• 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!

Where are you on the Death Penalty?

Ikari said:
I'd rather just save the money and keep them in jail for life.
Click to expand...

I'd rather waive all his absurd appeals, drag him to the wall, and give him a televised public execution by 17 sequential well-place bullets - the last being fatal.

It just might give some would-be bad ass glory seekers a second thought = THIS IS YOUR FATE.
 
maxparrish said:
I'd rather waive all his absurd appeals, drag him to the wall, and give him a televised public execution by 17 sequential well-place bullets - the last being fatal.

It just might give some would-be bad ass glory seekers a second thought = THIS IS YOUR FATE.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there's no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent and we cannot "streamline" the DP justice system without increasing errors within it.

Life in Prison without Parole works just as well.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, but there's no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent and we cannot "streamline" the DP justice system without increasing errors within it.

Life in Prison without Parole works just as well.
Click to expand...

Nor is there evidence that vivid public executions are NOT a deterrent. Therefore one must rely on commonsense; the reminder ti the public of horrific punishment tends to cause at least some people to avoid the behavior they would otherwise do if such punishment did not exist. (Indeed, it is said Vlad the Impaler so terrified his citizens that a gold cup was put in the square of every village...no one daring to steal it.).

Would-be glory seekers would know they won't get a life sentence as some kind of mass killer superstar.

Therefore, even if it only deters a few mass shootings, it is more than justified. Besides justice alone demands the satisfaction of vengeance.
 
maxparrish said:
Nor is there evidence that vivid public executions are NOT a deterrent. Therefore one must rely on commonsense; the reminder ti the public of horrific punishment tends to cause at least some people to avoid the behavior they would otherwise do if such punishment did not exist. (Indeed, it is said Vlad the Impaler so terrified his citizens that a gold cup was put in the square of every village...no one daring to steal it.).

Would-be glory seekers would know they won't get a life sentence as some kind of mass killer superstar.

Therefore, even if it only deters a few mass shootings, it is more than justified. Besides justice alone demands the satisfaction of vengeance.
Click to expand...

No, justice does not "demand the satisfaction of vengeance", that's ridiculous. We don't do public executions anymore because it's not the 1600's any longer. It's barbaric and cruel, and we are far too civilized to carry that out any longer. Furthermore, it used to be done, but it didn't stop crime, now did it? So there is evidence that it didn't act as a deterrent.

If we wish to progress, we cannot regress. It's archaic and barbaric to conflate justice and vengeance.
 
If life in a concrete square for that kid is the drawback to making sure no innocent person fries ever, I can certainly live with that (pun intended).
As long as an innocent, who would in pretty much every case be a person of no means, can be put to death I can not agree with the death penalty.
 
Ikari said:
No, justice does not "demand the satisfaction of vengeance", that's ridiculous. We don't do public executions anymore because it's not the 1600's any longer. It's barbaric and cruel, and we are far too civilized to carry that out any longer. Furthermore, it used to be done, but it didn't stop crime, now did it? So there is evidence that it didn't act as a deterrent.

If we wish to progress, we cannot regress. It's archaic and barbaric to conflate justice and vengeance.
Click to expand...

You might actually think about your talking points before blurting out simple-minded blather. No, public executions and punishment did not stop all crime. In fact NO known punishment, recidivism program, or crime prevention program has stopped all crime. Therefore, according to your "logic" we are needlessly being meanies and should cease arresting and punishing evil-doers?

Your rebuttal is a straw man. The one if the universal assumptions behind ALL penal systems is that the prospect of punishment has some effect of rates. Evil-doers are not entirely irrational, and only an idiot would think that absent punishment of robbers or inside traders that robbery and inside trading rates would stay identical.

Therefore, no harm in bringing back the wisdom of the 19th and early 20th century - there is nothing like the prospect of being fried in an electric chair, or shot by a firing squad, or burned at the stake, or drawn and quartered to focus the mind. And there is nothing more instructive - rather than letting the scum have free glamorized publicity to set a "score", let the hidden killers see their fate on big screen TV.

Finally vengeance is always a component of Justice, even when the state has denied individuals the moral right to exact revenge. Human evolution has wired our sense of retribution, the need to fully settle scores. Watch any movie wherein the hero is cheered when he vanquishes the enemy - who does not root for Braveheart or the Gladiator or Rob Roy to slay those who have killed their brethren or family?

Instead we have whiney, weak kneed, jelly spined liberals who can't bring themselves to properly punish mass murderers. They tell us to be more "European" like Norway - the Norway that saw the consequences of its weakness in Anders Behring Breivik, the man who has confessed to massacring 76 people, many of them children. His "penalty" under the law, 21 years maximum, in prison...serving a minimum of 10 years.

It is a moral obligation of the state to satisfy the loved one's need for settling the score: this man deserved nothing less than a painful and prolonged death.
 
Last edited:
OldFatGuy said:
Yes. It can be a fine line, especially when both are appropriate.

This week, a woman with MS, and who experienced seizures, lost control of her car and killed two children accompanied by their mothers in a crosswalk here in NYC. This woman should not have been driving. This was her moral decision to drive for her convenience, knowing she was a danger to all others. Nothing will bring those two children back to their mothers. Yet her illnesses are not an excuse for her moral decision. I have no pity for her. She is a murderer. I want her to live. I want her to suffer with her guilt until MS kills her.
Click to expand...

I'm sure she will. She killed a 4-year old and a baby in his stroller. But I hope that any guilt she feels leads to genuine remorse, reconciliation, and peace, that her suffering is productive.

Dorothy Bruns blew through a red light, and she had been cited four times in the past two years for running red lights. She also attempted to flee the scene but crashed into several cars and was detained by witnesses. Brooklyn driver runs red light, kills two children - NY Daily News
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
You might actually think about your talking points before blurting out simple-minded blather. No, public executions and punishment did not stop all crime. In fact NO known punishment, recidivism program, or crime prevention program has stopped all crime. Therefore, according to your "logic" we are needlessly being meanies and should cease arresting and punishing evil-doers?

Your rebuttal is a straw man. The one if the universal assumptions behind ALL penal systems is that the prospect of punishment has some effect of rates. Evil-doers are not entirely irrational, and only an idiot would think that absent punishment of robbers or inside traders that robbery and inside trading rates would stay identical.

Therefore, no harm in bringing back the wisdom of the 19th and early 20th century - there is nothing like the prospect of being fried in an electric chair, or shot by a firing squad, or burned at the stake, or drawn and quartered to focus the mind. And there is nothing more instructive - rather than letting the scum have free glamorized publicity to set a "score", let the hidden killers see their fate on big screen TV.

Finally vengeance is always a component of Justice, even when the state has denied individuals the moral right to exact revenge. Human evolution has wired our sense of retribution, the need to fully settle scores. Watch any movie wherein the hero is cheered when he vanquishes the enemy - who does not root for Braveheart or the Gladiator or Rob Roy to slay those who have killed their brethren or family?

Instead we have whiney, weak kneed, jelly spined liberals who can't bring themselves to properly punish mass murderers. They tell us to be more "European" like Norway - the Norway that saw the consequences of its weakness in Anders Behring Breivik, the man who has confessed to massacring 76 people, many of them children. His "penalty" under the law, 21 years maximum, in prison...serving a minimum of 10 years.

It is a moral obligation of the state to satisfy the loved one's need for settling the score: this man deserved nothing less than a painful and prolonged death.
Click to expand...

There is no moral obligation of the state to satisfy anyone's need for revenge. That is idiotic at best, evil at worst.

The state's obligations are the protection and proliferation of the rights and liberties of its citizens. When someone infringes upon the rights of others, we use the force of government (after a trial by jury) to punish the individual for the transgression and protect the rights of others. Life in prison without parole as the same effect on the population in general as the death penalty without the added costs and loss of life. There is certainly harm in resurrecting archaic, barbaric, cruel, and unnecessary methods of punishment that cannot be demonstrated to provide any additional deterrent or aggregate safety over the modern methods that we have.

If you can produce such evidence, then perhaps we can talk about the implementation of your call for torture. But chances are, all you have is overly emotionalized, hateful rhetoric and some misguided notion that government should be in the revenge business. So as it stands, your simple-minded blather has nothing to back it up and since we have progressed away from public torture and execution fests, there is no necessity to go backwards.
 
nota bene said:
I'm sure she will. She killed a 4-year old and a baby in his stroller. But I hope that any guilt she feels leads to genuine remorse, reconciliation, and peace, that her suffering is productive.

Dorothy Bruns blew through a red light, and she had been cited four times in the past two years for running red lights. She also attempted to flee the scene but crashed into several cars and was detained by witnesses. Brooklyn driver runs red light, kills two children - NY Daily News
Click to expand...

She's already stated "it wasn't my fault" to those who stopped her from fleeing. She was foaming at the mouth per those same witnesses.
 
tres borrachos said:
Look what happened to Jeffrey Dahmer when he got put in with the general population. I think that death, at the hands of two fellow inmates, was probably more painful than getting a great last meal and being gently put to sleep like we do our beloved pets. So I think what you said here sums it all up for me.
Click to expand...

Yep...Dahmer had the crap beat out of him. He was basically clubbed to death with broom and mop handles. He tasted significant pain before lights out.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Yep...Dahmer had the crap beat out of him. He was basically clubbed to death with broom and mop handles. He tasted significant pain before lights out.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving jackoff. Better to die in pain and alone than with a warm blankie over him after he got his gentle cocktail to softly put him to sleep.
 
Aristaeus said:
I'm opposed to the death sentence in all cases, even Hitler or Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

My bet is that if your own loved ones were the victims, you would feel differently.
 
100% Opposed

I don't want the State killing in my name.
 
OldFatGuy said:
She's already stated "it wasn't my fault" to those who stopped her from fleeing. She was foaming at the mouth per those same witnesses.
Click to expand...

I see you like to make excuses for manslaughter. Ya, it was her fault.

First, Bruns’ vehicle has been cited 12 times for traffic violations since 2016, in including 4 times for running a red light and 4 Times for speeding through a school zone. This woman did not have 12 seizures...bull ****.

Second, she emerged from the wreck completely emotionless, denying her guilt and otherwise not asking about anyone's condition, and began texting on her cell phone.

Third, at least one witness reported she stopped at a red light, AND THEN, looked both ways before speeding through the intersection.

If she was foaming at the mouth after the accident, I wouldn't doubt it was brought on by the accident. In any event, she intentionally and recklessly drove through red lights and school zones as a matter of habit.

She deserves to be arrested - she knew better.
 
Isnt life in prison far worst than being killed?
 
Old Trapper said:
The dead demand nothing. The living do, and that is my point.
Click to expand...

Justice does not just count for the victims, it counts for surviving family members and society as well.
 
AustralianuS said:
Isnt life in prison far worst than being killed?
Click to expand...

Not for all of them. Eventually, if they survive in prison they become acclimated to life in prison. At that point it's no longer punishment. Some death row inmates in my state who have been on death row for longer then 2 decades are still fighting their execution dates.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Not for all of them. Eventually, if they survive in prison they become acclimated to life in prison. At that point it's no longer punishment. Some death row inmates in my state who have been on death row for longer then 2 decades are still fighting their execution dates.
Click to expand...

Kill them. It would save us an enormous amount of tax dollars and what are we really missing? Too many people get to live off the land for committing heinous crimes.

I think the homeless should be euthanized just like animals. Give them 3 years max to get their **** together or its off to the crematorium. People always say: "but that homeless person has a family too"....really? If they had a family they wouldn't be homeless.

We need population controls.
 
maxparrish said:
I see you like to make excuses for manslaughter. Ya, it was her fault.

First, Bruns’ vehicle has been cited 12 times for traffic violations since 2016, in including 4 times for running a red light and 4 Times for speeding through a school zone. This woman did not have 12 seizures...bull ****.

Second, she emerged from the wreck completely emotionless, denying her guilt and otherwise not asking about anyone's condition, and began texting on her cell phone.

Third, at least one witness reported she stopped at a red light, AND THEN, looked both ways before speeding through the intersection.

If she was foaming at the mouth after the accident, I wouldn't doubt it was brought on by the accident. In any event, she intentionally and recklessly drove through red lights and school zones as a matter of habit.

She deserves to be arrested - she knew better.
Click to expand...

Learn how to read. And read the entire thread. You make yourself out the fool.

Had you read my previous posts you would have read the following:

"This woman should not have been driving. This was her moral decision to drive for her convenience, knowing she was a danger to all others. Nothing will bring those two children back to their mothers. Yet her illnesses are not an excuse for her moral decision. I have no pity for her. She is a murderer. I want her to live. I want her to suffer with her guilt until MS kills her."

Now you can apologize for running off at the mouth.
 
ObamacareFail said:
My bet is that if your own loved ones were the victims, you would feel differently.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but emotions are often irrational and a poor basis for a legal system.
 
tres borrachos said:
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving jackoff. Better to die in pain and alone than with a warm blankie over him after he got his gentle cocktail to softly put him to sleep.
Click to expand...

Lol, you have no idea about lethal injections if you think they're painless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom