• 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!

Death Penalty

Should there be a death penalty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 47.0%
  • No

    Votes: 45 38.5%
  • Under certain circumstances, please explain

    Votes: 17 14.5%

  • Total voters
    117
That's fine... I don't agree. SCOTUS is not infallible.

My point here is that Mensch was using the correct legal terminology (legalese). Arbitrariness in a legal judgement is a decision made at the discretion of the judge, not one that is fixed by law.

SCOTUS has determined that by the legal meaning of arbitrary, that the DP is applied in an arbitrary manner. I understand that they are not all-knowing, they are however, charged with the final decisions on the DP. I posted two separate links to show you that it is not just SCOTUS who see it as arbitrary, but a large portion of the law community.
 
A poll? The poll was predetermined... that is the point. And no, the police don't decide... they follow the rule of law as set down by society. If the people don't like the DA asking for the DP they replace him. That is how the system works. Same with the Judge and/or those that elected or appointed him. You are not arguing against the DP you are arguing against the enitre United States system of government as it is set up in the US Constitution.

The police do decide. They assess a situation, collect evidence and make recommendations to the DA. If they want they can move slow, ignore evidence, work sloppily etc... thereby leaving the arrest up to their discretion. Unfortunately if the victim is a prostitute the reality is that it is not pursued as mightily as if it were a pretty blonde college student.

Every step of the way there is some justification that can come out of someones mouth to lean one way or the other on the issue.
 
Okie Dokie artichokie. I'm sure that that is exactly the reason (and nothing else).

Love the sarcastic "Okie Dokie artichokie" bit. I've already shown that I was not afraid of going to jail as I've already been there and found it easy. As such it was no deterence in my decision to not go after the guy. So since you believe that you know what I think and how I think perhaps you can tell me exactly why I decided to not go after the guy.
 
How does the death penalty make it any better for the victim?

If they victim lives then they feel a hell of a lot safer for one. They also feel a sense of justice being done. Psycologically that makes it far better for the victim. And the same applies if the victim is dead only it applies to the family of the victim.

But its not just about the victim or their family. It is also about society as a whole being made safer. If you put a killer in prison then they will have an opportunity to kill again. Be it a guard, another inmate, or by being able to escape and kill someone else outside of prison.
 
ar·bi·trar·y   [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -trar·ies.adjective1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.Granted, there are cases where the maximum penalty would prohibit a death sentence. But in the majority of cases, the final decision is left completely up to the judge.
You put in bold the wrong part... without restriction is the pertinent part. They are restricted within the bounds of the law. The Judge cannot put somebody to death that has not been brought up on the correct charges and without having the DA seeking the DP. It isn't arbitrary.
 
Fine. But if you did torture, you would hold the same level of honor as the perp.

Well this is just subjective. For me avenging my nieces would be far more honorable than letting the guy go.

It tells a fact. A fact that, if not extinguishing, definitely hurts your argument.

It does neither. If you have the schematic to make half a computer then by the time you are done using that schematic you still don't have a fully functioning computer. As such it could be considered as not even being a computer. Especially since the other half of the schematic that you don't have could change the function of something in the part of the schematic that you do have.

Or put another way if you walk into a room where someone is kneeling over a dead body and they have blood on them does that automatically make them the killer? Or is it possible that the person just found the dead person and had tried to keep them alive or revive them instead? When you only have half the information it is easy to assume that the person is the killer and not the failed savior.

In otherwords an incomplete fact is not a fact at all...but a theory at best.

You cannot prove a negative. You can't just claim it is a deterrent and let that statement stand on its own. You have to back it up. And if you can't, then you shouldn't bring it up.

Nor can you prove a positive with only half the information. As such you can't just claim that it isn't a deterrent.
 
If they victim lives then they feel a hell of a lot safer for one. They also feel a sense of justice being done. Psycologically that makes it far better for the victim. And the same applies if the victim is dead only it applies to the family of the victim.

But its not just about the victim or their family. It is also about society as a whole being made safer. If you put a killer in prison then they will have an opportunity to kill again. Be it a guard, another inmate, or by being able to escape and kill someone else outside of prison.

Study, after study, after study show that the DP is not a deterrent. Not just in the US but elsewhere as well.

The family of the victim needs closure not retribution / revenge, they need someone to help heal them and the very limited funds we have that go to victims rights and victim family organizations can't do much. Why doesn't the state spend more time helping the victims instead of seeking retribution?

Anybody you put in prison can commit a murder. There is a prison culture that leads to more violence, that is their society. It is too bad, but that is what we have created in this country and it does not have to be so.

As for you repeatedly mentioning your time in jail it is making me begin to think that you wear it as a badge. You know no more of solitary confinement and endless years in prison than we do. Were you in jail as you said or prison?
 
Ok then, so how does the death penalty makes things better?
That is your qualification. Making things better. I could argue that it does, though that is not my argument. It shows that we uphold life as the most important and it removes an enemy of society and that can be argued as better.
 
You put in bold the wrong part... without restriction is the pertinent part. They are restricted within the bounds of the law. The Judge cannot put somebody to death that has not been brought up on the correct charges and without having the DA seeking the DP. It isn't arbitrary.

Mensch is using the correct legal terminology (legalese). Arbitrariness in a legal judgement is a decision made at the discretion of the judge, not one that is fixed by law. When the death penalty is a possibility, the judge decides yes or no, when it comes to sentencing the judge decides yes or no.
 
When you're sentenced to death, it is because a judge (individual) made that sentence. The appeals do not serve to justify the severity of the punishment, but rather to ensure the law was carried out in a just and righteous manner.

The judge does not make the sentence. They must follow the guidelines set forth by society.
 
ar·bi·trar·y   [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -trar·ies.
adjective
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

Granted, there are cases where the maximum penalty would prohibit a death sentence. But in the majority of cases, the final decision is left completely up to the judge.

Bolding the part that supports your statements and yet ignoring the part that doesn't does not help your case in the slightest. The words "without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion" cannot be applied to a judge for the simple fact that they are constrained in what sentences they must mete out.

If you're going to use a definition then you must apply all of it that is relevent. And the part that you did not bold is certainly relevent.
 
That is your qualification. Making things better. I could argue that it does, though that is not my argument. It shows that we uphold life as the most important and it removes an enemy of society and that can be argued as better.

"we uphold life as the most important"
but, we also make elaborate plans to take away life we deem not important

hypocrisy
 
The police do decide. They assess a situation, collect evidence and make recommendations to the DA. If they want they can move slow, ignore evidence, work sloppily etc... thereby leaving the arrest up to their discretion. Unfortunately if the victim is a prostitute the reality is that it is not pursued as mightily as if it were a pretty blonde college student.

Every step of the way there is some justification that can come out of someones mouth to lean one way or the other on the issue.

The police DO NOT DECIDE. They can NOT arrest a person that is not guilty of a crime. If they purposely move slow or ignore evidence then the police are guilty of a crime. The DA can have the suspect arrested even if the police don't think that they have the evidence needed. That is how the law works. I don't care how you try to manipulate the facts... you are wrong.
 
I don't think that it has anything to do with making me feel better... it has to do with facing a consequence to their action and upholding the value of human life. Hopefully one day we will evolve to the point were people aren't petty and don't hurt others.

LWOP is not a consequence?
 
Really? Can we move on.

Mensch is using the correct legal terminology (legalese). Arbitrariness in a legal judgement is a decision made at the discretion of the judge, not one that is fixed by law. When the death penalty is a possibility, the judge decides yes or no, when it comes to sentencing the judge decides yes or no.

Arbitrariness is a LEGAL notion. Yes it has other meanings, but it is a LEGAL term for a specific set of circumstances where there is wiggle room, we'll call it, for personal opinion to interfere in the legal process. This is undeniable in DP cases. How many more sources would you like besides the ones I have provided?
 
Mensch is using the correct legal terminology (legalese). Arbitrariness in a legal judgement is a decision made at the discretion of the judge, not one that is fixed by law. When the death penalty is a possibility, the judge decides yes or no, when it comes to sentencing the judge decides yes or no.

As long as the Judge is restricted by the law and the charges applied it isn't arbitrary. Arbitrary would be that the Judge could sentence any person convicted of any crime to death and that is not the case. If I am convicted of murder and the DP was not being sought the Judge cannot sentence me to death. There are restrictions. End of story.
 
You put in bold the wrong part... without restriction is the pertinent part. They are restricted within the bounds of the law. The Judge cannot put somebody to death that has not been brought up on the correct charges and without having the DA seeking the DP. It isn't arbitrary.

The fact is, when it comes time to sentence, is the final decision made by the prosecutors or the judge? It is made by the judge. What you brought up are not restrictions. They are conditions which must be met before the final decision can be made. But when the final decision is made, it is done so by a single individual who can arbitrarily decide to put someone to death, put someone away for life, or hand out the minimum sentence.
 
"we uphold life as the most important"
but, we also make elaborate plans to take away life we deem not important

integrity

I edited that last word for you...
 
The police DO NOT DECIDE. They can NOT arrest a person that is not guilty of a crime. If they purposely move slow or ignore evidence then the police are guilty of a crime. The DA can have the suspect arrested even if the police don't think that they have the evidence needed. That is how the law works. I don't care how you try to manipulate the facts... you are wrong.

So the police have never ignored evidence, never planted evidence, never clouded the issues....
You that is untrue.

As for prosecutors:

Regrettably, the evidence is clear that prosecutorial discretion is systematically exercised to the disadvantage of black and Hispanic Americans. Prosecutors are not, by and large, bigoted. But as with police activity, prosecutorial judgment is shaped by a set of self-perpetuating racial assumptions.

Chapter Two: Race and Prosecutorial Discretion - The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
 
The fact is, when it comes time to sentence, is the final decision made by the prosecutors or the judge? It is made by the judge. What you brought up are not restrictions. They are conditions which must be met before the final decision can be made. But when the final decision is made, it is done so by a single individual who can arbitrarily decide to put someone to death, put someone away for life, or hand out the minimum sentence.

Semantics...

Main Entry: restriction  [ri-strik-shuhn] Show IPA/rɪˈstrɪkʃən/ Show Spelled
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: limit
Synonyms: ball and chain, bounds, brake, catch, check, circumscription, condition, confinement, constraint, containment, contraction, control, cramp, curb, custody, demarcation, excess baggage, fine print, glitch*, grain of salt, handicap, hang-up, inhibition, limitation, limits, lock*, no-no, qualification, regulation, reservation, restraint, rule, small difficulty, stint, stipulation, stricture, string, stumbling block


Restrictions Synonyms, Restrictions Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
 
I edited that last word for you...

do you see the hypocrisy in your statement. Why is it ethical to "uphold life as most important" and then add an exception to kill some of those lives?

How is determining which life has value ethical?
 
Well this is just subjective. For me avenging my nieces would be far more honorable than letting the guy go.

No one is suggesting we "let him go." But if you're violent enough to torture another human being, how does that make you more honorable than the perp?

It does neither. If you have the schematic to make half a computer then by the time you are done using that schematic you still don't have a fully functioning computer. As such it could be considered as not even being a computer. Especially since the other half of the schematic that you don't have could change the function of something in the part of the schematic that you do have.

You can't compare subjective social science to computer science.

Or put another way if you walk into a room where someone is kneeling over a dead body and they have blood on them does that automatically make them the killer? Or is it possible that the person just found the dead person and had tried to keep them alive or revive them instead? When you only have half the information it is easy to assume that the person is the killer and not the failed savior.

That fact regarding a person kneeling over the dead body with blood on his hands WOULD HAVE TO be considered in court. You simply cannot ignore it, just like you cannot ignore the fact that violent crime is not lower in states with a DP. It may not be the smoking gun of evidence, but it definitely must be considered.

In otherwords an incomplete fact is not a fact at all...but a theory at best.

A statistic is not a theory. The only one proposing a hypothesis (less reputable than a theory) is you.

Nor can you prove a positive with only half the information. As such you can't just claim that it isn't a deterrent.

Let me try and explain it. "Death penalty is a deterrence" is a claim not based on fact. "Death penalty is not a deterrence" is a claim that originates from a lack of evidence proving that the DP is, in fact, a deterrence. You can't prove a negative with evidence because the evidence is non-existant. It's very much like proving Santa Clauses doesn't exist. If Santa Clause does exist, you would be able to provide evidence of its existence. If Santa Clause does not existence, it would be impossible to provide an absence of evidence to prove what doesn't exist.
 
do you see the hypocrisy in your statement. Why is it ethical to "uphold life as most important" and then add an exception to kill some of those lives?

How is determining which life has value ethical?

explains the rightness of actions in terms of the goodness of the state of affairs that occurs because of that action. If some action genuinely brings about greater good in the world, then it is a right action, and this rightness is independent of the nature of the action or the intentions of the person carrying out the action.

Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.

In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762

Rousseau: Social Contract
 
The judge does not make the sentence. They must follow the guidelines set forth by society.

Yes, the judge does make the sentence. As I said, in certain cases, the death penalty would be restricted. But when it is an option, that means the judge is faced with an option to either execute the convicted or to put him/her away for x amount of years. At that point, the only thing restricting him is his own conscience.
 
Back
Top Bottom