• 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
barbarian_style said:
Would you like to hear from your kids murderer 20 years later clambering he found "Jesus" I know how I would feel, do you?
Click to expand...
I'd feel regret that this did not happen 20 years eariler...that is, of course, that the "found Jesus" is genuine..often, it is not..
I fail to see what good comes from the DP (death penalty).
 
taxigirl said:
You asked for one and you got one.

"Once convicted, the presumed innocent doctrine obviously no longer applies" Now it sounds like you believe we should not even be trying to exonerate others.
Click to expand...
Historically, it is obvious innocent people have been executed in the US and elsewhere. Standards of justice, proof and forensics are have been vastly improved over time. For example, DNA can solidify cases against the defendants and exonerate those already convicted. We can agree this is for the best.

Your second comment is clearly petulant. Presumed innocent does not apply to those convicted. I would have thought that much would have been obvious. This is important because the newer forensics techniques on the arson aspect of the Willingham trial did not prove that the fire was started by accident, which would have been the first step to exonerate him. While his children were burning in the house this piece of **** was trying to move his car away from the house to prevent damage.
 
Last edited:
Meathead said:
Historically, it is obvious innocent people have been executed in the US and elsewhere. Standards of justice, proof and forensics are have been vastly improved over time. For example, DNA can solidify cases against the defendants and exonerate those already convicted. We can agree this is for the best.

Your second comment is clearly petulant. Presumed innocent does not apply to those convicted. I would have thought that much would have been obvious. This is important because the newer forensics techniques on the arson aspect of the Willingham trial did not prove that the fire was started by accident, which would have been the first step to exonerate him. While his children were burning in the house this piece of **** was trying to move his car away from the house to prevent damage.
Click to expand...

The state fire marshal resigned 3 months ago, just as they are starting the investigation in conjunction with the Texas Forensic Science Commission. How can you say that "the newer forensics techniques on the arson aspect of the Willingham trial did not prove that the fire was started by accident" when the state has just started the official investigation in to what techniques the fire marshal's office used?
 
Ikari said:
Depends on how we're defining evil here. Particularly when we have use of a prison system which provides the same amount of relative "safety" to society on whole as does the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Capital punishment is just that: punishment. Deterrence is irrelevant and removing them from society is a minimum. Death is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.



A dog isn't human and thus is not morally equivalent. And by using the death penalty, you KNOW that eventually you're going to consume innocent life. So you really aren't showing the value you place upon innocent human life because you are invoking a system which takes it.
Click to expand...
Kidnapping, raping,and murdering a child is not a human act. It is an act of a monster. I have no problem putting monsters down.

grip said:
If you kill even one innocent person was the justification for killing thousands of guilty worth it?
Click to expand...
That an innocent man might be killed is the only real reason to oppose capital punishment. But what about those cases where guilt is not in doubt? If you dont support the death penalty for those essentially caught red handed, then using the execution of innocents as an excuse is a red herring.
 
taxigirl said:
The state fire marshal resigned 3 months ago, just as they are starting the investigation in conjunction with the Texas Forensic Science Commission. How can you say that "the newer forensics techniques on the arson aspect of the Willingham trial did not prove that the fire was started by accident" when the state has just started the official investigation in to what techniques the fire marshal's office used?
Click to expand...
Basically because the forensics did not prove the fire was started by accident. To win a retrial, Willingham's lawyer had to show that no reasonable jury would convict, based on clear and convincing evidence of his client's innocence. That was simply not forthcoming. If you have a problem with legal procedure, then you should probably address that in this case.
 
Meathead said:
Basically because the forensics did not prove the fire was started by accident. To win a retrial, Willingham's lawyer had to show that no reasonable jury would convict, based on clear and convincing evidence of his client's innocence. That was simply not forthcoming. If you have a problem with legal procedure, then you should probably address that in this case.
Click to expand...

You did not answer my question:

How can you say that "the newer forensics techniques on the arson aspect of the Willingham trial did not prove that the fire was started by accident" when the state has just started the official investigation in to what techniques the fire marshal's office used?
 
taxigirl said:
You did not answer my question:

How can you say that "the newer forensics techniques on the arson aspect of the Willingham trial did not prove that the fire was started by accident" when the state has just started the official investigation in to what techniques the fire marshal's office used?
Click to expand...
You have not provided a link that I know of about the review, but it is rather obvious that whatever they are reviewing are not the latest forensics on the case which could not conclude the fire was started by accident. They are reviewing the forensics used in the original trial which concluded that the fire was arson. Is that not clear for some reason?
 
Meathead said:
You have not provided a link that I know of about the review, but it is rather obvious that whatever they are reviewing are not the latest forensics on the case which could not conclude the fire was started by accident. They are reviewing the forensics used in the original trial which concluded that the fire was arson. Is that not clear for some reason?
Click to expand...

"New Science"


State Fire Marshal Resigns as Arson Inquiry Begins — Cameron Todd Willingham | The Texas Tribune

Here is a compilation of stories regarding the case.
Topic: Cameron Todd Willingham | The Texas Tribune
 
Last edited:
Meathead said:
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.
Click to expand...
Trying means they are in the act of committing the crime or show intent to commit the crime. Like I said, if your family is in danger, its well within your right to protect them. Further, lets say person A sees person B kill person A's whole family but person A is in no danger of being killed themselves. If person A decides to kill person B, person A will be guilty of manslaughter. What's the difference in person A killing person B then as opposed to person B being executed later?
My fourth point is not easily solved. I haven't heard of any legislation being proposed that supports your version of a briefer appeals process. Its very easy for us to sit back and say we can just change the system. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. We have to work within the process we currently have. Also, your appeals process seems to assume that the person is guilty and the process is just a check in the box. The appeals process we currently use has exonerated many people wrongly convicted. Sometimes very late in the process due to technology developments.
Innocence and the Death Penalty: Assessing The Danger of Mistaken Executions | Death Penalty Information Center
 
earthworm said:
I'd feel regret that this did not happen 20 years eariler...that is, of course, that the "found Jesus" is genuine..often, it is not..
I fail to see what good comes from the DP (death penalty).
Click to expand...

I fail to see what good comes from keeping murderers locked up like animals, when they have killed another human, and have thus shown themselves to be a serious threat to society.
 
lizzie said:
I fail to see what good comes from keeping murderers locked up like animals, when they have killed another human, and have thus shown themselves to be a serious threat to society.
Click to expand...

Yup, take them out, put a bullet in the back of their heads, be done with it. No point in wasting perfectly good air on these monsters.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Yeah, nor worries man. You join the ranks of a lot of other people who think the gov't is looking out for their best interests.What is capital "punishment" anyway? Is that really a punishment? What's the difference in killing someone or locking them away forever? Do you ever see them again? Do you run into them on the street if you don't kill them? No, you don't. So, capital "punishment" is nothing more than an automaton like you's solution because you and people like you have the childish mindset of "well......he did it first!"
Click to expand...

To the bolded: I don't at all think government is looking out for my best interest, and if someone made a threat on my person, I would readily kill him in self-defense. The government fails to address murderers in the law-abiding individual's best interest.
 
JusticeForSome? said:
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.
Click to expand...

The person who murders another has indeed proclaimed his own right to decide who lives and who dies. It is for this reason that it is perfectly justifiable to provide punishment equal to the crime in this case.
 
taxigirl said:
So I should count you among the folks willing to take another human life.
Click to expand...

I don't consider that once a human has committed murder, he's really in the human class anymore. Have you visited any prisons lately? The kinds that house hardened criminals? They are little more than zoos.
 
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...

It doesn't give you satisfaction, and it should never give you satisfaction. This is about justice for a heinous crime committed against a fellow human. I have no qualms at all about assigning death to a murderer. They have forfeited their rights to be treated as humans when they become animalistic.
 
lizzie said:
It doesn't give you satisfaction, and it should never give you satisfaction. This is about justice for a heinous crime committed against a fellow human. I have no qualms at all about assigning death to a murderer. They have forfeited their rights to be treated as humans when they become animalistic.
Click to expand...

An eye for an eye? That's really enlightened.

Jesus of Nazareth: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
 
taxigirl said:
An eye for an eye? That's really enlightened.

Jesus of Nazareth: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
Click to expand...

If I were Christian, I might give some credence to that, but this is about justice, and not about philosophy for me. If you want to turn the other cheek and make yourself vulnerable to the whims of animalistic people, then that is fine with me. I personally value my own life to be as important as anyone elses, and I am not ashamed or hesitant to preserve my own life. I am not a martyr, nor do I pretend to be.
 
lizzie said:
If I were Christian, I might give some credence to that, but this is about justice, and not about philosophy for me. If you want to turn the other cheek and make yourself vulnerable to the whims of animalistic people, then that is fine with me. I personally value my own life to be as important as anyone elses, and I am not ashamed or hesitant to preserve my own life. I am not a martyr, nor do I pretend to be.
Click to expand...

I am not christian. I do not subscribe to any organized religion. That does not mean that the words others have no meaning.
 
I wonder how many of the pretend pro lifers are for the death penalty? LOL and they call themselves pro life. hehehe Anyway no there should not be a death penalty.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I wonder how many of the pretend pro lifers are for the death penalty? LOL and they call themselves pro life. hehehe Anyway no there should not be a death penalty.
Click to expand...

The difference lies in the distinction between innocent life, as opposed to those who have taken innocent lives.
 
lizzie said:
The difference lies in the distinction between innocent life, as opposed to those who have taken innocent lives.
Click to expand...

Oh so there is a difference between one life and another and you want to play god and say which you think has the right to life. How benevolent of you. So what do you say about the military that have killed so many innocents?
 
lizzie said:
Who said they have no meaning?
Click to expand...

My point was that even though I am not christian I can garner meaning from religious words, which hold true or express what my feelings are on a subject. On this subject I think turning the other cheek is more humane and imposing the death penalty is just as or even more animalistic than what the criminals have done.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Oh so there is a difference between one life and another and you want to play god and say which you think has the right to life. How benevolent of you. So what do you say about the military that have killed so many innocents?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between someone who has not murdered and one who has. As for military, that's state-sanctioned, and I'm pacifist unless someone brings violence to me personally.
 
taxigirl said:
My point was that even though I am not christian I can garner meaning from religious words, which hold true or express what my feelings are on a subject. On this subject I think turning the other cheek is more humane and imposing the death penalty is just as or even more animalistic than what the criminals have done.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anyone did. Because I am atheist many people believe that should not quote any religious, so I cut that criticism off at the pass by acknowledging that those words can have meaning for "unbelievers" as well.

As for the taking of lives-- It does not matter whose life you took. A good guy / a bad guy etc... that is not a decision for us to make -- who was more innocent? who can contribute more? who had cause? ask enough of those questions and it becomes eugenics. Killing is wrong, state sanctioned killing is possibly worse because the state claims to act on behalf of its citizens -- including me-- and I want no part of it.

Now to cut this off at the pass: Yes, I am pro-choice. I do not want people to have abortions but that is up to them. Their body their choice. Don't argue with me about when life begins because that is not for us to judge either, it is a philosophical not scientific question (Not science because it cannot be proven when a soul "awakens" and it will never be solved unless someone has some sort of connection to whoever hands out souls, or whatever you want to believe.

Yes, I believe in assisted suicide. If someone has to live in pain and their quality of life is so low that they have lost will to live then yes, someone please help them end the suffering. We do it for our pets.

Some may say these views are contradictory, but I have justification for all of them. Find me in an appropriate forum and i'll explain. But for this topic, killing another human being who does not wish to die is wrong no caveat here for abortions yet, but that is because I can't figure out when "life" begins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom