• 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
Wessexman said:
This one grants the state a particularly awe inspiring power, that of life and death.
Click to expand...

Well let me ask you this: shouldn't citizens be even more afraid of a government that doesn't enforce murder with severe punishment, as this makes them (at least feel, if not actually) more vulnerable to criminals?

And why should they be afraid of a government that enforces capital punishment on murders only? If this is the only instance the government can judge life or death how would this power translate into 'fear in general'?

Executions are not required, why grant the state more power than it needs?
Click to expand...

Changing the punishment to life in prison is not giving the government less power it's giving them different power. You aren't changing who they can charge, you aren't changing the grounds they can make a conviction on, etc.

Why would the civilians be in fear of being killed by thier government but NOT be afraid of being imprisoned for the rest of their life by the government?

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
Click to expand...

Even the fringiest of fringe people want to maybe include rapists in with capital punishment. I don't see a single viable politician who supports capital punishment beyond murder and rape, let alone a majority in a senate.

That deterrence is a poor argument to me unless it was extremely effective. I also consider it morally dubious.
Click to expand...

What does Deterrence have to do with "to punish someone for what someone else may do"? At the point in which punishment is being issues we are no longer talking about deterrence.
 
Unrein said:
Well let me ask you this: shouldn't citizens be even more afraid of a government that doesn't enforce murder with severe punishment, as this makes them (at least feel, if not actually) more vulnerable to criminals?
Click to expand...
Firstly how is life imprisonment not a severe punishment? Secondly how does it make them more vulnerable?
And why should they be afraid of a government that enforces capital punishment on murders only? If this is the only instance the government can judge life or death how would this power translate into 'fear in general'?
Click to expand...
Because the punishment is the ultimate and is likely to create a lot more fear and awe.


Changing the punishment to life in prison is not giving the government less power it's giving them different power. You aren't changing who they can charge, you aren't changing the grounds they can make a conviction on, etc.
Click to expand...
The right to take life is very different indeed, you are changing much

Why would the civilians be in fear of being killed by thier government but NOT be afraid of being imprisoned for the rest of their life by the government?
Click to expand...
We're talking about the whole social effect, ignoring the obvious fact you don't believe in society.



Even the fringiest of fringe people want to maybe include rapists in with capital punishment. I don't see a single viable politician who supports capital punishment beyond murder and rape, let alone a majority in a senate.
Click to expand...
The point is it legitimises it and could well spread.

What does Deterrence have to do with "to punish someone for what someone else may do"? At the point in which punishment is being issues we are no longer talking about deterrence.
Click to expand...
We are talking about executing them because of its deterrent effect.
 
Wessexman said:
Firstly how is life imprisonment not a severe punishment?
Click to expand...

If it is a severe punishment then your at odds with your own argument (that the severity of capital punishment wrongfully inspires fear in the citizens)

If it's at all significantly less severe than capital punishment, then throw the word "relatively" in the original statement and re-address it.

Secondly how does it make them more vulnerable?
Click to expand...

I said at least make them feel that way. I mean isn't that what this is about? How citizens feel? Did anyone prove that capital punishment deters or doesn't deter? I wasn't around for most of this thread.

Because the punishment is the ultimate and is likely to create a lot more fear and awe.
Click to expand...

What are they going to be afraid of I still don't understand what you mean.

The right to take life is very different indeed, you are changing much
Click to expand...

You implied that life in prison was severe did you not? And I'am not changing much, I'am not changing the grounds upon which the government can prosecute, or how often and liberal they are at issueing this punishment (which is far more importaint to creating fear in civilians than the levels severity of the same crime)

We're talking about the whole social effect, ignoring the obvious fact you don't believe in society.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question, I usually don't do this but, you are talking out of your a** I'am sorry.


The point is it legitimises it and could well spread.
Click to expand...

It legitimises killing murderers. That's it. It doesn't change ANYTHING in the way of conviction of innocent people.

We are talking about executing them because of its deterrent effect.
Click to expand...

The person who is recieving the punishment IS the one who did it (and thus deterrent is irrelevent)

No one is being punished with the death penalty except the ones being convicted of the crime. What your saying is true if a measurement is being enforced but that's not the case (for example, outlawing handguns in public to deter fire arm assults WOULD follow your logic, in that instance people with innocent intentions are being politically effected, but that isn't the case with capital punishment versus life in prison)
 
Unrein said:
If it is a severe punishment then your at odds with your own argument (that the severity of capital punishment wrongfully inspires fear in the citizens)

If it's at all significantly less severe than capital punishment, then throw the word "relatively" in the original statement and re-address it.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that it is severe enough without creating the same kind of general awe and fear.

I said at least make them feel that way. I mean isn't that what this is about? How citizens feel? Did anyone prove that capital punishment deters or doesn't deter? I wasn't around for most of this thread.
Click to expand...
No no one proved either.



What are they going to be afraid of I still don't understand what you mean.
Click to expand...
The state of course.


You implied that life in prison was severe did you not? And I'am not changing much, I'am not changing the grounds upon which the government can prosecute, or how often and liberal they are at issueing this punishment (which is far more importaint to creating fear in civilians than the levels severity of the same crime)
Click to expand...
Okay.


It legitimises killing murderers. That's it. It doesn't change ANYTHING in the way of conviction of innocent people.
Click to expand...
It still legitimises killing by the state not for direct self-defence.


The person who is recieving the punishment IS the one who did it (and thus deterrent is irrelevent)
Click to expand...
Then so is the argument of deterrence for the death penalty.
 
Wessexman said:
All I'm saying is that it is severe enough without creating the same kind of general awe and fear.
Click to expand...

What kind of general awe and fear?

The state of course.
Click to expand...

What about the state are they afraid of (or would be afraid of)?

It still legitimises killing by the state not for direct self-defence.
Click to expand...

It legitimises capital punishment for murder ONLY. Period.

Then so is the argument of deterrence for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

But I'am not argueing deterrence. You said originally "I don't consider it a particularly just or good move to punish someone for what someone else may do."

I asked you what you meant and you brought up deterrence. I'am saying that has nothing to do with it.
 
Rick said:
1. It can never be "undone" or compensated for in case of a mistake.
Click to expand...

Jail time cannot be undone either. How do you compensate for that in case of a mistake? There is a long repeal process though, especially for people on death row.

2. It is degrading to society to kill someone in that manner.
Click to expand...

How?
 
Unrein said:
What kind of general awe and fear?
Click to expand...
The furry kind. What kind of question is that. The right to take life commands a definite kind of awe and fear.



What about the state are they afraid of (or would be afraid of)?
Click to expand...
They are in awe of the general institution.

It legitimises capital punishment for murder ONLY. Period.
Click to expand...
It makes extensions far easier, it legitimises the state's right to take life.


But I'am not argueing deterrence. You said originally "I don't consider it a particularly just or good move to punish someone for what someone else may do."

I asked you what you meant and you brought up deterrence. I'am saying that has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I said that to someone else didn't I? It has been brought up many times in this thread.
 
Wessexman said:
The right to take life commands a definite kind of awe and fear.
Click to expand...

No, the right to take away convicted murderers lives. Not just simply 'life'. Can the government take away anyones life they want? Is anyone suggesting that?

They are in awe of the general institution.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make any sense. :doh Proove that they are in 'awe at the general institution' (as if 'awe' is a bad thing to begin with).

It makes extensions far easier, it legitimises the state's right to take life.
Click to expand...

What extensions? We never said anything about any extentions. We are talking about murderers, some people also want rapists, that's it. Nothing beyond that will pass or extend (why hasn't it already?) The legislative body is struggling to accept the death penalty for 1st degree murder, let alone more crimes.
 
Last edited:
Unrein said:
No, the right to take away convicted murderers lives. Not just simply 'life'.
Click to expand...
Murderers are humans who are alive



That doesn't even make any sense. Prove that they are in 'awe at the general institution' (as if 'awe' is a bad thing to begin with).
Click to expand...
The right to tak elife increases the general awe and fear of gov't in general. I don't think this is a good thing when it is not needed.

You seem intent on destroying as much of society as possible and then giving as much power to the state. Madness.


What extensions? We never said anything about any extentions. We are talking about murderers, some people also want rapists, that's it. Nothing beyond that will pass or extend (why hasn't it already?) The legislative body is struggling to accept the death penalty for 1st degree murder, let alone more crimes.
Click to expand...
But if it was well accepted it would likely be easier to extend it in the future rather than if it was completely repudiated.
 
Wessexman said:
Murderers are humans who are alive
Click to expand...

But only very very few humans have the quality of being a murderer. They are the ONLY group of people who are in danger or threatened by capital punishment.

The right to tak elife increases the general awe and fear of gov't in general. I don't think this is a good thing when it is not needed.
Click to expand...

They can't take away anyones life they please.

You seem intent on destroying as much of society as possible and then giving as much power to the state. Madness.
Click to expand...

I swear I was once argueing with you about sex rights and you quite vehemently subscribed to the notion that the government has it's place as an authority figure to maintain social structure and whatnot. I believe I was argueing in favor of removing the government from personal lives as much as possible.

Interesting how when it comes to 13 year olds having sex you want to tighten the authority of the government but when it comes to MURDERERS you suddenly demote your opinion on the authority of the government.

But if it was well accepted it would likely be easier to extend it in the future rather than if it was completely repudiated.
Click to expand...

No if it were accepted as penalty for murder, the only crime equal to death, that's where is would stay.

You really need to provide evidence or explanation as to why it would spread. If the death penalty is being accepted as an equal, justified punishment for murder how does that mean that people will suddenly feel that it's a just punishment for any thing else?

You could refute your own argument with your logic. Why even give them life sentance? Won't that make it more likely to spread to other lower crimes? Legitimizing life sentances?
 
Unrein said:
But only very very few humans have the quality of being a murderer. They are the ONLY group of people who are in danger or threatened by capital punishment.
Click to expand...
You are taking the average person as completely rational.






I swear I was once argueing with you about sex rights and you quite vehemently subscribed to the notion that the government has it's place as an authority figure to maintain social structure and whatnot. I believe I was argueing in favor of removing the government from personal lives as much as possible.

Interesting how when it comes to 13 year olds having sex you want to tighten the authority of the government but when it comes to MURDERERS you suddenly demote your opinion on the authority of the government.
Click to expand...
I defended local gov't backing up social authority and retaining 16+ age of consent while only wanting to see any enforcement when one of those invovled was at least a year older than 16+. That is all I did, you seemed intend on denying society existed and arguing for the right of 13 year old girls to have gangbangs with middle age men and of course the right of voluntary cannibalism.


No if it were accepted as penalty for murder, the only crime equal to death, that's where is would stay.

You really need to provide evidence or explanation as to why it would spread. If the death penalty is being accepted as an equal, justified punishment for murder how does that mean that people will suddenly feel that it's a just punishment for any thing else?

You could refute your own argument with your logic. Why even give them life sentance? Won't that make it more likely to spread to other lower crimes? Legitimizing life sentances?
Click to expand...
Yes it would, people are always talking about tougher sentences but I'm willing to take the chance because it is required. Execution is not required however and it could, it may not, but it could make its spread more likely. Why risk it when it isn't needed? Britain should not bring back the death penalty.
 
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...

In world history, "conservatives" 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 conservatives have. Conservative and Dictator come to be the same word.

You got your words mixed up, so I fixed them for you. I know that you want to portray the truth.
 
Last edited:
Unrein said:
But only very very few humans have the quality of being a murderer. They are the ONLY group of people who are in danger or threatened by capital punishment.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you want to place a qualifier, you need it to not be "Murderer" you need ti to be "someone convicted of Murder". Innocent people can be killed by fabrication of evidence (it's been done).

So to be fair, it's not a guarantee that the only people killed by the govenrment will be "murderers". In a governemtn as corruypt and incompetant as ourts, I would have to take te conservative route and err on the side of caution and assume that that incompetance and corruption extends into the penal/judicial system to some degree as well.



They can't take away anyones life they please.
Click to expand...

They can and they have. What about Julian and Ethel Rosenberrg? Teh thing is, that once you open the door to granting that kind of power to the government, they WILL abuse it. Guaranteed it will happen eventually.





No if it were accepted as penalty for murder, the only crime equal to death, that's where is would stay.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that? What about our corrupt, power hungry government lead your to that assumptioon? The Patriot act? Free Speech Zones? Guantamo bay?

You really need to provide evidence or explanation as to why it would spread. If the death penalty is being accepted as an equal, justified punishment for murder how does that mean that people will suddenly feel that it's a just punishment for any thing else?
Click to expand...

Just take a peek at the history of Capital punishment in the 20th century. And dont forget those Rosenbergs.

You could refute your own argument with your logic. Why even give them life sentance? Won't that make it more likely to spread to other lower crimes? Legitimizing life sentances?
Click to expand...

Life sentences will be abused by the goverenment, but it allows time for those who want to aid th ewrongfully imprisoned party to do so. Countless Life sentences have been repealed after they've been carried out. 0 Death sentences have been repealed after they've been carried out.

The fact of the matter ias that life sentences already exist and removing the death penalty will not change that so the argument is asinine. You are trying to logically justify that which is logically unjustifiable by creatinga strawman, non-sequitor arguemtn because you have no logical reason to want the death penalty.

You only have emotional ones. And those emotions override the logic. Whetehr the life sentences are abused is irrelevant to the fact that the death penalty WILL DEFINITELY be abused. I say that with 110% certainty given the FACTS from the past.
 
They can and they have. What about Julian and Ethel Rosenberrg? Teh thing is, that once you open the door to granting that kind of power to the government, they WILL abuse it. Guaranteed it will happen eventually.
Click to expand...
What about Sacco and Vanzetti? Or Joe Hill?

American history for a start is a wash with such judicial murders, mainly labour organisers and leftists.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, if you want to place a qualifier, you need it to not be "Murderer" you need ti to be "someone convicted of Murder". Innocent people can be killed by fabrication of evidence (it's been done).
Click to expand...

Murderers however, are always in danger of being convicted. Innocent people would have to be involved in an extraordinary series of misfortunate coincidenses that happens rarely, to be convicted then executed.

You realize people are convicted of murder by JURY don't you? That means the government is not stamping the seal people who get that summons do.

So to be fair, it's not a guarantee that the only people killed by the govenrment will be "murderers". In a governemtn as corruypt and incompetant as ourts, I would have to take te conservative route and err on the side of caution and assume that that incompetance and corruption extends into the penal/judicial system to some degree as well.
Click to expand...

Do you think more than half of the people convicted of murder are innocent? What do you think the % is? Does this logic extend to any crime? Should ALL punishment be lowered since anyone convicted of ANY crime could possibly be innocent? In fact I bet it happens a LOT more often in lesser crimes then crimes like murder.

Why have any punishment at all since any judgement could possibly be false? Why not side on caution?

They can and they have. What about Julian and Ethel Rosenberrg? Teh thing is, that once you open the door to granting that kind of power to the government, they WILL abuse it. Guaranteed it will happen eventually.
Click to expand...

The government doesn't actually convict people of murder. The Jury has the final decision.

And anyone who is worth setting up for murder HAS to be able to afford thier own lawyer, so you can't even blame the public defenders.

How exactly is giving the 'government' the ability to murder going to increase incentive? Why wouldn't they use the same power to simply imprison who ever they want instead?

Do you really believe that? What about our corrupt, power hungry government lead your to that assumptioon? The Patriot act? Free Speech Zones? Guantamo bay?
Click to expand...



Life sentences will be abused by the goverenment, but it allows time for those who want to aid th ewrongfully imprisoned party to do so. Countless Life sentences have been repealed after they've been carried out. 0 Death sentences have been repealed after they've been carried out.
Click to expand...

A death sentence can be repealled, there is a long period of time between the conviction and the execution. All it means is that life sentances happen a lot more often.

Repeals usually happen because of a change in evidence, not a change in 'support'. Any lawyers who want to help a convict have plenty of time regardless of the punishment. They can request extentions if they have significant reason to suspect false evidence or witness or whatever it may be.

The fact of the matter ias that life sentences already exist and removing the death penalty will not change that so the argument is asinine.
Click to expand...

It's not asinine, we are speaking idealistically so you could remove even life sentences if you wanted. Again, why even let them do that since that just as much as capital punishment can spread fear, be abused unto innocent people, etc.?

You are trying to logically justify that which is logically unjustifiable by creatinga strawman, non-sequitor arguemtn because you have no logical reason to want the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I saw no strawman, nor did I see a non-sequitor until you posted this.

You only have emotional ones.
Click to expand...

What emotion? Where?
 
Wessexman said:
What about Sacco and Vanzetti? Or Joe Hill?

American history for a start is a wash with such judicial murders, mainly labour organisers and leftists.
Click to expand...

Your problem is with the prosecution process, not with the punishment. Had capital punishment been abolished both Vendetti the Rosenburgs would have spent the rest of thier lives in prison, justice of any greater magnitude would not have been served. In fact, some argue life imprisonment is worse than death.
 
Unrein said:
Your problem is with the prosecution process, not with the punishment. Had capital punishment been abolished both Vendetti the Rosenburgs would have spent the rest of thier lives in prison, justice of any greater magnitude would not have been served. In fact, some argue life imprisonment is worse than death.
Click to expand...

No my problem is also with the punishment. They were executed wrongly as a way of silencing them and warning off others like them. It would not have had the same effect if they were just locked up, it doesn't silence them.
 
Wessexman said:
No my problem is also with the punishment. They were executed wrongly as a way of silencing them and warning off others like them. It would not have had the same effect if they were just locked up, it doesn't silence them.
Click to expand...

You can silence someone completely by imprisoning too. In fact killing them brings more attention to them which, if anything, has the opposite effect of incentive.

And silence them from saying what anyway? You don't think everything they had to say wasnt said in court?
 
Unrein said:
You can silence someone completely by imprisoning too. In fact killing them brings more attention to them which, if anything, has the opposite effect of incentive.

And silence them from saying what anyway? You don't think everything they had to say wasnt said in court?
Click to expand...
Imprisoning them doesn't silence them, they can still communicate, propagandise and organise. Killing them rather stops that. It is also a greater warning to others.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Imprisoning them doesn't silence them, they can still communicate, propagandise and organise. Killing them rather stops that. It is also a greater warning to others.
Click to expand...

Killing them draws greater attention than imprisoning them. And what could they have said in prison that they couldn't say during the trail?

"No but srsy guys we didn't do it! you can let us out noa plox?"
 
Unrein said:
Killing them draws greater attention than imprisoning them.
Click to expand...
Not really, if it is an injustice it is still going to get reported.
And what could they have said in prison that they couldn't say during the trail?
Click to expand...
You know trials are not a place where you can just make speeches on your political, economic and social views right? If you challenge a speeding ticket they don't give you half an hour to convince the court of the merits of anarcho-syndicalism.
 
Wessexman said:
Not really, if it is an injustice it is still going to get reported.
Click to expand...

If it's getting reported either way then why is it so significant to the difference between capital punishment and life imprisonment?

You know trials are not a place where you can just make speeches on your political, economic and social views right?
Click to expand...

But what would they say related to whether or not they are innocent that they wouldn't have said during the trial?

And maybe this was true during the cold war or whatever, but we don't live in a society in which a government with access to capital punishment is resulting in people being charged of murder because of extreme political ramblings. If that were true, Noam Chompsky would have been executed by now.

If you challenge a speeding ticket they don't give you half an hour to convince the court of the merits of anarcho-syndicalism.
Click to expand...

But this isn't about thier political beliefs, this is about thier ability to voice thier innocence. Anything they could have said to convince the jury they were innocent would have been said before the conviction anyway, so its irrelevent.
 
I'am begining to notice every thread Wexx and I both post in, within a few pages we are monopolizing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom