• 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!

Ohio killer to get 2-drug injection untried in US

spud_meister said:
Not really. Innocent people die all the time. The death penalty can be tailored to exclude cases in which guilt is in doubt, and a certain quality of evidence must be presented for the death penalty to be an available option.
Click to expand...

Saying that innocent people die all the time doesn't negate the fact that letting one innocent person die due to the death penalty is too big of a risk to take.

Making extra-special rules for a case to qualify to be a death penalty case is still not enough. There will eventually be error, and we still might kill an innocent person. I can't support that in good conscious.

Life in prison is sufficient punishment and when we do find an error, we can rectify it as best we can.
 
Your Star said:
Saying that innocent people die all the time doesn't negate the fact that letting one innocent person die due to the death penalty is too big of a risk to take.
Click to expand...

Why? What makes the death penalty exceptional?

Making extra-special rules for a case to qualify to be a death penalty case is still not enough. There will eventually be error, and we still might kill an innocent person. I can't support that in good conscious.
Click to expand...

Not if you make the qualifications rigorous enough. Ensure that there's no doubt of guilt, be it multiple eyewitness accounts, DNA evidence, video evidence, admission of guilt etc. None on it's own enough to seek the death penalty, but some combination of those.

Life in prison is sufficient punishment and when we do find an error, we can rectify it as best we can.
Click to expand...

Life in prison is worse for an innocent man than death. You cannot rectify it.
 
spud_meister said:
Why? What makes the death penalty exceptional?
Click to expand...

Because it is totally avoidable, because it is done in the guise of justice, because we don't need to have the death penalty to have a functional justice system.

Not if you make the qualifications rigorous enough. Ensure that there's no doubt of guilt, be it multiple eyewitness accounts, DNA evidence, video evidence, admission of guilt etc. None on it's own enough to seek the death penalty, but some combination of those.
Click to expand...

Yeah, still not enough for me. People make mistakes, and those mistakes could lead to the avoidable death of an innocent. Still not worth it.


Life in prison is worse for an innocent man than death. You cannot rectify it.
Click to expand...

This is just flat out wrong. With a incorrectly applied life sentence there is always the hope of getting out, of being exonerated and living a free life. With the death penalty that is never an option. We can't dig up an innocent person and let them live the free life they deserve. They are dead and gone and that risk is not worth having the death penalty.
 
According to what I read, the guy is asking for mercy because of being a victim of child abuse and mental illness.

I feel most sorry for the loved ones of the condemned. Its got to be horrible to watch the clock tick to the moment their son, husband or dad is being killed. The emotional toll on innocent loved ones is in my opinion the one argument I can sympathize with the most.

In this case, I don't think there's any doubt as to the guilt of the perpetrator. I wonder if knowing the date and time of ones death is actually a blessing in a strange way allowing him to prepare to meet his maker as opposed to being caught by surprise some day in the future.

That all said, I feel the most sympathy for the lady he killed, her baby and the loved ones she left behind horribly grief stricken. As to the fact that the drugs are untested, I'm not concerned. Medical science knows what drugs can kill a person if overdosed and in what amounts. If I'm not mistaken, the primary drug used is given at 100 times the amount that would kill a person.
 
Carjosse said:
Well if you don't have the death penalty you don't need to worry about what drugs to kill people. I am never in favour of the death penalty, it is barbaric and has no place in a modern justice system. There is too much room for error.
Click to expand...

Really? Where have there been errors?
 
spud_meister said:
Not really. Innocent people die all the time. The death penalty can be tailored to exclude cases in which guilt is in doubt, and a certain quality of evidence must be presented for the death penalty to be an available option.
Click to expand...

If guilt is in doubt, then they should be let free.
 
What's wrong with carbon monoxide?
 
Perotista said:
I prefer the guillotine. Swift and sure.
Click to expand...

Seems unnecessary in an age where prisons can be extremely secure and where we are still faced with evidence of an imperfect legal system.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Seems unnecessary in an age where prisons can be extremely secure and where we are still faced with evidence of an imperfect legal system.
Click to expand...

What the death penalty does is guarantee who ever is put to death doesn't commit any more crimes or kill anymore people. I do not think it was ever a deterrent. But I still like the guillotine.
 
Your Star said:
Because it is totally avoidable, because it is done in the guise of justice, because we don't need to have the death penalty to have a functional justice system.



Yeah, still not enough for me. People make mistakes, and those mistakes could lead to the avoidable death of an innocent. Still not worth it.




This is just flat out wrong. With a incorrectly applied life sentence there is always the hope of getting out, of being exonerated and living a free life. With the death penalty that is never an option. We can't dig up an innocent person and let them live the free life they deserve. They are dead and gone and that risk is not worth having the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, it's not for someone else to say what is "worse" for another person. Perhaps we should ask prisoners if they would rather be put in jail or put to death? :roll:
 
Perotista said:
What the death penalty does is guarantee who ever is put to death doesn't commit any more crimes or kill anymore people.
Click to expand...

Right, which would be great if there wasn't a chance we were wrong

I do not think it was ever a deterrent. But I still like the guillotine.
Click to expand...

it doesn't really matter is it's a deterrent, revenge, or form of social nullification. Each of those arguments morally fail once we acknowledge we could be wrong and that we can achieve the same results, in most cases, with life imprisonment.
 
spud_meister said:
Why? What makes the death penalty exceptional?
Click to expand...

Because it's being carried out as an exercise of state authority and we have alternative solutions in most cases
 
ChrisL said:
Not to mention, it's not for someone else to say what is "worse" for another person. Perhaps we should ask prisoners if they would rather be put in jail or put to death? :roll:
Click to expand...

Don't you think that rather than facing stacked lifetime sentences, some convicts would choose the death penalty?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Right, which would be great if there wasn't a chance we were wrong



it doesn't really matter is it's a deterrent, revenge, or form of social nullification. Each of those arguments morally fail once we acknowledge we could be wrong and that we can achieve the same results, in most cases, with life imprisonment.
Click to expand...

That depends on whether the goal is extermination or simply permanent removal from society.
 
nota bene said:
Don't you think that rather than facing stacked lifetime sentences, some convicts would choose the death penalty?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that is not for someone else who is NOT in that position to say.
 
Sorry, but those who are IN that position don't get a vote. Their fates are at the mercy of the state (and the courts).
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Because it's being carried out as an exercise of state authority and we have alternative solutions in most cases
Click to expand...

Do you feel war should be banned as an exercise of state authority that leads to the death of innocents?
 
vesper said:
You mean like this convicted murderer did when he raped and killed a pregnant woman?
Click to expand...

Yes....they shouldn't play God either. But this doesn't excuse governmental killings.
 
spud_meister said:
Do you feel war should be banned as an exercise of state authority that leads to the death of innocents?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how they are analogous. The intent and function of both couldn't be more different. And while I would rather war didn't exist, I'm not sure a viable alternative exists in most cases,as with execution and life imprisonment
 
nota bene said:
That depends on whether the goal is extermination or simply permanent removal from society.
Click to expand...

no, the same problem of errors still exist. No matter on what basis you try to justify the executions, we are still faced with that dilemma.
 
nota bene said:
Sorry, but those who are IN that position don't get a vote. Their fates are at the mercy of the state (and the courts).
Click to expand...

What I mean is for someone to assume what the condemned or imprisoned person would wish. The post I was addressing, contained a quote of someone who was making assumptions about what the particular person in question would prefer.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Really? Where have there been errors?
Click to expand...

The numerous people sentenced to death but then found to be innocent by DNA evidence or before or after their sentenced was carried out. I also do not believe that committing a crime removes your right to life.
 
Carjosse said:
The numerous people sentenced to death but then found to be innocent by DNA evidence or before or after their sentenced was carried out. I also do not believe that committing a crime removes your right to life.
Click to expand...

Kinda vauge. Numbers, names, sentences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom