• 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
I support the death penalty in cases of serial killers, mass murderers, serial rapists or serial child abusers, and people who kill with a disregard for the humanity of their victims, such as those who torture before they kill. And only in cases where guilt isn't in doubt.
 
RGacky3 said:
WHen I say "sin" I'm saying something morally reprehensable that needs to be "punished," the point is the protect society, not punish crimes.
Click to expand...

the goal of the justice system must be protecting the society by establishing some rules to deter potential criminals from committing crime and prevent the criminals from commiting the same crime more than once .murder is not punished by law because it is a sin .

it is clear l think

and you cant protect the society without punishing teh crime

lets release all murderers if we wont punish them
 
Medusa said:
the goal of the justice system must be protecting the society by establishing some rules to deter potential criminals from committing crime and prevent the criminals from commiting the same crime more than once .murder is not punished by law because it is a sin .

it is clear l think

and you cant protect the society without punishing teh crime

lets release all murderers if we wont punish them
Click to expand...

I didn't mean sin in a religious sense-

You do know the difference between punishment and prevention?

When you lock someone up they cannot commit a crime, if you want to punish them, you want them to suffer for their crimes, the difference is in intent, one is to prevent further crime, the other is to make sure someone "pays" for their crime.

THe death penalty is purely the latter.
 
RGacky3 said:
Why does the "honor" of civil institutions count as more important than a persons life? Why does that matter at all?
Click to expand...

They are members of an organization which holds itself to a higher standard and through their actions have brought total shame to that standard and the high values that organization holds itself to and that other people hold it to. However that alone is not enough the massive body count is what makes me support the death penalty there.
 
Wiseone said:
They are members of an organization which holds itself to a higher standard and through their actions have brought total shame to that standard and the high values that organization holds itself to and that other people hold it to. However that alone is not enough the massive body count is what makes me support the death penalty there.
Click to expand...

Why? Is it a detterent? If not why?
 
Wiseone said:
I don't support the death penalty except in the most extreme of extreme cases, I feel the risk of being wrong and the added cost of death penalty court preceeding aren't worth it 99% of the time.

Also, the death penalty doesn't deter crime.
Click to expand...

This is where I disagree. Not ONCE has anyone executed gone on to commit another crime. Look at the recidivism rates for those allowed to be "rehabilitated" and released. Trying to "deter" a crime is nearly mission impossible, as we have virtually no idea which tiny percentage of those among us are so inclined, but to prevent a recurrance for that (now known) convicted criminal is far more doable.

Perhaps what we need is a Life Unless Rehabilitated sentence (for any felony offense), followed by an automatic Life Without Parole (or even death) for any offender that repeats (and gets convicted of) a second crime of greater or equal severity than that for which they were initially convicted (if the first crime resulted in the intentional loss of life).

This sounds very harsh, and it is. If your first crime (conviction) is for robbery and you are then released as "rehabilitated" and go on to commit (and get convicted of) another robbery (or worse) then you are NEVER going to be released again. This is a huge deterent, as that limits ANY criminal to, at most, two felony convictions.
 
I support it in the case of murder which can be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever. The death penalty for someone who intentionally causes the death of another, without cause, is justice.
 
I support the notion in theory as there are things so wretched and cruel that they do not deserve the life with which they were blessed.

It is the system that determines the sentence that is problematic in that far too many have been put to death who were innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced. For that reason, I oppose the death penalty in that I do not believe the killing of one innocent person should be the cost of delivering justice to a hundred.
 
The death penalty deters the person from every murdering again.

I see no reason for people to have to labor for the purpose of paying for the housing and all living expenses for life for the most violently dangerous sadistic criminals and murders on earth -other than those who would use them for population control as they tend to most target young people and particularly young females.

Putting them in prison for life endangers everyone in that prison, none of which have a death sentence, and solitary confinement is torture.
 
Gardener said:
I support the notion in theory as there are things so wretched and cruel that they do not deserve the life with which they were blessed.

It is the system that determines the sentence that is problematic in that far too many have been put to death who were innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced. For that reason, I oppose the death penalty in that I do not believe the killing of one innocent person should be the cost of delivering justice to a hundred.
Click to expand...

Do you then also oppose imprisoning people given the thousands or tens of thousands who actually are innocent? Nothing will restore the lifetime they have lost either.
 
RGacky3 said:
I didn't mean sin in a religious sense-

You do know the difference between punishment and prevention?

When you lock someone up they cannot commit a crime, if you want to punish them, you want them to suffer for their crimes, the difference is in intent, one is to prevent further crime, the other is to make sure someone "pays" for their crime.

THe death penalty is purely the latter.
Click to expand...

People in prison do commit crimes and do commit murder in prison. Ask any jailer.
 
joko104 said:
Do you then also oppose imprisoning people given the thousands or tens of thousands who actually are innocent? Nothing will restore the lifetime they have lost either.
Click to expand...

It's not the same logic at all, joko, because people in prison who are subsequently found innocent are freed and even recompensed for the mistake -- a person killed not quite so much.
 
cpwill said:
First off, let's me be clear, this is a thread about the death penalty, and while I'm flattered, we should stick to the topic.

That being said, I would venture to guess that while an overwhelming percentage of voters want CP, (he just hasn't run ( yet :mrgreen: )), you may find his leadership more palatable than you initially suspect. :D
Click to expand...

From what I have read, it could be fun. So throw your hat in the ring.
 
I support DP, but not as a punishment.
To enjoy the benefits of living in our society, a person must play by the rules.
When a person repeatable shows that they are unwilling to play by the rules,
They are no longer allowed to participate in society. (Prison is the exclusion from Society)
When a person's rule breaking causes someone's death, and they have
shown an unwillingness to ever follow the rules,
We as a society can permanently revoke their right to participate in society.
Their death is simply a consequence of the permanent removal of rights.
 
The death penalty is outdated and no longer necessary in our modern society. It's a fundamentally flawed system the necessarily consumes innocent life. It costs too much, it is not a deterrent, it's emotionally compromised, and in today's day and age we don't need a mechanism like this through which the government can off its own citizens.

I fail to see any reasoned and logical arguments for the death penalty given its obvious failings.
 
joko104 said:
Do you then also oppose imprisoning people given the thousands or tens of thousands who actually are innocent? Nothing will restore the lifetime they have lost either.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that killing them becomes OK. The death penalty offers no additional protections to society at large and is too expensive. Cheaper to keep a man alive than to kill him. And I for one say that's the right metric.
 
The right to life should be one of the very few that society views and treats as inalienable. Society already treats the breach of the right to life by an individual acting on their own agency as a grave offence. Punishing that grave offence with the same offence effectively renders that right entirely alienable.

If the state may do it for its own reasons (however good those reasons may seem) then there will be a shred of doubt in some, perhaps flawed, damaged or undeveloped, minds that the right to life is absolute. I suspect that this is the reason why the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

My political and religious beliefs tell me that we cannot achieve the betterment of ourselves or our society by meeting violence with violence. We must deal with ignorance with wisdom, lies with truth, and violence with restraint.
 
cpwill said:
You probably actually do. Even the most horrendous of child-rapes has been tossed out by SCOTUS as undeserving of the Death Penalty.
Click to expand...

Texas has what is called a party law. We have something similar here in Arizona but you aren't eligible for CP if found guilty. Basically, if you are found guilty of commiting a felony while someone else in your party commits a capital murder, regardless of whether or not you actually pulled the trigger, you are eligible for the death penalty. For example, if two guys rob a bank and get caught and one of the guys offed a customer in the process they BOTH are eligible for CP.

Whether or not and how often it is used, I don't know but that is the law of the land in Texas.
 
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...

In addition to everything here, I wonder about encouraging the sentiment of revenge. It seems ultimately destructive to the individual who may have lost a loved one and our society as a whole.
 
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 support the death penalty. And in answer to those who thing it is torture beyond the crime, I beg to differ. Those criminals tortured the families of the victim for a lifetime.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I support the death penalty. And in answer to those who thing it is torture beyond the crime, I beg to differ. Those criminals tortured the families of the victim for a lifetime.
Click to expand...

That doesn't justify killing someone that's no longer a threat to society. The justice system shouldn't be about revenge.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I support the death penalty. And in answer to those who thing it is torture beyond the crime, I beg to differ. Those criminals tortured the families of the victim for a lifetime.
Click to expand...

Well I think the counter argument would be that the same is done to the executed person's family, but like I said of all those arguments, I find that one the least compelling.
 
I'm against the death penalty. I wanted to vote both, principles and practicality, but I could only choose 1, so I went with principle.
 
RGacky3 said:
Why? Is it a detterent? If not why?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom