• 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
I do not support the death penalty for many reasons.
 
I don't believe it right to kill someone who is not currently presenting a threat, not even if it were Hitler.

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?
 
For.

All is morality, in all it's personalised glory. To my mind, certain transgressions so egregiously violate the social contract, that whatever protections were previously afforded the perpetrator by virtue of it may be denied with equal prejudice. Whatever misgivings one might voice are surely more resultant of overemphasis on an improbable utopianism, than the practicalities of a reality that falls short of romantic idealism. While we award ourselves pats on the back, the victims suffer.

Where any consideration of morality hinges upon the balance of considerations due to both transgressor and victim, there is surely no contest. Forfeiture is sealed with conscious rejection of the same. To then sue for clemency, having blithely cast aside that which one now demands of others, is surely the preserve of scoundrels.

N.B. Attica!
 
I think it is far worse punishment for someone to rot in prison than to be given a "painless" death. Child rapists on the other hand should be drawn and quartered.
 
Do you know what the executed party in Oklahoma did? He's a black man who beat a white woman half to death then buried her alive. He buried her alive. All you people blubbering against the death penalty, imagine yourself buried alive, then get back to me on the subject of retribution.
 
I am 100% against the death penalty. It is fallible, inefficient, inhumane, and increases state power. Government can hardly be trusted with healthcare, yet most conservatives think it's a good idea to entrust them with the power to take someone's life?

Pretty good article on the subject: Government Can

A jury of your peers decides your fate, the government only carries it out.Personally, I wouldn't mind if the victim's family got to decide the punishment and carry it out.
 
I am 100% against the death penalty, because, as has already been said, it's God's place to judge when we live or die. Not some fat white judge sitting on a bench, or a bunch of bored, lonely housewives sitting on a jury.

As far as it being more humane to put them to death as opposed to letting them rot in prison - I say let them rot. As long as their living conditions are suitable for a prisoner (food, water, no extreme temperatures, yard time, work time) I have no problem with them spending the rest of their lives behind bars.

The man in Oklahoma was sentenced to death because he shot a 19 year old girl with a shotgun, and then buried her alive, all because she walked in on them robbing her house. He deserves punishment. Not death, but punishment.

That being said, the court system is absolutely fallible. If there were never any wrongly incarcerated prisoners, there'd be no need for The Innocence Project - Home. That, and the fact that I am not God, is why I am against the death penalty - for any reason.
 
I don't believe it right to kill someone who is not currently presenting a threat, not even if it were Hitler.

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?

How about a self-administered .357 magnum. That way it's only your fault if you screw up.
 
the difference is the the Constitutional allows for capital punishment with due process.

You don't know what "rationalization" means, do you?
 
Personally, I think maintaining the life, at perpetual taxpayer expense, of a human being who has proven himself to be little more than a rabid animal is both illogical and unreasonable.

That's pathetically self centered and without an understanding of what justifies the existence of society itself.
 
That's pathetically self centered and without an understanding of what justifies the existence of society itself.

What is "pathetically self centered" about it?

What "what justifies the existence of society itself"?
 
The death penalty is in the news again in America because states are turning to new, untested drug concoctions to use for lethal injection, and sometimes the drugs being used in executions cause complications and prolonged dying. There was a case a few months ago out of Ohio, but the story coming out of Oklahoma seems the most controversial yet. It actually delayed another man's execution.

A link to the story is below...



So do you favor the death penalty?

Do you think the death penalty will last in America considering the declining availability of traditional lethal injection drugs?



Oklahoma’s horrible ‘botched execution’ shows again why the death penalty should be abolished


Heya SW.
hat.gif
I am against the death penalty except for extreme and some unusual case. I don't believe in the Right of the State or Government to put people to death.
 
What is "pathetically self centered" about it?

It's pathetically self centered to want to kill in vengeance (not defense).

What "what justifies the existence of society itself"?

The treatment of the most pathetic illustrates the decency of society and justifies its existence.
 
Heya SW.
hat.gif
I am against the death penalty except for extreme and some unusual case. I don't believe in the Right of the State or Government to put people to death.

the 5th amendment.
 
A jury of your peers decides your fate, the government only carries it out.Personally, I wouldn't mind if the victim's family got to decide the punishment and carry it out.

Now that's where I think it should be.....if those people decide to give mercy. Then that's what they did. If they decide to take his life for crimes against their bloodline. Then its their call to make. Not the state nor the governments.
 
The death penalty is in the news again in America because states are turning to new, untested drug concoctions to use for lethal injection, and sometimes the drugs being used in executions cause complications and prolonged dying. There was a case a few months ago out of Ohio, but the story coming out of Oklahoma seems the most controversial yet. It actually delayed another man's execution.

A link to the story is below...



So do you favor the death penalty?

Do you think the death penalty will last in America considering the declining availability of traditional lethal injection drugs?



Oklahoma’s horrible ‘botched execution’ shows again why the death penalty should be abolished


Yet drug addicts die painless deaths by mistake all the time. This is what happens when simple becomes a government process designed to appease the unappeasable.

When I was dating my wife, her college roommate was kidnapped and raped over a period of 24 hrs. The kidnapper/rapist had previously kidnapped and raped a number of other women, including one he shot multiple times and then beat to death when the gun jammed.

By some miracle, the roommate convinced her captor/rapist to let her go, with promises of future delights if he did so. Imagine living with that.

Bottom line, this thing was caught, convicted, and sentenced to death.

Again, this happened when I was dating my wife prior to getting married.

A few months back, we celebrated 35 years of marriage.

Stevie Lamar Fields
 
l defend the rights of victims ,not pedohilies:peace ,psychos ,serial killers.so it means l am a humanist.:peace
 
It's pathetically self centered to want to kill in vengeance (not defense).

You're misunderstanding me.

I'm not talking about vengeance at all.

I'm not saying that we should execute the most egregious offenders of our most fundamental laws because of "an eye for an eye", or anything like that.

I'm saying we should do it because a.) such people have forfeit their right to remain among us in civil society, and b.) because there is no guarantee that they can be reformed and become trusted members of society.

The treatment of the most pathetic illustrates the decency of society and justifies its existence.

Nonsense.

Society exists, much like government, to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.

A society needn't be decent in order to fulfill such a mandate, much less to do so effectively.
 
You're misunderstanding me.

I'm not talking about vengeance at all.

I'm not saying that we should execute the most egregious offenders of our most fundamental laws because of "an eye for an eye", or anything like that.

I'm saying we should do it because a.) such people have forfeit their right to remain among us in civil society, and b.) because there is no guarantee that they can be reformed and become trusted members of society.

That's true of every convict. You're just spewing generalities to justify your bloodlust.
 
In theory I am VERY for the DP. It is the right thing to do and upholds a societies stance that innocent life is the most precious thing. My problem is in the application. Innocent people are sentenced and it is too costly. If they are truly guilty just use a bullet and I whole heartedly support the DP.
 
Back
Top Bottom