View Poll Results: Should Capital Punishment be supported?

Voters
90. You may not vote on this poll
  • It should be supported in both principle and practice.

    43 47.78%
  • Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.

    14 15.56%
  • It should be opposed both in principle and practice.

    33 36.67%
Page 39 of 42 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 416

Thread: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

  1. #381
    User Abashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Oceanside, CA
    Last Seen
    12-11-08 @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    21

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    I don't believe in my eye for an eye, that is not what my family has taught me. Most of my family is against the death penalty, and I don't care for it either.

    There are much more important issues, IMO.
    "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included."
    -Karl Marx

  2. #382
    Advisor Unrein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    09-01-13 @ 12:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    448

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I don't think it's about justice, but it's about revenge. Most people who are put to death also fear for their lives, and that, in principle, is supposed to make the family and friends of their victim somehow feel better. I will never understand how reproducing fatal suffering is supposed to right a wrong.
    I'am not talking about vengence I'am talking about logic.

    I don't believe murdering a murderer makes us any better.
    But they aren't the same thing, the muderer killed an innocent person and the state did not.

    You might as well be saying that imprisoning people who commit kidnapping is wrong, or ordering someone to pay back theft.

    Well, herein lies the problem. Why does one person who murders deserve the death penalty while another does not? The law is not applied consistency. Why is one instance more grave than another? It all has to do with subjectivity sensibilities... what jury you get, what the judge thinks, what city you're in, if what people think you did is "bad enough" to warrant execution. There are plenty of mentally disturbed murderers idling away in jail for the rest of their lives, yet others die.
    Your problem here has nothing to do with the death penalty itself but state rights. I agree that capital punishment should be federal. You shouldn't die or live based on where you committed the murder, nor should you be denied the right to marry based on which state you live in, etc. State laws should limited to things that effect only them.

    It's not just about rehabiliating the criminal, it's also about what our treatment of them does for us.
    Well go on, what does it 'do for us'?

    That's not exactly what I meant. I didn't mean finding a murder suspect, sitting them down and trying to get to the root of the problem. By then it might be too late. I mean... when the kid grows up, is bullied, has strange tendencies, clearly is "different", shows patterns of behaviour that aren't quote/unquote "normal". A lot of people just don't want to get involved, or they contribute to the problem. Murderers aren't just born, they develop.
    How is that preclusive of supporting capital punishment?

    And why do they view society as something to exploit? Why do they feel lives are dispensible? They got that impression from somewhere, or someone. This is what I'm talking about. Execution is putting away a mistake that is partially a collective one.
    That could be said of any criminal. Sorry but it doesn't matter who is to blame for thier mental instability, but the fact is they ARE murderers and need to be removed from society completely. I agree that society should take measures to prevent it from happening, but in a realistic sense we can't excuse people over social determinism.

    I'am not argueing from a moral sense, I'am argueing from a pragmatic sense. You can always blame someone else for another persons behavior and I even agree it is true, but at the end of day we have to hold someone responsible and the only effective, justifiable way of doing it is dealing with the individual who physically committed the crime.

    I'm not trying to absolve the person of responsibility, they did their crime.
    It seems like you are though.

    Maybe, in a sense, executing them is permanently putting away something that we feel is a mistake... something that we are so ashamed of that we don't ever want to see it again. After all, if a vicious person is still alive in jail, then we cannot convince ourselves that our society is such a great place. Killing them at least puts that disgrace to an end.
    It has nothing what-so-ever to do with that (at least not for me)

  3. #383
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,643

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Originally Posted by Orius
    I don't think it's about justice, but it's about revenge.
    No it's not... it is about CONSEQUENCE and has NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTION.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  4. #384
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,643

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I never said anything about hugs. I never even said anything about forgiving them to their faces. Forgiveness is something that you do for yourself, so that you can move on. But people prefer to hold onto things bitterly, and they continue to do so even after criminals get executed. Again, it's not about justice, but about the draconian idea that revenge is supposed to make you feel better. It doesn't.

    And I never said "how dare them", like being angry means there is something wrong with them, so stop twisting my words. Their anger is totally understandable... but their anger isn't just their own. It becomes systemic anger that translates into a death penalty.

    Again, I don't wish for my tax dollars to fund someone's murder, which is why I am happy with Canada's lack of a death penalty.
    Then what is wrong with forgiving them and then killing as a consequence of their actions?

    You are not making sense. You are continually talking about emotions, as if this negates a criminal being put to death for their refusal to follow moral and legal laws set forth by a society.

    Also, your tax dollars are being spent on criminals that many times, when released from prison, go out and murder, rape and rob AGAIN. So, in a sense you are contributing to the problem and aiding criminals in their future crimes against your neighbors.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  5. #385
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    But they aren't the same thing, the muderer killed an innocent person and the state did not.
    This is subjective so I will not continue to argue it, but I disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    You might as well be saying that imprisoning people who commit kidnapping is wrong, or ordering someone to pay back theft.
    You know as well as I do that that is not the same issue. We are debating the death penalty, not simple imprisonment. You are trying to make it seem like a no-brainer that murderers should be executed, but that is the very issue we are debating. I need not remind you again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    Your problem here has nothing to do with the death penalty itself but state rights. I agree that capital punishment should be federal. You shouldn't die or live based on where you committed the murder, nor should you be denied the right to marry based on which state you live in, etc. State laws should limited to things that effect only them.
    Though inclusive of State rights, my argument was broader than that. Approximately 90 percent of those on death row can not afford to hire a lawyer when when being tried. The poor tend to be subject to the death penalty far more than those who can afford better legal counsel. If their crime is so heinous, it shouldn't matter how much money you have, the sentence should be automatic. But it's not... it is instituted completely unfairly and inconsistently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    Well go on, what does it 'do for us'?
    The criminal also has a family, friends and people who love them. Capital punishment suggests that they too should go through the same loss, suffering and trauma that the victim went through, all because the system demands revenge. So instead of having just one family going through hell because of a death, the system seeks an eye for an eye. How do those people suffering the loss of their loved ones in turn affect their surrounding community? How is their functionality affected?

    Furthermore, how many public executions are spectator sports where people go to watch someone die. How is this contributing to a civilized, humanitarian society? It's barbaric.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    How is that preclusive of supporting capital punishment?
    I guess it's not, when it comes down to it, because people just see murder as murder. They don't want to consider the root causes and maybe try to take preventative measures in the future. The same thing can be said of other forms of death such as suicide. People see the warning signs but choose to ignore them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    That could be said of any criminal. Sorry but it doesn't matter who is to blame for thier mental instability, but the fact is they ARE murderers and need to be removed from society completely. I agree that society should take measures to prevent it from happening, but in a realistic sense we can't excuse people over social determinism.
    I agree they need to be separated, but the issue at stake is whether or not it's acceptable to murder them.

    Also, please define what you mean by social determinism, so I can be clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    I'am not argueing from a moral sense, I'am argueing from a pragmatic sense. You can always blame someone else for another persons behavior and I even agree it is true, but at the end of day we have to hold someone responsible and the only effective, justifiable way of doing it is dealing with the individual who physically committed the crime.
    Again, I am not arguing against holding the person responsible for the crime, so you don't need to bring up that point again. You can hold them responsible in other ways that don't involve putting them to death.

    How is it pragmatic to kill someone and cause everyone they know suffering? How is it "logical" to try and right a wrong by committing another wrong? It's an eye for an eye and it never works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    It seems like you are though.
    Well, I can't help the way you feel... I have stated otherwise. If you don't want to accept it, then it's your problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    It has nothing what-so-ever to do with that (at least not for me)
    I was trying to look at the social and perhaps philosophical side of the death penalty, but I see you want to stick to the same tired old arguments. Ok, we can do that.

  6. #386
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Then what is wrong with forgiving them and then killing as a consequence of their actions?
    You are not just hurting them but also everyone they know. You claim it's an idle consequence but it's revenge. Revenge is defined as a harmful action enacted upon someone in response to wrongdoing. That is precisely what the death penalty is. You killed someone, now you die. Eye for an eye.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    You are not making sense. You are continually talking about emotions, as if this negates a criminal being put to death for their refusal to follow moral and legal laws set forth by a society.
    No, I haven't just been talking about emotions, and if you think that, then you haven't been paying attention.

    The laws and their enforcement are not fair. The majority executed are poor and cannot afford proper legal counsel. If the law were fair, then everyone who committed murder would be put to death, regardless of their age, gender, mental status, etc. That's what Singapore does, and they have one of the lowest murder rates per capita in the world.

    The United States would never enact such laws, because "moral and legal laws" that you refer to are always subjectively interpreted, and juries vote for the death penalty based on their feelings towards the case. You argue that I talk too much about emotion, but emotion is the exact reason why people are put to death, and in a place like the U.S., it is carried out non-uniformly and illogically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Also, your tax dollars are being spent on criminals that many times, when released from prison, go out and murder, rape and rob AGAIN. So, in a sense you are contributing to the problem and aiding criminals in their future crimes against your neighbors.
    Depends on which criminal you are talking about. If they end up being released, then it means that the justice system has warranted such a release. Your argument is predicated upon the idea that all people who meet probation or their sentence release date end up committing the same crime. What a lovely generalization.

    Also, the idea that the death penalty makes costs cheaper than prison time is a myth.

    Some financial facts:

    The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.

    Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)

    In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).

    In Indiana, the total costs of the death penalty exceed the complete costs of life without parole sentences by about 38%, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and reduced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002).

    The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).

    Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).

    In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
    Last edited by Orion; 12-11-08 at 09:33 AM.

  7. #387
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,043

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    The way the current prison system works, I support the death penalty and believe it isn't carried out enough. I've heard that only 10% of those on death row are ever executed. Nevertheless, the real reason is because prisoners serve no useful purpose in prison, and are a burden to society. This is wrong. Lifting weights and watching TV should not be a regular pasttime in prison. They should be worked daily, and worked hard; so hard they are too tired to lift weight, rape each other or carry on riots.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  8. #388
    Advisor Unrein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    09-01-13 @ 12:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    448

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    This is subjective so I will not continue to argue it, but I disagree.
    How convenient.

    You know as well as I do that that is not the same issue.
    Punishment by the law. Yes it is the same issue and according to your logic if the state cannot kill a killer than neither should be allowed imprison an imprisoner, steal from a thief, etc. You need to make the distinction as to why that standard applies to THIS crime only and any crime.

    You are trying to make it seem like a no-brainer that murderers should be executed, but that is the very issue we are debating. I need not remind you again.
    You are making a double standard.

    Though inclusive of State rights, my argument was broader than that. Approximately 90 percent of those on death row can not afford to hire a lawyer when when being tried. The poor tend to be subject to the death penalty far more than those who can afford better legal counsel.
    The poor tend to be subject to MOST crimes compared to those who can afford layers. So we are taking this to something unrelated to the death penalty specificly and now crime in general.

    If their crime is so heinous, it shouldn't matter how much money you have, the sentence should be automatic. But it's not... it is instituted completely unfairly and inconsistently.
    The lawyers generally make the difference between whether or not they are found guilty, if they ARE found guilty (of 1st degree murder) the sentence is pretty consistent regardless of how much money you spent on your defence.

    But again, it's besides the point of the debate.

    The criminal also has a family, friends and people who love them.
    the law isn't punishing them the person who committed the crime is responsible for their families woes. I'am not prepared to lighten ANY laws LET ALONE murder convictions just to make thier family feel slightly better. It's a consequence that they have to live with.

    Capital punishment suggests that they too should go through the same loss,
    It does no such thing. Capital punishment deals with the one who committed the crime and no one else. Any consequences are purely subsequent and not the responsibility of the government.

    And that said, I would give more favor to the family of the victim who wants to see justice served then the apperently selfish family of the murderer.

    suffering and trauma that the victim went through, all because the system demands revenge.
    THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REVENGE.

    How do those people suffering the loss of their loved ones in turn affect their surrounding community? How is their functionality affected?
    HOw many people are sentenced to death each year? relatively not that many. Of those put to death how many have loving caring families? Probably not most of them. Is the effect of a few dozen families grieving over thier childs death going to severly (or even remotely) effect society? No.

    Furthermore, how many public executions are spectator sports where people go to watch someone die. How is this contributing to a civilized, humanitarian society? It's barbaric.
    A. That's besides the point completely.
    B. The main reason people watch is for oversight purposes.

    I guess it's not, when it comes down to it, because people just see murder as murder. They don't want to consider the root causes and maybe try to take preventative measures in the future. The same thing can be said of other forms of death such as suicide. People see the warning signs but choose to ignore them.
    That is besides the point, again. I'am sure most people who support the death penalty wouldn't disagree that more effort should be put into prevention. Just like people who support abortion also support measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

    I agree they need to be separated,
    No when I say removed I mean REMOVED.

    but the issue at stake is whether or not it's acceptable to murder them.
    It a punishment equal to the crime so yes. If someone steals 500 dollars does it make any sense to order them to pay back 400 of it?

    Also, please define what you mean by social determinism, so I can be clear.
    ]

    You described it quite fine yourself. It's the notion that peoples' actions are based on the collection of pycho-social interations, and that behavior is determined completely by the system as a whole and not individual free-will.

    You can hold them responsible in other ways that don't involve putting them to death.
    It wouldn't be just however.

    How is it pragmatic to kill someone and cause everyone they know suffering?
    They are burdening everyone else with thier existence and their family is being selfish if they want justice waivered to protect their feelings.

    How is it "logical" to try and right a wrong by committing another wrong?
    Punishment by law is "wrong"?

    It's an eye for an eye and it never works.
    So we shouldn't have a legal system at all then because that's how the whole thing works? Anarchy then? Please distinguish "eye for an eye" and "law". What is the difference between the two?

    I was trying to look at the social and perhaps philosophical side of the death penalty, but I see you want to stick to the same tired old arguments. Ok, we can do that.
    You weren't being 'philosophical' it was completely random conjecture. The death penalty has NOTHING to do with "sweeping away our mistakes" that is nonsense.

  9. #389
    Educator Invayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Present
    Last Seen
    07-22-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    817

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post




    The laws and their enforcement are not fair. The majority executed are poor and cannot afford proper legal counsel. If the law were fair, then everyone who committed murder would be put to death, regardless of their age, gender, mental status, etc.
    I totally agree. I mean, they should have just taken OJ Simpson out in back of the courthouse and shot his sorry ass.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    That's what Singapore does, and they have one of the lowest murder rates per capita in the world.
    I do believe you just made the best argument FOR capital punishment. You are starting to see the logic in it. Good for you!

  10. #390
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    12-19-08 @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    101

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Invayne View Post
    I totally agree. I mean, they should have just taken OJ Simpson out in back of the courthouse and shot his sorry ass.
    Time for a history lesson.

    "The Lacedamonians, when they had conquered the Athenians, appointed 30 men to govern their state. These 30 began their administration by putting to death, even without trial, all who were notoriously wicked, or publicly detestable; acts at which the public rejoiced, and extolled their justice. But afterward, when their lawless power gradually increased, they proceeded, at their pleasure, to kill the good and the bad indiscriminately, and to strike terror into all; and thus the state, overpowered and enslaved, paid a heavy toll for its imprudent exultation."

    -Julius Caesar "On the Treatment of the Conspirators"

Page 39 of 42 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •