• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Capital Punishment

Knowledge=power said:
Where do you stand, and why?

There are arguments to be made for both sides. I personally support the death penalty, but also realize the cost of keeping an inmate alive for the average 10 year waiting period on death row, and the possibility of people executed who may later be proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Before we got married, my wife was in college in Southern California. While there her roommate was kidnapped and raped by a man who just days before had kidnapped, raped and murdered another young woman who also worked at the same college.

For his crimes, Stevie Lamar Fields was sentenced to death.

Last month, my wife and I celebrated our 34th Wedding Anniversary.

Stevie Fields is still on Death Row at San Quentin. One of the oldest cases on Death Row in California and the Nation.

Liberals have been fighting every move to remove Death Row inmates through the loading dock for decades in California.

I've reached the point where it seems better to release these animals on LWOP. At least in the general population inside prison, the possibility of a painful death is greater than the coddled existance they learn to live with on Death Row.
 
ecofarm said:
I believe that capital punishment provides rationalization for the justification of murder; thus, it does not deter crime but encourages it. I believe that the justice system should be about public safety and rehabilitation and not punishment. I believe killing a (currently) helpless and harmless captive is wrong and sets a bad example to the effect of the aforementioned.

I find the removal of human rights to be disgusting and only acceptable in the case of balancing the rights of the public in general with the rights of the convicted. I think all human rights, including voting and self defense, should be reinstated upon completion of sentence and that the right to vote should never be removed, as doing so serves no purpose towards safety and deters from an avenue of education, rehabilitation and reassimilation. I would only permanently remove the right to self defense (arms) in some cases of violent felony convictions.
Click to expand...

So you would want a person who weasled out 3, 4 appeals and avoided the death penalty, then served a 20 year sentence due to a slimy defense lawyer and a plea bargain for say, raping and murdering a child to "reassimilate" into society? What if they lived down the street from you?
 
X Factor said:
"Helpless and harmless"? Srsly?
Click to expand...

Once they are captive. When killed they are, at that point, helpless and harmless captives.

Another point that may need clarification: If the government can kill someone who's basically tied up - for revenge - then why cannot I? They got their reasons, I got mine. That's the rationalization to which I referred.
 
ocean515 said:
Before we got married, my wife was in college in Southern California. While there her roommate was kidnapped and raped by a man who just days before had kidnapped, raped and murdered another young woman who also worked at the same college.

For his crimes, Stevie Lamar Fields was sentenced to death.

Last month, my wife and I celebrated our 34th Wedding Anniversary.

Stevie Fields is still on Death Row at San Quentin. One of the oldest cases on Death Row in California and the Nation.

Liberals have been fighting every move to remove Death Row inmates through the loading dock for decades in California.

I've reached the point where it seems better to release these animals on LWOP. At least in the general population inside prison, the possibility of a painful death is greater than the coddled existance they learn to live with on Death Row.
Click to expand...

I see your point. California is where this issue is the most serious. The amount of criminals on death row is costing way too much money to support. Does death row for 20 years cost less than prison for 65? (cases may vary) I think the problem is the pace at which criminals reach execution. This all needs to be reworked, and fast tracked.
 
Knowledge=power said:
So you would want a person who weasled out 3, 4 appeals and avoided the death penalty, then served a 20 year sentence due to a slimy defense lawyer and a plea bargain for say, raping and murdering a child to "reassimilate" into society? What if they lived down the street from you?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that killing helpless, harmless captives sets a bad example and actually encourages murder. I'm saying that killing helpless and harmless captives, for revenge/punishment, is wrong. I'm saying that I do not agree with the philosophical premise (revenge and punishment as aspects of a justice sysem) nor the claims of being a deterrent. I find the death penalty to be unethical and (thus inherently, and demonstrably) counter productive.
 
Last edited:
Knowledge=power said:
Where do you stand, and why?

There are arguments to be made for both sides. I personally support the death penalty, but also realize the cost of keeping an inmate alive for the average 10 year waiting period on death row, and the possibility of people executed who may later be proven innocent.
Click to expand...
I don't support it. It's against my moral/ethical standards and unnecessary for the safety of the population.
 
Knowledge=power said:
I see your point. California is where this issue is the most serious. The amount of criminals on death row is costing way too much money to support. Does death row for 20 years cost less than prison for 65? (cases may vary) I think the problem is the pace at which criminals reach execution. This all needs to be reworked, and fast tracked.
Click to expand...

It certainly needs to be reworked. According to various reports, California taxpayers spend over $185 million more per year to house and deal with the 700+ death row inmates than other prisoners currently incarcerated.

As much as I would like to see animals like Stevie Fields evicerated at the stake, the whole thing in California is a joke. 35 years on Death Row? That's insane.
 
Let me add: the death penalty perpetuates the notion that violence is an acceptable way to solve a problem even when violence is not necessary to solve that problem. That is a harmful idea and one that does not belong in a civilized society.

Moreover, even though I understand revenge and have felt the desire for it myself, I do not believe that revenge should be either state-sanctioned or encouraged by society. It should be seen and treated as the harmful act that it is and we, as human beings, should strive to avoid the temptation to participate in it.
 
Last edited:
Juiposa said:
No, capital punishment should never be used. Not only is it wrong, even for the worst of criminals, it is costly.
Click to expand...

What was wrong, was the crime committed by the criminal. Punishment by death is actual justice for killing. You kill someone, you forfeit your life.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm saying that killing helpless, harmless captives sets a bad example and actually encourages murder. I'm saying that killing helpless and harmless captives, for revenge/punishment, is wrong. I'm saying that I do not agree with the philosophical premise (revenge and punishment as aspects of a justice sysem) nor the claims of being a deterrent. I find the death penalty to be unethical and (thus inherently, and demonstrably) counter productive.
Click to expand...

You almost sound like you see the inmate as the victim. I had no idea you were such a softie. Lol.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm saying that killing helpless, harmless captives sets a bad example and actually encourages murder. I'm saying that killing helpless and harmless captives, for revenge/punishment, is wrong. I'm saying that I do not agree with the philosophical premise (revenge and punishment as aspects of a justice sysem) nor the claims of being a deterrent. I find the death penalty to be unethical and (thus inherently, and demonstrably) counter productive.
Click to expand...

Harmless??? Really??? Did you not read the crime I hypothesized?

What do you suppose the punishment should be for such a crime then?
 
lizzie said:
What was wrong, was the crime committed by the criminal. Punishment by death is actual justice for killing. You kill someone, you forfeit your life.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Some people just ****ing deserve it.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't support it. It's against my moral/ethical standards and unnecessary for the safety of the population.
Click to expand...

So what do you propose we do with violent criminals? We're talking murderers, rapists, etc.
 
X Factor said:
You almost sound like you see the inmate as the victim. I had no idea you were such a softie. Lol.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm all for lethal force against forcible felonies in progress and killing terrorists in the field, but when it comes to killing captives for self-defeating purposes I get a bit squeamish.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Harmless??? Really??? Did you not read the crime I hypothesized?
Click to expand...

Helpless and harmless, as a captive. Not 'innocent and never harmed anyone'. Context is key.

What do you suppose the punishment should be for such a crime then?
Click to expand...

I didn't read the emotional belch supporting whatever rant against the misunderstanding you created, and I don't believe punishment should be part of a justice system.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Let me add: the death penalty perpetuates the notion that violence is an acceptable way to solve a problem even when violence is not necessary to solve that problem. That is a harmful idea and one that does not belong in a civilized society.

Moreover, even though I understand revenge and have felt the desire for it myself, I do not believe that revenge should be either state-sanctioned or encouraged by society. It should be seen and treated as the harmful act that it is and we, as human beings, should strive to avoid the temptation to participate in it.
Click to expand...

Where you see "revenge", I see justice - far more justice than the victim got (I mean the actual victim).
 
ocean515 said:
It certainly needs to be reworked. According to various reports, California taxpayers spend over $185 million more per year to house and deal with the 700+ death row inmates than other prisoners currently incarcerated.

As much as I would like to see animals like Stevie Fields evicerated at the stake, the whole thing in California is a joke. 35 years on Death Row? That's insane.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The courts should have 1 year after conviction to settle appeals(which should be limited) and then if you are not proven innocent, you are executed. People who say spending life in prison is punishment enough often do not understand that many prisoners become accustomed to the prison lifestyle and upon release, wind up back in prison in no time because they cannot function in the outside world anymore. It's free food, bed, water, and electricity for life.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Where do you stand, and why?

There are arguments to be made for both sides. I personally support the death penalty, but also realize the cost of keeping an inmate alive for the average 10 year waiting period on death row, and the possibility of people executed who may later be proven innocent.
Click to expand...

I oppose it. All the practical reasons certainly factor in, but I also believe it is barbaric and that it serves no societal utility whatsoever except in cases of the extremis where the symbolism is more important than the act like in a war crimes tribunal.
 
X Factor said:
Where you see "revenge", I see justice - far more justice than the victim got (I mean the actual victim).
Click to expand...

Justice is not for an individual but a society. You've lost focus on the purpose of a justice system, it's not to serve the individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom