• 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

Knowledge=power

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
392
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
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 used to support it. Don't anymore. It costs too much money in most states...more than what it costs to keep a prisoner alive for life. That's one reason. The second one is that lethal injection and other forms of capital punishment allow too easy an exit from this world.

I think a fitting punishment is to spend the rest of your life incarcerated -- and dying alone in a prison hospital ward.
 
I support it for pre-meditated murder which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. I support it only in this case, and not for any other crime, no matter how heinous.
 
MaggieD said:
I used to support it. Don't anymore. It costs too much money in most states...more than what it costs to keep a prisoner alive for life. That's one reason. The second one is that lethal injection and other forms of capital punishment allow too easy an exit from this world.

I think a fitting punishment is to spend the rest of your life incarcerated -- and dying alone in a prison hospital ward.
Click to expand...

I see your points, but these two seem to contradict eachother. It would cost much more to keep them alive for the rest of their lives than to execute them at some point. The "too easy an exit" argument also raises some questions. Most people who do support the death penalty want it to be humane and not painful, but obviously if you deserve to die for a crime, should the severity of the crime dictate how painfully you are killed? Interesting question.
 
lizzie said:
I support it for pre-meditated murder which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. I support it only in this case, and not for any other crime, no matter how heinous.
Click to expand...

Which is why they have degrees of murder and sentencing by trial and jury, etc. However, a ton of heinous crime committing offenders have avoided the death penalty by plea bargaining, and actually get out of prison later in life, even if they were caught red handed and the crime was premeditated.
 
I really can't decide.

On one hand, there are some crimes to horrible, death seems like the only solution. But then there's the cost, and the conundrum of killing people to prove killing people is wrong...


I don't know.
 
Knowledge=power said:
I see your points, but these two seem to contradict eachother. It would cost much more to keep them alive for the rest of their lives than to execute them at some point. The "too easy an exit" argument also raises some questions. Most people who do support the death penalty want it to be humane and not painful, but obviously if you deserve to die for a crime, should the severity of the crime dictate how painfully you are killed? Interesting question.
Click to expand...

There is much ongoing debate about the cost of the appeals process for capital offenses -- most often paid by the state on both sides -- for the defense -- and, of course, for the prosecution.

What I'm advocating is that someone on death row not be given an easier exit than the rest of us.
 
No, capital punishment should never be used. Not only is it wrong, even for the worst of criminals, it is costly. A year or so back, I did a report of capital punishment for a law class. I found the average cost of a trial where the sentence is capital punishment was over $1 million. The average cost to keep a prisoner incarcerated was not to far above $30'000 a year. enough to keep some one in prison for 66 years. Plus most people sentenced to death stay on death row for years, racking up the costs there too.

For capital punishment to be fiscally feasable, the US would have to start fast tracking trials, which is totally agianst everything the US stands for.
 
I don't. First of all, we all make mistakes. So long as the potential for error exists, I can't condone killing people. No matter the crime.

Secondly, it costs a fortune to do so, exactly for that reason. When we seek the death penalty, judges tend towards the anally rentetive, and for good reason. No judge wants to put a person to death on weak evidence, or technicalities, etc. In essence, the fine tooth comb comes out. Much more expensive process, really.

And last, I think that, in many cases, death is the easy way out. Just look at the mass shootings. No, for my money, I want rapists and murderers to have a good, good, LOOOONG to time to sit and reflect on the actions they have taken. I want them to have PLENTY of chances to make amends in the form of community labor, etc. I want them to grow old and die, locked in a cell, without ever the chance to make a shred of difference in life again...a completely meaningless existence. To my mind, that's the worst punishment any human can inflict on another.
 
MaggieD said:
There is much ongoing debate about the cost of the appeals process for capital offenses -- most often paid by the state on both sides -- for the defense -- and, of course, for the prosecution.

What I'm advocating is that someone on death row not be given an easier exit than the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Yes the appeals process takes forever and costs a fortune.

What kind of punishments instead of lethal injection do you propose?
 
I support it. I think anything less than capital punishment in certain cases actually makes a statement that the murderer's life is more valuable than the victims.
 
Something in this thread brought Susan Atkins to mind -- the member of the Charles Manson crime family convicted of eight murders, most notably the Tate/LaBianca slaughters. She was sentenced to death; later commuted to life.

A friend and I were having a discussion after she'd been denied parole for the 18th time. She pointed out that she had reformed...that she'd done many good works in prison...that she'd accepted Christ as her savior. Therefore, she should be paroled.

I said, "Do you think Sharon Tate was given that same opportunity? To find Christ? Her baby? She's where she belongs until the day she dies." I do think she did her best to find forgiveness. But that forgiveness? That's up to God.
 
KevinKohler said:
I don't. First of all, we all make mistakes. So long as the potential for error exists, I can't condone killing people. No matter the crime.

Secondly, it costs a fortune to do so, exactly for that reason. When we seek the death penalty, judges tend towards the anally rentetive, and for good reason. No judge wants to put a person to death on weak evidence, or technicalities, etc. In essence, the fine tooth comb comes out. Much more expensive process, really.

And last, I think that, in many cases, death is the easy way out. Just look at the mass shootings. No, for my money, I want rapists and murderers to have a good, good, LOOOONG to time to sit and reflect on the actions they have taken. I want them to have PLENTY of chances to make amends in the form of community labor, etc. I want them to grow old and die, locked in a cell, without ever the chance to make a shred of difference in life again...a completely meaningless existence. To my mind, that's the worst punishment any human can inflict on another.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate the arguments against the DP but can we please not pretend that not supporting it means you're actually tougher on criminals?
 
Juiposa said:
For capital punishment to be fiscally feasable, the US would have to start fast tracking trials, which is totally agianst everything the US stands for.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is against what the US stands for. The person in question still recieved a trial by jury and was sentenced. Maybe limiting the appeals to 1 would help, and making these cases a priority in the judicial system instead of prosecuting non violent offenders first.

A perfect example of this - James Holmes, Aurora movie theater shooter - 100% guilty. The trial should have taken 15 minutes. He could then just be escorted to his execution. That would save a lot of time.
 
lizzie said:
I support it for pre-meditated murder which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. I support it only in this case, and not for any other crime, no matter how heinous.
Click to expand...


I support it in theory, but not in practice. The chance of killing an innocent person is far more likely than I would have have previously imagined, and honestly, I have come to the conclusion that any chance of killing an innocent is unacceptable.

In cases where killers are caught "red handed" as it were, in almost all of these cases the killer has no chance at trial and so pleads out for a life sentence, thus eliminated some of the most certainly guilty from the chance of the death penalty. Note: There are cases where a person is obviously guilty and no plea is offered because the prosecutor intends to go for the death penalty, but many more where they don't.

In other words, only trials conclude with death penalties, and although guilty people can and do go to trial, so do innocent people, while many guilty do not go to trial and are precluded from being given the death penalty.

Add on these reservations to the costs, and it's just a waste of resources.
 
l support it but it should only be used on serial killers ,pedophile perverts and psycho war cirminals
 
Knowledge=power said:
I don't see how this is against what the US stands for. The person in question still recieved a trial by jury and was sentenced. Maybe limiting the appeals to 1 would help, and making these cases a priority in the judicial system instead of prosecuting non violent offenders first.

A perfect example of this - James Holmes, Aurora movie theater shooter - 100% guilty. The trial should have taken 15 minutes. He could then just be escorted to his execution. That would save a lot of time.
Click to expand...

You'd have to redefine some many things for that to be possible. The idea of "Fair Trial" is vauge and open to interpretation. The agian, many of these are purposely vauge to amek the system more fair.
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
I don't. First of all, we all make mistakes. So long as the potential for error exists, I can't condone killing people. No matter the crime.

Secondly, it costs a fortune to do so, exactly for that reason. When we seek the death penalty, judges tend towards the anally rentetive, and for good reason. No judge wants to put a person to death on weak evidence, or technicalities, etc. In essence, the fine tooth comb comes out. Much more expensive process, really.

And last, I think that, in many cases, death is the easy way out. Just look at the mass shootings. No, for my money, I want rapists and murderers to have a good, good, LOOOONG to time to sit and reflect on the actions they have taken. I want them to have PLENTY of chances to make amends in the form of community labor, etc. I want them to grow old and die, locked in a cell, without ever the chance to make a shred of difference in life again...a completely meaningless existence. To my mind, that's the worst punishment any human can inflict on another.
Click to expand...

It would cost just as much in the long run to keep them alive until they die in prison. However, I see your point about making them sit in a cell for years and years.

What I find funny about your point though is first you said you think killing people is awful. Then you say you want them to suffer in the worst way you think possible, which is sitting in a cell for 50+ years.
 
X Factor said:
I support it. I think anything less than capital punishment in certain cases actually makes a statement that the murderer's life is more valuable than the victims.
Click to expand...




I agree. I think when you take a life in cold blood, you sacrifice your 'right' to life.
 
I dont support it too many human errors. However i do support it when it comes to special cases such as crimes against humanity and war crimes. Those are the only cases i can find justification for it.
 
Knowledge=power said:
I agree. I think when you take a life in cold blood, you sacrifice your 'right' to life.
Click to expand...

To my way of thinking, by exacting the most stringent penalty possible for taking a life, we actually show a greater respect for life.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I dont support it too many human errors. However i do support it when it comes to special cases such as crimes against humanity and war crimes. Those are the only cases i can find justification for it.
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't support it if someone cold blooded murdered someone and 50 eye witnesses saw it, but you would if a soldier killed someone after a ceasefire, or violated the rules of engagement, or dropped a bomb on a city and killed thousands of people but was simply following orders?

What kind of crimes against humanity are you speaking of? Examples?
 
X Factor said:
To my way of thinking, by exacting the most stringent penalty possible for taking a life, we actually show a greater respect for life.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if we could survey all of the executed prisoners to find out if they thought their execution was a more severe punishment than sitting in a cell for 50 years....but we can't.

Do you think lethal injection is "too easy" for someone who, say, killed someone with an ice pick, or tortured and mutilated someone?
 
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.
 
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...

"Helpless and harmless"? Srsly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom