• 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
cthomp said:
If they commit murder they should pay the price. It is a horrible crime. The person they kill cannot come back and neither should they.
Click to expand...

The person you kill can not come back either. What satisfaction does it give the victims when a murderer is killed?
 
taxigirl said:
The person you kill can not come back either. What satisfaction does it give the victims when a murderer is killed?
Click to expand...

I cannot answer this as I have never experienced this myself. I can only say myself that it is a bit of closure.
 
taxigirl said:
The person you kill can not come back either. What satisfaction does it give the victims when a murderer is killed?
Click to expand...

Would you like to hear from your kids muderer 20 years later clambering he found "Jesus" I know how I would feel, do you?
 
Last edited:
cthomp said:
I cannot answer this as I have never experienced this myself. I can only say myself that it is a bit of closure.
Click to expand...

The death penalty offers a false promise of closure to victims’ families, who are led to believe that an execution will bring relief. While families wait through the lengthy, roller-coaster appeals process, reliving our original pain again and again, the focus remains on the murderer rather that on the victims or on our own anguish as surviving family members. The death penalty is a distraction from victims’ real needs, not a solution.

— New Hampshire Representative Renny Cushing, whose father, Robert, was murdered
Click to expand...

The death penalty won't bring my brother back or help to apprehend his murderer. We need to start investing in programs that will actually improve public safety and get more killers off the streets.

— Judy Kerr, California, whose brother was murdered
Click to expand...
It is vitally important that our state address the needs of surviving family and friends as we struggle to heal. We know that elected officials who promote the death penalty often do so with the best intention of helping family members like us. We are writing to say that there are better ways to help us. The death penalty is a broken and costly system... and victims' families like ours don't want it.

— Letter urging repeal of the death penalty signed by 49 Marylanders who have lost a loved one to murder, Aug. 19, 2008
Click to expand...

Quotes by Families of Homicide Victims | Equal Justice USA

As for those who are convinced they will feel satisfaction: Sister Helen Prejean:
"Vernon Harvey the father said "I can't wait to see him fry." After the execution the press all waited for the Harveys outside the gates of Angola, Louisiana's State Penitentiary. They said "Mr. Harvey you got your wish tonight, you got to watch Robert Lee Willie die. "How do you feel now?" and he answered "He died too quick, I hope he fries in hell for all eternity." He could have watched Robert Lee Willie die and die and die -- and never be satisfied or find peace of mind. I looked across at him --I was standing there in the parking lot outside the prison-- and saw a very thirty man who had just had a long drink of salt water."
 
taxigirl said:
Quotes by Families of Homicide Victims | Equal Justice USA

As for those who are convinced they will feel satisfaction: Sister Helen Prejean:
"Vernon Harvey the father said "I can't wait to see him fry." After the execution the press all waited for the Harveys outside the gates of Angola, Louisiana's State Penitentiary. They said "Mr. Harvey you got your wish tonight, you got to watch Robert Lee Willie die. "How do you feel now?" and he answered "He died too quick, I hope he fries in hell for all eternity." He could have watched Robert Lee Willie die and die and die -- and never be satisfied or find peace of mind. I looked across at him --I was standing there in the parking lot outside the prison-- and saw a very thirty man who had just had a long drink of salt water."
Click to expand...

I still stay strong on my view. This is only 4 families. If someone were to kill one of my family members or friends I would want that person dead.
 
taxigirl said:
The person you kill can not come back either. What satisfaction does it give the victims when a murderer is killed?
Click to expand...

None, but that's not the point, the murderer has proven that they cannot safely exist in society, and the death penalty ensures safety for everyone from any further actions of there's.
 
It all boils down to Retributive Justice - the punishment must fit the crime.
 
When we are born, we are all here for a small amount of time; if anyone foreshortens someone else's time, why shouldn't the same apply to them?
 
cthomp said:
I still stay strong on my view. This is only 4 families. If someone were to kill one of my family members or friends I would want that person dead.
Click to expand...

I could find several more. I used 4 because I thought that would be sufficient to prove my point. Revenge rarely tastes as sweet as it sounds.

It's like having someone finally admit to something they denied. You think it will make you feel better until a few moments after it happens and then you realize it did not feel as good as you thought it would and something is still missing.

Who are we to decide who is truly guilty? What if we execute an innocent person? What if the convicted is mentally ill or disabled?

What about this case, was Stayner's mental capacity a factor? Where did his mental issues come from? What about the effects on his family? Cary Stayner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
barbarian_style said:
Would you like to hear from your kids muderer 20 years later clambering he found "Jesus" I know how I would feel, do you?
Click to expand...
Yup, I would say it is long overdue and do everything and anything possible to help him be with his newly found salvation as soon as possible. What happens after that would be up to "Jesus".
 
ecofarm said:
While I am not familiar with State vs. Federal prosecution in DP cases and I did not mean to refer to States as opposed to Fed, you're welcome.

Bonus clarification:

If the State used rape as a punishment, I think that would encourage rape.
Click to expand...

those who were encouraged to rape would be willing to complete this mission as the volunteers for juctice
 
I voted no. This reminds me of Ghandi's quote "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Firstly, as a matter of principle I really don't find the death penalty to have any real value to society or to even be justified. How does stooping down to the level of a criminal make us any better than them? Just because a killing has been approved by the state does not mean it isn't murder. We as human beings fundamentally should not have the right do decide the final outcome of somebody's life. People will often argue the religious aspect that judgement comes after death; but I argue that even if there is no judgement in life or no "Higher Power", there is no circumstance that justifies our ability to decide who lives and who dies. Prison is a different situation entirely because it restrains people who present themselves as dangers to society and brings justice to heinous crimes.

But death? I don't think that any situation justifies the human ability to play with the mechanisms of death.

Not to mention that on a practical level it shouldn't be justified either. Jesse Tafero, Timothy Evans and Wayne Felker are just 3 examples of people wrongfully executed. It is not our right to put somebody to death, and to do so without the subject actually having committed the crime is a disgrace to humanity, and is the epitome of our violent nature.
 
JusticeForSome? said:
I voted no. This reminds me of Ghandi's quote "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Firstly, as a matter of principle I really don't find the death penalty to have any real value to society or to even be justified. How does stooping down to the level of a criminal make us any better than them? Just because a killing has been approved by the state does not mean it isn't murder. We as human beings fundamentally should not have the right do decide the final outcome of somebody's life. People will often argue the religious aspect that judgement comes after death; but I argue that even if there is no judgement in life or no "Higher Power", there is no circumstance that justifies our ability to decide who lives and who dies. Prison is a different situation entirely because it restrains people who present themselves as dangers to society and brings justice to heinous crimes.

But death? I don't think that any situation justifies the human ability to play with the mechanisms of death.

Not to mention that on a practical level it shouldn't be justified either. Jesse Tafero, Timothy Evans and Wayne Felker are just 3 examples of people wrongfully executed. It is not our right to put somebody to death, and to do so without the subject actually having committed the crime is a disgrace to humanity, and is the epitome of our violent nature.
Click to expand...
Jesse Tafero innocent? Hardly. While it might be in dispute as to whether he or his partner killed to police officers--they blamed each other--he was not an innocent bystander and when caught, the murder weapon was in his possession. The only objection I have is that both men werent executed.
 
JusticeForSome? said:
Not to mention that on a practical level it shouldn't be justified either. Jesse Tafero, Timothy Evans and Wayne Felker are just 3 examples of people wrongfully executed. It is not our right to put somebody to death, and to do so without the subject actually having committed the crime is a disgrace to humanity, and is the epitome of our violent nature.
Click to expand...
You have two contrasting and mutually exclusive arguments here. First, presuming that it is not our right to put somebody to death (an entirely moral stance which others my certainly differ with), it is wrong to kill regardless of innocence or guilt. To execute the innocent is certainly unjust, but a testament to human fallibility rather that violent nature. Their deaths are as non-violent as possible. Tafero and Felker were guilty beyond any significant doubt. Timothy Evans was executed in Britain in the 50s. He was essentially a man of very limited intelligence who had been manipulated by the necrophile/serial killer John Reginald Christie. In his case there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
 
Fletch said:
Jesse Tafero innocent? Hardly. While it might be in dispute as to whether he or his partner killed to police officers--they blamed each other--he was not an innocent bystander and when caught, the murder weapon was in his possession. The only objection I have is that both men werent executed.
Click to expand...

Ah my apologies, I don't know the exact specifics of the case. But regardless, do you truly find it ethically and morally acceptable to put someone to death?
 
JusticeForSome? said:
Ah my apologies, I don't know the exact specifics of the case. But regardless, do you truly find it ethically and morally acceptable to put someone to death?
Click to expand...
I will answer for myself. Yes, I do find in morally and ethically acceptable. What I do find unacceptable is someone dictating what my morals and ethics should be.
 
Fletch said:
I posted about this guy earlier, but my question to you would be, why isnt the death penalty appropriate for someone who would do what he did?
John Couey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
How about this piece of work - Richard Allen Davis:

A San Jose, California, Superior Court jury recommended the death sentence for Davis on August 5, 1996. After the verdict was read, Davis stood and gestured obscenely at the courtroom with both hands. Later, at his formal sentencing, Davis read a statement claiming that Klaas had said to Davis, "Just don’t do me like my dad," just before Davis killed her, implying that Klaas' father was a child molester. Klaas' father, Marc Klaas, reacted angrily and left the courtroom to avoid causing further commotion. Judge Thomas C. Hastings proceeded with the formality of the death sentence, saying "Mr. Davis, this is always a traumatic and emotional decision for a judge. You made it very easy today by your conduct."[


Of course he will die a natural death because California can't bring itself to execute anyone in the name of its people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis
 
Last edited:
Meathead said:
I will answer for myself. Yes, I do find in morally and ethically acceptable. What I do find unacceptable is someone dictating what my morals and ethics should be.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to enforce my own moral values on you. I was genuinely asking whether people thought such action was justified.

And Fletch, wow that is an incredibly disturbing person. At the same time, I don't see how our killing an individual makes anything better? Was he in no way mentally disturbed, out of curiosity?
While I'm all for justice, keep the man in a prison for his entire life (he absolutely deserves it); but I simply can't condone the use of death as a punishment. Taking away somebody's life isn't something that we should have the right to do, in my opinion.
 
I support the death penalty providing in a capital case where the death penalty is on the table, the defendant is afforded a first class defense team that stands up to the assets and advantages of the prosecution. I support the death penalty if this defense team continues to the appeals stage.
 
Few people say just YES always or NO always.

I see a lot of "if", "when", "proof", "heinous" etc... Seems like some people are afraid to say "Yes, I support killing others!" or "No, the Death Penalty is wrong!". Then others can't identify why they feel a certain way. If you're not sure, say that. Don't put all these qualifiers on it because it is not a perfect system and never will be. If you execute people, someone innocent will be executed at some point.

There are many reasons to keep or abolish the death penalty. I can rattle off my list of reasons, but that comes in discussion. I believe the Death Penalty is wrong. That should be obvious from my previous posts, I just wanted to make sure that was clear and I wanted to set an example of how a person can say just yes or no without all the if's ands or buts.
 
Every theory I have heard so far can be shot down.
1) The death penalty is a deterrent. The death penalty does not influence murder rates in any way.
murderratesdpvsnodp.jpg
2) The death penalty is what murderers deserve. You know, because our justice system is perfect.:roll:
List of exonerated death row inmates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) Everyone on here claims they would kill someone if they try to hurt their family. Rightfully so. You're defending your family. But what happens when the guy gets away after doing that and is apprehended? He's not a danger to your family anymore. He's in custody. Now you want him dead just because it makes you feel good. Well, if he hadn't done what he did to make himself feel good, you wouldn't be in that situation to begin with. So what makes you better for doing exactly what he did?
4) It costs more to house them than to kill them. Disproven. You have to factor in the fees to deal with all of the appeals that occur on a capital punishment case. Very expensive.
Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center
 
3) Everyone on here claims they would kill someone if they try to hurt their family. Rightfully so. You're defending your family. But what happens when the guy gets away after doing that and is apprehended? He's not a danger to your family anymore. He's in custody. Now you want him dead just because it makes you feel good. Well, if he hadn't done what he did to make himself feel good, you wouldn't be in that situation to begin with. So what makes you better for doing exactly what he did?
4) It costs more to house them than to kill them. Disproven. You have to factor in the fees to deal with all of the appeals that occur on a capital punishment case. Very expensive.
Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center[/QUOTE]

Your third point is incorrect. I believe most said that the would kill someone if they (seriously) hurt or killed someone they loved, or as they were trying to do so perhaps, but not necessarily if they tried. Obviously, trying to kill someone but not succeeding is not a death penalty crime.

Your fourth point is easily solved. A much briefer appeals process. For example, one automatic appeal and one review from state and federal supreme courts.
 
barbarian_style said:
Go back and please read my existing posts, you will see this is out of scope of my view of the death penalty unless you can state how it isn't, sorry sometimes I misinterpret peoples posts.
Click to expand...

This isn't "out of scope" with anything. This is functionally what happens when you have the death penalty around. Sorry if you don't like reality; but it's what we have to work with.
 
Cephus said:
Cry me a river.
Click to expand...

No, instead I choose to be intelligent on this manner. There are certain things the government is allowed to do and certain purposes for which we put together the system we have. The Courts and the State were restricted in such a way as the State must be able to produce evidence demonstrating the accused guilty, and not the other way around. Everything falls onto the State. The courts were constructed such that innocence needs to be proven, else the individual goes free. It was designed so that one must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. That means that everything is for the individual and the system was meant to release even those who were guilty of crime if not enough evidence is put forth.

As such, we then have the death penalty. Something which certainly had served a purpose in the past; but no longer is necessary. And in our execution of the death penalty we find that not so rarely innocent people get caught up. The solution is not more death penalty, only a monkey would think that. The solution is to think through the costs and benefits of the death penalty to analyze its current worth. However, overall the death penalty provides very little to aggregate society, while costing so much. The benefits of the death penalty do not cover the costs. That's the end all be all.

"Cry me a river"? That's your only comeback. What a truly pathetic post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom