• 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
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.

So now there is another difference. LOL You certainly have a lot of different rules you go by to still be able to remain pro life. Seems you support a lot of killing to be called pro life. I'm pro choice and against military killing and the death penalty so I am against two of the three and you support two of the three so that makes me more pro life than you. If you do the math.
 
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.

Well, I'd say that we have that in common. I have justification for them as well. That's one of the problems with being a thinking human. We can all come up with justifications, based on our beliefs of how things should be, and what we view as right and wrong. I believe that one who murders another forfeits his humanity in commiting that act. I am pro-choice, not because I believe a fetus is not a human (because I believe it is), but because of personal property rights of the woman who must make her own choice.
 
So now there is another difference. LOL You certainly have a lot of different rules you go by to still be able to remain pro life. Seems you support a lot of killing to be called pro life. I'm pro choice and against military killing and the death penalty so I am against two of the three and you support two of the three so that makes me more pro life than you. If you do the math.

You seem to be under the impression that I am not pro-choice.
 
taxigirl said:
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

The hell it isn't. Tell you what - break into my place at night sometime and try to lift my stereo. We'll see if it's my decision to make.

who was more innocent? who can contribute more? who had cause? ask enough of those questions and it becomes eugenics.

No it's not. It's mathematics. It is completely logical to rationalize and impose some sort of static figure to a human being's value. A doctor has more purpose and a greater net benefit to society than a drug dealer. A lawyer (ugh) has more to give than a panhandler. I don't give a flipping DAMN what some men wrote down in the 18th century - if you think all men are equal, you're blind.

But for this topic, killing another human being who does not wish to die is wrong

Murderers deny innocents that basic right to life, so I sure won't slight the State for denying a murderer that same right. I also use that term "right" very loosely, as very few things I see today are "rights". If you kill another, your own life should be forfeit. I don't care about deterrence. If we took a stronger stance on capital punishment, made it cheaper, and made a demonstrable stance that if you kill another in cold blood that you are slated to die, it would send a strong stance to the populace. The only way we can "scare straight" our people is to make heinous crimes so unfathomable through punishment that they think twice. I'm talking three-hots-and-a-cot, manual labor, solitary, etc. We coddle prisoners today so much that many are not only without fear of incarceration, but embrace it. When prison comes with pain, humiliation, solitude, and potential death, then people can weigh the pros and cons about committing the worst of atrocities.
 
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?

.
You may not like it or disagree, but indeed it is a decision for us to make and has been since our distant ancestors started forming communities. At one time it was merely the strongest who meted out justice as the saw fit, today society has developed codified laws to define crime and punishment. With time the laws have changed, but society has always decided what they would become. There is no higher earthly authority, and that includes your conscience.
 
A great many violent criminals are themselves the victims of violence and torment. Raised in abusive homes, trapped in poverty, and the likelihood of a sustaining job that can get them out of poverty is extremely slim. When the only option presented to a person is violence, like joining a gang, committing robberies, or dealing drugs, then violence is where they will go. Most times, violent crime is a result of the bad conditions in which a person lives. Human beings are community oriented creatures. We do seek to be productive members of society. We do not seek to disrupt the world around us. Violent criminals become that way because they feel like they don't have a choice.

A truly evil person is one who wantonly hurts others, and doesn't care for the consequences. An evil person does it over and over, often because they are above the reach of their victims. A thug who shoots a store clerk, while clearly doing a bad thing, isn't a fundamentally evil person. These people aren't monsters, and they can be rehabilitated. They want a comfortable life, and want to be safe, law-abiding people. Really evil people, who might actually deserve death are power mongers and tyrants, like Saddam or Mubarak, and callous greedy pigs, like the bankers and business leaders who promote strife and war for personal profit, or who gut the economy and put millions out of work and out of their homes, just to fatten their purses.

A desperate soul, pushed to his last resort and commits a violent act, is not an evil person, and can be redeemed. An uncaring person, who callously hurts others over and over and over, is really evil. The death penalty, as a means to punish violent criminals, does not help. It destroys a life that could still do some good. Only a life that is consistently committed to destruction deserves to be snuffed out.
 
The hell it isn't. Tell you what - break into my place at night sometime and try to lift my stereo. We'll see if it's my decision to make.
Self Defense is another issue, sorry I forgot to mention it.


No it's not. It's mathematics. It is completely logical to rationalize and impose some sort of static figure to a human being's value. A doctor has more purpose and a greater net benefit to society than a drug dealer. A lawyer (ugh) has more to give than a panhandler. I don't give a flipping DAMN what some men wrote down in the 18th century - if you think all men are equal, you're blind.

What if that panhandler steps out and prevents that lawyer from missing the curb and being hit by a bus? What if that lawyer has his client who raped a 4 year old released? The rapist is now on the way to see another little girl. After that occurs the girl goes to the doctor who does a blood test and when then results come back HIV+ he does not tell the little girl and her family because he believes that HIV does not cause AIDS and that is a bunch of hooey. That little girl then grows up and has unprotected sex as a teenager because her school teaches abstinence only and she infects a boy with HIV, that boy was supposed to become a doctor who would cure pancreatic cancer. He dies young. Now you are sitting on your death bed with pancreatic cancer only four months after its diagnosis because it is pretty brutal wondering what you did in your good life that caused you to have this happen to you at such a young age. You then see that freed rapist on TV giving speeches on how to avoid HIV, hmm, how'd he get there?

Who do you blame? Who is the better person here? The one who did contribute --the panhandler -- the one who would have contributed -- the young boy--, the one who ends up contributing -- the rapist-- , the one who almost died -- the lawyer, the side characters (those instituting the abstinence only policy) the good and bad one -- the doctor, OR The one sitting on a bed with pancreatic cancer, sitting in judgement of the rest of the world. Kind of weird to have all that power huh?
 
Last edited:
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."

Not all of us look up to Jesus as the epitome of philosophical Right and Wrong. Some of us follow much older tenants. Even when I WAS a Christian, I couldn't find much redeeming value in the New Testament. The Old Testament always seemed to make a lot more sense to me.
 
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.

Most of us refer to ourselves as ANTI-Abortion, not Pro-Life. I have never been Pro-Life when it comes to the VAST majority of human beings I have ever met. However, I am ANTI-Abortion and Pro-Death Penalty.
 
A great many violent criminals are themselves the victims of violence and torment. Raised in abusive homes, trapped in poverty, and the likelihood of a sustaining job that can get them out of poverty is extremely slim. When the only option presented to a person is violence, like joining a gang, committing robberies, or dealing drugs, then violence is where they will go. Most times, violent crime is a result of the bad conditions in which a person lives.

That is the problem that we've been propagating with our welfare programs. Alot of young men are being raised in a culture without any decent strong male role models. They turn to the gang for acceptance and a feeling of belonging. As long as we endorse that lifestyle, by supporting the culture and lifestyle which facilitates it, these young men have a very slim chance of success at anything besides being a criminal.
 
We as a society have agreed to give up some of our natural rights in exchange for
living within and being protected within the bounds of law.
When a member of our society repeatably refuses to accept the established boundaries, they can are are
punished for being outside the law (outlaw).
At the point, the courts determine that a person will NEVER accept the law,
The only choice is the permanent removal from society.
Capital Punishment is not so much about execution, as the irrevocable removal of all civil rights!
 
That is the problem that we've been propagating with our welfare programs. Alot of young men are being raised in a culture without any decent strong male role models. They turn to the gang for acceptance and a feeling of belonging. As long as we endorse that lifestyle, by supporting the culture and lifestyle which facilitates it, these young men have a very slim chance of success at anything besides being a criminal.

i am all for alternatives. what do you have to offer?
 
i am all for alternatives. what do you have to offer?

Stop paying for women to have illigitimate babies. It's pretty simple. Require people to be responsible for their own choices, and live with the consequences of their actions. It's not complicated at all.
 
Most of us refer to ourselves as ANTI-Abortion, not Pro-Life. I have never been Pro-Life when it comes to the VAST majority of human beings I have ever met. However, I am ANTI-Abortion and Pro-Death Penalty.
That sounds rational.
 
taxigirl said:
What if that panhandler steps out and prevents that lawyer from missing the curb and being hit by a bus? What if that lawyer has his client who raped a 4 year old released? The rapist is now on the way to see another little girl. After that occurs the girl goes to the doctor who does a blood test and when then results come back HIV+ he does not tell the little girl and her family because he believes that HIV does not cause AIDS and that is a bunch of hooey. That little girl then grows up and has unprotected sex as a teenager because her school teaches abstinence only and she infects a boy with HIV, that boy was supposed to become a doctor who would cure pancreatic cancer. He dies young. Now you are sitting on your death bed with pancreatic cancer only four months after its diagnosis because it is pretty brutal wondering what you did in your good life that caused you to have this happen to you at such a young age. You then see that freed rapist on TV giving speeches on how to avoid HIV, hmm, how'd he get there?

Who do you blame? Who is the better person here? The one who did contribute --the panhandler -- the one who would have contributed -- the young boy--, the one who ends up contributing -- the rapist-- , the one who almost died -- the lawyer, the side characters (those instituting the abstinence only policy) the good and bad one -- the doctor, OR The one sitting on a bed with pancreatic cancer, sitting in judgement of the rest of the world. Kind of weird to have all that power huh?

Ah, excessive use of the words "what if". You sure are living up to that socialist tag.

Try a valid argument instead of a bunch of non-sequiturs and idealist hippie bullcrap.
 
Ah, excessive use of the words "what if". You sure are living up to that socialist tag.

Try a valid argument instead of a bunch of non-sequiturs and idealist hippie bullcrap.

No it's not. It's mathematics. It is completely logical to rationalize and impose some sort of static figure to a human being's value. A doctor has more purpose and a greater net benefit to society than a drug dealer. A lawyer (ugh) has more to give than a panhandler. I don't give a flipping DAMN what some men wrote down in the 18th century - if you think all men are equal, you're blind.
.

The non-sequitors you speak of are an example of what can happen in life when presented with the figures you gave me to work with. The logic is to look at a variety of possibilities. The chance you take in looking at things this way is finding out something about ourselves.

If you want to see it as mathematics then know that certainty is never absolute in practice. My "what if's" are an example of chaos theory. Even a very small error in knowledge of initial conditions can result in arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behavior. Chaos theory thus explains why it may be practically impossible to predict real life, whether determinism is true or false. On the other hand, the issue may not be so much about human abilities to predict or attain certainty as much as it is the nature of reality itself.

As for the personal attack... yes I am a goddamn dirty hippie.
 
Going back a century, I will concede that. The rest are cases championed by anit-dp activist who search for anyone who is to be executed where there might me some discrepancy in the trial, ignoring all other evidence. This in no way proves innocence. Once convicted, the presumed innocent doctrine obviously no longer applies. In fact it is telling of the weakness of the argument that Willingham is the poster boy of the anti-dp crowd. He would have easily been convicted even without the arson forensics. The are courts and objective people do not automatically accept the findings of dp activists.

I am for the death penalty, but I still think that Willingham was innocent. And there is very little chance that he would have been convicted without the arson forensics, since experts could show a definite doubt that arson even occurred.

In order for anything to be a crime you must have intent and action together. Even if he may have wanted to kill his children or was happy that they died (which I really don't think is the case considering the conflicting/changing witness statements involved in his case), if there is doubt that the fire was intentionally set, then there is no crime, at least not one deserving the DP.
 
Not all of us look up to Jesus as the epitome of philosophical Right and Wrong. Some of us follow much older tenants. Even when I WAS a Christian, I couldn't find much redeeming value in the New Testament. The Old Testament always seemed to make a lot more sense to me.

As I said before: 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.
 
I am for the death penalty, but I still think that Willingham was innocent. And there is very little chance that he would have been convicted without the arson forensics, since experts could show a definite doubt that arson even occurred.
Experts could not show doubt that arson occurred, definite or otherwise. They could simply not conclude that arson definitely occurred. These are two very different findings.
 
Experts could not show doubt that arson occurred, definite or otherwise. They could simply not conclude that arson definitely occurred. These are two very different findings.

Well if they cannot show that arson didn't occur, then they have no grounds to prosecute someone for the crime of arson, yes?
 
As I said before: 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.

That's fine. As I said, I don't agree with it on a philosophical level any more than on a religious one. I'm much more of an "eye for an eye" type than the "forgive and forget" type. I just hope that at no point in your life do you experience the sort of things that will make you wake up and see the world for the way it truly is..... A Dog eat Dog experience where only the Strong survive. There are only two types of people in the world... Predators and Prey. If you aren't the first, you're definitely the second.
 
I couldn't take a life myself, so I don't think I should support someone else doing it for me.
 
Experts could not show doubt that arson occurred, definite or otherwise. They could simply not conclude that arson definitely occurred. These are two very different findings.

No. There was no evidence of arson. They could show a reasonable doubt that arson even occurred, which would easily satisfy an acquittal that a person had to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". How can anyone be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when there is a reasonable doubt that a crime even occurred?

They had no evidence of accelerant anywhere inside that house. They only had a fire investigator who said that he had seen many marks like that before, and they always indicated arson. Yet, experts proved that the marks being referred to were almost never caused by arson, but rather a large influx of air hitting the fire, raising its temperature.

I have read up on this case extensively and this guy never would have been convicted if not for the fire investigator's claim that the fire was arson.
 
Back
Top Bottom