That fact does not mean that killing an offender as a consequence is wrong though. We went away from public executions like public hangings because we are not barbarians that cheer at death any longer... and rightly so. It sucks. It sucks that the offender killed and that they are to be killed but that does not negate the rightness of killing the offender. People used to cheer at gladiator games as people were mauled by tigers and repeatedly stabbed by another person so I am sure that if this was a part of our culture you would not see support for the death penalty wane in the slightest if it was still public.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yeah... people don't want to see another person killed. That fact does not mean that killing an offender as a consequence is wrong though. We went away from public executions like public hangings because we are not barbarians that cheer at death any longer... and rightly so. It sucks. It sucks that the offender killed and that they are to be killed but that does not negate the rightness of killing the offender. People used to cheer at gladiator games as people were mauled by tigers and repeatedly stabbed by another person so I am sure that if this was a part of our culture you would not see support for the death penalty wane in the slightest if it was still public.
Click to expand...

Hopefully one day we'll evolve to the point where killing a human being doesn't make us feel better.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yeah... people don't want to see another person killed. That fact does not mean that killing an offender as a consequence is wrong though. We went away from public executions like public hangings because we are not barbarians that cheer at death any longer... and rightly so. It sucks. It sucks that the offender killed and that they are to be killed but that does not negate the rightness of killing the offender. People used to cheer at gladiator games as people were mauled by tigers and repeatedly stabbed by another person so I am sure that if this was a part of our culture you would not see support for the death penalty wane in the slightest if it was still public.
Click to expand...

It sucks that the offender killed and that they are to be killed but that does not negate the rightness of killing the offender I guess I cannot understand the dissonance you express in this quote. If it is right then why is it barbaric to watch? The act is barbaric, hiding it shows shame over that act.

Shame can be seen as a deeply disturbing or painful feeling of guilt, incompetence, indecency, or blame-worthiness. When we see someone suffer because of a decision we made, we do feel shame. We don't always express that, we try to hide that we feel shame, because that would mean we are guilty. Death and dying is very sanitized these days and it is not often that people get to see or know what happens.

The descriptions of the last day on death row are mostly anecdotes about the prisoner. They do not discuss how the guards feels, the warden, other prisoners, spiritual advisers. There is little mention of having to subdue to prisoner, inserting the anal plug and catheter (why do we do this -- to keep the process clean), the smell of fear coming from everyone involved that are walking the "last mile". There are so many questions, with not many answers provided, it is kept that way so we do not feel the shame of what we have done, so we can keep on going like nothing has happened. Is it ethical to turn a blind eye on something shameful?
 
mac said:
Hopefully one day we'll evolve to the point where killing a human being doesn't make us feel better.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it has anything to do with making me feel better... it has to do with facing a consequence to their action and upholding the value of human life. Hopefully one day we will evolve to the point were people aren't petty and don't hurt others.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I don't think that it has anything to do with making me feel better... it has to do with facing a consequence to their action and upholding the value of human life. Hopefully one day we will evolve to the point were people aren't petty and don't hurt others.
Click to expand...

If you really value human life, you'll set an example.
 
taxigirl said:
It sucks that the offender killed and that they are to be killed but that does not negate the rightness of killing the offender I guess I cannot understand the dissonance you express in this quote. If it is right then why is it barbaric to watch? The act is barbaric, hiding it shows shame over that act.

Shame can be seen as a deeply disturbing or painful feeling of guilt, incompetence, indecency, or blame-worthiness. When we see someone suffer because of a decision we made, we do feel shame. We don't always express that, we try to hide that we feel shame, because that would mean we are guilty. Death and dying is very sanitized these days and it is not often that people get to see or know what happens.

The descriptions of the last day on death row are mostly anecdotes about the prisoner. They do not discuss how the guards feels, the warden, other prisoners, spiritual advisers. There is little mention of having to subdue to prisoner, inserting the anal plug and catheter (why do we do this -- to keep the process clean), the smell of fear coming from everyone involved that are walking the "last mile". There are so many questions, with not many answers provided, it is kept that way so we do not feel the shame of what we have done, so we can keep on going like nothing has happened. Is it ethical to turn a blind eye on something shameful?
Click to expand...

It is not barbaric to watch. It is barbaric to cheer as we used to. Is it barbaric to kill the offender? Well, that is an opinion. It might be but that does not make it the wrong action.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the rest. The catheter is irrelevant. Why have it be messy if it doesn't need to be? You are not addressing anything about why killing the offender is wrong.
 
Mensch said:
If you really value human life, you'll set an example.
Click to expand...

My view does. By taking the murderers life we are upholding the highest value for the life they took. By exacting the highest price we are affirming that taking an innocent life is the gravest of crimes.
 
taxigirl said:
What studies are you speaking of? and how, other than through opinion did you "prove" them false?
Click to expand...

Bold: Any of em that show the violent crime rate in a non-DP state vs a DP state.

Underlined: Its not so much opinion as it is simple common sense. Unless those studies include people that didn't commit a crime because of the punishment then there is no way to tell if a punishment is a deterrent or not. I for one fall under that catagory as I showed in a previous post. Those studies will never mention people like me.
 
Bodhisattva said:
My view does. By taking the murderers life we are upholding the highest value for the life they took. By exacting the highest price we are affirming that taking an innocent life is the gravest of crimes.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to uphold the value of human life by arbitrarily taking human lives.
 
taxigirl said:
It sucks that the offender killed and that they are to be killed but that does not negate the rightness of killing the offender I guess I cannot understand the dissonance you express in this quote. If it is right then why is it barbaric to watch? The act is barbaric, hiding it shows shame over that act.

Shame can be seen as a deeply disturbing or painful feeling of guilt, incompetence, indecency, or blame-worthiness. When we see someone suffer because of a decision we made, we do feel shame. We don't always express that, we try to hide that we feel shame, because that would mean we are guilty. Death and dying is very sanitized these days and it is not often that people get to see or know what happens.

The descriptions of the last day on death row are mostly anecdotes about the prisoner. They do not discuss how the guards feels, the warden, other prisoners, spiritual advisers. There is little mention of having to subdue to prisoner, inserting the anal plug and catheter (why do we do this -- to keep the process clean), the smell of fear coming from everyone involved that are walking the "last mile". There are so many questions, with not many answers provided, it is kept that way so we do not feel the shame of what we have done, so we can keep on going like nothing has happened. Is it ethical to turn a blind eye on something shameful?
Click to expand...

You seem to be of the belief that everyone feels shame over executing people, but that is wrong.

Isn't it barbaric to watch soldiers killing during war/combat? Would it be okay to have a camera go around with a combat unit every minute of every day for a year just to show the killings as entertainment? Does that make all war and all combat shameful?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom