• 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
Yeah, and so do the police. It's their job. What's the point?

Bounty hunters are not associated with the govenremtn. Thus, incarceration and arrest is a right retained by the people.

Now you're contradicting yourself.:confused:

Keyword: DIRECT DEFENSE

No contradiction. You seem to be confused over the difference between DIRECT DEFENSE and PREEMPTIVE DEFENSE.

One is related to an imminent threat, the other is playing a game of craps.
 
The gov. has the moral obligation to protect its citizens, and that's the end of it. Close the thread.:2razz:

Power is almost always abused, particularly when it is unaccountable and centralised. I'm sceptical of granting gov't anything but the absolute minimum.

Life imprisonment seems to work the same without granting the state the same fear, awe and power as giving it the right to execute.

I might be more willing if the gov't you were talking about was only a very local, very democratic and very accountable one perhaps.

As for deterrence I'm not convinced, one can make a lot of claims about correlations either way, compare Britain with the US for instance. But morally I don't think it is a good argument unless it is extremely effective and also I don't understand why you'd stop at lethal injection. If that deters people surely hang, drawing and quartering or burning at the stake will serve even better?
 
Last edited:
Life imprisonment seems to work the same without granting the state the same fear, awe and power as giving it the right to execute.

my question for you wessexman is this--if you grant the state the power to imprison people for life, how is that any different from granting the state the power to execute people? and I mean this seriously. either way you are giving gov't a ton of power, aren't you?
 
I don't understand why you'd stop at lethal injection. If that deters people surely hang, drawing and quartering or burning at the stake will serve even better?

Hell yeah! Pack a picnic lunch and make a day of it! Nothing better than a good ol' fashioned public hanging!
 
Hell yeah! Pack a picnic lunch and make a day of it! Nothing better than a good ol' fashioned public hanging!

an aside, it always really grossed me out how they'd show public hangings in cowboy movies with a crowd of people watching, women sitting on blankets and little kids running around. it's like seriously people, have a church social or something if you're that desperate for a gathering. I can't imagine watching a hanging without puking afterwards. I wonder if that was a big issue back then.
 
an aside, it always really grossed me out how they'd show public hangings in cowboy movies with a crowd of people watching, women sitting on blankets and little kids running around. it's like seriously people, have a church social or something if you're that desperate for a gathering. I can't imagine watching a hanging without puking afterwards. I wonder if that was a big issue back then.

I assume it was better than smelling burning flesh.:lol:
 
my question for you wessexman is this--if you grant the state the power to imprison people for life, how is that any different from granting the state the power to execute people? and I mean this seriously. either way you are giving gov't a ton of power, aren't you?
To end life is the ultimate power and carries with it a sense of awe and fear that prison cannot.
 
To end life is the ultimate power and carries with it a sense of awe and fear that prison cannot.

well I have to say that this kind of argument imo is sensible though perhaps a little alarmist, but I do believe that some people need to be removed from society. some crimes against humanity warrant death, and it can't be left to citizens to take care of it.

death penalty in the US is a state issue, so it's not as centralized as it could be.

I hate to sound like I'm trying too hard to agree with you on everything but what I mean to say is, I can see how your argument would make sense to you.

in general I hate people who agree to disagree, so I will maintain that you're wrong though well-intentioned.
 
To end life is the ultimate power and carries with it a sense of awe and fear that prison cannot.

If it brings a sense of awe and fear, then you're saying it IS a deterrent, right?
 
If it brings a sense of awe and fear, then you're saying it IS a deterrent, right?

the average citizen shouldn't fear the government, though. it should be the other way around.
 
the average citizen shouldn't fear the government, though. it should be the other way around.

No, you're right about the average citizen, but as for murderers and scum like that, they SHOULD have fear.
 
No, you're right about the average citizen, but as for murderers and scum like that, they SHOULD have fear.

I believe though he is saying that it promotes fear and awe in general among the citizens, which should be avoided at all costs. and it's pretty true, if you think about it, that people are a little in awe of authority. I mean on a smaller scale, how many people actually see a cop car and think "oh good, if there's a cop around I'm safe"? personally I think "sheet, sheet, how fast am I going?" government and authority shouldn't be viewed as punitive or disciplinary figures--at least, not first and foremost. hopefully citizens remember that gov't is here primarily to serve.
 
If it brings a sense of awe and fear, then you're saying it IS a deterrent, right?

No, I'm saying it increases general awe and fear of the state.

Unless it was very effective I don't think that it being a deterrent matters, I don't consider it a particularly just or good move to punish someone for what someone else may do.
 
The answer is so obvious (to me)

Justice is a punishment equivilent to the crime committed. You take someone's life deliberately that's exactly what you'll be paying yourself.

There's no need to 'reform' these people, there is no need waste money keeping them alive for nothing. They have no redeeming value, they committed the ultimate violation of someone elses rights and as a freedom protecting society we would be doing a diservice to the victim(s) to be 'easy' on them.

Why should we respect the lives of those who don't respect others in the same fashion?
 
I believe though he is saying that it promotes fear and awe in general among the citizens,

Not in a democracy. It's the people who decide these laws in the first place. Or at least it's supposed to.

So where does this logic end anyway? Does ANY punishment or government authority create fear in the citizens?

And again, this is an isolated punishment, only murderers need to be afraid of it. It's not the nature of the punishment that submits citizens into fear or thier government it's the centeralization of the system, i.e. authoritarian communist states or fascist dictatorships. It's the fear of unchecked power, not the severity of issued punishments.

I mean on a smaller scale, how many people actually see a cop car and think "oh good, if there's a cop around I'm safe"?

I don't think twice about anything when I see a cop, I have nothing to hide from them.

personally I think "sheet, sheet, how fast am I going?"

GOOD! Thier purpose is effective then.

government and authority shouldn't be viewed as punitive or disciplinary figures

Then what the hell are they? Drinking buddies?

--at least, not first and foremost. hopefully citizens remember that gov't is here primarily to serve.

To protect liberty from those who wish to violate others. Ontop of that list is murderers.

Do you really think the difference between the death penalty and life in prison is causing the average person who might have accidently forgot to put thier seat belt on or is speeding or something to think when they see a cop "OH MY GOD I"AM GONNA DIE, TEH GOVENMENTS GONNA KILL ME! MUST....SUBMIT...ALL....WILL.....TO AUTHORITY!"

No.
 

I'll let wessexman field this one, if you don't mind, as it's chiefly his argument you're attempting to debunk.

I hope that's not too cowardly.


edit: as I am not a COMPLETE coward, I will stand by to offer my help if it becomes necessary.
 
Last edited:
Not in a democracy. It's the people who decide these laws in the first place. Or at least it's supposed to.
It supposed to be many things.

So where does this logic end anyway? Does ANY punishment or government authority create fear in the citizens?
This one grants the state a particularly awe inspiring power, that of life and death. The other punishments create this in lesser ways but are still required. Executions are not required, why grant the state more power than it needs?

And again, this is an isolated punishment, only murderers need to be afraid of it. It's not the nature of the punishment that submits citizens into fear or thier government it's the centeralization of the system, i.e. authoritarian communist states or fascist dictatorships. It's the fear of unchecked power, not the severity of issued punishments.
If we were talking about this being done locally by a very accountable and democratic body I might think otherwise.

The nature of the punishment is likely to have an effect on the citizen and also it is easier to move from isolated punishment for murderers to broader usage than from a strict apprehension of giving the state this power to a broader usage.
What does that mean though?
That deterrence is a poor argument to me unless it was extremely effective. I also consider it morally dubious.
 
Last edited:
I don't think twice about anything when I see a cop, I have nothing to hide from them.

GOOD! Thier purpose is effective then.

ok wessexman doesn't deserve this part.

it was a poor example on my part and you're right, but I was just trying to show that the initial reaction of at least one citizen is momentary panic and usually I'm not speeding or doing anything illegal. the death penalty is perhaps a risky precedent to set; although our country is democratic we can learn from history that governments given too much power will inevitably abuse it, which is why I can appreciate wessexman's warning. (I've studied too much latin american history to ignore it entirely, although I acknowledge that we in north america have the advantage of a superior constitution.)
 
Back
Top Bottom