• 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
Ikari said:
Yes, checks and balances cost money. And when you're dealing with the ultimate use of government force, you need the ultimate use of check and balance.
Click to expand...

No, there is no reason to deny a person the right to a speedy trial, and 15-20 years worth of appeals does not make for a speedy decision...
 
ChrisL said:
We are all just humans, and not one of us should be able to the judge the worthiness of another human's life or taking another human's life. That makes you a murderer and not one bit better or more just than the murderer you are killing.
Click to expand...

Emotional arguments don't make good arguments. It doesn't make one a murderer because murder is defined specifically as killing that is against the law. As the death penalty is legal, it cannot be murder. You know that, but you want to make an emotional argument, not a rational one.
 
ChrisL said:
We are all just humans, and not one of us should be able to the judge the worthiness of another human's life or taking another human's life. That makes you a murderer and not one bit better or more just than the murderer you are killing.
Click to expand...

When you kill in cold blood, you pretty much prove your unfitness and unworthiness to go on living.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, there is no reason to deny a person the right to a speedy trial, and 15-20 years worth of appeals does not make for a speedy decision...
Click to expand...

Not the right to speedy trial, but also not the speedy insertion of lead into brain by government goon. You have to make sure, the main problem with the death penalty has been that we have found many innocent jerks on death row. It costs innocent life. Innately. We do not possess perfect knowledge, you will get innocents caught up. And in your zeal to kill that guy over there, you seem to be willing to go through 3 other dudes. It's illogical. There is nothing we get from the death penalty except further in debt. That's it. No additional security, not additional punishment not wrought by LWOP. Just more debt and some innocent people dead along side the guilty.

It is not necessary anymore and since it's not necessary and since the failure modes are so extreme, it is best to avoid it all together.
 
Ikari said:
Not the right to speedy trial, but also not the speedy insertion of lead into brain by government goon. You have to make sure, the main problem with the death penalty has been that we have found many innocent jerks on death row. It costs innocent life. Innately. We do not possess perfect knowledge, you will get innocents caught up. And in your zeal to kill that guy over there, you seem to be willing to go through 3 other dudes. It's illogical. There is nothing we get from the death penalty except further in debt. That's it. No additional security, not additional punishment not wrought by LWOP. Just more debt and some innocent people dead along side the guilty.

It is not necessary anymore and since it's not necessary and since the failure modes are so extreme, it is best to avoid it all together.
Click to expand...

The system was not designed to achieve the correct outcome every time; it was designed to be as fair as possible given we're all human...
 
Ikari said:
blah blah blah, not relevant. Stay on target.
Click to expand...

We know you can't argue the criticism, it's okay.

Well excuse me if we need to make damned sure that the guy you want to put a bullet through is guilty of the crime you claim him to be guilty of. Oh the travesty!

This is the ultimate use of government force, you do not get to use it on whim.
Click to expand...

Another emotional argument. Come on people, can anyone here be rational for a moment?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The system was not designed to achieve the correct outcome every time; it was designed to be as fair as possible given we're all human...
Click to expand...

Exactly. We do make mistakes. We will always make mistakes. To expect us to ever not make mistakes is not a rational expectation. That said, we should continually learn from our mistakes and make a good faith effort not to make the same mistakes over again. Will we ever be perfect? Of course not, nor should we ever expect to be. Welcome to reality.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The system was not designed to achieve the correct outcome every time; it was designed to be as fair as possible given we're all human...
Click to expand...

I know it's not, but it is designed to err on the side of the accused. Because we do not have perfect knowledge is all the more reason not to kill people we are throwing into jail.
 
Cephus said:
It just goes to show how many people react emotionally rather than think rationally, which is a massive problem in the world today.
Click to expand...

It's not an emotional issue. I just think it's wrong to kill someone unless they place me in immediate danger (and no, I don't count being in a prison, still alive, as being immediate danger).
 
I support the Death Penalty, and my support will likely strengthen as Forensic techniques and science does the same.
 
afr0byte said:
It's not an emotional issue. I just think it's wrong to kill someone unless they place me in immediate danger (and no, I don't count being in a prison, still alive, as being immediate danger).
Click to expand...

Which is a moral argument, thus an emotional one. Back to square one.
 
Cephus said:
Another emotional argument. Come on people, can anyone here be rational for a moment?
Click to expand...

That's statement of fact. If you are going to use the ultimate government force, you must be able to prove the point. We already know the flaws of the system, we've seen the people exonerated, we've seeing the moratoriums because it was found that over half the people on death row were there for crimes the did not commit, we know that because of lack of perfect knowledge we will kill innocent people by endorsing the death penalty. You want to use the ultimate government force, you cannot just do so because you think it's justice or you think its right or you think that the individual doesn't deserve life. It must be proven and with increased government force comes increased burden of proof.

You endorse a broken system and have no argument for it. There is no added safety above LWOP, it is more expensive, it consume innocent life, it is not necessary anymore. None of these facts have you been able to counter.
 
afr0byte said:
It's not an emotional issue. I just think it's wrong to kill someone unless they place me in immediate danger (and no, I don't count being in a prison, still alive, as being immediate danger).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the person that he/she killed did not have the ability to kill the murderer on the spot, when the threat occurred. That would have been the ultimate solution to the problem.
 
Ikari said:
I know it's not, but it is designed to err on the side of the accused. Because we do not have perfect knowledge is all the more reason not to kill people we are throwing into jail.
Click to expand...

The system does err on the side of the accused which is why it should not take decades to administer the justice decided. What is the percentage of individuals in prison that are sentenced to death. I would guess it's somewhat miniscule compared to those serving other sentences...
 
lizzie said:
Unfortunately, the person that he/she killed did not have the ability to kill the murderer on the spot, when the threat occurred. That would have been the ultimate solution to the problem.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but threat removed is threat removed; and once the threat is removed you may no longer act. Humans are monkeys and it would be great if we all acknowledged and lived by the rights and liberties of the other; but not everyone does. But that doesn't mean we must sink to the lowest common denominator because of it.
 
lizzie said:
Unfortunately, the person that he/she killed did not have the ability to kill the murderer on the spot, when the threat occurred. That would have been the ultimate solution to the problem.
Click to expand...

OK. It doesn't change the fact that I don't think we should kill them after the fact.
 
Ikari said:
Indeed, but threat removed is threat removed; and once the threat is removed you may no longer act. Humans are monkeys and it would be great if we all acknowledged and lived by the rights and liberties of the other; but not everyone does. But that doesn't mean we must sink to the lowest common denominator because of it.
Click to expand...

Humans are monkeys? This is quite a revelation...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The system does err on the side of the accused which is why it should not take decades to administer the justice decided. What is the percentage of individuals in prison that are sentenced to death. I would guess it's somewhat miniscule compared to those serving other sentences...
Click to expand...

Well you may be right on that, we do throw an extraordinarily high number of people in prison so per prison population, death row inmates may not be that high a percentage. Falling too as States no longer want to pay out the money necessary for death convictions. But that doesn't give license to be lax. It doesn't mean we can marginalize large use of government force when we know the system is broken. We do not need to kill our inmates anymore, it does nothing for us and serves no purpose.
 
Cephus said:
Which is a moral argument, thus an emotional one. Back to square one.
Click to expand...

You made a moral judgment when you called the person unworthy of living. I guess you're not immune from emotion.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Humans are monkeys? This is quite a revelation...
Click to expand...

It is for YECers. But the point is that just because some folk may give into their animalistic past doesn't mean that the whole of us need to. We don't need to fall to lowest common denominator, there is a high road and we can take it.
 
Ikari said:
That's statement of fact. If you are going to use the ultimate government force, you must be able to prove the point. We already know the flaws of the system, we've seen the people exonerated, we've seeing the moratoriums because it was found that over half the people on death row were there for crimes the did not commit, we know that because of lack of perfect knowledge we will kill innocent people by endorsing the death penalty. You want to use the ultimate government force, you cannot just do so because you think it's justice or you think its right or you think that the individual doesn't deserve life. It must be proven and with increased government force comes increased burden of proof.

You endorse a broken system and have no argument for it. There is no added safety above LWOP, it is more expensive, it consume innocent life, it is not necessary anymore. None of these facts have you been able to counter.
Click to expand...

There you go again, claiming that the government is some alien entity. It isn't. It is the representative legal arm of the people. The people vote to make the death penalty legal or illegal. So long as the people want the DP to be legal, it isn't some imposition by the government, it's the will of the people!

Geez, I don't believe I have to keep explaining this to you.
 
afr0byte said:
You made a moral judgment when you called the person unworthy of living. I guess you're not immune from emotion.
Click to expand...

No, the people decided that when they made the death penalty legal and designated certain crimes liable for execution. No emotion involved.
 
afr0byte said:
You made a moral judgment when you called the person unworthy of living. I guess you're not immune from emotion.
Click to expand...

Awww snap! If you look at the lines of arguments, you'll find that those against the death penalty do not fall to the appeal to emotion as oft as those for it. It's necessary to do so for those willing to arbitrase the death of innocent life.
 
Ikari said:
Well you may be right on that, we do throw an extraordinarily high number of people in prison so per prison population, death row inmates may not be that high a percentage. Falling too as States no longer want to pay out the money necessary for death convictions. But that doesn't give license to be lax. It doesn't mean we can marginalize large use of government force when we know the system is broken. We do not need to kill our inmates anymore, it does nothing for us and serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

The voters of the individual States choose whether or not it is appropriate. Why should society be forced to support a person of a heinous crime as determined by a judge and jury for life?
 
Cephus said:
There you go again, claiming that the government is some alien entity. It isn't. It is the representative legal arm of the people. The people vote to make the death penalty legal or illegal. So long as the people want the DP to be legal, it isn't some imposition by the government, it's the will of the people!

Geez, I don't believe I have to keep explaining this to you.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

Again, you cannot address the points, you are merely deflecting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom