• 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
I am against the death penalty. First of all it is not justice but down to the mood of the jury whether or not gets the death penalty. Secondly it costs a lot more than jailing him/her for life. Thirdly, you cannot un-kill an innocent person but when sentenced to life you can release them.

Lastly, to some degree the death penalty is based on the quality of the police investigation (or sometimes the lack of it), the quality of the prosecutor (or his hunger sometimes to get a leg up in a future political career), the quality of the defense lawyer (which for rich people/famous cases is a lot better than for Joe Public), the quality of the judge and the deals that were made to get some of the "witnesses" to testify.

I also have a moral issue with the death penalty. While it may be horrible punishment for a relatively short period of time and then the punishment for the prisoner is over. He is free from his mortal existence and as I do not believe in heaven or hell, he has gotten off lightly IMHO. I want people who have committed the worst crimes (mass murder or repeat murderers) to sit in jail for the rest of their lives. They have to be kept in jail until they die of the natural cause of old age, making their punishment as long as is humanly possible.
 
Manc Skipper said:
DNA isn't a brand new discovery, but people are still being released today based on its evidence which wasn't available at the time of their trial. This wouldn''t be possible if they'd been executed.
It's strange that the same people who hate the idea of government interference in their healthcare provision freely give it the power of life and death over them.
Click to expand...

How do you come to this conclusion?
 
I would reserve it for only murders who could be absolutely proven to have killed in cold blood, and without it having been a crime of passion. Nobody who did not murder would be killed- even if they were child molesters/rapists, or otherwise considered "evil" by others. First degree murder is the only crime for which someone should have to forfeit their life.
 
I say that anyone who expresses support for the State having the power to execute citizens should themselves be executed. Don't ask why, it's just because.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's strange that the same people who hate the idea of government interference in their healthcare provision freely give it the power of life and death over them.
Click to expand...

It's hypocrisy at it's finest. "The government is too irresponsible to manage my healthcare, my tax money, or my business but it is definitely responsible enough to determine whether or not I get to live."
 
lizzie said:
I would reserve it for only murders who could be absolutely proven to have killed in cold blood, and without it having been a crime of passion. Nobody who did not murder would be killed- even if they were child molesters/rapists, or otherwise considered "evil" by others. First degree murder is the only crime for which someone should have to forfeit their life.
Click to expand...

Why is it necessary at all?
 
TeleKat said:
Why is it necessary at all?
Click to expand...

To me, it's necessary, because it balances a grievous wrong that was committed. It's about justice, the symbol of which is a pair of scales.

I part ways with most libertarians on the issue of the death penalty. As far as I am concerned, if we have no problem with killing in self-defense, it is irrational to be opposed to killing someone who has already murdered someone else.
 
lizzie said:
To me, it's necessary, because it balances a grievous wrong that was committed. It's about justice, the symbol of which is a pair of scales.

I part ways with most libertarians on the issue of the death penalty. As far as I am concerned, if we have no problem with killing in self-defense, it is irrational to be opposed to killing someone who has already murdered someone else.
Click to expand...

So we should rape those who rape, steal from those who steal, and assault those who assault? Justice is not grounded in revenge.

There's a MASSIVE difference between killing someone who is a direct threat to you in that moment, and executing as a form of punishment.
 
TeleKat said:
So we should rape those who rape, steal from those who steal, and assault those who assault? Justice is not grounded in revenge.

There's a MASSIVE difference between killing someone who is a direct threat to you in that moment, and executing as a form of punishment.
Click to expand...

No. My point is that it is no more rational to kill in self-defense, than it is to kill after the fact. The person who killed someone could have been killed by the person who he was attacking, and it would have been okay. My life is no more important than yours is, so if it's justifiable for me to kill someone who is trying to kill me, it is also justifiable to kill someone who already killed you.
 
lizzie said:
No. My point is that it is no more rational to kill in self-defense, than it is to kill after the fact. The person who killed someone could have been killed by the person who he was attacking, and it would have been okay. My life is no more important than yours is, so if it's justifiable for me to kill someone who is trying to kill me, it is also justifiable to kill someone who already killed you.
Click to expand...

Once someone is forcibly isolated from society, they are no longer a threat. Self-defense is only justifiable because it is in DEFENSE of yourself. It is taking down someone who is a legitimate threat to you at that moment. Killing someone who is no longer a valid threat does not fall within the realm of "self-defense."
 
MACS-24 said:
I vote "modify"
First, find a way to ensure 99.99% guilt then actually enforce it. As it stands there is no deterrent and has become useless. Instead, redundant 'new' laws are made that usually only affect the innocent for what they "might" do.
Click to expand...

The death penalty has never been a deterrent and never will be.
 
lizzie said:
To me, it's necessary, because it balances a grievous wrong that was committed. It's about justice, the symbol of which is a pair of scales.

I part ways with most libertarians on the issue of the death penalty. As far as I am concerned, if we have no problem with killing in self-defense, it is irrational to be opposed to killing someone who has already murdered someone else.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, if you support killing someone who has murdered someone, it is irrational to be opposed to killing someone who has jaywalked.
 
TeleKat said:
Once someone is forcibly isolated from society, they are no longer a threat. Self-defense is only justifiable because it is in DEFENSE of yourself. It is taking down someone who is a legitimate threat to you at that moment. Killing someone who is no longer a valid threat does not fall within the realm of "self-defense."
Click to expand...

If it is legitimate to kill someone trying to harm you, it is doubly justifiable to kill them after they have committed murder. There is no argument which will convince me otherwise. I would have no problem pulling the trigger on a cold-blooded killer- no more than I would have putting down a rabid dog.
 
lizzie said:
If it is legitimate to kill someone trying to harm you, it is doubly justifiable to kill them after they have committed murder. There is no argument which will convince me otherwise. I would have no problem pulling the trigger on a cold-blooded killer- no more than I would have putting down a rabid dog.
Click to expand...

I would say killing someone attempting to harm you is different than killing them after the fact.
 
Henrin said:
I would say killing someone attempting to harm you is different than killing them after the fact.
Click to expand...

Of course it's different. My point is that it's justifiable to kill a murderer- more so than someone who is attempting murder. To think it's only justifiable to kill someone trying to kill you is saying that you believe your life to be more valuable than that of another.
 
lizzie said:
If it is legitimate to kill someone trying to harm you, it is doubly justifiable to kill them after they have committed murder. There is no argument which will convince me otherwise. I would have no problem pulling the trigger on a cold-blooded killer- no more than I would have putting down a rabid dog.
Click to expand...

Self-defense is only legitimate because it is in the interest of your direct safety, not because it is acceptable to kill murderers.
 
TeleKat said:
Self-defense is only legitimate because it is in the interest of your direct safety, not because it is acceptable to kill murderers.
Click to expand...

Same thing. If it's okay to kill, it's okay to kill. If someone tried to kill me, I would kill them first (hopefully). If someone killed my family or loved one, I would gladly go kill him/her after the fact. If someone were a cold-blooded killer and I was not related to, and did not have emotional connections to the victim, I could still easily kill that rabid non-human who did it. As far as I am concerned, when you kill for no reason, you give up your humanity card.

You will not convince me otherwise, no matter what argument you present. This is an issue that I am not movable on. I don't expect to change your (or anyone else's) mind either, but will state my position without hesitation.
 
lizzie said:
Same thing. If it's okay to kill, it's okay to kill. If someone tried to kill me, I would kill them first (hopefully). If someone killed my family or loved one, I would gladly go kill him/her after the fact. If someone were a cold-blooded killer and I was not related to, and did not have emotional connections to the victim, I could still easily kill that rabid non-human who did it. As far as I am concerned, when you kill for no reason, you give up your humanity card.

You will not convince me otherwise, no matter what argument you present. This is an issue that I am not movable on. I don't expect to change your (or anyone else's) mind either, but will state my position without hesitation.
Click to expand...

Our positions on the death penalty stem from a completely different worldview. Neither of our minds will be changed on this particular subject through a debate forum. I did enjoy the discussion though. :)
 
TeleKat said:
Why is it necessary at all?
Click to expand...

IMO, there are rare cases of individuals who are so mentally damaged that they will always be a danger to others, despite all attempts at treatment. It's irresponsible even to keep them locked up, because their escape would cause more needless death. Much the same scenario that forces us to euthanize rabid dogs.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
IMO, there are rare cases of individuals who are so mentally damaged that they will always be a danger to others, despite all attempts at treatment. It's irresponsible even to keep them locked up, because their escape would cause more needless death. Much the same scenario that forces us to euthanize rabid dogs.
Click to expand...

Anyone that dangerous is not going to be put in your general run-of-the-mill prison. With the technology and resources we have at our disposal, we should easily be able to create prisons that are impossible to escape.
 
lizzie said:
Of course it's different. My point is that it's justifiable to kill a murderer- more so than someone who is attempting murder. To think it's only justifiable to kill someone trying to kill you is saying that you believe your life to be more valuable than that of another.
Click to expand...

No, killing someone that committed murder is acting in revenge while killing someone attempting to kill you is protecting your life. When you kill someone attempting to kill you at no point are you saying their life is not as valuable as yours, but instead saying that you will do whatever is necessary to protect yourself from their aggression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom