• 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
Re: Immediate Termination

Monk-Eye said:
"Immediate Termination"

DNA links man to TV anchor's death, police say (ln)

Is it possible to construct provisions of law which guarantee with 100% accuracy that the perpetrator commited the crime?

What is the uncertainty here?

Enact due process and promptly execute this maggot.

art.pressly.jpg


art.vance.mug.ap.jpg
Click to expand...

Totally agree! Although I can predict "racism" coming out of this.:lol:
 
Infinite Chaos said:
The problem comes when an innocent has been put to death and then the new evidence turns up proving the case was wrong.
Click to expand...

It happens, welcome to reality. How is that any worse than a guilty person being released, who then kills again?
 
Dimentia

"Dimentia"
Infinite Chaos said:
Yeah and in another case, the "guilty maggot" whose DNA linked him to a murder turned out to be 4 years old when the murder was committed.
Heck yeah, kill all maggots and get someone else to say sorry later when the mistakes or real killer is caught... :roll:
Click to expand...
The examples of false readings provided were from human errors.
There are ways of creating assurances, through repeated verification and independent sources.

Hypothetically, if the assurances were 100%, the pacifists would still rather know that their loved ones were beaten, raped, and murdered.
The satisfaction of being victimized titilates them.
 
Re: Dimentia

Monk-Eye said:
Hypothetically, if the assurances were 100%, the pacifists would still rather know that their loved ones were beaten, raped, and murdered.
The satisfaction of being victimized titilates them.
Click to expand...

That's just sick....:lol:
 
Bonnie1988 said:
In world history, "liberals" historically do ultimately come to murdering individually and then in mass all opposing voices. I've posted many times that as I came into politics I was stunned by the extreme intolerance in general and hatred of freedom and free speech most liberals have. Liberal and Dictator come to be the same word.
Click to expand...

Just like Ignorant and Bonnie come to be the same word?
 
Re: Dimentia

Cephus said:
It happens, welcome to reality. How is that any worse than a guilty person being released, who then kills again?
Click to expand...

If an innocent man has a life sentence he or she gets chances to fight to clear his or her name. The state serves as jailor and if the person clears their name the state can compensate.

If an innocent man gets a death penalty and is executed - end of story - the real perp is still out there killing anyway - and the state has exacted revenge on the wrong person. The state cannot compensate and instead has proven as bad as the original criminal for killing an innocent.

Pretty clear cut to me.


Monk-Eye said:
"Dimentia"
The examples of false readings provided were from human errors.
There are ways of creating assurances, through repeated verification and independent sources.
Click to expand...

As long as you have a human element - inputting the DNA evidence / checking it etc etc you will always have the possibility of human error.

I'd like links to your "ways" please... and I'm sure the DNA agencies would too.

Monk-Eye said:
--Hypothetically, if the assurances were 100%, the pacifists would still rather know that their loved ones were beaten, raped, and murdered.
The satisfaction of being victimized titilates them.
Click to expand...

Can tell the US election is over - you and others of your ilk would have called me a "liberal" before. Now I'm a "pacifist" :roll: and your argument is a non argument I'm afraid.
 
Villainy

"Villainy"
Infinite Chaos said:
As long as you have a human element - inputting the DNA evidence / checking it etc etc you will always have the possibility of human error.
I'd like links to your "ways" please... and I'm sure the DNA agencies would too.
Click to expand...
It is possible to create handling procedures and verification procedures.
Unfortunately, persons of your ilk would swear that murder on videotape was fallible, moreover, would refuse to take action given its absolute certainty.
Infinite Chaos said:
Can tell the US election is over - you and others of your ilk would have called me a "liberal" before. Now I'm a "pacifist" :roll: and your argument is a non argument I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
The term "liberal" is misused, anyone that has read my rants understands that; I use it sparingly, if ever, and, assuredly, correctly.
Libertarianism is a policy which establish the autonomy of the individual, to wit, liberal is a derivative.
Libertarianism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
Libertarianism is deontological, as in first generation rights, as in negative rights which may be equally protected.

When it comes to economics, the term "liberal" is a misnomer, egalitarianism is implemented via authoritarianism; the proper term is utilitarian.
Utilitarianism is consequentialism, as in second or third generation rights, as in positive rights which may not be equally endowed.

I am unfamiliar as to what others may have called you.

However, if one fails to understand the basic premises of society -- http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/40324-capital-punishment-justified-11.html#post1057825327, and http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/40324-capital-punishment-justified-3.html#post1057821985; such that, even when hypothetically faced with absolute assurance, that person declines to exercise reprisal, that individual is a pacifist, even worse -- a masochist.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Justice is not about revenge. That is the only purpose of the Death Penalty. I have stated that ad nauseum in this thread. The only issue at hand is the one laid out in an earlier post about Govenrmental rights versus citizen rights.


These emotional arguments regarding "savagery inflicted on the victim" are irrelevant to my logical argument.

That is, unless you saying that emotional pain is reason enough for the Government to have the power kill its citizens. Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

I understand this logical argument as well, what I can't understand is the emotionally driven argument from people trying to claim that my non-emotional backing of the DP is emotionally driven and not simply a perfectly logical and non-emotional one. ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
I understand this logical argument as well, what I can't understand is the emotionally driven argument from people trying to claim that my non-emotional backing of the DP is emotionally driven and not simply a perfectly logical and non-emotional one. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, I looked back at your arguments in this thread, Bodhisattva, and they are quite logical and non-emotional.

In fact, I can agree with the principles behind your argument.

My only real issue comes with granting the Government the authority to carry out the action of the death penalty against its people.

This places the government in a position of superiority over the people because it has a right that supersedes the most basic of rights retained by the people.

Even if the perpetrator has forfeited their own right to life by committing the crime, are we not still imbuing too much power to the government by granting it the ability to carry out such a sentence?

It is my belief that all power greater than that which is retained by the people is in excess of that which the government should wield.
 
Tucker Case said:
It is my belief that all power greater than that which is retained by the people is in excess of that which the government should wield.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's OK for people to steal from each other? The gov. steals from us every day.:cool:
 
Re: Villainy

Monk-Eye said:
-- It is possible to create handling procedures and verification procedures.
Unfortunately, persons of your ilk would swear that murder on videotape was fallible, moreover, would refuse to take action given its absolute certainty.
Click to expand...

Nice of you to make my mind up for me - better way to convince me would be to show me those examples of procedures I asked for.

Monk-Eye said:
--Libertarianism is a policy which establish the autonomy of the individual, to wit, liberal is a derivative.
Libertarianism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
Libertarianism is deontological, as in first generation rights, as in negative rights which may be equally protected.
Click to expand...

You've been corrected by Wessexman.. I leave that in his capable hands.

Monk-Eye said:
--
I am unfamiliar as to what others may have called you.

-- even when hypothetically faced with absolute assurance--
Click to expand...

I am a sceptic, pure and simple. There are very few 100% assured cases in crime. Call me whatever else you like but all I can say is when you choose to engage you might like to check back this thread - I have previously stated the conditions under which I would support a Death Penalty. So do I call you something for making false accusations?

DNA evidence can be very good but currently there is no system that cuts out human input and while you have that potential for error even DNA evidence cannot be guaranteed 100% of the time.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, I looked back at your arguments in this thread, Bodhisattva, and they are quite logical and non-emotional.

In fact, I can agree with the principles behind your argument.

My only real issue comes with granting the Government the authority to carry out the action of the death penalty against its people.

This places the government in a position of superiority over the people because it has a right that supersedes the most basic of rights retained by the people.

Even if the perpetrator has forfeited their own right to life by committing the crime, are we not still imbuing too much power to the government by granting it the ability to carry out such a sentence?

It is my belief that all power greater than that which is retained by the people is in excess of that which the government should wield.
Click to expand...
Man I can't believe I missed this. I didn't realise how much of a political philosopher you were Tucker. You are completely correct. I'd add that as much as is possible no individual should have more power than any other, power needs to be dispersed as widely as possible(while still being realistic.).
 
Particulars

"Particulars"
Wessexman said:
The term libertarian comes from the French libertaire, a synonym for anarchism or anarcho-communism.
Click to expand...
Anarcho-communism does not establish individual liberty through its dissolution of private property.

An essential condition of communism, egalitarianism, may only exist in a utopia where access to all materialism is unlimited and necessarily insignificant.

Otherwise, the realistic (as opposed to fantasy) process of wealth redistribution within communism violates the premise that libertarianism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
 
Re: Particulars

Monk-Eye said:
"Particulars"

Anarcho-communism does not establish individual liberty through its dissolution of private property.

An essential condition of communism, egalitarianism, may only exist in a utopia where access to all materialism is unlimited and necessarily insignificant.

Otherwise, the realistic (as opposed to fantasy) process of wealth redistribution within communism violates the premise that libertarianism is an antonym of authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
That is all your opinion and one I don't personally agree with, you don't seem to understand a lot about anarcho-communist, but that wasn't my point.

I was just pointing out that the word libertarian was invented by them and used for at least a century before the type you are talking of took up the term. They still use the term today. If they're not libertarians then I don't know who is unless you are trying to redefine the term.
 
Re: Particulars

I am against capital punishment.

Some say that it is justified - the whole 'eye for an eye' thing, but funnily enough, this is only applied to those people who kill. Now, if someone was convicted of rape, and the judge sentenced that man to be raped himself, I imagine there would be outcry, but why? Why would it be morally wrong to rape a man but perfectly moral to execute him? How can we apply this 'eye for an eye' to only a select group of people?

Capital punishment also does not deter anyone from commiting a crime. Obviously, the executed man will never commit another crime - but will other men/women out there decide not to kill someone because they are afraid of a needle in their arm? No, they will not. They are not in the least bit afraid of being executed. They are in no way detered.

Let me not mention the number of innocent people who have been executed over the years. We put innocent men to their deaths for crimes they did not commit. How can we say the death penalty is justified? Just because we happen to kill more guilty people than innocent doesn't make it right.
 
Re: Particulars

Cristina said:
Some say that it is justified - the whole 'eye for an eye' thing, but funnily enough
Click to expand...

that's not the point.

Cristina said:
Capital punishment also does not deter anyone from commiting a crime. Obviously, the executed man will never commit another crime - but will other men/women out there decide not to kill someone because they are afraid of a needle in their arm? No, they will not. They are not in the least bit afraid of being executed. They are in no way detered.
Click to expand...

this I am eager to see you prove.
 
Re: Particulars

Cristina said:
How many people are convicted of murder and sentenced to death each year? Do you think they were detered from killing? Or are you going to argue that they didn't expect to be caught?
Click to expand...

I'd like you to compare stats from states/countries that do and do not have capital punishment and tell me that the ones with capital punishment have as many or more murders committed per year. unless that is the case you cannot argue that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, unless you add the disclaimer that it is your opinion and not founded on fact.
 
Death penalty is justified, but not practiced in the correct way.. It should be used far more often for certain crimes like pedophilia and serial killers and so on, the most serious crimes. The evidence should be overwhelmingly clear and the death penalty used more often..
I think the system would need to be far more transparent and clear-cut for death penalty to be justified by the state..
 
Re: Particulars

emdash said:
I'd like you to compare stats from states/countries that do and do not have capital punishment and tell me that the ones with capital punishment have as many or more murders committed per year. unless that is the case you cannot argue that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, unless you add the disclaimer that it is your opinion and not founded on fact.
Click to expand...

Okay, I will state for the record that my post was my personal opinion, and I will work on finding some stats for you.
 
Point Counter Point

"Point Counter Point"
Wessexman said:
That is all your opinion and one I don't personally agree with, you don't seem to understand a lot about anarcho-communist, but that wasn't my point.
Click to expand...
I understand anarcho-communism; I do not agree with egalitarianism, it is simply an excuse for bureaucratic collectivism and in Orwelian terms, "All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
Wessexman said:
I was just pointing out that the word libertarian was invented by them and used for at least a century before the type you are talking of took up the term. They still use the term today. If they're not libertarians then I don't know who is unless you are trying to redefine the term.
Click to expand...
I am highly inclined to redefine it.

The democratic party is libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of moral choices.
It promotes itself on opposing authoritarian (collectivism) dictates from the public-state contract (goverment) on social-civil issues where individual morality is involved.

The democratic party is anti-libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of economic choices.
It promotes itself on enacting authoritarian (collectivism) dictates through the public-state contract (government) on social welfare issues with an egalitarian, wealth redistribution focus.

The republican party is anti-libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of moral choices.
It promotes itself on enacting authoritarian (collectivism) dicates through the public-state contract (government) on civil issues where individual morality is involved.

The republican party is libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of economic choices.
It promotes itself on opposing authoritarian (collectivism) dictates from the public-state contract (goverment) in economic issues, for laze faire economics.

The promotions of each party are mixed from issue to issue, which means that they are inconsistent with a fundamental philosophy of libertarianism (individualism), or authoritarianism (collectivism), yet both promote major liberal elements as part of their platforms.

Thus, the use of the term liberal by republicans about democrats is a reference to democrat's libertarian moral choices - individualism; however, that misappropriate in describing democrat economic principles - collectivism.

On the contrary, democrats would be justified to use the term liberal about republicans in reference to republican libertarian economic choices - individualism; however, that is misappropriate in describing republican civil positions - collectivism.

Now, the republican party seems to believe that it has the moral high ground on economic as well as civil issues, and consequently it sees fit to abuse the term liberal with that generalization, under some guise of term it calls conservativism; democrats seem to accept it; to put it bluntly, "I call bullsht!"
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Man I can't believe I missed this. I didn't realise how much of a political philosopher you were Tucker.
Click to expand...

I hide it well. The jokes and nonsense are my camoflague.

I'd add that as much as is possible no individual should have more power than any other, power needs to be dispersed as widely as possible(while still being realistic.).
Click to expand...

Precisely. This is what I feel the real concept of "equality" entails.
 
Tucker Case said:
My only real issue comes with granting the Government the authority to carry out the action of the death penalty against its people.

This places the government in a position of superiority over the people because it has a right that supersedes the most basic of rights retained by the people.
Click to expand...
This depends.
Is capital punishment a means thru which the government protects the rights of people, either directly by killing someone that has shown that he is a threat to society, or as a deterrent to those that might otherwise be a threat to society, or both?

If so - and I'd argue that it is indeed the case - the government is merely exercising the right of the people to act in their own self-defense.

Given that, we are not then granting the government a power that we, the people, do not individually posess as a right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom