• 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, for or against

Do you support the death penalty?

  • Total voters
    134
ecofarm said:
What makes you think you've the right to choose for others?
Click to expand...

That is why we have laws and sentences in the first place. The choice was made by the person (or excuse for one) who committed a capital offense. The idea of locking someone up, with no social contact and no hope of ever having freedom again, simply so you can say that is morally superior, since they will then die "naturally", seems odd to me. We don't even do that to dogs in a shelter.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is why we have laws and sentences in the first place. The choice was made by the person (or excuse for one) who committed a capital offense. The idea of locking someone up, with no social contact and no hope of ever having freedom again, simply so you can say that is morally superior, since they will then die "naturally", seems odd to me. We don't even do that to dogs in a shelter.
Click to expand...

I agree that the criminal chooses his outcome. I disagree that life in prison, even solitary, is worse than death. I'm pretty sure everyone given the choice would choose to remain alive. You can't say what you would choose for sure without being in the situation.

So, your position boils down to personal speculation. I don't find that to be a compelling reason to kill a harmless helpless person.
 
I am for the death penalty but only with the accused able to completely have the opportunity to prove his innocence. If a human is so willing to snuff out the life of another, there needs to be laws that address that. Life in prison at the cost of the taxpayer? I don't think so for then you enslave them for paying for the wrong deed done by the murderer. You take a life unjustly, you pay with your own life period.
 
lizzie said:
Justicd isnt about making someone whole. It is only about equitable payment for crime.
Click to expand...

Socratic Justice is a big part of our legal understanding.

To be fair Socrates in his Republic, discusses Justice as being a harmony and balance in society. But it's harder to be just than unjust, even though both take effort.

Justice is intimately connected with fairness: the idea that people should get what they deserve. Benevolence and mercy may lead us to give people more than they deserve but justice insists on their getting all and only what they deserve. Socrates was particularly concerned that injustices not be done: in particular he was concerned that people be treated according to the law and not according to the whims or desires of leaders or people in general. So even in his interpretation of Justice it had mercy as a factor, because of the ever changing desires of people in general, whereas the Law was immutable.

Socrates was tried on two charges: corrupting the youth and impiety. And he was ultimately sentenced to death by drinking a hemlock-based liquid for his crimes.

Upon his death speech, he said these words...

I say then to you, O Athenians, who have condemned me to death, that immediately after my death a punishment will overtake you, far more severe, by Jupiter, than that which you have inflicted on me. For you have done this thinking you should be freed from the necessity of giving an account of your life. The very contrary however, as I affirm, will happen to you. Your accusers will be more numerous, whom I have now restrained, tho you did not perceive it; and they will be more severe, inasmuch as they are younger and you will be more indignant. For, if you think that by putting men to death you will restrain any one from upbraiding you because you do not live well, you are much mistaken; for this method of escape is neither possible nor honorable, but that other is most honorable and most easy, not to put a check upon others, but for a man to take heed to himself, how he may be most perfect. Having predicted thus much to those of you who have condemned me, I take my leave of you.
Click to expand...

Which basically means, you have hurt yourself more than me.
 
I support the death penalty for serious crimes against humanity and wicked murders (like killing children and whatnot) who kill without remorse. I also think the death should be extremely painful and undignified.
 
grip said:
Socratic Justice is a big part of our legal understanding.

To be fair Socrates in his Republic, discusses Justice as being a harmony and balance in society. But it's harder to be just than unjust, even though both take effort.

Justice is intimately connected with fairness: the idea that people should get what they deserve. Benevolence and mercy may lead us to give people more than they deserve but justice insists on their getting all and only what they deserve. Socrates was particularly concerned that injustices not be done: in particular he was concerned that people be treated according to the law and not according to the whims or desires of leaders or people in general. So even in his interpretation of Justice it had mercy as a factor, because of the ever changing desires of people in general, whereas the Law was immutable.

Socrates was tried on two charges: corrupting the youth and impiety. And he was ultimately sentenced to death by drinking a hemlock-based liquid for his crimes.

Upon his death speech, he said these words...



Which basically means, you have hurt yourself more than me.
Click to expand...

You want justice tempered with mercy? Nowhere else on the planet will you find that than here. Mercy comes in the form of allowing one due process, to prove his innocence. The death penalty is for those who take the life of another. Why Socrates? The trial of Socrates is the first case in recorded history when a democratic government, by due process of law, condemned a person to death for his beliefs. Athens, one of the world’s earliest democracies, raised Socrates, educated him and finally sentenced him to death, having found him guilty of religious unorthodoxy and corrupting the young. The trial and its outcome represent a political problem with which all subsequent democratic societies have struggled: how to deal with dissent. Socrates was a great influence on our founders who knew much about the struggles of religious freedoms. We do not condemn men to death because of their "beliefs". Nuff said.
 
Cyrylek said:
Actually, it is the other way around. The proponents of death penalty are driven by their emotions, "animal spirits".

Yes, it is natural to seek vengeance.
I mean, if were a father of one of the kids gunned down by Mr. Breivik on July 22, 2011 - well, the first thing I would do on the day he is released from prison (those super-"humane" Scandinavian laws...) is to sink as many rounds into his chest as I could, before cops bring me down.

But.

This is not how you build or sustain civilization. This is how you destroy it.

Do I know what "justice" is? How? Oh, sure, it says so-and-so in a sacred book - the Torah, if I am lucky; the Complete Works of Parteigenosse Lenin/Hitler/Mao - if I was born on the wrong side of the fence....

Screw that. I do not know what's "justice". Have I ever been to another person's brain? Felt what he or she feels? Knew what she or he knows? Suffered from exactly the same kind of madness?

Justice is impossible. Period. Unless you are the all-knowing God. Are you?
Click to expand...

I am not talking about justice. I am talking about a consequence to an action. There is no emotion about it.

You speed... you get a ticket.
You stay out too late at 15 years-old... you get grounded.
You murder a person... you get the Death Penalty.

You can join the club of those falsely labelling me, at least, as being emotional but you would be extremely wrong.

Now, if a guy killed my kid? Yeah, I would want to kill him and would if I could get away with it. In that case I am driven by emotion. That also does not negate the ethical position that the DP is the best course of action for a society in that by taking the life of a murderer, the most severe thing you can do to a person, you are showing society that you place the value of innocent life at the highest elevation. The most precious. It has nothing to do with anybody's brain or feelings... that is you being lost in emotion. I don't go there since it is irrelevant.

But on this one, there can be no compromise: Countries worth defending do not execute helpless prisoners. I believe in America that is worth defending.
Click to expand...

That is your caveat and I find it illogical and frankly ridiculous. So... we can't compromise? What are you going to do about it?
 
Sababa said:
it is an answer to the question of the thread.
Click to expand...

I know. That is why I thanked you for sharing... even sharing that answer which illuminated very little.
 
vesper said:
You want justice tempered with mercy? Nowhere else on the planet will you find that than here. Mercy comes in the form of allowing one due process, to prove his innocence. The death penalty is for those who take the life of another. Why Socrates? The trial of Socrates is the first case in recorded history when a democratic government, by due process of law, condemned a person to death for his beliefs. Athens, one of the world’s earliest democracies, raised Socrates, educated him and finally sentenced him to death, having found him guilty of religious unorthodoxy and corrupting the young. The trial and its outcome represent a political problem with which all subsequent democratic societies have struggled: how to deal with dissent. Socrates was a great influence on our founders who knew much about the struggles of religious freedoms. We do not condemn men to death because of their "beliefs". Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Due process isn't mercy, it's the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Compassion should not be reserved only for those we judge to be deserving, we temper justice with mercy to consider the individual and societal needs.

Socrates was an example of why the death sentence is more injurious to the souls of those who inflict it. His whole point was that you can't vanquish injustice by killing its perpetrators, especially your own.
 
grip said:
Due process isn't mercy, it's the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Compassion should not be reserved only for those we judge to be deserving, we temper justice with mercy to consider the individual and societal needs.

Socrates was an example of why the death sentence is more injurious to the souls of those who inflict it. His whole point was that you can't vanquish injustice by killing its perpetrators, especially your own.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Due process is mercy because it allows one a chance to prove his/her innocence instead of allowing mobs to take over and seek their own kind of justice. And a government set up of laws that doesn't allow the same fate of Socrates.. Socrates' injustice was he was condemned to death soley on his beliefs. The government at that time dealt with dissent through silence by death. Thanks to the founders and their respect for Socrates, we don't do that.
 
vesper said:
I disagree. Due process is mercy because it allows one a chance to prove his/her innocence instead of allowing mobs to take over and seek their own kind of justice. And a government set up of laws that doesn't allow the same fate of Socrates.. Socrates' injustice was he was condemned to death soley on his beliefs. The government at that time dealt with dissent through silence by death. Thanks to the founders and their respect for Socrates, we don't do that.
Click to expand...

Interesting take... thank you for that and it has given me something to mull over. :)
 
Lachean said:
If we're going to have it, can we save the hundreds of thousands it costs and just put a $.30 cent 9MM into the back of their head immediately?
Click to expand...

It's worked well for the Russians and Chinese. China still bills the family of the executed for the cost of the bullet.
 
vesper said:
I disagree. Due process is mercy because it allows one a chance to prove his/her innocence instead of allowing mobs to take over and seek their own kind of justice. And a government set up of laws that doesn't allow the same fate of Socrates.. Socrates' injustice was he was condemned to death soley on his beliefs. The government at that time dealt with dissent through silence by death. Thanks to the founders and their respect for Socrates, we don't do that.
Click to expand...

Well, that's partially the reason for due process, but it's also so people get fair treatment under the law, regardless of their position, status or crime committed.

True, we don't silence dissent with the death penalty or imprisonment, because we're a free society. But the word temper is meant as a counterbalancing force to the harshness of pure, revenge like retribution. A civilized society shouldn't find the need to kill it's criminals as a punishment, because it's unjust in the same way that the criminal justified their own crime.
 
grip said:
Well, that's partially the reason for due process, but it's also so people get fair treatment under the law, regardless of their position, status or crime committed.

True, we don't silence dissent with the death penalty or imprisonment, because we're a free society. But the word temper is meant as a counterbalancing force to the harshness of pure, revenge like retribution. A civilized society shouldn't find the need to kill it's criminals as a punishment, because it's unjust in the same way that the criminal justified their own crime.
Click to expand...
In a civilized society, there has to be punishments fitting a crime. If not why have laws at all? Punishments depending on their severity often deter criminal behavior. A husband may be contemplating killing his wife but because he knows if he gets caught it means death to him it often stops the murder. Today the death penalty is associated with murder. But 125 years ago you could get hanged for being a horse thief. Horses were the main means of transportation. A man's livelihood could be centered around his horse. A 125 years ago they would be laughing you right out of your britches for your concepts today of what is mercy and just. :)
 
vesper said:
In a civilized society, there has to be punishments fitting a crime. If not why have laws at all? Punishments depending on their severity often deter criminal behavior. A husband may be contemplating killing his wife but because he knows if he gets caught it means death to him it often stops the murder. Today the death penalty is associated with murder. But 125 years ago you could get hanged for being a horse thief. Horses were the main means of transportation. A man's livelihood could be centered around his horse. A 125 years ago they would be laughing you right out of your britches for your concepts today of what is mercy and just. :)
Click to expand...


Yes, but society advances and evolves over time, having less need for such severe penalties. That's why so many countries don't have the death sentence anymore. Back when the sentencing was harsher, it was often due to the lack of education, civility and how great an impact stealing had on an impoverished society in comparison to today's cultures.

Look at how severe the Sharia Laws are and how the Western civilizations find them too harsh and demeaning. Those kind of extremes don't equate to justice but rather the lack of it.

I'm not trying to alter your opinion, but rather explaining my own, which I didn't formulate suddenly or without much consideration. I'm for justice and the determent of criminal behavior, though I don't believe most potential criminals consider the consequences of their actions, because they're mentally/emotionally imbalanced, desperate, anti-social, ignorant, mean, mistreated, etc.
 
Cyrylek said:
Ah, there it is: "the interests of society at large". What the hell does it even mean - outside of totalitarian utopias?

And there's no equivalency - unless you insist on introducing it, by erasing the difference between killing in self-defense and killing someone defenseless.
Click to expand...
I've no idea how you arrive at Totalitarianism, being that every group has interests they'd desire to see reflected across the body politic.

The only (false) equivalency here lies in the dishonesty of likening the judicial process to that of a murderer operating beyond the law.
 
I find it interesting that certain posters level accusations of emotionality without mediation of reason, whereas neither side of this fundamentally emotive issue are exempt from such. There's no logical basis to what amounts to a moral issue. Whatever logic there may be in justification, it exists in every position, and any conclusions are ultimately defined by morality, which is immune to logic. However we weigh the value of one life relative to another, these are always value judgements which were never eternal.
 
NoC_T said:
I find it interesting that certain posters level accusations of emotionality without mediation of reason, whereas neither side of this fundamentally emotive issue are exempt from such. There's no logical basis to what amounts to a moral issue. Whatever logic there may be in justification, it exists in every position, and any conclusions are ultimately defined by morality, which is immune to logic. However we weigh the value of one life relative to another, these are always value judgements which were never eternal.
Click to expand...

You're excusing yourself from logic and reason based on it being a "moral issue".

wow

Your morals are void of logic and reason?

wow
 
I am against capital punishment for many of the same reasons others have posted. I don't think anyone has the right to kill anyone. You would be stooping to their same level... let them live to think about their crimes for the rest of their life. Justice is just a pretty sounding word for revenge to me.

The only case I would see capital punish should be committed is when the person or persons is still a threat to the outside world even when imprisoned or whatever.

This may sound ridiculous, but I have an idea that I would consider implementing. Have complete eternal banishment from our society, similar to life in prison. Accept, wall a 5-10 square mile area(fertile land) of one gender and just toss all the death-row banished inmates there, naked and have them survive on that patch of land themselves with each other for the rest of their lives.

This is my way of getting around the killing thing.... just toss them their own land to live on with each other and rot. It may be cost effective as opposed to jailing and providing. If they manage to build some sort of civilization there it would be one hell of a social experiment. And make sure the place is impossible to get out of with 24-hour monitoring.

I think it would be a literal hell on earth.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You're excusing yourself from logic and reason based on it being a "moral issue".

wow

Your morals are void of logic and reason?

wow
Click to expand...
Ah yes, you'd prayed that this most fundamental lynchpin would remain concealed, had you not?

Sorry, Eco. All the sarcasm you can muster won't suffice to compensate for the core weakness in your approach. Morality does not exist in nature. You'd like to believe that any logic here is more than merely justification of one's personal perspective. This obviously cannot be, unless you, alone in all of history, can explain how morality is objective.

Were morality logical, there could be no difference of opinion. Every time and culture would have embraced identical ideals.
 
NoC_T said:
Ah yes, you'd prayed that this most fundamental lynchpin would remain concealed, had you not?

Sorry, Eco. All the sarcasm you can muster won't suffice to compensate for the core weakness in your approach. Morality does not exist in nature. You'd like to believe that any logic here is more than merely justification of one's personal perspective. This obviously cannot be, unless you, alone in all of history, can explain how morality is objective.

Were morality logical, there could be no difference of opinion. Every time and culture would have embraced identical ideals.
Click to expand...

Try this morality on for size:

It is innate within humans to want to live (extremely rare exceptions a given). This innate desire to live is self evident. The self evidence of this desire can only be logically expressed in a right to life. In this way, a right to life is a natural right.

Is it logical to presume that ones innate desire is also innate in others? Yes. Is it possible to confirm this? Yes. Is it reasonable to construe this innate desire as a natural right? Yes. Is this natural right logical and reasonable? Yes.

While all rights can (even justly) be taken away or refused, they do represent morality and, in this particular case, I've clearly explained how the morality is both logical and reasonable.
 
ecofarm said:
Try this morality on for size:

It is innate within humans to want to live (extremely rare exceptions a given). This innate desire to live is self evident. The self evidence of this desire can only be logically expressed in a right to life. In this way, a right to life is a natural right.

Is it logical to presume that ones innate desire is also innate in others? Yes. Is it possible to confirm this? Yes. Is it reasonable to construe this innate desire as a natural right? Yes. Is this natural right logical and reasonable? Yes.

While all rights can (even justly) be taken away or refused, they do represent morality and, in this particular case, I've clearly explained how the morality is both logical and reasonable.
Click to expand...

Arm chair psychobabble...
 
ecofarm said:
Try this morality on for size:

It is innate within humans to want to live (extremely rare exceptions a given). This innate desire to live is self evident. The self evidence of this desire can only be logically expressed in a right to life. In this way, a right to life is a natural right.

Is it logical to presume that ones innate desire is also innate in others? Yes. Is it possible to confirm this? Yes. Is it reasonable to construe this innate desire as a natural right? Yes. Is this natural right logical and reasonable? Yes.

While all rights can (even justly) be taken away or refused, they do represent morality and, in this particular case, I've clearly explained how the morality is both logical and reasonable.
Click to expand...
The desire to live isn't the issue. The issue remains whether or not, having consciously dismissed this desire to live, your own desire may be similarly dismissed.

The 'right' to life is a function of morality, being something other than desire alone. Were it merely a question of desire, the same 'right' you mistake as being a logical premise, would be void the instant the desire changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom