• 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!

was this actually "Botched"?

Does it actually matter?

  • No....he deserved to die a harrible death.

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • Yes....Everyone should die with dignity.

    Votes: 12 36.4%

  • I simply do not care what happened to this bastard.

    Votes: 6 18.2%

  • He died a better death than his victim.

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Total voters
    33
Oftencold said:
I thought so, I'm glad you agree. Why indeed would anyone place the welfare of murderers before their victims?
Click to expand...

Because society is not supposed to answer an injustice with the same kind of injustice. That's why. If one person kills another, as the state which represents the people, don't kill that person. That's vendetta... state sponsored vigilantism. And we, the people, should be better than that.

But say you are a practical person and have no qualms about moral issues or how the state should deal with individuals who did something illegal as long as it produces a desirable effect. So ideally, you'd want, if you're a supporter of the death penalty, that such a punishment would deter further crimes. But it doesn't. The death penalty is not a deterrent. What it is however is a state sponsored killing machine of innocent people. How does it feel knowing that in your name, the government executed dozens of provable innocent people who would have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Because that's what the state does, it kills them in your name coz it represents the people.

Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

US Death Penalty Wrongful Convictions Executions - TIME

I guess the whole "better let 10 criminals escape than to condemn 1 innocent" doesn't really matter. I mean, it's just one of the most important notions in judicial philosophy. A cornerstone of how we in the civilized world should view justice, up there along with "innocent until proven guilty" and "everybody should be allowed to a fair trial".

So it's not a deterrent. It is a tool that innocents died to... it's also torture. You know, torture... that thing that is kinda frowned upon.
Repeated Execution Dates Called Psychological Torture | Death Penalty Information Center

Yeah... not quite what a civilized nation that supports the rule of law and freedom and all that should engage. But what do I know.

in fact, the only people who may get some sort of resolution from the death penalty being carried out is the relatives of the victims. Let me tell you something however. I would rather someone spend the rest of his life in prison than to be killed. because that's him getting off the hooks. I despise easy sentences for major crimes. But I abhor the death penalty. I do think that repeat offenders of murder or rape should get life in prison without chance of parole. Or serial murders or rapists should get life in prison. I also think that solitary confinement is ok for high risk individuals. But the death penalty... it's either too lenient or it makes the people criminals. And it serves no purpose. I mean, there are just 2 instances where the death penalty is appropiate. High treason and desertion in times of war. But not suitable in public life.

So yeah. There is no reason to support the death penalty. It's a primitive doctrine, disbanded in all the civilized world except the USA and frowned upon by people.
 
Oftencold said:
Please cite the "Humane Execution" clause for me. You want a humane execution? Fine. Arrange to have an executioner sneaK up behind the condemned murderer on an unannounced day and quickly fire a havy gauge shotgun into the back of the killer's head. I can't think of a more humane execution. Not only will the murderer never know what hit him, he'll never kniow in this life that he was hit. His skull and the brain it contains will disintegrate faster than nerve impulses could carry any awareness. Problem solved. Or is it? Because if you object to this completely painless method, you're not objecting out of humanitarian concerns for the condemned, but from your squeamishness and offended sense of aesthetics
Click to expand...
`
Considering the overall bias I've detected in your replies, I seriously doubt you'd accept any conventional explanation, which is why I'm not going to ask you about the "Cruel and unusual punishment" phrase in the US Constitution. While I might agree that the term, "humane execution" appears to be a paradox, it is more of an abstract concept than an actuality.

No executions at all would be ideal but as we live in an imperfect world, with imperfect leaders and imperfect ideology, the entire debate on executions will continue to rage.
 
Oftencold said:
Justine I leave up to God. This refers to conducting an execution.

If you object to the method I describe, please explain why. I hope that you can do better than a variation upon "messy."
Click to expand...

1] comtemplation that a sane person[executioner] would agree to that sort of heinious act is ridiculous.

2] one is all that is needed.

You can leave justine to god.

The Constitution leaves justice to the people.
 
Rainman05 said:
Because society is not supposed to answer an injustice with the same kind of injustice. That's why. If one person kills another, as the state which represents the people, don't kill that person. That's vendetta... state sponsored vigilantism. And we, the people, should be better than that.

But say you are a practical person and have no qualms about moral issues or how the state should deal with individuals who did something illegal as long as it produces a desirable effect. So ideally, you'd want, if you're a supporter of the death penalty, that such a punishment would deter further crimes. But it doesn't. The death penalty is not a deterrent. What it is however is a state sponsored killing machine of innocent people. How does it feel knowing that in your name, the government executed dozens of provable innocent people who would have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Because that's what the state does, it kills them in your name coz it represents the people.

Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

US Death Penalty Wrongful Convictions Executions - TIME

I guess the whole "better let 10 criminals escape than to condemn 1 innocent" doesn't really matter. I mean, it's just one of the most important notions in judicial philosophy. A cornerstone of how we in the civilized world should view justice, up there along with "innocent until proven guilty" and "everybody should be allowed to a fair trial".

So it's not a deterrent. It is a tool that innocents died to... it's also torture. You know, torture... that thing that is kinda frowned upon.
Repeated Execution Dates Called Psychological Torture | Death Penalty Information Center

Yeah... not quite what a civilized nation that supports the rule of law and freedom and all that should engage. But what do I know.

in fact, the only people who may get some sort of resolution from the death penalty being carried out is the relatives of the victims. Let me tell you something however. I would rather someone spend the rest of his life in prison than to be killed. because that's him getting off the hooks. I despise easy sentences for major crimes. But I abhor the death penalty. I do think that repeat offenders of murder or rape should get life in prison without chance of parole. Or serial murders or rapists should get life in prison. I also think that solitary confinement is ok for high risk individuals. But the death penalty... it's either too lenient or it makes the people criminals. And it serves no purpose. I mean, there are just 2 instances where the death penalty is appropiate. High treason and desertion in times of war. But not suitable in public life.

So yeah. There is no reason to support the death penalty. It's a primitive doctrine, disbanded in all the civilized world except the USA and frowned upon by people.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I know from direct experience that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Also, why do you think that "society is not supposed to answer an injustice with the same kind of injustice." By which I mean two things.

First why do you think that an execution as a reponse -- years after the fact, as a response top a heinous murder is an "injustice." Classically, it's would only be an injustice because so long delayed.

Second, in light of the War of Northrn Agression, World War Once, World War Two, The Viet nam Conflict, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that Society most certainly does frequently react to injustices with greatly disproportionate injustice. (Wars because of their impact upon the innocent are never just.) Would you care to revise your previous statement to the contrary?
 
1750Texan said:
1] comtemplation that a sane person[executioner] would agree to that sort of heinious act is ridiculous.

2] one is all that is needed.

You can leave justine to god.

The Constitution leaves justice to the people.
Click to expand...
Oh, good grief. A genertion ago we were executing Japanese civilians with nuclear weapons, by the tens of thousands because of the crimes of their military class.

We've had three hangings in recent years, and at least one execution by firing squad.

The Constitution leaves leaw to man. As a people we can agree on laws, more or less, but not justice. As this thread so clearly illustrates. If we control Justice then give life back to the killer's victims. You show me that, and I'll agree that justice is the purview of Man.
 
Oftencold said:
Sorry, I know from direct experience that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Also, why do you think that "society is not supposed to answer an injustice with the same kind of injustice." By which I mean two things.

First why do you think that an execution as a reponse -- years after the fact, as a response top a heinous murder is an "injustice." Classically, it's would only be an injustice because so long delayed.

Second, in light of the War of Northrn Agression, World War Once, World War Two, The Viet nam Conflict, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that Society most certainly does frequently react to injustices with greatly disproportionate injustice. (Wars because of their impact upon the innocent are never just.) Would you care to revise your previous statement to the contrary?
Click to expand...

Well the govt is not at war with its own people, is it? So that whole paragraph... I don't understand where you're getting at. Is the USA govt at war with the american people?
...

Secondly, execution is a response. The fact that the state kills someone in 2 days or in 2 weeks or in 20 years, it's still killing them. It's not a difference. And as you've seen from the links, innocents get killed by the state. And the state kills in your name, the citizen. So... yeah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom