• 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
This poll addresses capital punishment both in the states that have it and in the federal government.

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!
 
ensure it is used only when there is no doubt of guilt....and for the only most heinous of crimes.

...and carry it out expeditiously and semi-publicly
 
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 makes perfect sense. I do think we need better trained cops, public defenders and forensic techs. The judicial systems needs to move a way from a conviction based entity and more towards a innocence based investigative entity.
That way once we get to the point of knowing with absolute certainty who did what.
 
While I do believe some people should be killed for their crimes, I don't believe it's the government's job at any level to carry out the act. There is now evidence that the death penalty has been applied to innocent people in various states. That alone is enough for me to think that the government should only be allowed to hand out life sentences without the possibility of parole. If the inmates asks to be executed, then the government can grant it but outside of that, I don't believe it should have laws that allow the death penalty.
 
I do think we need better trained cops, public defenders and forensic techs. The judicial systems needs to move a way from a conviction based entity and more towards a innocence based investigative entity.

I agree, but we can do that without legalizing and legitimizing executions.
 
ensure it is used only when there is no doubt of guilt....

So, have it but never ever use it?? There is never, and I do mean never, zero doubt about a person's guilt. There is always at least a slight chance that your conviction is wrong. Yet another reason why the death penalty is a bad idea. It is especially bad in this corrupted system of "guilty before proven innocent", but it is generally a bad idea in all systems.
 
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.
 
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!

While I do believe some people should be killed for their crimes, I don't believe it's the government's job at any level to carry out the act. There is now evidence that the death penalty has been applied to innocent people in various states. That alone is enough for me to think that the government should only be allowed to hand out life sentences without the possibility of parole. If the inmates asks to be executed, then the government can grant it but outside of that, I don't believe it should have laws that allow the death penalty.
These. Couldn't have said it better.
 
This poll addresses capital punishment both in the states that have it and in the federal government.

When I was younger, and more emotional, I was ALL FOR the death penalty. However, as I've aged and hopefully become less emotional, as well as the fact that DNA evidence has proven that numerous people have been wrongfully executed and many have been saved from execution by being exonerated prior to the sentence being carried out, I am now against the Death Penalty because if the state executes just one innocent person, then we are no better than the people that we are trying to remove from society by killing them.

Do I think that there are people that should die as a result of their acts? Hell yes, I still do. The problem I have, is that there is no definitive way to apply such a law without the potential of an innocent person being convicted and executed in a tragic and horrific mistake. I'm not willing to live with that possibility.
 
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.

99.99% guilt allows for innocent people to be executed once in a while. Also, how do you prove "99.99% guilt"? Specially when so many cases rely on circumstantial evidence? Scott Peterson's case relied mostly on circumstantial evidence. Timothy McVeigh was convicted because of circumstantial evidence. Is there any doubt as to their guilt? No. But many crimes are proven by a series of arguments that alone mean absolutely nothing. The "smoking gun" isn't always there.
 
Last edited:
99.99% guilt allows for innocent people to be executed once in a while.

If I said 100%, some one would say "you can't be 100%" (ie kills 99.9% of germs). Thank you sue-nation.
 
If I said 100%, some one would say "you can't be 100%" (ie kills 99.9% of germs). Thank you sue-nation.

Maybe speaking about guilt in terms of percentages is ridiculous to begin with. What percentage of guilt does someone found guilty due to circumstantial evidence have? 100%. What happens when the verdict is overturned because the evidence is later found to be erroneous, falsified or flat out irrelevant? 0%. Guilt is a black and white word, not something which has degrees. You can't be 40% responsible for a charge. You can't be 75% guilty of a crime. You are either found guilty or not guilty of the charges brought against you. 99.99% guilty is nonsense.
 
Ugh. Clicked on modify it when I meant to choose eliminate it (as a penalty).
 
Maybe speaking about guilt in terms of percentages is ridiculous to begin with. What percentage of guilt does someone found guilty due to circumstantial evidence have? 100%. What happens when the verdict is overturned because the evidence is later found to be erroneous, falsified or flat out irrelevant? 0%. Guilt is a black and white word, not something which has degrees. You can't be 40% responsible for a charge. You can't be 75% guilty of a crime. You are either found guilty or not guilty of the charges brought against you. 99.99% guilty is nonsense.

I agree, I was thinking 100% guilty then carrying out penalty, just didn't want to argue the perfect 100 problem. I think incorporating DNA evidence into possible DP charges. It seems it is only used to prove innocence after the fact. We can't abolish death penalty, I think, but as it works now, it's certainly not a deterrent.
 
Other than to improve the reliability of evidence, I'm fine with it as it stands.
 
I agree that too many capital cases get convictions just on circumstantial evidence. I also agree that there have been several instances of states executing the wrong person.

Both are totally unacceptable, but the system could still be modified to eliminate those possibilities.

First, if the prosecution plans to seek the death penalty, they must be held to a higher standard of proof. Guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt" is not enough; it should be guilt without a shadow of a doubt. For instance, the killer would likely have to confess, and to provide details that only the person who committed the crime could know.
 
Ugh. Clicked on modify it when I meant to choose eliminate it (as a penalty).

hehe, You just evened the poll out.
 
So, have it but never ever use it?? There is never, and I do mean never, zero doubt about a person's guilt. There is always at least a slight chance that your conviction is wrong. Yet another reason why the death penalty is a bad idea. It is especially bad in this corrupted system of "guilty before proven innocent", but it is generally a bad idea in all systems.

i'm ok with "beyond a reasonable doubt".. which is the current standard.

i'm also perfectly ok with an appeals and oversight process that objectively analyzes the the verdict , the evidence, and prosecutorial behavior.
 
I agree that too many capital cases get convictions just on circumstantial evidence. I also agree that there have been several instances of states executing the wrong person.

Both are totally unacceptable, but the system could still be modified to eliminate those possibilities.

First, if the prosecution plans to seek the death penalty, they must be held to a higher standard of proof. Guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt" is not enough; it should be guilt without a shadow of a doubt. For instance, the killer would likely have to confess, and to provide details that only the person who committed the crime could know.

I can't see too many confessions except for a few extreme 'suicide by cop' kinda thing
 
I can't see too many confessions except for a few extreme 'suicide by cop' kinda thing

There probably wouldn't be very many. But if there's any doubt whatsoever about the defendant's guilt, life without parole is definitely the way to go.
 
Let's not forget that many who are tried and convicted of murder who get life sentences continue to kill inside prison.
 
It should be reformed. I think it should only be used in serious cases where there isn't any reason to believe the person is innocent with their intent being to directly cause harm (not accidental or unintentional). The death penalty shouldn't be lethal injection though, they don't need to be put down in a "painless" or "dignified" way. Their death should be painful with no dignity shown.
 
Back
Top Bottom