• 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!

Report: US Ranks 5th in Global Executions

I think you miss a very important point about most Conservatives, TED.... We're not necessarily Small-Government as much as we are Properly Focused Government. Now that Properly Focused Government does tend to be somewhat smaller than what we currently have, but that's a byproduct, not the real focus.

I think what you're missing is that that particular flavor of conservatism puts you in a very small group. Most conservatives go on at length about wanting smaller government and more freedom.
 
I think what you're missing is that that particular flavor of conservatism puts you in a very small group. Most conservatives go on at length about wanting smaller government and more freedom.

That's because they're not in reality, Conservatives. Real Conservatives realize that Freedom and Liberty are PRIVILEGES, reserve for those who have PROVEN they can think, act, and speak within the proper limits of society and culture.
 
That's because they're not in reality, Conservatives. Real Conservatives realize that Freedom and Liberty are PRIVILEGES, reserve for those who have PROVEN they can think, act, and speak within the proper limits of society and culture.

No, that's because you're not really conservative. Real conservatives realize that liberty is a birthright and not a privilege.
 
I'm not sure there's ever been a study done about how many dead people commit crimes after they're already dead. Personally, I don't believe that execution is CURRENTLY a deterent to future crimes by other people. There are two reasons for that....

1. There is no required public viewing of these executions
2. These executions are carried out in way too "humane" of a manner.

Some 15 year old thinking about putting a bullet into someone isn't going to be deterred by the very slim chance that he heard about a fellow gang member being executed by lethal injection two weeks earlier. HOWEVER, the memory of being forced to watch that fellow gang member do the "rope dance" might just be enough to make him think twice.

That's ****ing disgusting.
Humane? Yeah Tigger, let's completely forget the fact that we're human, instead let's just focus on efficiency. (Your totally going to ignore the sarcasm and agree with that, aren't you?)

Your blatant disregard of human life is atrocious.
 
I think the best pragmatic reason against the death penalty is that innocents get indeed wrongly convicted and executed. Even the best systems has flaws. If they got a different sentence, this error could be made up by releasing and compensating them -- you can't do that with dead people and innocent blood will be on your hands.


You can't "make up" for decades spent in prison.

I hear this argument - that we shouldn't execute people on the chance that they may be innocent - all the time and I think it's bs. The glaring flaw is that you're basing your sentencing on the premise that the individual may be innocent. But if you're going to do that, the only logical conclusion is that you shouldn't punish them at all. That's the fundamental underlying principle of our judicial system - innocent until proven guilty. If you are acknowledging that an individual may still be innocent, then you have absolutely no grounds to be sentencing them at all.

If you don't like the fact that innocent people are getting convicted, then look to fix the flaws in the trial process that are allowing for it, not the sentencing. Treat the cause, not the symptom.
 
And yet, despite this, innocent people have still lost their lives.

Many more innocent people have lost years, even decades of their life in prison. Should we refrain from issuing prison sentences to avoid such tragedies?
 
The left is extremely dumb trying to talk about this issue. Voters then get scared that Democrats will try to ban the death penalty, and will vote for Republicans.

I think this is just a moral issue. It is not there to prevent recidivism. It is there to be the ultimate punishment for cruel people. It is there to scare people from doing crime. I will say it is completly up to the state if they want to ban death penalty or not.

BTW: America was not the only western country who used the death penalty last year. Singapore, and Taiwan also did.

Singapore, and Taiwan are western countries now? I've heard about continental drift, but had no idea it was proceeding so rapidly.

It's interesting that the death penalty is seen as a "conservative" issue. I'd think that they'd be the last ones to want to allow the government to put people to death.

But, then, there are a lot of apparent contradictions in the left vs right political model.
 
I hear this argument - that we shouldn't execute people on the chance that they may be innocent - all the time and I think it's bs. The glaring flaw is that you're basing your sentencing on the premise that the individual may be innocent.

I'm basing my argument on the fact that the justice system is flawed -- and always will be, due to the fact that it was designed and run by humans. I don't want the death penalty employed in a system where human error is a powerful actor.

You can't "make up" for decades spent in prison, but at least you've got time left if you're exonerated and released. It's a compromise, not a solution. There isn't a solution.
 
You can't "make up" for decades spent in prison, but at least you've got time left if you're exonerated and released.

That's an irrelevant distinction.

But, if you like, I will just shift my argument to the individuals who are innocent and never get exonerated. They spend their entire life wrongly imprisoned. Shouldn't we stop imposing life prison sentences to avoid such situations?

It's a compromise, not a solution. There isn't a solution.

No it's a double standard.
 
That's an irrelevant distinction.

But, if you like, I will just shift my argument to the individuals who are innocent and never get exonerated. They spend their entire life wrongly imprisoned. Shouldn't we stop imposing life prison sentences to avoid such situations?

That's the compromise -- that we punish people even though we might get it wrong, but do so in a way that permits an error to be discovered and in some way rectified. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to punish anyone at all.
 
That's the compromise -- that we punish people even though we might get it wrong, but do so in a way that permits an error to be discovered and in some way rectified. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to punish anyone at all.

the only difference between sentencing someone to sit in prison until they are executed and sentencing someone to sit in prison until they die of natural causes is the window of time for an exoneration to come to light (which is probably not even very large considering how long capital cases drag on through appeals).

So the rejection of the former and acceptance of the latter is completely arbitrary. It's silly. Any sort of supposed moral high ground in opposing the death penalty simply does not exist.
 
the only difference between sentencing someone to sit in prison until they are executed and sentencing someone to sit in prison until they die of natural causes is the window of time for an exoneration to come to light (which is probably not even very large considering how long capital cases drag on through appeals).

So the rejection of the former and acceptance of the latter is completely arbitrary. It's silly. Any sort of supposed moral high ground in opposing the death penalty simply does not exist.

Of course it exists. The difference is that an execution time is set by the system, whereas a natural death occurs on a schedule beyond our control. Additionally, the process of executing an inmate can be streamlined, whereas death by natural causes can not.
 
Singapore, and Taiwan are western countries now? I've heard about continental drift, but had no idea it was proceeding so rapidly.

It's interesting that the death penalty is seen as a "conservative" issue. I'd think that they'd be the last ones to want to allow the government to put people to death.

But, then, there are a lot of apparent contradictions in the left vs right political model.
With that logic, Australia is not part of the west either. I think it makes more sense to characterize high developed countries as western countries. And Singapore and Taiwan used the death penalty last year. Japan used it this year, and two years ago, but not last year.

There are no logical gaps. Conservatives are in favour of law and order, that the most heinous crimes will get the ultimate punishment and Death Penalty is a way to do that.

I think you are focused on mistrust of the government, but that is not really a conservative issue. Libertarians and liberals, mistrust the government as well. Except liberals want to reform it, and not reduce it. Most conservatives do not think the government is so corrupt, that they will misuse the death penalty, like they have done in China.
 
the only difference between sentencing someone to sit in prison until they are executed and sentencing someone to sit in prison until they die of natural causes is the window of time for an exoneration to come to light (which is probably not even very large considering how long capital cases drag on through appeals).

So the rejection of the former and acceptance of the latter is completely arbitrary. It's silly. Any sort of supposed moral high ground in opposing the death penalty simply does not exist.

one sentenced to die is killed
another sentenced to life in prison is not
and you do not see a difference in morality of those two outcomes, killing versus not killing
making a decision not to execute someone is anything but arbitrary. it is deliberate. it is moral
 
one sentenced to die is killed
another sentenced to life in prison is not
and you do not see a difference in morality of those two outcomes, killing versus not killing
making a decision not to execute someone is anything but arbitrary. it is deliberate. it is moral

le sigh. of course there's a difference. i was speaking in context of the argument that execution shouldn't be allowed because the convicted may be innocent. On those grounds, there is no more reason to reject execution than there is to reject life sentences. Rejecting one of those while accepting the other on those grounds is completely arbitrary.

your argument is different (but equally wrong). i mean, what are you saying, that killing someone is reprehensible, but locking them in a cage for the rest of their life isn't?
 
Of course it exists. The difference is that an execution time is set by the system, whereas a natural death occurs on a schedule beyond our control.

do you think that matters to a man who is innocent and spends his entire life rotting in a jail cell, never being exonerated? You think that in his final moments dying alone he's like "well, at least they didn't execute me"?
 
do you think that matters to a man who is innocent and spends his entire life rotting in a jail cell, never being exonerated? You think that in his final moments dying alone he's like "well, at least they didn't execute me"?

Do you think they'd prefer to be executed?
 
Do you think they'd prefer to be executed?

Maybe. Personally, i would. But that's besides the point. I just don't see a tremendous difference in executing an innocent man and locking him in a cage until he dies of old age. Both are horrible tragedies. Given that, why you're unwilling to accept occasional incidences of the former but willing to accept occasional incidences of the latter is arbitrary and nonsensical. Why is one acceptable and one isn't?
 
Maybe. Personally, i would. But that's besides the point. I just don't see a tremendous difference in executing an innocent man and locking him in a cage until he dies of old age. Both are horrible tragedies. Given that, why you're unwilling to accept occasional incidences of the former but willing to accept occasional incidences of the latter is arbitrary and nonsensical. Why is one acceptable and one isn't?

Because a man can be exonerated, released, and compensated for what the state has done. It is terrible, but there is some room for restitution. There is none if the man is dead. If someone is locked up for life and wants to end they can off themselves. The state does not have the right to kill them.
 
Oh well, I guess you can't be Number One in everything....
 
You seem to believe that scale should be a factor. If it happens even once, that is one time too many. If it is prevented from happening by the execution of a murderer, even once, then it has contributed to the safety of society.

Scale is a system, as low probability events to dot excuse large encompassing uses of government force. The death penalty innately consumes innocent life, as well as life in general. And since it provides no additional security for society at large; there is no logical reason to keep it. Cost is too large and the gains too little.
 
Because a man can be exonerated, released, and compensated for what the state has done. It is terrible, but there is some room for restitution. There is none if the man is dead. If someone is locked up for life and wants to end they can off themselves. The state does not have the right to kill them.

we're going in circles here
 
You don't think it's reasonable to expect a police officer to verify that someone does in fact comprehend the Miranda warning as read to them?

Nope. No more than I would expect a French police officer to determine whether or not I spoke French if I were to be arrested in Paris. If you are coming to this country, or even moreso if you live here, and you don't speak the language, YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE!!!!


This is a fairly stupid and intellectually dishonest argument. At the point at which you drop these forms of hysterics is the point at which we can have a real dialog. Until then, have fun with your crazy; but I ain't interested.

There is no real dialogue on issues like this. There never has been and never will be. Nor should there be.
 
Global executions? Are we still executing globes without a fair trial? :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom