• 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
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

We should be willing to protect the lives of others as well, not only our own. If I am willing to kill you because you threaten me, then I should certainly be willing to kill you after you kill someone.
 
lizzie said:
We should be willing to protect the lives of others as well, not only our own. If I am willing to kill you because you threaten me, then I should certainly be willing to kill you after you kill someone.
Click to expand...

Yes, but defending the life someone else is called third party self defense and that is still only applicable while the act is occurring.
 
I'd modify it in that I think the persons should simply be shot in back of head with a single bullet. That would be cheaper.


If they're going to be killed we should spend as little money on turning them into a corpse as possible.
 
TeleKat said:
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.
Click to expand...

No matter how technologically sophisticated any system is, humans still have to manage it. As a result, there will never be a prison that's truly impossible to escape.
 
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...
Just curious, but why should a "crime of passion" be exempted?
 
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...

That argument is incredibly flawed. By your own logic, other people would be justified in killing you after you commit your revenge murder. The cycle of revenge killings would be endless.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Killing in self defense comes from the notion that you have a right to life and the right to defend it. Killing for punishment comes from the notion that some crimes deserve certain punishments. One is based on natural rights, the other is based on ever-changing social beliefs. Punishments vary, the right to defend your life has been consistent throughout history. Hell, even governments exercise the right to self preservation. So no, "your point" that it is justifiable to kill a murderer is not more justifiable than killing to defend your life. Again, in order for your argument to make sense:

- You'd have to explain why you have a right to punish through killing.
- You'd have to explain why this right supersedes the right to defend yourself.

Here is how the argument will end:

We will realize that you don't have a right to punish people through whatever measures you find reasonable.
We will realize that governments don't have a right to determine that death is a reasonable form of punishment.
We will realize that the death penalty is a fad and governments who claim they have a right to carry it out can suddenly abolish it, and citizens caught trying to enforce their own justice can be charged as criminals.

How many Americans have been found guilty of acting in self defense? None.
How many Americans have been found guilty of killing people who killed others? Quite a few.
 
Last edited:
TeleKat said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about we also have a box to check on your tax form for those who support your idea. And you and people who are like minded can finance this idea? Say, 200$ a month? Would you then be willing to do this, because I personally wouldn't want to spend a dime on the Gaceys and Dahmers of this world.
 
There must be concrete evidence proving they committed the crime (reliable eye witness and DNA and video). They must have committed a crime that shows no regard for the humanity of their victim, such as calculated murder, torture, or crimes committed in a heinous manner.
 
The death penalty is used too often, and is frequently used only as a tool to garner plea bargains from defendants who are facing circumstantial evidence without the "smoking gun" of DNA or other incontrovertible proof of guilt.

Find a dozen children's bodies covered with defendant's DNA buried in the basement? Yes, go for the death penalty. Some guy who apparently killed his wife, but denies it while police insist he must be guilty because he has no alibi and the wife had a fat insurance policy? No, sorry, too circumstantial and beyond a "reasonable" doubt is not enough in my opinion for a death sentence.

The death penalty has primarily been used as a coercion technique instead of a legitimate forfeiture of life by a defendant who has engaged in repeated torture and premeditated murder with guilt assured by 99.9% of solid physical and forensic proof. That is improper, in my opinion.
 
Deuce said:
The death penalty has never been a deterrent and never will be.
Click to expand...

That is true and the process is dragged out for decades that it's too watered down. The only ones being punished are the victims families.
 
rathi said:
That argument is incredibly flawed. By your own logic, other people would be justified in killing you after you commit your revenge murder. The cycle of revenge killings would be endless.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point. The point is that if it is okay to kill in self-defense, it is okay (even much more justifiable) to kill someone who has committed murder. Saying that it's okay for me to kill in self-defense, but it's not okay to kill a murderer, is using flawed logic. Does a killer deserve to die more at my hands, than at the hands of a legal authority? Is his life worth more after he has committed murder, than when he's trying to?
 
TeleKat said:
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!
Click to expand...

The DP should never be used as a punishment. It's something that shoud be done strictly to protect society from it's most dangerous members. Incarceration for life simply means that the person is a threat to fewer people.
 
We need a review board to look at all capital cases. The board would consist of a group of retired judges drawn from a large pool at random. Any judge that consistently rules either for or against the sentence gets removed from the pool and only those who show that they are looking at the facts and not the ideology get left in the pool.
The board would review the cases based on the accuracy of investigation, the thoroughness of both the prosecution and the defense, and the necessity of the sentence.
If the board decides that the sentence stands, the person is executed poste haste.
 
lizzie said:
That wasn't my point. The point is that if it is okay to kill in self-defense, it is okay (even much more justifiable) to kill someone who has committed murder.
Click to expand...

Killing someone who has committed murder is murder itself. Thus it leads to an infinite cycle of killing unless people are smart enough not to buy into such nonsense.

Saying that it's okay for me to kill in self-defense, but it's not okay to kill a murderer, is using flawed logic. Does a killer deserve to die more at my hands, than at the hands of a legal authority? Is his life worth more after he has committed murder, than when he's trying to?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the basis for self defense. You are not allowed to deliberately kill anyone. Rather, you are authorized to use whatever force is needed to protect yourself or others, and sometimes the ugliness of reality means that lethal force is required. If we had guns like star trek phasers where it was as easy to incapacitate someone as kill them, it would be illegal to use anything but stun mode.

The goal of law is to protect the people, not to find excuses to dehumanize people so you can abuse them. Any act of harm that doesn't prevent further harm is unacceptable.
 
rathi said:
You don't seem to understand the basis for self defense. You are not allowed to deliberately kill anyone. Rather, you are authorized to use whatever force is needed to protect yourself or others, and sometimes the ugliness of reality means that lethal force is required. If we had guns like star trek phasers where it was as easy to incapacitate someone as kill them, it would be illegal to use anything but stun mode.

The goal of law is to protect the people, not to find excuses to dehumanize people so you can abuse them. Any act of harm that doesn't prevent further harm is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Murderers have already dehumanized themselves.
 
There are those who are such monsters that it is probably the only reasonable penalty. McVeigh, bin Laden...maybe some serial killers.

However, I think it's over used to the point that the deterrent factor is lost.
 
lizzie said:
Murderers have already dehumanized themselves.
Click to expand...

And you would be a murderer yourself if you killed them. Or maybe you think you are a special snowflake who is exempt from the rules.
 
rathi said:
And you would be a murderer yourself if you killed them. Or maybe you think you are a special snowflake who is exempt from the rules.
Click to expand...

I don't advocate that individuals should be going around killing murderers. I am advocating that the death penalty is a logical and just action for the victim of the murderer, and that the legal/ justice system is the means for doing so.
 
lizzie said:
Murderers have already dehumanized themselves.
Click to expand...

Only that's not for you to judge or for that matter anybody in society. If I consider rapists to have dehumanized themselves, can I argue for a death penalty for them? I could say I'd like them to be executed but I don't set the DP standard for dehumanization anymore than you do.
 
lizzie said:
I don't advocate that individuals should be going around killing murderers. I am advocating that the death penalty is a logical and just action for the victim of the murderer, and that the legal/ justice system is the means for doing so.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the problem. Your motivations are clearly based on revenge, hatred and personal satisfaction, but you want the supposedly impartial justice system to do your dirty work.

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.
Click to expand...

That is not justice, you openly admit you'd give you family members a pass because of the emotional situation. Its fine to have such feelings, everyone does, but don't confuse them with the needs of a functioning legal system.
 
rathi said:
Which is exactly the problem. Your motivations are clearly based on revenge, hatred and personal satisfaction, but you want the supposedly impartial justice system to do your dirty work.



That is not justice, you openly admit you'd give you family members a pass because of the emotional situation. Its fine to have such feelings, everyone does, but don't confuse them with the needs of a functioning legal system.
Click to expand...

I don't know about others, but my motivations are most certainly based on revenge, along with some others. I really don't care how much pain the death penalty causes. Frankly, I'd like to see duplications of how the murderers killed their victims.

I think it is completely unnatural for a human being to wantonly kill another human being. Goes against the most basis instinct. Once a person has crossed that line and murdered another in an act of violence, they cease to be human, and should be treated as such.
 
rathi said:
Which is exactly the problem. Your motivations are clearly based on revenge, hatred and personal satisfaction, but you want the supposedly impartial justice system to do your dirty work.



That is not justice, you openly admit you'd give you family members a pass because of the emotional situation. Its fine to have such feelings, everyone does, but don't confuse them with the needs of a functioning legal system.
Click to expand...

This thread is about the death penalty, which implies that it's the legal system we are talking about. I personally would have no problem putting a bullet in the head of a cold-blooded murderer, assuming I worked in the legal system. I also would have no problem killing someone who killed a loved one, or killing someone who was trying to kill me or someone I loved. The reason we have different definitions and types of murder, is because of the emotional trappings in some circumstances. For instance, if you caught your wife screwing around on you, and you killed the guy she was ****ing, I would not support the death penalty for you. You were acting out of high passion. If, otoh, you killed someone dispassionately, without remorse, and in cold blood, and it could be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, I would support the death penalty for you.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't know about others, but my motivations are most certainly based on revenge, along with some others. I really don't care how much pain the death penalty causes. Frankly, I'd like to see duplications of how the murderers killed their victims.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that you demonstrate exactly the same mentality as a murderer, seeking to inflict needless suffering upon a helpless victim for personal satisfaction.

I think it is completely unnatural for a human being to wantonly kill another human being. Goes against the most basis instinct. Once a person has crossed that line and murdered another in an act of violence, they cease to be human, and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is completely and utterly wrong. You can take literally anyone, put a rifle in their and hands and they will kill random strangers if you tell them its a "war".
 
rathi said:
The funny thing is that you demonstrate exactly the same mentality as a murderer, seeking to inflict needless suffering upon a helpless victim for personal satisfaction.



Unfortunately that is completely and utterly wrong. You can take literally anyone, put a rifle in their and hands and they will kill random strangers if you tell them its a "war".
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I see the convicted murderer as nothing but a biomass of worthless sludge needing to be flushed down the toilet.

I couldn't care less if people want to see this fact as being parallel to a murderer. That's just their bleeding heart victimhood blather attempting to claim a higher ground.

Much better to squeegee the bile away, and use the money to help someone in real need, rather than provide the convicted killer a life they disqualified themselves from deserving.

As to war, this tired old argument that killing in war is akin to murder is priceless. Even the most fervent soldiers in the military will tell you that killing another human being is a difficult thing to do. Following orders is different than "give me all the money in the drawer" and then splattering the poor store owners brains across the back wall. That's what I mean, and you know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom