• 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 in Theory

Do you support the Death Penalty

  • Total voters
    78
Sig said:
Yeah. We have heard this all before.

One more time: Far more innocent people have died due to the State to NOT executing the death penalty when the convict was genuinely guilty of a capital offense than have died due to the State executing the death penalty when the convict was genuinely innocent of a capital offense.

The sooner you burn this statistical fact into your brain, the sooner you will stop wasting your time, my time, and everybody's time with this hackneyed bad argument.
Click to expand...

How do you come up with that?

Even if true I'd argue that it doesn't really matter. The government shouldn't be in the business of killing innocent people, even if killing innocent people has the potential to save lives.

Edit: Thinking about it more, I'm even more against that line of reasoning. That opens up a huge can of worms about denying innocent people rights for the "greater good." Not something we should be doing.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Nope, but it does assume the law is absolutely right, which it may not be.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "nope"? Do you mean that it is about emotion even though I say it isn't with regards to my reasoning?
 
Bodhisattva said:
What do you mean, "nope"? Do you mean that it is about emotion even though I say it isn't with regards to my reasoning?
Click to expand...

I meant that it's not emotional. Sorry, should have been more clear. You can very easily have a non-emotional argument (though I had not yet been presented with such) that revolves around punishment to current law. But it will assume that the law is correct; and it's not always.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You're right, they should support themselves as they are no longer "kids"...
Click to expand...

They should, but government assistance isn't saying that people shouldn't try to support themselves, unless you also think that charity for the poor is wrong (since they should support themselves).
 
afr0byte said:
They should, but government assistance isn't saying that people shouldn't try to support themselves, unless you also think that charity for the poor is wrong (since they should support themselves).
Click to expand...

I have no issues with private charity, but the government is not, or should not, be in the business of handing out charity...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I have no issues with private charity, but the government is not, or should not, be in the business of handing out charity...
Click to expand...

See, that's the kind of comment that makes me think you should list yourself as a conservative. You apparently have a problem with government assistance.
 
afr0byte said:
See, that's the kind of comment that makes me think you should list yourself as a conservative. You apparently have a problem with government assistance.
Click to expand...

I see no compelling reason to change my lean because of your thought process. I have many issues with conservatives with the pressing for a balanced budget being chief among those...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I see no compelling reason to change my lean because of your thought process. I have many issues with conservatives with the pressing for a balanced budget being chief among those...
Click to expand...

You're obviously free to choose your own lean, but it certainly doesn't seem to jive with what's described as liberal in common public discourse (on here and otherwise).
 
afr0byte said:
You're obviously free to choose your own lean, but it certainly doesn't seem to jive with what's described as liberal in common public discourse (on here and otherwise).
Click to expand...

I'm not here to conform with common public discourse. I post my opinion and hope to engage others in a thoughtful discussion...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Deontological Ethics... it has nothing to do with emotion. ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I've already told you I'm done discussing this with you. I'll never change your mind and you'll never change mine. :2wave:
 
ChrisL said:
Sorry, I've already told you I'm done discussing this with you. I'll never change your mind and you'll never change mine. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I am not trying to change your mind that the DP is fine or good. I am only trying to get you to see that for many, the DP is not an emotional reaction, or vengeance, as you have repeatedly said. In that, you are wrong. If you are fine with that then don't respond.
 
Ikari said:
So appeal to popularity then? So if enough people think slavery should be legal, that's cool too? Just a logical extension of your argument, don't get mad bro.
Click to expand...

And it's perfectly valid too. There was a time when slavery was legal because the majority of people wanted it to be. Morality is subjective. If enough people wanted slavery to be legal again, it would be again. Welcome to the real world.

There is no treatment of government as alien entity, but there is acknowledgement of necessary government force. And if you want to kill someone through the use of government guns, you call down the ultimate force government can exert against an individual.
Click to expand...

You are asserting that there is a specific amount of force that is unnecessary. That's your opinion. If the people want the government to go around nuking people, they can do that and suffer the consequences. Welcome to reality once again.

Again, you cannot address the points, you are merely deflecting.
Click to expand...

No, you're just ignoring what people say that you don't agree with, but that's typical for a lefty-lib wearing libertarian clothing.
 
afr0byte said:
You're full of it. Of course there was emotion involved in their votes, especially if you consider any moral judgement an emotional response. Humans are emotional creatures.
Click to expand...

I meant there was no emotion in what I was saying, which is what you claimed.
 
Cephus said:
I meant there was no emotion in what I was saying, which is what you claimed.
Click to expand...

If there was no emotion in what you were saying than there was no emotion in what I was saying. I guess we're equal in that regard.
 
Anagram said:
I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Lately though, I've been moving away from that position somewhat. In theory, I accept that the death penalty can be an appropriate punishment. If a mentally healthy person willfully takes the life of another, I see that as forfeiting their own right to life. However, in our practice I'm not sure I can support it. There is at the very least controversy over whether or not the cost of the capital case outweighs that of life in prison, with actual statistics being very hard to come by. There is also the trouble of exonerated death row inmates and wrongful executions. In my opinion the difference in punishment between death and life in prison is not worth the chance of wrongful execution, which seems to be significant. There is also the question of whether the death penalty is equally applied among everyone. Lastly, although I'm not sure I agree with this, some people have argued that the death penalty is not an equal response to murder, because death row inmates must spend years waiting and knowing that they are going to die. It is suggested this is a torture exceeding that which the convicted gave his or her victims. I think this is the weakest argument of them, but it may have some merit. In a perfect world where a 100% guilty person was immediately put to death, with the whole thing costing less than life in prison, I could easily support that, but in our real world I'm not sure anymore that capital punishment is practical.

But I'm curious about how the people on DP feel about it. Especially to see if there are significant groups of people among those who oppose the death penalty who support the idea in theory, but not in reality and those who simply oppose the idea in principle.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with it in theory. I now oppose it because we have proven beyond realistic doubt that we get it right often enough to justify it.
 
lizzie said:
This really isn't an issue of deterrence, but one of justice being served.
Click to expand...

That's my point, you think justice is served through punishment, I say that isn't the point of the justice system, it's to protect, not to punish.
 
joko104 said:
People in prison do commit crimes and do commit murder in prison. Ask any jailer.
Click to expand...

... Yes ... And what? It isn't up to the state to decide who lives nad who doesn't. I'ts only job is to protect the citizens.
 
Wiseone said:
Its not a deterent, people like MAJ Hassan are not afraid to die. Call it an emotional reason but I just believe that a act like the mass murder of so many people requires a death sentence, not to mention the tainted image of the organization he was apart of when we are in a conflict were our reputation means everything.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a reason justice systems don't run on emotion, if they did we'd probably still tourture people to death.
 
Cephus said:
Seriously? You think there's no crime in prisons? You think there's no violence in prisons? You think there are no murders in prisons?
Click to expand...

Of coarse there is, which is why you do you're best to keep it safe ... **** with that thinking why don't we just kill everyone in prison?

You're assuming the STATE has the right to take life, or to punish what it considers to be bad ... as opposed to simply protect society as a whole.
 
cpwill said:
You are hopping back and forth between a topic and a sub-topic. The belief that you can attack an institution with relative impunity (as it was put, "it's honor") does indeed encourage follow on attacks. The death penalty as it is currently structured is not an effective deterrent because deterrents to crime must be swift, sure, and public; and our death penalty is none of these things.
Click to expand...

How is life in prison not an impunity? And where is the evidence that even if it was swift, sure and public that it would be a deterrent?

Also since when are institutions of state more important than human life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom