• 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
AGENT J said:
1.) dont remember you and im going to continue to do it because it makes it easier
2.) no i interjected reality

the reality is depending on the circumstances i might answer yes or no, if you dont like the answer the problem is yours
Click to expand...

Simple minds don't interest me, so good evening...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Simple minds don't interest me, so good evening...
Click to expand...

so wait, you didnt like that i said it was circumstantial and that i " injected variables" but some how im simple, yep that makes perfect sense lol
sorry i used logic, common sense and reality and that was to much for you, move along thats what i thought
 
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...

No it doesn't, If you rape someone, you don't get raped, if you rob a store it doesn't just mean you ahve to gie the store something. The Justice system has NEVER been about equal measures.
 
Ikari said:
Only because you wish to label it as such, appropriate use of government force is still LIMITED use of government force.
Click to expand...

No one has stated otherwise. But being forced to apologize for torturing and raping children is not a "Just" punishment. The punishment is completely disconnected from the crime - justice has not been performed at all.

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.
Click to expand...

No. For example, if you were to kill an entire family, the death penalty would not call for the death of you and your immediate family as well. THAT would be eye-for-an-eye style revenge. Having the punishment fit the crime (you killed people, you are killed) can only be eye-for-an-eye if you killed one individual in the exact manner that the state performs executions, and even then it would be happenstance rather than intent.
 
cpwill said:
No. For example, if you were to kill an entire family, the death penalty would not call for the death of you and your immediate family as well. THAT would be eye-for-an-eye style revenge. Having the punishment fit the crime (you killed people, you are killed) can only be eye-for-an-eye if you killed one individual in the exact manner that the state performs executions, and even then it would be happenstance rather than intent.
Click to expand...
sophistry
Pronunciation: /ˈsɒfɪstri/
noun (plural sophistries)
[mass noun]

*
the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving: trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry
*
[count noun] a fallacious argument.

Source: OED
 
Andalublue said:
sophistry
Pronunciation: /ˈsɒfɪstri/
noun (plural sophistries)
[mass noun]

*
the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving: trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry
*
[count noun] a fallacious argument.

Source: OED
Click to expand...

Do you need for me to link you the definitions of "StrawMan" and "Ad Hominem"? :)
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is what happens when prisons are not about rehabilitation and are instead about holding ... either way, that isn't an argument for what amounts to legalized murder.

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.
Click to expand...

No it isn't that punishment will be swift, it reduces crime because it shows that getting cuaght is imminant ... it's not fear of punishment, or the swiftness, it's a reminder of the law and that you won't escape it.

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.
Click to expand...

The tradgey of the commons is a false problem imo that doesn't exist in reality and empirical evidence will show otherwise, especially when the commons are directly accessable to the people rather than the commons just in name. As far as the whole defense thing defense of the state as an institution is not a good justification imo for forcing people to fight, since the institution of the state isn't important beyond its utility to community. Anyway, I don't think this is the right thread for that discussion, maybe we can debate it somewhere else, it's an interesting discussion though.

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, but that is only an arugment if execution somehow is a better detterent than inprisonment, but even if it was, The State cannot be God, i.e. the state cannot decide on who is worthy or not for life.
 
cpwill said:
No one has stated otherwise. But being forced to apologize for torturing and raping children is not a "Just" punishment. The punishment is completely disconnected from the crime - justice has not been performed at all.



No. For example, if you were to kill an entire family, the death penalty would not call for the death of you and your immediate family as well. THAT would be eye-for-an-eye style revenge. Having the punishment fit the crime (you killed people, you are killed) can only be eye-for-an-eye if you killed one individual in the exact manner that the state performs executions, and even then it would be happenstance rather than intent.
Click to expand...

Eye for an eye was never about killing mass murderer's families, so that was pretty irrelevant.
 
RGacky3 said:
Which is what happens when prisons are not about rehabilitation and are instead about holding ...
Click to expand...

:shrug: While I would agree on the barriers we raise with regards to reintigration, I see no particular reason to draw a causal link between that and deterrence. Quite the contrary, the methodology you are suggesting would increase the incentive to engage in crime, as doing so would ensure someone access to education and training in a skill-set of the type that they would otherwise have to pay for.

either way, that isn't an argument for what amounts to legalized murder.
Click to expand...

Murder is illegal killing - so the idea of legalized murder a bit self-contradictory. The State does indeed have a monopoly of violence. That's why we call it "government". We can say that we do not want a death penalty, but you can't really state with legitimacy that hte government does not have a right to kill at given times and under given circumstances.

No it isn't that punishment will be swift, it reduces crime because it shows that getting cuaght is imminant ... it's not fear of punishment, or the swiftness, it's a reminder of the law and that you won't escape it.
Click to expand...

you just argued with yourself. You are correct - the presence of police sends a signal that "you wont escape the law", that your punishment will be swift and sure, that laws and norms are enforced, that the law will get you. The presence of broken windows (hence the name of the theory) sends the opposite signal, thus encouraging delinquent and criminal behavior.

The tradgey of the commons is a false problem imo that doesn't exist in reality
Click to expand...

:lol: okay, this I have to see. Please demonstrate (for example) how a question of pollution or defense is not a tragedy of the commons. If there is no such thing as a tragedy of the commons, then companies must never pollute - for they would not have an incentive to do so. People would never refuse to stand up to criminal elements or gangs, or to turn a blind eye to crime in their neighborhood. We wouldn't need a draft because everyone would always volunteer for the military.

the idea that there is no such thing as a tragedy of the commons, where every individual actors incentives are to perform actions which are to the detriment of the group is.... um.... well, it's the Political Science version of Flat Earth theory.

and empirical evidence will show otherwise, especially when the commons are directly accessable to the people rather than the commons just in name
Click to expand...

:) I can't wait to see that empirical evidence that, left to their own, people will naturally sacrifice themselves consistently for the good of others. Heck, if that were true, communism would work. All those collective farming movements of the mid - 20th century would have resulted in amazing abundance rather than tens of millions of human beings starving to death.

As far as the whole defense thing defense of the state as an institution is not a good justification imo for forcing people to fight, since the institution of the state isn't important beyond its utility to community.
Click to expand...

precisely. and since defense is an example of the tragedy of the commons, where each individual's incentives is to depend upon others to take on the risk of fighting in order to secure his personal security and property, the state maintains the ability to (if necessary) enforce a draft.

Yeah, I agree, but that is only an arugment if execution somehow is a better detterent than inprisonment, but even if it was, The State cannot be God, i.e. the state cannot decide on who is worthy or not for life.
Click to expand...

Sure it can. That's why we have one. Because the alternative is for each individual to be able to decide for themselves who is or is not worthy of life. That is why the State wields the Sword, remember ;).
 
Ikari said:
Eye for an eye was never about killing mass murderer's families, so that was pretty irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You're not really up on your history, are you? Humanity's story is full of retributive massacres.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: While I would agree on the barriers we raise with regards to reintigration, I see no particular reason to draw a causal link between that and deterrence. Quite the contrary, the methodology you are suggesting would increase the incentive to engage in crime, as doing so would ensure someone access to education and training in a skill-set of the type that they would otherwise have to pay for.
Click to expand...

Empirically that simply isn't the case, look at the rate of post prison criminality in places like Norway (very liberal prison system) compared to the US. Leaving prison WITH a skill set makes them much less likely to engage in crime than leaving without one ... I've NEVER heard of a case of someone commiting a crime to go to prison to try and get an education.

Murder is illegal killing - so the idea of legalized murder a bit self-contradictory. The State does indeed have a monopoly of violence. That's why we call it "government". We can say that we do not want a death penalty, but you can't really state with legitimacy that hte government does not have a right to kill at given times and under given circumstances.
Click to expand...

No it isn't self-contradictory, that's why we can say that Hitler MURDERED, or Sadam Hussain murdered people, because it was immoral and unjustified. Of coarse I can say the right doesn't have a "right" to kill ever, just like you can say the state doesn't have a right to restrict freedom of speech.

you just argued with yourself. You are correct - the presence of police sends a signal that "you wont escape the law", that your punishment will be swift and sure, that laws and norms are enforced, that the law will get you. The presence of broken windows (hence the name of the theory) sends the opposite signal, thus encouraging delinquent and criminal behavior.
Click to expand...

Sure is really the only thing that counts ... The point is not you're afraid of MORE punishment, or whatever, it's just the surity of getting caught.

:lol: okay, this I have to see. Please demonstrate (for example) how a question of pollution or defense is not a tragedy of the commons. If there is no such thing as a tragedy of the commons, then companies must never pollute - for they would not have an incentive to do so. People would never refuse to stand up to criminal elements or gangs, or to turn a blind eye to crime in their neighborhood. We wouldn't need a draft because everyone would always volunteer for the military.

the idea that there is no such thing as a tragedy of the commons, where every individual actors incentives are to perform actions which are to the detriment of the group is.... um.... well, it's the Political Science version of Flat Earth theory.
Click to expand...

The tragedy of the commons in pollution isn't exactly fully a tragedy of the commons, because private corporations are not polluting their own commons, they are polluting someone elses commons ... That's not a tradgedy of the commons that's externalities.

People WOULD stand up to gangs, and they DO when it's their neighborhood.

:) I can't wait to see that empirical evidence that, left to their own, people will naturally sacrifice themselves consistently for the good of others. Heck, if that were true, communism would work. All those collective farming movements of the mid - 20th century would have resulted in amazing abundance rather than tens of millions of human beings starving to death.
Click to expand...

Compare unemployment rate in social democracies like Norway or Sweden, where you literally don't have to work to live a comfortable life, and places like the US, or the third world.

No one is arguing that they will sacrifice themselves for the good of the others, that isn't what the commons is, it's actually in self interest, when the commons is actually in you're hands and you have autonomy.

You mention collective farming in the soviet Union ... that wasn't collective farming, it was state slavery, a better example would be the Cooperatives in Emilia-Romania in Italy, or the coops in Denmark, or cooperatives like the Mondragon cooperative, or electricity cooperatives which DO produce an amazing abundance.

Soviet Union collective farming isnt' an example of the commons AT ALL.

precisely. and since defense is an example of the tragedy of the commons, where each individual's incentives is to depend upon others to take on the risk of fighting in order to secure his personal security and property, the state maintains the ability to (if necessary) enforce a draft.
Click to expand...

The reason the State needs to enforce a draft is because it isn't "defending" the people, its engaging in imperialism, when communities need to ACTUALLY be defended, you don't need a draft, because it's in their interest to collectively defend themselves.

Sure it can. That's why we have one. Because the alternative is for each individual to be able to decide for themselves who is or is not worthy of life. That is why the State wields the Sword, remember ;).
Click to expand...

No the Alternative is NO ONE has that right.

That argument is rediculous, thats like saying "if the state dosn't have a right to rape, then everyone does." Or how about NO ONE has the right to take life.
 
RGacky3 said:
Empirically that simply isn't the case, look at the rate of post prison criminality in places like Norway (very liberal prison system) compared to the US. Leaving prison WITH a skill set makes them much less likely to engage in crime than leaving without one ... I've NEVER heard of a case of someone commiting a crime to go to prison to try and get an education.
Click to expand...

You are confusing "recidivism" with "deterrence" (and your comparison is problematic). And I would suggest you hang with more LE. People commit crimes for free food and lodging in the winter. When you reduce the "prison is a bad place to go to", you decrease the "therefore I don't want to go there". If my options are A) continue to be an incredibly low-paid member of a gang or B) get caught and get a free college degree or professional skill set while learning in a structured environment to keep me from backsliding....

People join the military for that reason, after all (the GI Bill). And here we can send you to get killed.

No it isn't self-contradictory, that's why we can say that Hitler MURDERED, or Sadam Hussain murdered people, because it was immoral and unjustified
Click to expand...

At that point all you are doing is appealing to a higher set of law. Unfortunately for you, in the United States, the highest law is the Constitution of the United States, which grants the local, state, and federal government the right to use force up to and including lethal.

Of coarse I can say the right doesn't have a "right" to kill ever, just like you can say the state doesn't have a right to restrict freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

When we enter into the social contract, we give an actor (the state) a monopoly of violence. We don't give it a monopoly of thought or expression - because speech is not (usually) a tragedy of the commons (as violence is), and when speech does become such a tragedy (for example, incitement) we do give the state the right to restrict it.

Sure is really the only thing that counts ... The point is not you're afraid of MORE punishment, or whatever, it's just the surity of getting caught.
Click to expand...

And you are afraid of getting caught because.... you don't want the cops to think less of you as a person? :roll:

The tragedy of the commons in pollution isn't exactly fully a tragedy of the commons, because private corporations are not polluting their own commons, they are polluting someone elses commons ... That's not a tradgedy of the commons that's externalities
Click to expand...

:doh Go back and read what a tragedy of the commons is. You appear to be confused - pollution is a classic example of a tragedy of the commons because everyone's individual incentives are to avoid the cost of proper waste containment and safe disposal.

To help, when a resource is not depleted by its' consumption, you get a tragedy of the commons, because the incentives are for everyone to consume, but no one to buy, so the resource never appears unless a third actor uses coercion to force a minimum number of purchasers into doing so.

People WOULD stand up to gangs, and they DO when it's their neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Actually usually they don't. You find awesome counterexamples all over, but the typical reaction to a group being able to consistently exercise violence over an area is acquiescence. People make the rational judgement that the loss (violence from the gain) is likely to outweigh the gain (often little to nothing). If you were correct we would not have criminal gangs.

Compare unemployment rate in social democracies like Norway or Sweden, where you literally don't have to work to live a comfortable life, and places like the US, or the third world.
Click to expand...

:) I love how everyone always tries to depend on Norway or Sweden. As though small, heterogeneous nations with strong community ethics and massive oil-per-capita resources really can reflect.

I tell you what. Let's compare the U.S. unemployment rate rolling average for the last 20 years with the unemployment rate rolling average for social democracies. Such as, for example, France, Spain, and Italy :).

Hey, take a look at how awesome those social democracies are doing :

chzrt.jpg


No one is arguing that they will sacrifice themselves for the good of the others, that isn't what the commons is, it's actually in self interest, when the commons is actually in you're hands and you have autonomy.
Click to expand...

Actually that is precisely what you are arguing. You are arguing that people will ignore self interest in situations where their particular self interests act towards the detriment of the group - you are arguing that there is no such thing as a tragedy of the commons. All the police forces, militaries, judges, of the world, they are all in vain, because there is no tragedy of the commons, and so people never commit crimes or otherwise harm others.

You mention collective farming in the soviet Union ... that wasn't collective farming, it was state slavery
Click to expand...

lol, ah yes. This would be the famous "oh, when they actually implement it it doesn't count" excuse for socialism' repeated failures?

a better example would be the Cooperatives in Emilia-Romania in Italy, or the coops in Denmark, or cooperatives like the Mondragon cooperative, or electricity cooperatives which DO produce an amazing abundance.
Click to expand...

"...All the massive, repeated, consistent failures don't count but a few minor temporary successes do. That's what you call "cognitive dissonance in action" right there.

Soviet Union collective farming isnt' an example of the commons AT ALL.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - communism was precisely such an example of an attempt to enforce the logic you utilized.

The reason the State needs to enforce a draft is because it isn't "defending" the people, its engaging in imperialism, when communities need to ACTUALLY be defended, you don't need a draft, because it's in their interest to collectively defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Wrong, actually. They faced this problem quite a lot in early America, where communities or homesteads would refuse to come to the aid of the other. The South during the Civil War, for example, was being invaded, a rather clear example of a community needing defense, and yet it had to institute a draft because people made the rational decision to seek to allow others to take the cost for a good that they did not diminish through consumption. Sure, it's in my interest to have collective defense. But it's even more in my interest to make sure that you take on the risk for this collective defense that we shall both enjoy. (shrug) we're all free-riders, my friend. It's simply a smart evolutionary strategy.

No the Alternative is NO ONE has that right.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect - if your argument is that "no one has that right", then the problem is that you have simply ceded the power to the individual(s) most willing to abuse it. If, for example, the state does not have the right to say "you deserve to die", then they do not have the right to defend us from invasion unless they strictly do so with non-lethal means. If I do not have the right to make "you deserve to die" decisions, then I do not have the right to defend my own life and the life of my family from an assailant.

It is, in fact, mostly for the purpose of ensuring that we kill the right people in order to protect the right people that we form governments. That is the States' primary role.

Now, that's neither here nor there as regards the Death Penalty. Whether you want one or not is up to other factors. But the argument that the state does not have a monopoly of violence is equally as unsupportable as the claim that there are no tragedies of the commons.
 
cpwill said:
You're not really up on your history, are you? Humanity's story is full of retributive massacres.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Eye for an Eye wasn't about that, it was made to LIMIT punishment.

Talk about not really being up on history. Jeesh
 
Navy Pride said:
The judges are actually the one that decide.......They can overrule a parole board but rarely do.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If it is LWOP there is NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE...period. If it is Life with the possibility of a parole board, it is solely up to the parole board...the judge has no say.
 
Navy Pride said:
In capital cases DNA is effective a huge majority of the time. Life in prison without parole is very flawed because down the road some Liberal judge with grant parole...It happens all the time when killers without parole get out and murder again.
Click to expand...

You wanna post a single instance where someone got LWOP (Life without the possibility of parole) where they were granted parole by a "Liberal Judge". Let me save you time searching.....you won't find any because you are talking out of your ass.
 
cpwill said:
You're not really up on your history, are you? Humanity's story is full of retributive massacres.
Click to expand...

Yes, and thankfully a lot of us are less ignorant now.
 
Cephus said:
I'm quite sure that you're sure of it. It doesn't necessarily make it so.
Click to expand...

Insofar as retributive massacres are concerned, we can actually be pretty sure, as the rate of such has declined precipitously over the past few centuries.
 
Navy Pride said:
Sadly it happens...Its amazing you don't believe it. I will try to find a few names of people who have done it.
Click to expand...

Lies Lies and more Lies....there isn't a single case in the United States of someone sentenced to LWOP that got paroled. There have been cases where DNA has proved people innocent, but ZERO where someone has been released on an LWOP sentence. You are once again perpetuating lies
 
ChrisL said:
This is not productive at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about productive, I'm worried about true. You keep making claims based on your emotional desires, not on the demonstrated facts. I keep pointing out that your opinions are your opinions, but they mean nothing to anyone else and you just keep repeating your opinions. You don't have rational discussions by putting out your opinions.
 
Cephus said:
I'm not worried about productive, I'm worried about true. You keep making claims based on your emotional desires, not on the demonstrated facts. I keep pointing out that your opinions are your opinions, but they mean nothing to anyone else and you just keep repeating your opinions. You don't have rational discussions by putting out your opinions.
Click to expand...

Got no idea what you're talking about. I made some factual statements. People do not kill indiscriminately anymore. There is nothing emotional about that. Are you trying to claim that people aren't less ignorant?
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Got no idea what you're talking about. I made some factual statements. People do not kill indiscriminately anymore. There is nothing emotional about that. Are you trying to claim that people aren't less ignorant?
Click to expand...

Sure then do, there's all kinds of people who kill others in drive-by shootings, etc. In fact, I'd argue that there are a lot more ignorant people out there than there ought to be, given the level of education and science we have access to today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom