• 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!

The Latest Lynchings Yes/No

Do you believe in the Death Penalty?


  • Total voters
    38
Todays liberals don't make sense....pro-death penalty and anti-Isreal? I mean come on...don't you guys know what you're supposed to stand for?

I have no idea to what you refer. The issues are so disparate that I'm bemused as to what you are trying to link together. Where does advocacy for the death penalty and opposition to Israel intersect? Who are you suggesting is cheerleading for both?
 
Todays liberals don't make sense....pro-death penalty and anti-Isreal? I mean come on...don't you guys know what you're supposed to stand for?

Anti Israel!!?!?!?!?!?!?

Some of my best friends .... never mind.
 
Killing someone to prove that killing someone is wrong.
 
Over 200 men have been exonerated after having been proven guilty by a unanimous jury.

Quite often, circumstantial evidence is more conclusive than witnesses are.

My point is that with 200 men being exonerated, the death penalty could only be imposed if there was absolutely no doubt of guilt. I guess what I am saying is that while I do not have a moral problem with euthanizing a person who is proven to be a sub-human, the burden of proof should be so high as to restrict the punishment for only a fraction of cases that currently call for it.
 
In general, I favor having a death penalty. However, I think it is far overused. It should be the ultimate penalty for the ultimate criminals.
 
My point is that with 200 men being exonerated, the death penalty could only be imposed if there was absolutely no doubt of guilt. I guess what I am saying is that while I do not have a moral problem with euthanizing a person who is proven to be a sub-human, the burden of proof should be so high as to restrict the punishment for only a fraction of cases that currently call for it.

I respect the recognition that there are few who unequivocally 'deserve' to die, while disrespecting the idea that 'society' in general, or the 'community' in particular should assume the right to decide who lives and who dies. Please explain the authority by which the state or the government assumes that authority.
 
I have no idea to what you refer. The issues are so disparate that I'm bemused as to what you are trying to link together. Where does advocacy for the death penalty and opposition to Israel intersect? Who are you suggesting is cheerleading for both?

They're not disparate...they are stereotypical (American) liberal issues....at least they used to be. Today's liberal seems to have flipped on these....
 
I still think that life without parole is a harsher sentence than a painless death. Of course, no one really knows what happens after that death, do they?
 
I still think that life without parole is a harsher sentence than a painless death. Of course, no one really knows what happens after that death, do they?

ptif does....
 
i'm from a Country where the death penalty has been abolished forever after laws were passed ensuring it could never be reinstated. prior to that, the death penalty had not been used since 1967.

the whole system is simply too unreliable to do anything that is irreversible. it always amuses me to see the people who loudly campaign for less Government interference in their lives are the same people who are quite happy to give that same Government the absolute power to choose life over death.
 
The purpose of the justice system must be to reform criminals into productive members of society. Criminals who can not or will not be reformed are a threat to society and an impediment to the intended function of the system. They must be eliminated.
 
My point is that with 200 men being exonerated, the death penalty could only be imposed if there was absolutely no doubt of guilt. I guess what I am saying is that while I do not have a moral problem with euthanizing a person who is proven to be a sub-human, the burden of proof should be so high as to restrict the punishment for only a fraction of cases that currently call for it.

Those 200 juries did not have any doubt. At least not any reasonable doubt. Juries make mistakes, and a mistake in killing a human being cannot be later rectified. A prisoner can be released from jail. I know of no way to bring a wrongfully executed person back from the dead.
 
i'm from a Country where the death penalty has been abolished forever after laws were passed ensuring it could never be reinstated. prior to that, the death penalty had not been used since 1967.

the whole system is simply too unreliable to do anything that is irreversible. it always amuses me to see the people who loudly campaign for less Government interference in their lives are the same people who are quite happy to give that same Government the absolute power to choose life over death.

And yet every single government in the entire world has that power. Even the ones without the death penalty. Every one of them has some sort of military.
 
Those 200 juries did not have any doubt. At least not any reasonable doubt. Juries make mistakes, and a mistake in killing a human being cannot be later rectified. A prisoner can be released from jail. I know of no way to bring a wrongfully executed person back from the dead.

I don't know of any way to give a prisoner twenty years of his life back, either.
 
Bumpety, bump.

.
 
Back
Top Bottom