• 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!

Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Should Capital Punishment be supported?

  • It should be supported in both principle and practice.

    Votes: 31 45.6%
  • Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.

    Votes: 11 16.2%
  • It should be opposed both in principle and practice.

    Votes: 26 38.2%

  • Total voters
    68
What 45 year old was executed for drug charges? Have a link?

You missed the point. Why is it not okay to execute people for being heavily involved in the drug trade, but it's okay to execute people for rape or murder? It's moral relativism. In Singapore, obviously drug charges are as serious as murder charges are in the U.S... but people in the U.S. see it differently. Why?

Why did people feel like they had the right to be outraged at Singapore?
 
THIS analogy is WHACK! No one gets executed for stealing.

I wasn't the one who started the stealing analogy, was simply responding to it. :)

Don't worry, when we're forced to join the "Global Community", we'll be forced by folks such as yourself to give up our wonderful death penalty so the monsters have a chance of getting out of prison to kill again. Until then, we're alot safer with it.:cool:

Since you have no real counter argument to my points or the sources I provided, I can only assume that you agree with me that the death penalty is not logical in the modern world and that your further support of its use is based on a feeling, nothing more.
 
The necessity of the death penalty law is what we are debating in of itself. Imprisoning someone or killing them are two entirely different things.

No they are NOT entirely different things they are all legal punishments.

I never argued against punishing criminals for the crimes they committed... please cite where I said that, otherwise it's time to move on.

You are argueing against issueing punishments of equal value to the crime. You are double standarding.

I am emphasizing my disagreement with the death penalty as a form of punishment.

You aren't being particularly logical about it.

It's not a double standard to suggest that no one should be executed.

You are making a double standard in that you don't want the punishment for murder to be equal to the crime committed, you want it to be waned.

Except other crimes don't involve people being killed by the State.

And what are you insinuating is the significance of that? It's still the punishment of a crime, and the poor have worse lawyers regardless of the crime so your problem lies within the quality of public defenders not with any one specific crime (of many different one) that can be sentanced.

If a person's life is at stake but they cannot afford acceptable legal counsel, and the majority of people on death row come from a poor background, then there is systemic bias taking place.

Again, this applies to ALL crimes and your issue in this regard is with the prosecution process NOT the punishment. Think about it, outlaw capital punishment, there problem fixed? No more systematic abuse of the poor just because they cannot be killed? Wrong, now the poor will just be subjected to life terms instead and at the exact same rate.

If the death penalty were uniform, a rich man and a poor man would both suffer the same fate.

They actually do suffer the same fate IF THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY. Richer people get aquitted more often, which means, again, your problem is with the trial not the verdict.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who only has a public defender provided to them is going to stand the same chance of a lesser sentence than someone who can afford a good lawyer? Wow...

They will get aquitted or found guilty of lesser charges if they have better lawyers, but the second someone is found guilty of X crime, X punishment is consistent yes. The lawyers make the difference of whether or not they are found guilty to begin with.

The person isn't committing suicide last time I checked, the State is killing him. Therefore the State is responsible for the family's woes.

He committed the crime knowing what the punishment of being cought and found guilty was. And btw before throwing a "therefor" at me you might want to recheck your logic.

Take this into consideration. Let's say guy robs a bank, gets caught and sentanced to however many years in prison. His family is certainly going to be upset are they not? So according to your logic, A. the state is responsible for making his family upset, and B. This means we should lessen the punishment so that they don't feel so bad. does this sound about right?

This is a bogus argument since the system applies capital punishment inconsistently,

A. What if they applied it consistently? Now it is OK? If not, then you need to take your argument somewhere else.

B. Your problem is with the inconsistencey not the punishment.

so there is no way to know for sure if you will be killed or not. This is why the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent in the U.S.

There is no way to know whether you will be executed because there is no way to know whether or not you will be found guilty. And this is true of any crime. Also, my arguement has nothing to do with deterrent.

Maybe in your ideal world it does, but in reality the death of anyone causes suffering to all those who know them and love them.

He should have thought about that before taking an innocent person's life.

Why is the criminal's family selfish for not wanting their loved one to die?

A. Because he is a murderer.

B. They want him to live at the expense of justice.

The criminal is still a human being with human ties.

It doesn't matter, punishment has to be issued objectively without regard to how the criminals family will feel about it.

Prove it.

I'am speaking on behalf of my own ideals so my word is as good a proof as you will get or need. My argument has nothing to do with vengence, it's that simple.

Provide evidence for the bolded assertion.

It doesn't matter, it could be all of them or could be none of them it has no relevence to my arguement. I was saying on a side note. And I couldn't prove it, what constitutes as a loving family is ambiguous and it's not recorded anyway.

I agree that the number of executions a year is small compared to how many criminals are actually in jail in the U.S., but the cost of the legal proceedings and the executions themselves far outweighs simple incarceration. (Please see my previous post for evidence.)

The cost of incarceration vs. execution is independent of the legal proccedings. And where is your proof that incarceration is cheaper than executing someone? Which post?

I'm not interested in whether or not you think the effect is small. You haven't been in the position to know your loved one is going to be killed in a pre-meditated fashion. That is torturous.

Why do you think the feelings of the family is relevent? Is this how are legal system works now?

Sorry, but it's not beside the point just because you say it is.

It's beside the point because it IS beside the point, not just because I say it is you are right.

Argueing that people watching the executions is barbaric is not an arguement to end executions is an arguement to prevent people from watching them, thus, besides the point. Continue.

It's not that it's beside the point, it's that you aren't understanding the point. Take suicide as an example. It's a person killing oneself. If a person ends up taking their own life then it's because they lacked support, were perhaps isolated in their thoughts, and they ended up carrying out an act in response to an impulse. Not enough people know the warning signs of depression. The same could be said of murderers... how often do people ignore others who are clearly displaying disturbing behaviour? How many people walk on and decide to not get involved?

It's besides the point because people who support CP also support preventative measures. Until you can demonstrate how those are mutually exclusive, YES it is beside the point.

So then why doesn't every murder deserve an execution?

Every intentional murder does.

How do you decide if the punishment is "equal to the crime"?

Death = death. Is that a complicated formula?

Hmmm... I never really said that the person lacks free will, I was talking about contributing factors.

There are always contributing factors. And you are admitting they had free-will? They freely choose, consciously, to murder another person, by their own will? You agree with this?

And how is killing them without even a chance at rehabilitation going to do any damage control?

Because first of all, they don't deserve rehabilitation. Second, it doesn't exist unless you can proove otherwise. And third, even if a method did exist it isn't worth the risk of them lying or misleading just to get out (and commit more murders).

You claim that most murderers can't be rehabilitated. I agree, because they are given a death sentence instead! Some people on death row sit there for 15-20 years doing nothing whatsoever, while the State wastes time and money to satisfy the revenge impulse of people like you.

The reason they sit there for so many years is to give them time to repeal and possibly find more evidence to the contrary. Why do you insist with this stupid, childish "revenge" bulls***?

In that time, the person could have been taught to live a better life and understand the gravity of what they did.

They knew, unless they are clinically insane, what they were doing, what the gravity of their actions would be, the pain they would cause the victims family, the possibility of being cought, and because they are the most selfish people imagineable they choose to murder another person. There is no rehabilitating that, and they don't deserve it either way.

but the system causing a family suffering in order to try and provide "justice" to another family that is suffering.

No it has to do with objective punishment, in fact, if the criminal had no family what-so-ever (possibly because he is the one who killed them) the punishment would be exactly the same.

When did I ever say that there should be no justice system or that criminals don't deserve punishment?

That's where your logic goes when extrapolated. You are saying that we should wane a punishment because it causes grief to the criminals family, yet ALL punishment will cause grief to all criminals' families, which leads us to the conclusion that there should be no punishment as to prevent ALL further grief of peoples' families.

In this case, an eye for an eye and the law are the same thing, which is unfortunate.

No what is the difference ever? Just in theory what should punishment be based on to you?
 
Last edited:
Id like to know the thoughts of judges who know they sentanced an innocent man to death.
 
Id like to know the thoughts of judges who know they sentanced an innocent man to death.

Probably similar to judges who know they sentenced an innocent man to prison? Oh wait, judges don't actually find anyone guilty, that's juries. :roll:
 
Probably similar to judges who know they sentenced an innocent man to prison? Oh wait, judges don't actually find anyone guilty, that's juries. :roll:

Well, it depends on if the defendant waives his or her right to a jury trial.
The defendant has a right to trial by judge rather than jury, if he/ she wishes it.

I think if I were falsely accused of a crime, I would go this route.
If I were rightly accused of a crime, I would go the jury route.
 
When your child steals a cookie, do you execute him and then just go have another child? No, you give him a consequence he can learn from. Your analogy is flawed.

Actually... no, it's not flawed in the slightest.

Unless you can display how ALL criminals are given the Death Penalty as a result of their crime, like a rapist might just as a shoplifter might, then your understanding of what makes a logical analogy is ridiculously flawed. ;)




I've provided enough logical evidence to debunk your claim that I'm only making emotional appeals.

Then you have never faced me, or my line of reasoning.
My rationale and my evidence is not debunkable. :2razz:

Teleological Ethics...

explains the rightness of actions in terms of the goodness of the state of affairs that occurs because of that action. If some action genuinely brings about greater good in the world, then it is a right action, and this rightness is independent of the nature of the action or the intentions of the person carrying out the action.

Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers- John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

Pro-death penalty.com


"It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."


FROM ENGLAND:

"Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not."

Lord Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeals in England said to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1950


Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.

In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762


"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." -Exodus 21:12

Pro Capital Punishment Page


The Death Penalty is a consequence. End of story. Those that commit murder and rape and such forfeit their lives as a matter of fact, not as an emotional vengence or anything else, their life is not worth anything, so it is ended. Done.

Provide irrefutable proof that:

1. The death penalty stance is based purely on emotion.
2. A logical argument would have to refer to deterrence theory



Good Luck! :2wave:


I come from a country that, long ago, realized the impracticality and illogical nature of the death penalty.

There is nothing illogical about it... you are letting your emotions rule your thinking, that is all. Not only that, but you are projecting your fears onto me and trying to make a logical argument based off of emotions (hence the cyclical and ironic aspect of your position) hoping to make my rationale one not of logic, but of emotion! :lol:


A society that wishes to harbour humanitarian ideals cannot kill its own people, no matter what.

Wrong. Nice opinion though.


A person who has done something horrible deserves to be put away, and society doesn't have the right to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Those are my values.

I am glad that you respect life just as I do...


The death penalty is a consequence that serves no purpose in the United States.

It serves a great purpose actually...



It's been debunked as a deterrent.

This is the flaw in your approach to "debunk" my logic for supporting the DP.


It's been debunked as a financially efficient method to deal with criminals.

Irrelevant...


It's been debunked as a form of justice that brings relief to the people left behind (especially the criminal's family).

Irrelevant...


It's not even applied uniformly, since two people committing the same crime could get two difference sentences based on a number of factors.

And that should be addressed and rectified... but it doesn't mean that the reasoning behind the DP is flawed, just the application, and that is a human factor.


The only thing left to look at is its use as a revenge tactic...

Nope...


That can never be decided objectively since it's a subjective issue, and no person in society is wise enough to know who deserves to die and who doesn't. At least, that is what I believe and what my country believes

Ahhh.. so it is only what you believe. Gotcha... ;)
 
Last edited:
And that's it in a nutshell.:roll:

Guess I won that debate... the guy bailed with his opinion fast enough.
That is twice now that people make that claim and can't back it... Scucca and now Orius
 
That is twice now that people make that claim and can't back it... Scucca and now Orius

It's easy to win when all they have to support their views is faith and opinion, demanding evidence and support for views which are inherently unsupportable makes them run away with their tails between their legs. Unfortunately, they'll be back, views completely unchanged, claiming they won because it's impossible for their views to be wrong.
 
Guess I won that debate... the guy bailed with his opinion fast enough.
That is twice now that people make that claim and can't back it... Scucca and now Orius

You da man!:2wave:
 
If we had a swift death penalty our country probably would not hit the recession we are in or the depression we will probably see.

All the money misdirected ito support an anti-life, human monster, could be in circulation still driving our economy.

If one in a million was actually inocent then the best approach to this is to consider it collateral damage in the war on murder.

The death penalty should be in place for it to basically be a "given" that if you commit first degree murder you are also committing suicide.

Then let's see what happens to the crime rates...
 
Last edited:
If we had a swift death penalty our country probably would not hit the recession we are in or the depression we will probably see.

All the money misdirected ito support an anti-life, human monster, could be in circulation still driving our economy.

The death penalty should be in place for it to basically be a "given" that if you commit first degree murder you are also committing suicide.

Then let's see what happens to the crime rates...

BINGO!:2wave:
 
If we had a swift death penalty our country probably would not hit the recession we are in or the depression we will probably see.

All the money misdirected ito support an anti-life, human monster, could be in circulation still driving our economy.

The death penalty should be in place for it to basically be a "given" that if you commit first degree murder you are also committing suicide.

Then let's see what happens to the crime rates...
by saving millions you expect to offset Trillions :confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
I support CP when one is found guilty of multiple slayings or when a murder is a malice murder. Desecration of the body or rape / murder of a child.
People who commit said crimes have forfeited their right to exist.
 
Hello there people,

Just a thought here: in many developed regions we see the abolishment of capital punishment as a penalty for any crime. However, there still exists countries that do still exercise the death penalty system (approximately 90 countries) with 38 out of 50 states in the U.S. still endorsing the death penalty.

A major element of the argument will be the value of life: the side that supports capital punishment may argue that abolishing it results in the devaluation of respect for human life as the punishment is not proportionate and as such, does not reflect the significance of the crime. Also, the fact that the punishment is congruent to the crime proves that the system reflects the objective of the judiciary system: to deter.

The side that opposes capital punishment may argue that in the simplest of terms, execution is state-seanctioned killing - how different will taking the life of a killer be than taking the life of an innocent if the main objective is to preserve human life in general? Moreover, who is the judiciary system to have the right to take away one's right to life - the most fundamental of all rights? We all know how prejudice clouds judgement, especially in the fragile glass sheet that is today's society. Social bias makes secularity impossible, making the system unequal and as such, impossible to implement capital punishment in.

So what do you think? Should the use capital punishment be supported or opposed?

-Alex
State Sanctioned Homicide cheapens life for all people. CP states notoriously have higher murder rates than non CP states. There is an inherent cruelty to sticking someone in a bathroom & saying we'll come back in x years & end you life "Humanely" with witnesses. Don't go anywhere. Not to mention that death is the end of punishment. What Timothy McVeigh called suicide by cop. Spending the rest of one's life locked in a bathroom is punishment, but also allowing for the rare new evidence that leads to an exoneration. Before it's too late.
 
I sure that kind of reasoning can be applied to life sentences, fines, parole and other forms of punishment not just the death penalty. Some victims and their loved ones want scum to rot behind bars for their rest of their life.
State imposed Homicide is not a deterant, in fact people who live in CP states seem to have a more exaggerated distain for human life as reflected in the states murder rate.
 
Hello there people,

Just a thought here: in many developed regions we see the abolishment of capital punishment as a penalty for any crime. However, there still exists countries that do still exercise the death penalty system (approximately 90 countries) with 38 out of 50 states in the U.S. still endorsing the death penalty.

A major element of the argument will be the value of life: the side that supports capital punishment may argue that abolishing it results in the devaluation of respect for human life as the punishment is not proportionate and as such, does not reflect the significance of the crime. Also, the fact that the punishment is congruent to the crime proves that the system reflects the objective of the judiciary system: to deter.

The side that opposes capital punishment may argue that in the simplest of terms, execution is state-seanctioned killing - how different will taking the life of a killer be than taking the life of an innocent if the main objective is to preserve human life in general? Moreover, who is the judiciary system to have the right to take away one's right to life - the most fundamental of all rights? We all know how prejudice clouds judgement, especially in the fragile glass sheet that is today's society. Social bias makes secularity impossible, making the system unequal and as such, impossible to implement capital punishment in.

So what do you think? Should the use capital punishment be supported or opposed?

-Alex

If you look past the actual question of whether its acceptable to execute someone who is definitively guilty -- due to how the justice system operates, the fallibility of forensics, witness testimony, how confessions are obtained, racism, etc., it's inevitable that the vast amount of people who are going executed to be poor minorities, many of whom are innocent.

If you think its okay to execute large swaths of innocent people to execute the guilty, then you're probably a pro-life American Christian (not you, but people who approve of mass executions).
 
Opposed both in principal - society should not be killing it's citizen - and in practice - since our systems are fallible and we have and will continue to execute innocent people.

That said I'm fine with life without parole.
 
I'd like to know the thoughts of judges who Didn't sentence a capital felon to death, and he then escaped or conned a parole board into releasing him, and killed again.

We put death sentenced cons on Death Row, maximum security, on the theory that they have nothing left to lose and therefore cannot be deterred. What does a life without parole con have to lose in a No Death Penalty state? But if you put him in the equivalent of Death Row, it is guaranteed that the Criminals' Labor Union will sue you for Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and probably win.

In addition, 90% of criminal cases are disposed of by plea bargain, as the system cannot possibly try them all, with current resources or any that can reasonably be foreseen. In order for a plea to happen, just like settlement in a civil case, the party has to face the possibility of a more severe outcome than the plea offer. If the max is Life, then the offer must be less than life, and often ends up being something like 15 years. This is not a good enough insurance policy for public safety.
 
Back
Top Bottom