• 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'm opposed to it on principle. The idea that the government can carry out a pre-planned killing of a citizen who is completely powerless to oppose it is just wrong.
It's one of the biggest abuses of government power, and I'm somewhat surprised that so many 'big gubmint is evilz' type conservatives are in favour of it.
 
I'm opposed to it on principle. The idea that the government can carry out a pre-planned killing of a citizen who is completely powerless to oppose it is just wrong.
It's one of the biggest abuses of government power, and I'm somewhat surprised that so many 'big gubmint is evilz' type conservatives are in favour of it.
 
Cephus said:
There is zero evidence that prison deters anyone, why not just get rid of prisons? The fact remains, these are PUNISHMENTS, not DETERRENTS. How many times do we have to keep repeating that before you stop flogging your straw man?
Click to expand...

There is evidence actually, mass murder's stop murdering in neighborhoods and making communities unsafe when they are in prison ... Crime in Los Angeles dropped when gang bangers were thrown in prison.

I'm acually against the prison system as is, as I think it should be more about rehabilitation.

But if it truely is about punishment .. what gives the State (funny how the right calls the left statists) the right to punish for the sake of retribution or to take someones life? Where does that right come from? Since when does the state become God to decree vengance?

Also what is you're argument against tourture if you think the role of the justice system is punishment?
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

You now oppose it because you get it right? That makes no sense. Can you explain?
 
Mr X said:
I'm opposed to it on principle. The idea that the government can carry out a pre-planned killing of a citizen who is completely powerless to oppose it is just wrong.
It's one of the biggest abuses of government power, and I'm somewhat surprised that so many 'big gubmint is evilz' type conservatives are in favour of it.
Click to expand...

are you libertarian ?

:mrgreen:
 
RGacky3 said:
How is life in prison not an impunity?
Click to expand...

Because it is unseen.

And where is the evidence that even if it was swift, sure and public that it would be a deterrent?
Click to expand...

Because that is what causes a deterrent to become effective - most especially the sureity. That, for example, is the insight behind the incredibly effective "broken windows" approach to policing.

Also since when are institutions of state more important than human life?
Click to expand...

Since we first formed them to protect human lives. That's why, for example, the state has the right to pick you off the street, force you into uniform, and send you to war without your consent if it judges that it is necessary to do so. It's why we let cops carry weapons.
 
Andalublue said:
You now oppose it because you get it right? That makes no sense. Can you explain?
Click to expand...

I misspoke. Sorry about that. What I meant to say was...

I'm fine with it in theory. I now oppose it because we have proven beyond realistic doubt that we do not get it right often enough to justify it.
 
cpwill said:
Because it is unseen.
Click to expand...

It's known ....

Because that is what causes a deterrent to become effective - most especially the sureity. That, for example, is the insight behind the incredibly effective "broken windows" approach to policing.
Click to expand...

people who commit serious crimes do so assuming they'll get away with it ... that's why punishment isn't a deterent. The "broken windows" approach is having jobs on the streets, a show that you're not gonna get away with it, not through the terror or fear of punishment.

Since we first formed them to protect human lives. That's why, for example, the state has the right to pick you off the street, force you into uniform, and send you to war without your consent if it judges that it is necessary to do so. It's why we let cops carry weapons.
Click to expand...

1. The state does not have the right to do that.
2. Cops carry guns because their job includes arresting people that carry guns.
 
RGacky3 said:
It's known ....
Click to expand...

Sort of. There is a very real differences between theoretical and visceral knowledge.

people who commit serious crimes do so assuming they'll get away with it ... that's why punishment isn't a deterent. The "broken windows" approach is having jobs on the streets, a show that you're not gonna get away with it, not through the terror or fear of punishment.
Click to expand...

Er, no. The broken windows approach has nothing to do with having jobs. It has everything to do with what you identify - sureity of the rules being enforced. When criminals observe that rules and norms are not enforced, they feel freer to break them. When the opposite condition is in effect, they are less likely to do so.

1. The state does not have the right to do that.
Click to expand...

It certainly does, which is why we still all sign up for the draft.

2. Cops carry guns because their job includes arresting people that carry guns.
Click to expand...

And they may have to kill them in order to protect others or themselves, or to enforce the law. Because the institution of law and order is more important than the individual lives of criminals.
 
cpwill said:
Sort of. There is a very real differences between theoretical and visceral knowledge.
Click to expand...

Given the number of re-offenders having visceral knowledge isn't really a detterent either.

Er, no. The broken windows approach has nothing to do with having jobs. It has everything to do with what you identify - sureity of the rules being enforced. When criminals observe that rules and norms are not enforced, they feel freer to break them. When the opposite condition is in effect, they are less likely to do so.
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant cops, cops on the street.

It certainly does, which is why we still all sign up for the draft.
Click to expand...

Funny seeing a conservative defend the right of the State forcing the draft ... yet calling leftists Statists for supporting having more in the commons.

And they may have to kill them in order to protect others or themselves, or to enforce the law. Because the institution of law and order is more important than the individual lives of criminals.
Click to expand...

A cop cannot kill to enforce the law, a cop can only kill to defend life.

Also they are not criminals unless they go through the justice system. But I think the fundemental issue is this.

For me institutions of law exist for the people, you seam to think it's vice versa.
 
RGacky3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Justice implies that the scales have been balanced. Iow, if you kill, then balance for your crime would be your death. Equal measures.
 
lizzie said:
Justice implies that the scales have been balanced. Iow, if you kill, then balance for your crime would be your death. Equal measures.
Click to expand...

Justice implies that evidence has been weighed fairly and objectively ruled upon. It's not eye for an eye (which, BTW, was originally created to CURTAIL punishment for crime)
 
radcen said:
I misspoke. Sorry about that. What I meant to say was...

I'm fine with it in theory. I now oppose it because we have proven beyond realistic doubt that we do not get it right often enough to justify it.
Click to expand...

Ah, I thought it might be that, but it could have gone either way.
 
RGacky3 said:
Given the number of re-offenders having visceral knowledge isn't really a detterent either.
Click to expand...

While I would agree that the way we structure most prison experiences detracts from its ability to serve as a deterrence to its' inmates, that is also a function of 1) the greater professionalization many criminals receive in prison and 2) the additional difficulties we have for integrating into society.

Sorry I meant cops, cops on the street.
Click to expand...

Then we are speaking to much of the same thing. When punishment is swift, sure, and public, it serves as a deterrent. When it is delayed, unsure, and takes place out of sight, it is not. A cop on every corner signals that punishment will be the former rather than the latter, and so crime is reduced.

Funny seeing a conservative defend the right of the State forcing the draft ... yet calling leftists Statists for supporting having more in the commons.
Click to expand...

Defense is a collective action issue and an issue of the commons. It is the primary reason that we have the State. I've noticed it's a common failure for those who have an unbounded vision in favor of the state to assume their opposition has an unbounded vision in the opposite direction (which is why some people so foolishly think that Somalia is a libertarian paradise, or the level of governance that libertarians want), but that is not the case. Where incentives align to create tragedies of the commons in manners that put at risk our rights [for example, the enforcement of contracts, protection of personal autonomy, defense, and pollution] , there the state rightfully exercises its' coercive power.

A cop cannot kill to enforce the law, a cop can only kill to defend life.
Also they are not criminals unless they go through the justice system. But I think the fundemental issue is this.
For me institutions of law exist for the people, you seam to think it's vice versa.
Click to expand...

Then you are misreading me. We have institutions to protect the people. I am saying that the lives of the many innocents outweigh the lives of the few guilty.
 
Ikari said:
Justice implies that evidence has been weighed fairly and objectively ruled upon. It's not eye for an eye (which, BTW, was originally created to CURTAIL punishment for crime)
Click to expand...

Er, no. You are confusing "justice" with "probably a correct ruling".

For example, if you were guilty of kidnapping, raping, and torturing 3 14 year old girls, and the court found you guilty, and then punished you by forcing you to say publicly that you were sorry, that would be an accurate sentence that wasn't connected to justice.
 
cpwill said:
Er, no. You are confusing "justice" with "probably a correct ruling".

For example, if you were guilty of kidnapping, raping, and torturing 3 14 year old girls, and the court found you guilty, and then punished you by forcing you to say publicly that you were sorry, that would be an accurate sentence that wasn't connected to justice.
Click to expand...

That would be a form of justice. Appropriate application of State force in response to a fair and impartial trial where all evidence was allowed to be presented. I think some of you confuse justice with revenge.
 
Ikari said:
That would be a form of justice. Appropriate application of State force in response to a fair and impartial trial where all evidence was allowed to be presented. I think some of you confuse justice with revenge.
Click to expand...

No, we are stating that justice is an evening of the scales. Revenge is seeking to hurt someone else until you feel better. Justice involve having a punishment fit the crime. And no, having to publicly apologize for raping and torturing children is not "justice", nor a form of it. It may be a form of a "justice system", but one that is incompetent to the task set before it in that regard.
 
I can offer no good evidence to support my view of being pro-capital punishment.

All I got to say is hang those bastards high.
 
The Death penalty is the government's ultimate expression of its monopoly on violence. I oppose the government's monopoly on violence therefore I oppose the death penalty.
 
cpwill said:
No, we are stating that justice is an evening of the scales. Revenge is seeking to hurt someone else until you feel better. Justice involve having a punishment fit the crime. And no, having to publicly apologize for raping and torturing children is not "justice", nor a form of it. It may be a form of a "justice system", but one that is incompetent to the task set before it in that regard.
Click to expand...

Only because you wish to label it as such, appropriate use of government force is still LIMITED use of government force. And in justice where in the government is called down to exercise force against the rights of the individual, the manner and magnitude to that which it can be done is limited. And eye for an eye is not justice, it's purposeful revenge in today's day and age.
 
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 also use to support the death penalty; now I cannot. I do believe that death is an appropriate sentence for some crimes, but I do not believe it should be implemented as a sentence. It has nothing to do with "right to life." I do not believe that a person who has (actually) committed a heinous murder has the right to life. I think society has the right to take his life for such an offense- however, I believe that we should not.

First of all, the execution of even one innocent is unacceptable. Without an absolute guarantee of guilt (which I define as DNA evidence or an eyewitness combined with the confession of the defendant which has not been retracted), the risk of executing an innocent person far outweighs the benefit of executing a guilty person. In fact, it appears, based on statistics, that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. If it is not a deterrent, then there is no practical benefit to society for executing a person. Here's a link.

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

If we accept the premise (at least until better research is conducted) that the death penalty does not deter people from committing capital murder, then the only arguments left to leave the death penalty in place are a) vengeful, or b) based on an idealistic demand for "justice," with no other punishment being acceptable or appropriate for heinously causing the death of another other than executing the offender (the "scales of justice").

While I believe that some people truly deserve to be put to death for their actions, and I also believe that to some extent executing people does bring justice for the person who was heinously murdered, the consequences to society overweigh the scales. For us, as a people, to reduce ourselves to such idealism rather than taking a higher road is truly barbaric.

If it were proven to me that the death penalty truly does deter such crimes, I would likely change my opinion. In such a case, there would be practical (rather than idealistic) benefits to society for conducting the executions.
 
I totally support the death penalty... In this day and age of DNA it is almost impossible to execute and innocent and to say its not a deterrent is ridiculous because it sure deters the people who are executed.
 
Navy Pride said:
I totally support the death penalty... In this day and age of DNA it is almost impossible to execute and innocent and to say its not a deterrent is ridiculous because it sure deters the people who are executed.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, the death penalty and life in prison are equal in terms of deterrence. They serve the same purpose, and one is no better than the other.

Also, your statement that it is nearly impossible to execute an innocent person in the "age of DNA" assumes that DNA is present as evidence in all death penalty cases. It is not.

Additionally,

DNA’s Dirty Little Secret - Michael Bobelian

There have been many instances in which juries reached the wrong conclusion based on DNA evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom