• 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!

US solider receives life sentence.

I find this the simplest issue to argue. Either you believe it is wrong to deliberately take another human life, or you don't. I happen to believe it is, under whatever circumstances.

So if someone is shooting up a school, you don't think it's right to shoot them to stop it?
 
It's been around forever and doesn't seem to be a very good deterrent. I think that most people either don't care or don't think that they'll be caught. As for the pro DP people, it seems there are a lot of them who like to play God.

Well there are other aspects to it. Execution of US servicemen is not a very good image in most people's minds. The last time it was done I think was in the early 60's of a black man who was convicted of raping and trying to murder someone.

No penalty is a deterrent because most people who commit capital crimes either don't care or think they will not get caught. Self-serving regret of those who have been caught are about the only "information" we have on that.

I do not support the death penalty in all cases. I support it when the person at issue presents a probable danger to the lives and well-being of others around them, be it other inmates, guards/prison staff, or the community if they escaped. It is authorized by the due process clause, so it is legal. I think it should be used more sparingly.
 
So if someone is shooting up a school, you don't think it's right to shoot them to stop it?

Right, there are definitely circumstances in which it's necessary to kill someone. But there's a big difference between defending yourself or your property and killing a person who is already behind bars and not currently a danger to society.
 
Hasan's guilty plea was an attempt to get the death penalty. Should we really let someone dig their own grave? Of course, he continued to do so; in the end, there was no way to prevent him from trying to get it.

Again, I said the MOTIVE behind his attempt to enter a guilty plea isn't the issue, that one murderer was permitted to plead guilty before the trail and not the other is my point...

There is absolutely no guarantee Hasan pleading guilty would get him a sentence of death. No a-tall....
 
Well there are other aspects to it. Execution of US servicemen is not a very good image in most people's minds. The last time it was done I think was in the early 60's of a black man who was convicted of raping and trying to murder someone.

No penalty is a deterrent because most people who commit capital crimes either don't care or think they will not get caught. Self-serving regret of those who have been caught are about the only "information" we have on that.

I do not support the death penalty in all cases. I support it when the person at issue presents a probable danger to the lives and well-being of others around them, be it other inmates, guards/prison staff, or the community if they escaped. It is authorized by the due process clause, so it is legal. I think it should be used more sparingly.

I might be behind the DP for a person such as a serial killer who is just way far gone mentally. That's a person who is the most dangerous and cunning, they make a career out of killing and do pose a danger even behind bars IMO. That's about it though. If it is to be used, only the absolute most heinous cases and killing MORE than one person should be eligible.
 
Again, I said the MOTIVE behind his attempt to enter a guilty plea isn't the issue, that one murderer was permitted to plead guilty before the trail and not the other is my point...

There is absolutely no guarantee Hasan pleading guilty would get him a sentence of death. No a-tall....

Yes, but representing himself, doing a horrible job and calling no witnesses to add to that?
 
Again, I said the MOTIVE behind his attempt to enter a guilty plea isn't the issue,

That is the issue. Dropping context and employing absolutism is no way to debate.
 
BBC News - Afghan massacre soldier Robert Bales gets life sentence

The US soldier who murdered 16 Afghan villagers last year has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Staff Sgt Robert Bales, 40, opened fire on men, children and women during the attack in Kandahar on 11 March 2012.

The father of two pleaded guilty in June to avoid the death penalty.

Justice for the victims or should he have got the death penalty?

He should have gotten the death penalty; for international PR reasons, if nothing else.

"Life in prison" isn't something that's really done in that part of the world, so a ruling like this just comes off as being a slap in the face to the victims' families.
 
Last edited:
So if someone is shooting up a school, you don't think it's right to shoot them to stop it?

If you can shoot them without killing them, then that is preferable. I'm not saying it's never justifiable, but it's always wrong. Very occasionally however, it may be the lesser of two wrongs.
 
I might be behind the DP for a person such as a serial killer who is just way far gone mentally. That's a person who is the most dangerous and cunning, they make a career out of killing and do pose a danger even behind bars IMO. That's about it though. If it is to be used, only the absolute most heinous cases and killing MORE than one person should be eligible.

I am not sure that a serial killer is more dangerous than someone who kills because someone looks at them the wrong way or "disrespects" them. Serial killers usually have a specific type of target that they are denied access to behind bars. They generally have some degree of discipline to them. The ones who have zero discipline are the ones who I think are the greater threat to others.
 
He should have gotten the death penalty; for international PR reasons, if nothing else.

"Life in prison" isn't something that's really done in that part of the world, so a ruling like this just comes off as being a slap in the face to the victims' families.

I agree with the sentencing. Also, keep in mind that he was a soldier who could have suffered a psychotic snap or something. Not that this is an excuse for his actions, but I have no idea the stress that being in a war might put upon a person's psyche.
 
I am not sure that a serial killer is more dangerous than someone who kills because someone looks at them the wrong way or "disrespects" them. Serial killers usually have a specific type of target that they are denied access to behind bars. They generally have some degree of discipline to them. The ones who have zero discipline are the ones who I think are the greater threat to others.

Yes but the serial killer lacks certain characteristics that makes people human beings.
 
He should have gotten the death penalty; for international PR reasons, if nothing else.

"Life in prison" isn't something that's really done in that part of the world, so a ruling like this just comes off as being a slap in the face to the victims' families.

You want to kill Americans to satisfy other countries? Who gave you that idea, AlQ?
 
Oxymoron much?

No. One can justify something that is wrong if it is done in order to prevent a greater wrong. Justify means to show something to be right or reasonable. Not everything that is wrong is totally unreasonable, given circumstances.
 
No. One can justify something that is wrong if it is done in order to prevent a greater wrong. Justify means to show something to be right or reasonable. Not everything that is wrong is totally unreasonable, given circumstances.

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid

You're jumping through hoops of nonsense in attempt to justify your (probably dogmatic) absolutism.
 
Yes but the serial killer lacks certain characteristics that makes people human beings.


Apparently people with severe OCD can be more dangerous to others due to a paranoia component that comes with it and are way more unpredictable. Just something I saw on tv once.
 
Apparently people with severe OCD can be more dangerous to others due to a paranoia component that comes with it and are way more unpredictable. Just something I saw on tv once.

But the serial killer lacks empathy and compassion. Also, the serial killer actually gets enjoyment out of the kill, for real. They can't live without killing. It defines who they are.

I know this is off topic, but just because the psyche of the serial killer is such a fascinating topic, here's a little excerpt.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/1b.html

We believe that we have control over our impulses — no matter how angry we get, there is something that stops us from taking our aggressions out on others. Do serial killers lack a moral safety latch? Or are they being controlled by something unfathomable? "I wished I could stop but I could not. I had no other thrill or happiness," said Dennis Nilsen, who wondered if he was truly evil.
 
I agree with the sentencing. Also, keep in mind that he was a soldier who could have suffered a psychotic snap or something. Not that this is an excuse for his actions, but I have no idea the stress that being in a war might put upon a person's psyche.

Fair enough. However, what does that really matter if the man is going to be spending the rest of his life locked in a cage at tax payers' expense?

You want to kill Americans to satisfy other countries? Who gave you that idea, AlQ?

I want to kill an American who rather clearly deserves it in order to save further American lives in the field.

The Taliban is going to be using this ruling as propaganda against the United States and Western World in general for years to come. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if they staged more than a few reprisal bombings here in the next few days and weeks as "revenge" for our supposed inaction.

We're talking about a people who went on a murderous rampage because a couple of holy books almost got thrown away once, but were saved at the last moment. Calm and level headed responses are not exactly something they are known for.
 
You're jumping through hoops of nonsense in attempt to justify your (probably dogmatic) absolutism.

You're jumping through hoops in search of a 'gotcha' kick. Hard luck.

Justify:
show or prove to be right or reasonable:
the person appointed has fully justified our confidence
be a good reason for:
the situation was grave enough to justify further investigation
Source: OED
 
Fair enough. However, what does that really matter if the man is going to be spending the rest of his life locked in a cage at tax payers' expense?

Because we don't have to kill anyone, and we are not to take such actions against our own citizens.

I think you're a religious person, so how do you justify making that decision instead of God? It's a completely hypocritical position to take IMO.
 
I want to kill an American who rather clearly deserves it in order to save further American lives in the field.

No one deserves the death penalty. If your motive is international relations, perhaps we should execute a few generals.

Your bloodlust is showing.

The Taliban is going to be using this ruling as propaganda against the United States and Western World in general for years to come.

So what? Terrorists use anything and lie to create propaganda. There's no stopping that.

I also wouldn't be at all surprised if they staged more than a few reprisal bombings here in the next few days and weeks as "revenge" for our supposed inaction.

You think the Taliban is holding out on us? You think they choose not to bomb when they could? Nonsense. The Taliban bombs whenever it can.

We're talking about a people who went on a murderous rampage because a couple of holy books almost got thrown away, but were saved at the last moment. Calm and level headed responses are not exactly something they are known for.

It sounds like the terrorists have won. You want to appease them out of fear.
 
You're jumping through hoops in search of a 'gotcha' kick. Hard luck.

Source: OED

If it's justified but wrong, should a person be convicted and imprisoned for the justified use of deadly force?

There's no "gotcha" kick. Just you talking in circles in order to justify dogmatic absolutism.
 
No one deserves the death penalty. If your motive is international relations, perhaps we should execute a few generals.

Your bloodlust is showing.



So what? Terrorists use anything and lie to create propaganda. There's no stopping that.



You think the Taliban is holding out on us? You think they choose not to bomb when they could? Nonsense. The Taliban bombs whenever it can.



It sounds like the terrorists have won. You want to appease them out of fear.

I'm not willing to compromise MY principles to please another country anyway. :roll:
 
I'm not willing to compromise MY principles to please another country anyway. :roll:

Not just another country, but specifically to please the Taliban.

We better do what they want!!

The question becomes: is this nonsense the result of bloodlust in general or a desire to appease terrorists, or both?
 
Back
Top Bottom