• 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!

Would you modify how the death penalty is applied?

What would you do about the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    73
Imprisoned killers who are not on death row are treated to cable tv, three square meals a day, and free healthcare. Much more then they deserve. My sympathies are for their victims.

Yes, the state has the responsibility to provide for those under their care, which means they feed and provide for the prisoners healthcare needs. It is also the humane thing to do to give them something to do with their time besides sitting around in a cell and thinking of ways to abuse each other.
 
That only works in a society where 23h lockdown is not an option. We have it as an option. Criminals can be isolated from society for the rest of their lives. So no, "killing for punishment" is not a need to protect people from future crimes as that type of "need" doesn't work with any other kind of punishment. We don't put people in jail because they may rob. We don't do it because they may rape. We do it to deter others from committing the crimes and punish the individual. The weird thing is that most countries where the death penalty is banned and a rehabilitation approach is taken have been proven to do better at stopping criminal behavior.

Do we really put people in jail for rape and larceny just to deter others, or do we put such people in jail so that they are unable to commit more rapes and robberies?

I'm inclined to think it's the latter.
 
I would eliminate the death penalty in it's entirety. Nobody, government official or citizen, should have the legal right to murder someone unless directly in self-defense. There's no need to become the very thing we claim to fight against. "You killed someone, and that's not okay, thus your punishment is that I will kill you." Makes no sense!

It does make sense. By exacting the highest price from a criminal, their life, we as a society are affirming that human life is the most valuable commodity that we have. That said, it is also self-defence to kill a murderer for it gives them zero opportunity to kill again.
 
Indeed. Whenever I walk down the street and get a breath of air, I always think about how much nicer things would be if we were more like Iran. Never saw a bulldozer go down the street without thinking, "Too bad there isn't some guy hanging from that!"

Completely wrong so your entire point is wrong... the guy was hanging from a small crane.
 
I believe in death penalty. I believe the maximum prison sentence should not exceed 15 years.

In USSR, most of those guilty of murder got 15 years, but if there were aggravating circumstances they were executed.

Long incarceration is the worst torture.
 
I don't support the Death Penalty at all.
 
This is a question I have for the people who said eliminate the death penalty...


What if the person sentenced to die murdered or rape and murdered your wife, daughter, mother, girlfriend, etc. Would you still be against it?
 
For you people who think the death penalty is not a deterrent, it sure as hell deters the person who is executed because he or she will not be able to murder and rape again. they are deterred.
 
For you people who think the death penalty is not a deterrent, it sure as hell deters the person who is executed because he or she will not be able to murder and rape again. they are deterred.

I thought you were a "Good Catholic" Navy Pride?....I guess only on the things that you choose to be.....
 
This is a question I have for the people who said eliminate the death penalty...


What if the person sentenced to die murdered or rape and murdered your wife, daughter, mother, girlfriend, etc. Would you still be against it?

This is exactly why our laws do not allow families of the victims to serve on jurys. Doh!
 
For you people who think the death penalty is not a deterrent, it sure as hell deters the person who is executed because he or she will not be able to murder and rape again. they are deterred.

By the way, when people talk about the death penalty as a "deterrent," they're talking about whether it deters other criminals from committing murder. Just FYI.
 
By the way, when people talk about the death penalty as a "deterrent," they're talking about whether it deters other criminals from committing murder. Just FYI.

He knows that...
 
This is a question I have for the people who said eliminate the death penalty...


What if the person sentenced to die murdered or rape and murdered your wife, daughter, mother, girlfriend, etc. Would you still be against it?

Of course. I would hope the criminal in question rots in his cell, but I still would not see execution as justifiable in that situation.
 
It is not a deterrent. Instead it is revenge. If convictions were 100% accurate, it might be debatable. If any man is wrongly executed, that is wore than two guilty men being set free.
 
It is not a deterrent. Instead it is revenge. If convictions were 100% accurate, it might be debatable. If any man is wrongly executed, that is wore than two guilty men being set free.
If the wrong person is executed the actual murderer is still free and able to continue, if they so desire. AND they're not even being looked for because the system believes it already got the right person.
 
Considering two recent botches with lethal injection, I would replace it with carbon monoxide, which is simple, inexpensive, effective, and has no cruelty factor. The criminal just quietly goes to sleep, and that's it.
 
Back
Top Bottom