• 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

No ****, but the method n how the goal is reached and the effect it has on the individual reaching it, are completely different. And it really does your position no favors ignoring such obvious things

Your argument makes no sense. Regardless of how you do it, it is still killing a person and the outcome is the same. One method might be more cruel, but in the end that is not really the argument about being against the death penalty. THAT is what you fail to understand.
 
Your argument makes no sense.

it makes perfect sense. You doing some type of intellectual foot stomping, akin to a child throwing a tantrum, doesn't change that

Regardless of how you do it, it is still killing a person and the outcome is the same.

You would be ignoring method, degree, and effect. Obvious point you and mak will continue to ignore as is your usual MO

One method might be more cruel

Well, no, one method is exceptionally more cruel. But yes, the level of cruelty involved is a key distinction here


but in the end that is not really the argument about being against the death penalty. THAT is what you fail to understand.

What exactly do I fail to understand. You and mak are trying to equivocate two methods of execution that are worlds apart as you make an argument against capital punishment. Not only does this make you seem totally daft, but it makes it hard to take anything you say as much more than ideological hog wash. because you are showing a complete disregard for reality
 
it makes perfect sense. You doing some type of intellectual foot stomping, akin to a child throwing a tantrum, doesn't change that



You would be ignoring method, degree, and effect. Obvious point you and mak will continue to ignore as is your usual MO

Because method is a side issue to one who is against capital punishment.



Well, no, one method is exceptionally more cruel. But yes, the level of cruelty involved is a key distinction here

I would certainly be more outraged if we practiced the same methods of execution that others might, but it does NOT change the outcome, of which I am against. The legalized killing of citizens, regardless of method or motive.



What exactly do I fail to understand. You and mak are trying to equivocate two methods of execution that are worlds apart as you make an argument against capital punishment. Not only does this make you seem totally daft, but it makes it hard to take anything you say as much more than ideological hog wash. because you are showing a complete disregard for reality

Hardly, it makes perfect sense. We are against the killing of people by our governments regardless of the reasoning and regardless of the methods used to do so. That is pretty simple and straightforward.
 
Because method is a side issue to one who is against capital punishment.

I would certainly be more outraged if we practiced the same methods of execution that others might, but it does NOT change the outcome, of which I am against. The legalized killing of citizens, regardless of method or motive.

Hardly, it makes perfect sense. We are against the killing of people by our governments regardless of the reasoning and regardless of the methods used to do so. That is pretty simple and straightforward.

Try actually following context for once: The claim was that one was slightly less barbaric. Which speaks directly to method and motive
 
Killing people is killing people. I am anti death penalty, any way a government kills a citizen that is no longer a threat is outrageous and barbaric.
Try actually following context for once: The claim was that one was slightly less barbaric. Which speaks directly to method and motive
 
Killing people is killing people. I am anti death penalty, any way a government kills a citizen that is no longer a threat is outrageous and barbaric.

I am also against the death penalty, but that doesn't make your equivocation any less moronic.
 
Try actually following context for once: The claim was that one was slightly less barbaric. Which speaks directly to method and motive

You try to follow along. A poster said to you that it wasn't really the method that was at issue but that he is against the death penalty regardless of the method or motive. You are the one was saying the method makes a difference. I am telling you (a viewpoint from an anti DP person and in agreement with other poster), that the method of execution is not the main issue, it is the issue of legalizing killing of citizens that we have issue with, so that makes how they accomplish it a secondary concern to the fact that they are doing it at all.
 
No government should kill its citizens if they are off the streets and under control. Killing them is killing them, telling yourself it is painless is great, but they are still dead. Barbaric. You are pretty funny yourself. :lamo

The government is not routinely rounding people up and killing them. These criminals have been judged by a jury of their peers, and found guilty of some horrific crimes. What do you suggest we do with them? Shall we continue to feed and clothe them as long as they live? If that's the case, we may need to build a lot more prisons, because they are already overcrowded, and I don't see crime lessening. It's not like we use barbaric methods like beheading, but rather seek to find the most humane way to handle their departure from life. .
 
I do not agree with the death penalty. Why not just feed the guy to the dogs?

Since you oppose killing them, I suppose we could take them out into the middle of the ocean and dump them. If they survive, then so be it. We have given them a chance to live, and they took it. If they don't survive, then justice has been served, but we didn't kill them, which seems to be your argument.
 
The point is to kill him, if it's "untested" and he survives then just shoot up his skull, he won't survive that.
 
Last edited:
I dont oppose the death penalty but a lethal injection of drugs that has never been tested seems wrong.

Somebody was to be first.
 
hanging, the chair and firing squads have long track records. I figure hanging is the least expensive and as quick as the other two

Good thing my State still hangs people.
 
You could just end the death penalty and you don't have to worry about it.

Why does he get to live and the mother and child don't?
 
Why does he get to live and the mother and child don't?

The death penalty is barbaric and committing a crime does not remove his right to life. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. There is also always the fact there could be an error and it is hard to release a dead man.
 
Why does he get to live and the mother and child don't?

Stop appealing to emotion (a tactic which appears very common).

We can never be entirely sure who is guilty and who isn't, so any criminal who is convicted (based only on reasonable doubt, as opposed to a sure-knowing, which is impossible) should not be killed.

I can invert your emotive tone by saying why should an innocent person die at the hands of an archaic and brutal practice?
 
The death penalty is barbaric and committing a crime does not remove his right to life. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. There is also always the fact there could be an error and it is hard to release a dead man.

The Death penalty is not a crime. Also their are crimes so evil the only punishment it forfeit of one's life. Life imprisonment means that person is has a roof, cot, three meals, and free healthcare. To me that is a more gross from of Justice. The justice system is never be perfect since we are human, but crimes like 1st degree murder the only justice that can be done is death.
 
Stop appealing to emotion (a tactic which appears very common).

We can never be entirely sure who is guilty and who isn't, so any criminal who is convicted (based only on reasonable doubt, as opposed to a sure-knowing, which is impossible) should not be killed.

I can invert your emotive tone by saying why should an innocent person die at the hands of an archaic and brutal practice?

Why should an innocent spend 50 years in prison and then be release after their life has been destroyed?
 
Why should an innocent spend 50 years in prison and then be release after their life has been destroyed?

Because life is more precious than death.
 
Expect when that life is destroyed by 50 years in a prison.

Are you seriously positing that death is more valuable to the criminal than 50 years of living?
 
I support the death penalty for prisoners that are guilty of murder without any kind of reasonable doubt with it being obvious. I also think the death penalty should be harsh. It should act as a deterrent and to remove those from society that are unrepentant and unfit to be here and pose a threat to others. Premeditated murder, in my values, is the most heinous of crimes and should be treated as such.
 
The Death penalty is not a crime. Also their are crimes so evil the only punishment it forfeit of one's life. Life imprisonment means that person is has a roof, cot, three meals, and free healthcare. To me that is a more gross from of Justice. The justice system is never be perfect since we are human, but crimes like 1st degree murder the only justice that can be done is death.

The reason the death penalty should ever be used is in the case of genocide. Life imprisonment means we take everything from them and they will never see freedom again. It is barbaric to kill someone in the name of justice especially when there could be error.
 
Back
Top Bottom