• 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 ........ ?

Death penalty for ...?

  • Criminals guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder,serial killers,mass murderers

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • serial killers , serial rapists ,pedophiles,

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • only mass murderers

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • any kind of murderers and rapists

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    54
Perchance, but I don't see what's so subjective about human life having innate worth. All humans are human, we are all equal, and for that to be true all our lives must fundamentally be the "worth" the same.

That's very subjective.

I personally see the human garbage that commits many of the heinous crimes referred to here as having less value than others. Just a personal view and one I would not see recognized by law. However if there was proof that someone was absolutely guilty and that the DP was a real deterrent to crime, I would have little problem seeing the law recognize that the rest of society in general has more value than that criminal.
 
That's very subjective.

I personally see the human garbage that commits many of the heinous crimes referred to here as having less value than others. Just a personal view and one I would not see recognized by law. However if there was proof that someone was absolutely guilty and that the DP was a real deterrent to crime, I would have little problem seeing the law recognize that the rest of society in general has more value than that criminal.

All humans are human is subjective? How does one become "less-than-human"?

I see the horrible acts man can perform, and the wonderful moments of true brilliance our species is capable of. And while the horrible acts must be punished, one is not magically turned into some other creature for having taken those actions. Human is still human. We like to cast them in inhuman terms because it makes it easier for us to digest their destruction, or enjoy their suffering; but that's a horrible act in-and-of itself. We should never forget the humanity of others, not that of the most hardened criminal or the most benevolent philanthropist.
 
pedophiles belong in a category of their own.....if i knew that it would work, i would castrate them all....and then release back into society...hoping the castration removed the impetus to harm children.....but not sure it would work....and if not 100% i wouldnt want to risk any other child to their debauchery

It won't work, any more than castrating rapists will stop them from raping. It's a sexual attraction and power thing. Even if they cannot personally abuse children sexually, that won't stop them from seeking out or producing child pornography or getting their jollies another way.

Put a bullet in their heads and be done with it.
 
Death penalty should be for premeditated murder in something other than self defense
Rape/Planned rape
Molestation/planned molestation
Heat of the moment murder

Accidental murder I think should be decided by case
 
All humans are human is subjective? How does one become "less-than-human"?

I see the horrible acts man can perform, and the wonderful moments of true brilliance our species is capable of. And while the horrible acts must be punished, one is not magically turned into some other creature for having taken those actions. Human is still human. We like to cast them in inhuman terms because it makes it easier for us to digest their destruction, or enjoy their suffering; but that's a horrible act in-and-of itself. We should never forget the humanity of others, not that of the most hardened criminal or the most benevolent philanthropist.

Of course not. Where did I write that 'all humans being human' is subjective? Got a quote for that?

I'm not talking about DNA and species. I'm talking about recognizing value for a human, which is not biological. It's a subjective perspective which I clearly stated.

I didnt say they lost all their humanity, I placed my own value judgement on them based on their actions. I can do that, personally. We have laws to make sure that mine and other people's personal views are not forced on other people.

That's very subjective.

I personally see the human garbage that commits many of the heinous crimes referred to here as having less value than others. Just a personal view and one I would not see recognized by law. However if there was proof that someone was absolutely guilty and that the DP was a real deterrent to crime, I would have little problem seeing the law recognize that the rest of society in general has more value than that criminal.
 
Last edited:
Serial killers ,mass murderers ,organized criminals participating in terrorist actions. And politicians who destroy their own countries.
 
murder, attempted murder, child molestation, manslaughter of a minor, DUI leading to a death, treasonous political activity.
 
Should I just assume it was an oversight that people who use "their" instead of "they're" was not an option?
 
thanks for voting

I think the death penalty should be an option for a wide range of serious crimes. Murder, treason, rape, incest, sodomy, kidnapping, contraception, sacrilege, blasphemy, participating in subversive organizations, drug trafficking, human trafficking, witchcraft, armed robbery, and arson to name a few.
 
I think the death penalty should be an option for a wide range of serious crimes. Murder, treason, rape, incest, sodomy, kidnapping, contraception, sacrilege, blasphemy, participating in subversive organizations, drug trafficking, human trafficking, witchcraft, armed robbery, and arson to name a few.

hmm.I agree with some parts
 
I think the death penalty should be an option for a wide range of serious crimes. Murder, treason, rape, incest, sodomy, kidnapping, contraception, sacrilege, blasphemy, participating in subversive organizations, drug trafficking, human trafficking, witchcraft, armed robbery, and arson to name a few.

Once again, an example of "Christian" thought that is more in line with the Taliban than the vast majority of Christians and which leads, unfortunately, to some viewing a religion based on peace, forgiveness, brotherhood, and the Golden Rule, as hypocritical at best and tyrannical and hateful at worst.
 
I think the death penalty should be an option for a wide range of serious crimes. Murder, treason, rape, incest, sodomy, kidnapping, contraception, sacrilege, blasphemy, participating in subversive organizations, drug trafficking, human trafficking, witchcraft, armed robbery, and arson to name a few.
...extreme political opinions.
 
I think the Death Penalty should be an option for a wide range of serious crimes. Murder, treason, rape, incest, sodomy, kidnapping,
contraception,
sacrilege,
blasphemy,
participating in subversive organizations,
drug trafficking, human trafficking,
Witchcraft,
armed robbery, and arson to name a few.

wham_o_frisbee_high_rigidity_stock_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Of course not. Where did I write that 'all humans being human' is subjective? Got a quote for that?

I'm not talking about DNA and species. I'm talking about recognizing value for a human, which is not biological. It's a subjective perspective which I clearly stated.

I didnt say they lost all their humanity, I placed my own value judgement on them based on their actions. I can do that, personally. We have laws to make sure that mine and other people's personal views are not forced on other people.

What you may or may not value any individual at is up to you, but at base they are still human and if they are still human then they still have human worth. Given the equality of humans, all human life bears the same base value. You may value the philanthropist over the murderer, but it doesn't mean the life of the murder is worthless. It still holds value by innate property of being human.
 
What you may or may not value any individual at is up to you, but at base they are still human and if they are still human then they still have human worth.

Who says? I'm not disagreeing but it's still my own opinion. As it is yours.

Given the equality of humans, all human life bears the same base value. You may value the philanthropist over the murderer, but it doesn't mean the life of the murder is worthless. It still holds value by innate property of being human.
Who says? And exactly what is that value? We can place a $ value on the chemicals and tissue of a human I guess. But even that would fluctuate with the market.

You are trying to claim something as fact that is in reality, subjective. Many hold that subjective view...but also true are the degrees to which they apply that subjective view.
 
Who says? And exactly what is that value?

All humans are human. Are you saying that there is no base value of human life? If so, how does one become something other than human? If you strip away all the trappings of societies and the serendipity of birth, are not humans fundamentally equal? If so, then all human life bears the same base value. If not, I'd like to know how those inequalities are introduced. What breaks the symmetry?
 
All humans are human. Are you saying that there is no base value of human life? If so, how does one become something other than human? If you strip away all the trappings of societies and the serendipity of birth, are not humans fundamentally equal? If so, then all human life bears the same base value. If not, I'd like to know how those inequalities are introduced. What breaks the symmetry?

Human = Homo sapiens. That is biology, a scientific designation, proven by DNA and objective.

Science applies no value. That is always subjective and is a man-made concept.

If you want a 'make or break' biological inequality, try birth: the time at which a human can survive without being biologically dependent on another human. This is also 'objective.'
 
That is always subjective and is a man-made concept.

Man made, yes, but not subjective. The objective knowledge of human equality is born from humanity's intelligence and reason.

So if you claim that humans are not equal, that the lives hold no value, then how are those inequalities introduced? What breaks the symmetry?
 
Man made, yes, but not subjective. The objective knowledge of human equality is born from humanity's intelligence and reason.

So if you claim that humans are not equal, that the lives hold no value, then how are those inequalities introduced? What breaks the symmetry?

LOL You sound like a politician. THere is no objective knowlege of human equality. Globally, such a thing is not even recognized. Not even between genders.


And my only claim is that the unborn is not equal to the born. And I gave you an example. Biological dependence.
 
I'm against the death penalty. According to the data, eventually, an innocent person will be killed by the state. This is unacceptable in a civilized society.
 
I am firmly on the side of justice. The criminal justice system, if nothing else, should impart justice. And that justice should be sufficient to deter others.

If that means I have to draw and quarter some to deter those who would wantonly slice and dice others, then that is precisely what I would prefer to do. To do less is to devalue life.

Today we've insulated ourselves from all that threatens, including the need to police and extract justice. But that should not mean we divorce ourselves from original intent or its ancient source in the human psyche.

Historically speaking, what ultimately tempered our response was two things: Druidism and Christianity. Kinder and gentler all started with the Puritan who was far more liberal minded than his European counterpart.
 
LOL You sound like a politician. THere is no objective knowlege of human equality. Globally, such a thing is not even recognized. Not even between genders.


And my only claim is that the unborn is not equal to the born. And I gave you an example. Biological dependence.

Why just biological dependence? Can an infant really exist on their own? Even beyond that, adults are terribly interdependent upon each other for survival and progress. There can be isolated cases of people withdrawing, but even then the number of people truly independent is smaller. So now we're all equally dependent, from unborn to death we are dependent upon others for our survival.

You're just making a convenient bookmark by noting the end conclusion you want to draw. So is the worth of a man dependent upon the influence they can have? The serendipity of birth? Actions taken?

But why should a child in Africa have any fundamental difference than one in the US? This is the question you have not addressed.
 
I'm against the death penalty. According to the data, eventually, an innocent person will be killed by the state. This is unacceptable in a civilized society.
Says who?

If the person went through due process and was legally judged guilty, it isn't unacceptable in a civilized society as those are the rules of said society.
Now if you want to change those rules go right on ahead and work towards that goal, but currently the majority of States say it is acceptable.
 
Says who?

If the person went through due process and was legally judged guilty, it isn't unacceptable in a civilized society as those are the rules of said society.
Now if you want to change those rules go right on ahead and work towards that goal, but currently the majority of States say it is acceptable.

Executing people is not civilized. We are in the company of Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, & Russia. Those nations are not civilized. They are brutal dictatorships.
 
Back
Top Bottom