• 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!

Capital Punishment

What do you think of Capital Punishment?

  • Support it

    Votes: 35 45.5%
  • Condone it

    Votes: 16 20.8%
  • Neutral

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • other (explain)

    Votes: 25 32.5%

  • Total voters
    77
Agree. Bleeding hearts wish to whine and cry that it is not a deterrent due to all these lame ass studies but the fact is that we have not used Capital Punishment in the way that we should be so no study in the USA world can speak about things we are not doing.

I am pretty sure that if we started killing these monsters and sending a clear message to anybody living in the U.S.A.: if you kill someone in cold blood for no reason we can and will kill you in a speedy fashion? The lower than **** asswipes doing these things will stop and re-think their actions.

I am also 100% sure that if we started killing these little prick assholes that rape babies and small children that these digusting monsters would re-think what they do.

If we send a clear message that if you do this in this country you will DIE? You damn sure bet your ass it will go down. Period. Point. Blank.

Well, I'd argue that there is plenty of evidence from the US and from other countries that the DP does not function as a deterrent. If you believe that it has never been applied in the way you would envisage, then where do you get any evidence to support your assertion that it WOULD act a a deterrent. Do you just feel that it would? Please provide research links, if you have any.

I notice that most pro-DP posters seems to enjoy labelling the antis as 'squeamish' and 'bleeding hearts' and then use extremely emotive arguments, co-opting the experiences of the victims of crime, to support their arguments. Am I the only one that finds that slightly ironic?
 
Of course it's not a deterrent, there's no study that would claim that it is. It's just the death penalty. Argue for it on those grounds. People need to quit making excuses for the use of it and acknowledge what they're doing and the cost of the system (in innocent human life and actual currency). To me, I have not seen real argument that is anything other than revenge based arguments for the death penalty. So and so deserves to die, they are scum, they don't deserve to be in the gene pool, blah blah blah. That's what I've seen.

I also find it ironic so many "pro-life" people support the death penalty. Sure, their excuse is that they are pro innocent life and think that anything and everything should be done to preserve innocent life. Fair enough, I can agree. But the use of the death penalty means that innocent people will be killed. That's what happens when you employ it with an imperfect judicial system. So support of the death penalty, calling for extending it and using it more often will only go to exacerbate the frequency of the fail state in which innocent people are put to death.

There's no way to avoid innocent people being thrown into jail. Our system is imperfect as absolute knowledge is impossible to gain. So we do our best. But I think that perhaps maybe we don't have to kill them.
 
So what would you say to the families......of the thousands of prison guards, correctional officers, and other inmates killed by convicted murderers during their incarceration?

Tell them about the 100% effective rate.......
.
.
.

Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm anti death penalty? Convicted offenders can be incapacitated by imprisonment or death.
 
Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm anti death penalty? Convicted offenders can be incapacitated by imprisonment or death.

Death would be 100% effective.......

.......the thousands of murdered prison guards, correctional officers, and inmates are proof that imprisonment does not gurantee incapacitation.
.
.
.
.
 
Death would be 100% effective.......

.......the thousands of murdered prison guards, correctional officers, and inmates are proof that imprisonment does not gurantee incapacitation.
.
.
.
.

Is there an echo in here?
 
Death would be 100% effective.......

.......the thousands of murdered prison guards, correctional officers, and inmates are proof that imprisonment does not gurantee incapacitation.
.
.
.
.
Dude, really.

I quoted your earlier post and told you to reread Catz' post. Then SHE responded and you're STILL not getting it.
 
some people need frying but I don't like giving the government the power to fry people

Former US attorney in Ohio, now a federal judge

I feel the same way though I fully support laws that hold harmless intended victims of violent crime killing their attackers (or worse) as long as the time period is within a reasonable interval connected to the criminal attack
 
How could it not be a deterrent? Why do you think most folks on Death Row lie and claim they are innocent and trying their best to get out? These are the worse of the worse humans and they still wanna live. So it just makes sense that if we start taking this serious and ridding our society of them that it will send a clear message: cold blooded killers and baby rapist are not allowed anywhere in our society.

If stricter laws do not work then why do we have laws to start with? We have laws because it helps to keep crime under control and does reduce crime. See where I am going with this? I mean HELLO!
 
I feel the same way though I fully support laws that hold harmless intended victims of violent crime killing their attackers (or worse) as long as the time period is within a reasonable interval connected to the criminal attack

That's a far more effective deterrent than anything the courts can do.
 
You see, Catz? You appear to be in a minority of death penalty supporters who accept the irrelevance of the deterrence argument. You have Kori, TD and Kali all banging that old, discredited trope. Sin evidencia, btw. I've provided some evidence proving deterrence doesn't work, yet these posters believe that it goes without saying that the more severe the punishment the greater criminals are deterred from committing crime. The argument?
I mean HELLO
 
You see, Catz? You appear to be in a minority of death penalty supporters who accept the irrelevance of the deterrence argument. You have Kori, TD and Kali all banging that old, discredited trope. Sin evidencia, btw. I've provided some evidence proving deterrence doesn't work, yet these posters believe that it goes without saying that the more severe the punishment the greater criminals are deterred from committing crime. The argument?

I am with her. All I get in response is that it isn't a deterrent. That aspect is IRRELEVANT though.
 
You see, Catz? You appear to be in a minority of death penalty supporters who accept the irrelevance of the deterrence argument. You have Kori, TD and Kali all banging that old, discredited trope. Sin evidencia, btw. I've provided some evidence proving deterrence doesn't work, yet these posters believe that it goes without saying that the more severe the punishment the greater criminals are deterred from committing crime. The argument?

a bit of reading comprehension problem I see

some people need frying but I don't like giving the government the power to fry people

Former US attorney in Ohio, now a federal judge

I feel the same way though I fully support laws that hold harmless intended victims of violent crime killing their attackers (or worse) as long as the time period is within a reasonable interval connected to the criminal attack
 
You see, Catz? You appear to be in a minority of death penalty supporters who accept the irrelevance of the deterrence argument. You have Kori, TD and Kali all banging that old, discredited trope. Sin evidencia, btw. I've provided some evidence proving deterrence doesn't work, yet these posters believe that it goes without saying that the more severe the punishment the greater criminals are deterred from committing crime. The argument?

Again: "If stricter laws do not work then why do we have laws to start with? We have laws because it helps to keep crime under control and does reduce crime."

I think I have a valid point here?:3oops:
 
You see, Catz? You appear to be in a minority of death penalty supporters who accept the irrelevance of the deterrence argument. You have Kori, TD and Kali all banging that old, discredited trope. Sin evidencia, btw. I've provided some evidence proving deterrence doesn't work, yet these posters believe that it goes without saying that the more severe the punishment the greater criminals are deterred from committing crime. The argument?

I've also posted a couple of times in this thread that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I just believe it's a just punishment for some of the most heinous crimes.
 
I've also posted a couple of times in this thread that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I just believe it's a just punishment for some of the most heinous crimes.
Agreed. This seems so simple, yet somehow, incomprehensible to some.
 
I feel the same way though I fully support laws that hold harmless intended victims of violent crime killing their attackers (or worse) as long as the time period is within a reasonable interval connected to the criminal attack

You must forgive me. Your last sentence makes no sense in English. Try using some punctuation. I tried, but still couldn't get the sentence to work.
 
Again: "If stricter laws do not work then why do we have laws to start with? We have laws because it helps to keep crime under control and does reduce crime."

I think I have a valid point here?:3oops:

Well, your point is one about the deterrent effect. We are discussing the DP, now you've broadened it out. We're not talking about the deterrent effect of ANY law or punishment.
 
I've also posted a couple of times in this thread that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I just believe it's a just punishment for some of the most heinous crimes.

So you have, TGND, so you have. As has Catz, and it appears Bodhi too. I'll leave this issue now. It arose because Catz was getting aerated at the anti-DP posters banging on about it not being a deterrent when that was not the argument she was using. I pointed out that it WAS the argument a lot of pro-DP posters were using.

As far as I'm concerned, deterrence is irrelevant. Your position and mine are very easily understood. You think it's a just punishment for heinous crimes. I believe that society shows its superiority by confronting barbarity with civilisation. We say it is wrong to kill, so we should not kill. The DP does not fulfill more than one of the many functions ascribed to punishment. It is inefficient. I respect your position but don't share it. That's it.
 
Some murderers do deserve to be put to death.
The tricky point is how they decide who deserves it. A guy who kills a homeowner in a robbery is a definite candidate. A guy who kills another guy in a tavern fight I think would be better suited with prison sentence.

Perhaps capital punishment should be legal in all states except Texas. Giving someone capital punishment needs to have a beyond doubt of having the right guy. Texas has shown over and over again to be a failure in that aspect.
 
Some murderers do deserve to be put to death.
The tricky point is how they decide who deserves it. A guy who kills a homeowner in a robbery is a definite candidate. A guy who kills another guy in a tavern fight I think would be better suited with prison sentence.

Perhaps capital punishment should be legal in all states except Texas. Giving someone capital punishment needs to have a beyond doubt of having the right guy. Texas has shown over and over again to be a failure in that aspect.

Intent is a huge factor, and the extreme nature of the crime. Intent.
 
You must forgive me. Your last sentence makes no sense in English. Try using some punctuation. I tried, but still couldn't get the sentence to work.

All it takes is two commas...

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
I feel the same way, though I fully support laws that hold harmless intended victims of violent crime killing their attackers (or worse), as long as the time period is within a reasonable interval connected to the criminal attack
 
Well, your point is one about the deterrent effect. We are discussing the DP, now you've broadened it out. We're not talking about the deterrent effect of ANY law or punishment.

But it is all connected. You know I have a good point.
 
All it takes is two commas...

That didn't work. I think this is what he meant though...

"I feel the same way, though I fully support a defence of 'self-defence' when someone has been violently attacked. Should a victim of assault kill his/her assailant, provided it is within a reasonable time limit, I'd support them."

See? Much clearer, no?

I have no idea how this relates to the DP, however.
 
Agreed. This seems so simple, yet somehow, incomprehensible to some.

It's not incomprehensibe, some of us just don't think it's proper use of the government to extract revenge killings on criminals.
 
Back
Top Bottom