• 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!

Change my Mind: Capital Punishment is a bad policy

Helix said:
My views on this issue are shifting. On the surface, I still support it in extreme circumstances in which guilt is pretty certain, but then I listen to another true crime podcast in which guilt was certain before it wasn't. I'm probably on the fence at the moment.
Click to expand...

I've been adamantly opposed to the death penalty because it doesn't work as a deterrent, it is immoral, it is applied politically, it gives the government too much power that cannot be undone when the executed is later found innocent and many innocent people have been put to death.

Life without the possibility of parole is a better judgment and even that I am not absolutely convinced with because there are often extenuating factors with the most heinous crimes. Mental illness is rampant and can be a predictor of crime, so it needs to be treated instead iof throwing them away becaue they commited a crime due to the fact it wasnt treated.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If the goal of the criminal justice system is not to reduce recidivism then it makes no sense to have any permanent sentences (DP or LWOP) or to reserve their use for only a teeny, tiny percentage (the worst of the worst?) of criminals convicted of the same offense.

IMHO, we should have a point system, much like that used for traffic offenses, whereby multiple (cumulative?) "minor" offenses are treated the same as one "major" offense.

We treat a second DUI/DWI conviction much differently than the first DUI/DWI conviction even if they are decades apart - but why is that? Was the public less at risk when they faced a first time DUI/DWI perp coming at them?
Click to expand...

Ttwtt78640:

Do you really believe that a serial shoplifter or bad cheque writer should be executed if they do their crimes too many times? If that's what you mean by your point system, then that is a really bad idea IMHO. Why should a state have the right to kill its own citizens if it denies that action to those same citizens? How do you deal with wrongful convictions in capital crimes? Now compound that with wrongful convictions on lesser crimes which lead to meeting your accumulated threshold of points. Talk about a legal cluster-frak. No, the point system is not workable in my mind.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
I've been adamantly opposed to the death penalty because it doesn't work as a deterrent, it is immoral, it is applied politically, it gives the government too much power that cannot be undone when the executed is later found innocent and many innocent people have been put to death.

Life without the possibility of parole is a better judgment and even that I am not absolutely convinced with because there are often extenuating factors with the most heinous crimes. Mental illness is rampant and can be a predictor of crime, so it needs to be treated instead iof throwing them away becaue they commited a crime due to the fact it wasnt treated.
Click to expand...

i agree that our mental health care system is woefully insufficient. however, i'm not completely against the death penalty yet.
 
BrotherFease said:
A Clear Scientific Consensus that the Death Penalty does NOT Deter – Amnesty International USA

Fact check: No proof the death penalty prevents crime - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614

I used to be in favor of capital punishment, now I am against it. I think it's a bad policy. Statistically, it doesn't deter crime, and it costs the state more to execute someone than put them in prison for life. By all means, convince me otherwise. The only argument I hear is: "They deserve it". That to me is a bad argument. I say lock them away for life and make them suffer in prison. See links above for my backup.
Click to expand...

There are some people.....very very few....who are so violent that they can not even be safely incarcerated. If we are absolutely certain of their crimes I am fine with the state killing them.....though I would prefer banishment

I don't believe in vengeance or deterrence
 
Helix said:
My views on this issue are shifting. On the surface, I still support it in extreme circumstances in which guilt is pretty certain, but then I listen to another true crime podcast in which guilt was certain before it wasn't. I'm probably on the fence at the moment.
Click to expand...

Guilt must be 100% established, then I listen, but yes, I am on the fence as well. What makes me not be completely against the dp is that, I can't fathom how some evil criminal without a soul can be dealt with, while keeping some sort of sanity.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ttwtt78640:

Do you really believe that a serial shoplifter or bad cheque writer should be executed if they do their crimes too many times? If that's what you mean by your point system, then that is a really bad idea IMHO. Why should a state have the right to kill its own citizens if it denies that action to those same citizens? How do you deal with wrongful convictions in capital crimes. Now compound that with wrongful convictions on lesser crimes which lead to meeting your threshold. Talk about a legal cluster-frak. No, the point system is not workable in my mind.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

What is the huge difference between LWOP and the DP? The argument typically used is that the DP is "really" permanent and that judicial error is not impossible. In other words, the difference is that LWOP (with far less guarantees of any, much less multiple, appeals possibility) is OK even if it is likely to have a (much?) higher rate of judicial error (due to less or no judicial review) and will inflict decades of suffering (with no light at the end of that tunnel) on those confined to cages until their natural deaths.

Personally, I would prefer death to life in a cage without any possibility of parole. As far as my point system, yes it is fair to limit the number of victims that a "career criminal" is able to amass. I would say 3 (or whatever the silly "mass shooter" designation is now) is plenty enough separate convictions (deserving of jail/prison time) for one's permanent removal from society. Keep in mind that most convictions result from plea deals (bargains?) where the charges and sentences are greatly reduced from their 'by the books' potential.
 
Helix said:
I agree that our mental health care system is woefully insufficient. however, I'm not completely against the death penalty yet.
Click to expand...

The only way that I would ever even remotely support the death penalty was in the case of treason or crimes against humanity with absolute proof of guilt by either elected politicians or members of the military. Never for civilian crimes.

I've been a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the Innocence Project for many years for this reason.

The Innocent and the Death Penalty - Innocence Project

Death Penalty | Amnesty International

The Case Against the Death Penalty | American Civil Liberties Union
 
aociswundumho said:
I'm all for the death penalty as long as the crime merits death and its meted out by the victim.

But having the government kill people is a bad idea, because the government has almost no incentive to catch and execute the right person.

For those of you on the right, you don't trust the stupid, incompetent, stumbling fumbling government to educate your kids, or to run a grocery store, so why on earth would you trust it in this context?
Click to expand...

Civilized order requires the existence of a tight monopoly on violence. Parents and business owners are capable of managing their own affairs precisely because (and to the extent) they have unambiguous authority. Obviously, the state must adjudicate conflicting claims of paternity or property rights, when those arise. Just as it does with conflicting claims of criminal guilt.

SonOfDaedalus said:
Yup, that's what I don't understand about conservatives. Why would they want to give the government the power to execute citizens? Even if there is a jury, a government can easily manipulate a trial.

Moreover, for Christian conservatives, Jesus was found guilty and executed by a government. Human beings and governments are too corrupt to decide who lives and dies.
Click to expand...

"The government" has the power to execute people in every country on Earth. And in many places, (including most big cities in America) armed paramilitary organizations have the same power. The great lie of the modern politics is that power can be abolished. In truth, failure to exercise power when appropriate simply leads to its diffusion.
 
Dayton3 said:
What makes you think that they "suffer" in prison?
Click to expand...

Their rights are taken away, or you do you prefer that it would be physical acts of revenge by staff and other inmates that they cannot stop?
 
Lisa said:
Their rights are taken away, or you do you prefer that it would be physical acts of revenge by staff and other inmates that they cannot stop?
Click to expand...


Sounds good to me. Though I would be satisfied if they were sentenced to life in prison in solitary confinement.
 
AmNat said:
Civilized order requires the existence of a tight monopoly on violence. Parents and business owners are capable of managing their own affairs precisely because (and to the extent) they have unambiguous authority. Obviously, the state must adjudicate conflicting claims of paternity or property rights, when those arise. Just as it does with conflicting claims of criminal guilt.



"The government" has the power to execute people in every country on Earth. And in many places, (including most big cities in America) armed paramilitary organizations have the same power. The great lie of the modern politics is that power can be abolished. In truth, failure to exercise power when appropriate simply leads to its diffusion.
Click to expand...

AmNat:

"The government" or the state may have the raw power to execute people in every country on Earth but in much of the world the government/state is denied the legal authority to kill its own citizens except in times of war/conflict by its own laws as passed by its elected representatives. I too have the power to kill every person I choose to kill but I do not have the legal authority to do so. Just as the state denies me the legal authority and freedom to kill others, so I as part of the polis/electorate can deny the state that power by using constraining legislation and by enforcing it consistently. That is why "The government" in many countries on Earth does not have the freedom to kill their own citizens even as a result of due process for heinous crimes against persons or all of humanity.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
AmNat said:
Civilized order requires the existence of a tight monopoly on violence.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the world would be a more civilized and orderly place if we had a single, global government with a complete monopoly on violence?

Obviously, the state must adjudicate conflicting claims of paternity or property rights, when those arise. Just as it does with conflicting claims of criminal guilt.
Click to expand...

Why is it obvious? Government-run courts are extremely expensive, extremely slow, and they routinely produce unjust decisions - precisely what one would expect from a monopolist.
 
BrotherFease said:
A Clear Scientific Consensus that the Death Penalty does NOT Deter – Amnesty International USA

Fact check: No proof the death penalty prevents crime - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614

I used to be in favor of capital punishment, now I am against it. I think it's a bad policy. Statistically, it doesn't deter crime, and it costs the state more to execute someone than put them in prison for life. By all means, convince me otherwise. The only argument I hear is: "They deserve it". That to me is a bad argument. I say lock them away for life and make them suffer in prison. See links above for my backup.
Click to expand...

Gee, what a surprise AI is against it.

Let's look at that "no proof" allegation. It's statistically questionable if not outright invalid. How do you prove someone DIDN'T commit a murder because of the death penalty? Not no meaning people come forward to say "If there were no death penalty I'd have killed my <boss, friend co-worker, spouse>" Comparing states that have it with those that don't is a gross over-simplification.


Lastly recidivism for death penalty is zero.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What is the huge difference between LWOP and the DP? The argument typically used is that the DP is "really" permanent and that judicial error is not impossible. In other words, the difference is that LWOP (with far less guarantees of any, much less multiple, appeals possibility) is OK even if it is likely to have a (much?) higher rate of judicial error (due to less or no judicial review) and will inflict decades of suffering (with no light at the end of that tunnel) on those confined to cages until their natural deaths.

Personally, I would prefer death to life in a cage without any possibility of parole. As far as my point system, yes it is fair to limit the number of victims that a "career criminal" is able to amass. I would say 3 (or whatever the silly "mass shooter" designation is now) is plenty enough separate convictions (deserving of jail/prison time) for one's permanent removal from society. Keep in mind that most convictions result from plea deals (bargains?) where the charges and sentences are greatly reduced from their 'by the books' potential.
Click to expand...

ttwtt78640:

What is the difference between LWOP and DP? Hope. Possibility. A chance for redemption. But mostly humanity for persons in an imperfect legal system which makes too many errors. When we start executing Congresspersons and Presidents for killing humans in unofficial and undeclared conflicts in matters of state and we execute "haves" who allow "have nots" to die of privation in their midsts, then maybe the DP will be applied fairly across the board. Until then it is preferentially used against the powerless and the poor disproportionately. These are the huge differences.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
AmNat said:
Civilized order requires the existence of a tight monopoly on violence. Parents and business owners are capable of managing their own affairs precisely because (and to the extent) they have unambiguous authority. Obviously, the state must adjudicate conflicting claims of paternity or property rights, when those arise. Just as it does with conflicting claims of criminal guilt.

"The government" has the power to execute people in every country on Earth. And in many places, (including most big cities in America) armed paramilitary organizations have the same power. The great lie of the modern politics is that power can be abolished. In truth, failure to exercise power when appropriate simply leads to its diffusion.
Click to expand...

AmNat:

Rubbish. Rome was civilised but Romans often killed each other in vendettas and in order to advance in power and influence. Likewise Ancient Greece, Rennaisance "Italy", Britain/the UK, and Early America. None of these civilised societies had a monopoly on violence reserved for the state alone. Statism is not civilisation.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
BrotherFease said:
A Clear Scientific Consensus that the Death Penalty does NOT Deter – Amnesty International USA

Fact check: No proof the death penalty prevents crime - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614

I used to be in favor of capital punishment, now I am against it. I think it's a bad policy. Statistically, it doesn't deter crime, and it costs the state more to execute someone than put them in prison for life. By all means, convince me otherwise. The only argument I hear is: "They deserve it". That to me is a bad argument. I say lock them away for life and make them suffer in prison. See links above for my backup.
Click to expand...

First of all its called capital punishment, not capital deterrence. And if you are concerned about cost, it costs more to keep them incarcerated for life than it does to turn them loose. But aside form the fact that some people just deserve it, it is a useful tool in gaining confessions. Many of these scumbags so fear being put to death that they will confess their crimes and lead police to a hidden body in order to gain a lesser sentence.

Like I said, some people have it coming:

Murder of Jessica Lunsford - Wikipedia
 
Evilroddy said:
AmNat:

"The government" or the state may have the raw power to execute people in every country on Earth but in much of the world the government/state is denied the legal authority to kill its own citizens except in times of war/conflict by its own laws as passed by its elected representatives. I too have the power to kill every person I choose to kill but I do not have the legal authority to do so. Just as the state denies me the legal authority and freedom to kill others, so I as part of the polis/electorate can deny the state that power by using constraining legislation and by enforcing it consistently. That is why "The government" in many countries on Earth does not have the freedom to kill their own citizens even as a result of due process for heinous crimes against persons or all of humanity.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

The point is that power is always conserved. Being wrongfully killed by the state doesn't make you any more dead than being wrongfully killed by criminals.

aociswundumho said:
Do you believe the world would be a more civilized and orderly place if we had a single, global government with a complete monopoly on violence?
Click to expand...

If the entire world were ruled by a sovereign entity, it would obviously be foolish and harmful for that entity to randomly fail to enforce its sovereignty. Whether it would be better in a philosophical sense for there to be a single world government is irrelevant, as any change to or from such a situation would involve enormous levels of violence and human suffering.

Why is it obvious? Government-run courts are extremely expensive, extremely slow, and they routinely produce unjust decisions - precisely what one would expect from a monopolist.
Click to expand...

Because if people don't have an agreed upon arbiter, they'll ultimately have to fight. The only way to consistently avoid this is to have one side be so overpowered that it isn't worth it to contest the verdict by force.

As for inefficiency, to a certain extent that's an inevitable result of a fallen world, though the divided nature of our government certainly exacerbates the problem.
 
Lovebug said:
Guilt must be 100% established, then I listen, but yes, I am on the fence as well. What makes me not be completely against the dp is that, I can't fathom how some evil criminal without a soul can be dealt with, while keeping some sort of sanity.
Click to expand...

The discussion of souls would be an interesting one. However, we seem to be on the same page about the death penalty.
 
Evilroddy said:
AmNat:

Rubbish. Rome was civilised but Romans often killed each other in vendettas and in order to advance in power and influence. Likewise Ancient Greece, Rennaisance "Italy", Britain/the UK, and Early America. None of these civilised societies had a monopoly on violence reserved for the state alone. Statism is not civilisation.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Organized private violence was a feature of the Roman Republic in decay. Most of the Imperial-era internal conflict was caused either by ambiguous succession rules or conflicts between parts of the Roman government. Victorian Britain had a serious-crime rate less than 5% that of modern Britain.
 
Lisa said:
The only way that I would ever even remotely support the death penalty was in the case of treason or crimes against humanity with absolute proof of guilt by either elected politicians or members of the military. Never for civilian crimes.

I've been a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the Innocence Project for many years for this reason.

The Innocent and the Death Penalty - Innocence Project

Death Penalty | Amnesty International

The Case Against the Death Penalty | American Civil Liberties Union
Click to expand...

I still think fry his ass when it comes to some monsters. I'm trying to grow out of it.
 
AmNat said:
The point is that power is always conserved. Being wrongfully killed by the state doesn't make you any more dead than being wrongfully killed by criminals.



If the entire world were ruled by a sovereign entity, it would obviously be foolish and harmful for that entity to randomly fail to enforce its sovereignty. Whether it would be better in a philosophical sense for there to be a single world government is irrelevant, as any change to or from such a situation would involve enormous levels of violence and human suffering.



Because if people don't have an agreed upon arbiter, they'll ultimately have to fight. The only way to consistently avoid this is to have one side be so overpowered that it isn't worth it to contest the verdict by force.

As for inefficiency, to a certain extent that's an inevitable result of a fallen world, though the divided nature of our government certainly exacerbates the problem.
Click to expand...

AmNat:

No, power is often delegated and thus dispersed. That for example was the genius of the Amercan Constitution. So power is not always conserved in one unitary political body or person.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Helix said:
I still think fry his ass when it comes to some monsters. I'm trying to grow out of it.
Click to expand...

It helped me when I learned to understand that I had the same emotional feelings but to put my opposition to the death penalty above it. There are a few people who emotionally I would not mind seeing thrown into a tank of piranhas or fed into a tree chipper, but I am not going to lower myself to their level by giving in to those very base instincts.
 
Lisa said:
It helped me when I learned to understand that I had the same emotional feelings but to put my opposition to the death penalty above it. There are a few people who emotionally I would not mind seeing thrown into a tank of piranhas or fed into a tree chipper, but I am not going to lower myself to their level by giving in to those very base instincts.
Click to expand...

Good way to look at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom