• 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
This is one reason to support the DP in my opinion. That and the small possibility of escape.

My main reason for being against the DP is because it is not proven to be a deterrent to murder and other vile crimes against persons. Since it does not prevent those crimes, then life in prison performs the same purpose as the DP....it removes the threat from society.

Otherwise, prison removes them from society and I believe that is the purpose of prison...to protect society. (Supposedly it is to rehabilitate but I see a very poor record there).

Great post! I've even seen stories that what felons don't already know, they learn while in prison! Guess it had to happen, since they do intermingle, but I hope it only applies to "lesser" crimes - tips on how to sell street drugs, etc, and not how to rob or murder someone! :eek:

Greetings, Lursa. :2wave:
 
Not to pick on you or anything because this is a general statement, but where do you get the absurd idea that the death penalty has anything whatsoever to do with being a deterrent? Who said that? It's not a deterrent, it's not intended to be a deterrent, why do you keep evaluating it like it is?

After all, prison isn't a deterrent either, the majority of people who go to prison reoffend and go back to prison. I don't hear anyone claiming we ought to get rid of prisons because they're not deterrents.

Apologies. From previous discussions on other forums, others had provided links. Links that I found reasonable, as I did not want to believe that it was true. I found them convincing enough for me. If I have some time, I'll see if I can do my own searches.
 
I do not seek imprisonment to "injure, harm, or humiliate" a murderer. I seek it to keep them isolated from society.

I prefer permanently removed. But since many people don't even want to hurt a murderer's feelings, I suppose I'll settle for imprisoned until overcrowding.
 
Apologies. From previous discussions on other forums, others had provided links. Links that I found reasonable, as I did not want to believe that it was true. I found them convincing enough for me. If I have some time, I'll see if I can do my own searches.

None of which is an answer. I'm not understanding why anyone thinks the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent in the first place and nobody seems to have an answer. No offense, of course, yours just happened to be a message on that at the time I decided to ask. :)
 
None of which is an answer. I'm not understanding why anyone thinks the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent in the first place and nobody seems to have an answer. No offense, of course, yours just happened to be a message on that at the time I decided to ask. :)

Hint: not a single executed person has ever committed another crime.
 
I really prefer that the scumbags get shot during the attempt, preferably by their intended victim, anyway.
 
I really prefer that the scumbags get shot during the attempt, preferably by their intended victim, anyway.

I do too, but I also have absolutely no problem with the criminal justice system doing it after conviction. That is one of the things I don't understand about people who are pro- self defense, but against the death penalty. To me, it is an inconsistent argument to argue that it's okay to kill in self-defense, but not after the fact, and after a fair trial has been completed and a guilt determined. It is as if the guilty party only deserves to die at one moment, but not as a general principle. That is so inconsistent as to be irrational to me.
 
Hint: not a single executed person has ever committed another crime.

Of course not, it has a 100% efficiency rating. Dead men commit no crimes.
 
And some of them didn't commit one in the first place!

The same is true of people who get put in prison. There are lots of people behind bars that never committed the crime for which they were convicted. I don't see anyone wanting to close the prisons because of it though.
 
Hint: not a single executed person has ever committed another crime.

Still, the death penalty isn't a deterrent. In the Middle Ages, death was the only penalty. Once a month or whatever the town square would fill up with people watching robbers and murderers and pickpockets be executed and the pickpockets would be working the crowd.
It's revenge, and that has value. It's definitely closure, a period on the end of a sentence, and that has value. But it doesn't deter crime.
Me, I'm so liberal I don't trust the government to get highways paved without graft, I don't believe the government can do park landscaping without corruption, so I really don't want the government to have the power to execute citizens. And yes, I do equate courts and government- I'm that suspicious.
Don't let the government kill people. You will regret it, eventually.
Unless you're a conservative- then you want to expand the government's power to execute citizens. More, quicker, quieter.
 
The same is true of people who get put in prison. There are lots of people behind bars that never committed the crime for which they were convicted. I don't see anyone wanting to close the prisons because of it though.

But if someone is proven innocent, you can let them out of prison. You can't bring them back from the dead.
 
Always find it interesting reading the different arguments put forth but it's not something i have to worry about here. The death penalty was abolished forever in Australia after Federal Parliament passed laws ensuring it could never be reinstated 2 years ago. The last time the death penalty was used was in 1967, many years before i was even born.

I'm good with that. Not only is the DP barbaric but the life of the person that killed someone I love is not considered an equal trade for my loved one, nor will it ever be. How can some total stranger assume that by sentencing the offender to death, things will automatically be squared up? It's not and it never will be. It won't bring closure, that has to come from within.
 
But if someone is proven innocent, you can let them out of prison. You can't bring them back from the dead.

You can't give them back the 20 years of their lives that you've taken away either. So do try again.
 
You can't give them back the 20 years of their lives that you've taken away either. So do try again.

That's true, you can't. And in cases where that's happened, the person is quite often very handsomely compensated. Doesn't give back the 20 years, but again, dead is dead, period.
 
Always find it interesting reading the different arguments put forth but it's not something i have to worry about here. The death penalty was abolished forever in Australia after Federal Parliament passed laws ensuring it could never be reinstated 2 years ago. The last time the death penalty was used was in 1967, many years before i was even born.

I'm good with that. Not only is the DP barbaric but the life of the person that killed someone I love is not considered an equal trade for my loved one, nor will it ever be. How can some total stranger assume that by sentencing the offender to death, things will automatically be squared up? It's not and it never will be. It won't bring closure, that has to come from within.

Of course it won't be "Squared up" but neither should the person responsible continue to live while my loved one died because of them.
 
If there were a way to be absolutely sure about someone's guilt.
If there were a way to ensure those executed died near-instantly and without unreasonable amounts pain.

I would support the death penalty for those convicted of violent and/or cold-blooded murder and/or rape.

I think.

It's really a case-by-case thing.
 
That's true, you can't. And in cases where that's happened, the person is quite often very handsomely compensated. Doesn't give back the 20 years, but again, dead is dead, period.

A billion dollars a year can't compensate people for losing the best years of their life rotting behind bars. And dead is dead, you're not suffering in a cell and your family can still be compensated if it turns out a mistake was made.
 
A billion dollars a year can't compensate people for losing the best years of their life rotting behind bars. And dead is dead, you're not suffering in a cell and your family can still be compensated if it turns out a mistake was made.

Doesn't do the dead guy a hell of a lot of good.
 
None of which is an answer. I'm not understanding why anyone thinks the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent in the first place and nobody seems to have an answer. No offense, of course, yours just happened to be a message on that at the time I decided to ask. :)

I didnt say that it was 'supposed to be a deterrent,' but IMO if killing someone doesnt serve some other purpose that lifetime incarceration does not, then it is a waste of $$ and is only an act of vengeance. Which I do not see as the place of the govt or the courts.
 
Hint: not a single executed person has ever committed another crime.

I would like to agree with this. I am standing by my stance of against DP because IMO it does not serve any purpose that *life in prison* does not.

However because of the ridiculousness of our current judicial appeal process, most (all?) DP inmates have just as many years to escape and/or kill other inmates or prison employees as most 'lifers.'
 
Doesn't do the dead guy a hell of a lot of good.

Doesn't do him any good to waste the best years of his life behind bars either.
 
I didnt say that it was 'supposed to be a deterrent,' but IMO if killing someone doesnt serve some other purpose that lifetime incarceration does not, then it is a waste of $$ and is only an act of vengeance. Which I do not see as the place of the govt or the courts.

You are aware that there is violence done in prison, right? People are injured and killed all the time. Those executed never harm another individual, those kept alive can and do. Besides, it isn't the government or the courts that mandate these things, it's society. Society wants these people put to death and the act is done through our representative bodies, the government and the courts.

This is what happens when we allow our emotions to run away with us. The death penalty is taking out the trash. It's not vengeance.
 
Back
Top Bottom