• 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

TheNextEra said:
Me? Only if I am on the jury and then it's a panel of jurors as well not me alone.
Click to expand...

The government declares such an action is just and leaves it up to the jury to make the wonderful little decision. I guess what you're saying is that you're fine with the decision as long as it is not just one person making it.
 
scatt said:
It hasn't been tested? Did they just randomly come up with it?
Click to expand...

One drug is a sedative and the other is a painkiller… WTH. Are they just going to keep pumping him full until his heart stops?
 
vesper said:
Well Disney, I don't take the death penalty lightly. That is why I strongly believe in the accused having every opportunity to prove their innocence. I don't understand the type of evil, hatred, vengeance that some will allow to consume them. I don't know how anyone could hurt a child or brutally rape another or have such little respect for life in general and for "fun" take another out just for the sport. I dare say I often wonder if they are possessed with evil spirits that allows them to do such heinous things. Regardless, we have a percentage of ruthless bastards that live among us and in my opinion, the minute they cause another to take their last breath is the day they lost the right to breathe their next.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in one respect. I don't really understand what would make anyone have such little respect for life that they could hurt a child or brutally rape another. That, however, does not justify the government having the same lack of respect for life. Only God should decide when someone should leave this earth.
 
disneydude said:
I agree with you in one respect. I don't really understand what would make anyone have such little respect for life that they could hurt a child or brutally rape another. That, however, does not justify the government having the same lack of respect for life. Only God should decide when someone should leave this earth.
Click to expand...

Why not just make it simple by asking the following question.

Is it wise to grant the government the power to kill their citizens?
 
Btw, it is pretty illogical to argue that the government can kill on it's own declaration, but the citizens are barred from such action.
 
CanadaJohn said:
There is nothing "humane" about ending the life of another person, no matter how deserving they may be of death.
Click to expand...

Somebody has to end the life. The guy is defenseless and strapped in a chair. Who wants to do that? I mean, if somebody actually wants to do it because they desire to do so, then I think they are mentally disturbed.
 
Henrin said:
The government declares such an action is just and leaves it up to the jury to make the wonderful little decision. I guess what you're saying is that you're fine with the decision as long as it is not just one person making it.
Click to expand...

I will honestly say in many cases, no, I don't have a problem with that. Like I said before, some people just deserve to die.

I'm not saying my way is moral and just, only that I think some people deserve to die. That is a flaw with me I know, but I can't help it none the less.
 
TheNextEra said:
I will honestly say in many cases, no, I don't have a problem with that. Like I said before, some people just deserve to die.

I'm not saying my way is moral and just, only that I think some people deserve to die. That is a flaw with me I know, but I can't help it none the less.
Click to expand...

Actually you can. You just have to understand the flawed logic of your stance, and decide to change it. Since you have already done the former, the later shouldn't be hard to do.
 
Henrin said:
Actually you can. You just have to understand the flawed logic of your stance, and decide to change it. Since you have already done the former, the later shouldn't be hard to do.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. This has been my stance my whole life and it isn't going to change. Some murderers deserve to die and I don't shed a tear for them when it happens.
 
disneydude said:
I agree with you in one respect. I don't really understand what would make anyone have such little respect for life that they could hurt a child or brutally rape another. That, however, does not justify the government having the same lack of respect for life. Only God should decide when someone should leave this earth.
Click to expand...
Well if you believe in God and have read your Bible, then you know He too believed in capital punishment. Capital punishment was a significant feature in the justice system of Old Testament Israel. Execution was called for in response to extreme civil crimes like murder and rape. There were mechanisms in place to avert the death penalty in some situations, and God sometimes spared the lives of people whose actions, legally speaking, would have otherwise meant the death penalty. The establishment of capital punishment in ancient Israel is often used to argue for the death penalty in modern times—and it seems reasonable to conclude that since God incorporated it into Israelite society, I don't see how some now claim it antithetical to His nature.

The death penalty was never employed arbitrarily or frivolously. In fact, observing the use of capital punishment in the Old Testament actually shows us how precious human life is to God. Because human beings are image-bearers of God, murder was such a serious affront to both God and man that it had to be answered with the blood of the murderer. Genesis 9:6 suggests that this sense of justice is woven into the moral fabric of Creation:


Whoever sheds man’s blood,
his blood will be shed by man,
for God made man
in His image. – Genesis 9:6
 
ChrisL said:
You are okay with the state having the power to kill citizens?
Click to expand...

The state is acting on behalf of the people, and yes if all burdens are met I am fine with it.

The death penalty is the highest order of punishment we have. Its not about rehab, or deterrence-its about punishment-and it always has until very recently.
 
US Conservative said:
The state is acting on behalf of the people, and yes if all burdens are met I am fine with it.

The death penalty is the highest order of punishment we have. Its not about rehab, or deterrence-its about punishment-and it always has until very recently.
Click to expand...

No, the prosecution alone decides whether to pursue a death penalty. You should read my links and see who we are keeping company with, in our barbaric death penalty punishment. It's pretty disheartening that we are still so unenlightened when it comes to some things, and that we would rather sacrifice innocent people than just do away with an unnecessary and outdated form of punishment.
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry, but no. This has been my stance my whole life and it isn't going to change. Some murderers deserve to die and I don't shed a tear for them when it happens.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is where many libertarians and I part ways- the subject of the death penalty. As far as I am concerned, when you murder your fellow human, you forfeit your humanity, as you have shown yourself unfit to be a member of civil society.
 
ChrisL said:
No, the prosecution alone decides whether to pursue a death penalty. You should read my links and see who we are keeping company with, in our barbaric death penalty punishment. It's pretty disheartening that we are still so unenlightened when it comes to some things, and that we would rather sacrifice innocent people than just do away with an unnecessary and outdated form of punishment.
Click to expand...

The prosecution decides to prosecute based on evidence. It should be noted that several different prosecutors in various criminal courts work on the same case. Each time, a jury must decide unanimously. If even one juror feels the burden is not met than there is no conviction.

Heres my question for you-WHEN did the death penalty become barbaric? The process hasn't changed, and it was always seen as acceptable. The voters of each state get to determine this, is that acceptable?
 
Given what he did to get there, I find it hard to care much.
 
Henrin said:
Why not just make it simple by asking the following question.

Is it wise to grant the government the power to kill their citizens?
Click to expand...

Hi Henrin, why not ask and seek for yourself how the Founders supported capital punishment and what they deemed derserving of it! Then while you are at it do a little reseach on how Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause has evolved......cheers!
 
vesper said:
Hi Henrin, why not ask and seek for yourself how the Founders supported capital punishment and what they deemed derserving of it! Then while you are at it do a little reseach on how Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause has evolved......cheers!
Click to expand...

I am no puppet to the thoughts and opinions of others. I do not find anything rational about the stance that the state should kill it's own citizens. The state has the duty to protect the life of it's citizens and there is a clear departure from that duty when they take it on themselves to kill one of their citizens.
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry, but no. This has been my stance my whole life and it isn't going to change. Some murderers deserve to die and I don't shed a tear for them when it happens.
Click to expand...

I agree that some people deserve to die, but I'm wise enough to know that I am unfit to decide on who lives and who dies.
 
Henrin said:
I am no puppet to the thoughts and opinions of others. I do not find anything rational about the stance that the state should kill it's own citizens. The state has the duty to protect the life of it's citizens and there is a clear departure from that duty when they take it on themselves to kill one of their citizens.
Click to expand...

So according to you anyone at anytime can do anything as heinous as one can imagine and we the people are suppose to protect him and spare his life? We are to provide for him all the days of his life, 3 square meals, roof over his head and a bed to sleep in and toilet, sink, shower facilities, clothing, exercising facilities, medical treatment, for being a heinious murderer?
 
Henrin said:
I agree that some people deserve to die, but I'm wise enough to know that I am unfit to decide on who lives and who dies.
Click to expand...

If someone murders someone and they are not remorseful in the least they deserve to die.
 
Henrin said:
I agree that some people deserve to die, but I'm wise enough to know that I am unfit to decide on who lives and who dies.
Click to expand...

I am going to assume that you support a strong right to self-defense. If that is the case, then you have decided that you are indeed fit to decide who lives and who dies, based on your perception of a possible threat from a fellow citizen. Since I believe I have a right to defend myself from mortal threat, I have deemed that I am indeed fit to decide that someone else should die. Since my life is not more important than someone else's, except to me and those who love me, then why would I not support killing someone who has not only threatened someone else, but did indeed kill another person?
 
vesper said:
So according to you anyone at anytime can do anything as heinous as one can imagine and we the people are suppose to protect him and spare his life? We are to provide for him all the days of his life, 3 square meals, roof over his head and a bed to sleep in and toilet, sink, shower facilities, clothing, exercising facilities, medical treatment, for being a heinious murderer?
Click to expand...

No, for being a human being whom we have excluded from society.
 
SheWolf said:
Somebody has to end the life. The guy is defenseless and strapped in a chair. Who wants to do that? I mean, if somebody actually wants to do it because they desire to do so, then I think they are mentally disturbed.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a case that many people ever "want" to. It's sort of like being a vet, and having to put down animals, because of various problems. It's not a good job, but someone has to do it.
 
Deuce said:
They said that about the guy who allegedly murdered his children. No question, the house fire they died in was arson. Execute him!

Then it turned out it wasn't arson.
Click to expand...

I could probably name dozens of "proof positive" cases of murderers on death row for every one of your "exceptions". Means nothing, and doesn't in any way discount the comments I made.
 
SheWolf said:
Somebody has to end the life. The guy is defenseless and strapped in a chair. Who wants to do that? I mean, if somebody actually wants to do it because they desire to do so, then I think they are mentally disturbed.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that at all. There are lots of things in life that I, personally, have no desire to do or haven't the mental, emotional, or physical capacity to accomplish but that doesn't mean those things aren't needed and required in a civilized society and it is nonsense to attribute mental disturbance to someone who can accomplish an activity sanctioned by that civilized society just because you couldn't or wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom