• 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
Your premise is wrong. If my child misbehaves, and I punish them, am I seeking revenge? No. In that case, I am seeking to deter my child from future poor choices. Punishment can be adequately metered out without an ounce of revenge being present. In fact, inadequate punishment, in the same case, would not be merciful - if the punishment failed to teach about justice and and/or to deter from future poor choices, the child could suffer a much worse fate later on - my lack of punishment would actually be cruelty and/or a lack of care.

Justice is establishing a rule with some level of measured punishment for breaking the rule. Cheat? - punishment measured by loss of opportunity for the test or class or the harm done to the institution. Steal? - punishment measured by value of item and harm to society for such actions.

How else can the value of taking a life be adequately measured except with life?

The Bible very clearly teaches about love and mercy, yes. But it is equally clear about justice. It's the very premise of the need for Christ's sacrifice. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same.

I'm not real clear here if you are anti or pro DP. By looking at the post you are responding to I would say you are pro.
If the bible and the tenets of your belief which the bible organizes are your only (and I include your interpretation of justice within that) justification for the murder of another human being, I only have one thing to say and I will keep saying until someone gets it because killing is wrong, killing is bad. My one thing is this:

THE BIBLE IS NOT A WEAPON
 
Last edited:
Our conservatives also write the laws, but, this too is public info...
Now we have a President, Barak "Change" Obama and he is discovering that change is anathema to conservatives....and to many so called liberals.
Note that the more socially advanced states have no death penalty.
In other states, vengeance rules the day..
Would you believe, a trillion dollars was spent to execute Osama bin Laden......

Do me a favor bro. You want to debate me? That's fine. But don't put your words into my post in bold red. It looks like I said it. I don't want someone to mistake your incoherent words as mine.
 
If the person or people are 100% guilty of Murder or rape then yes they deserve to die.
 
The Death Penalty;

I believe that it needs to be altered in such a way as to conform to this precept:

The whole point of prisons, fines and sentences is to discourage and rehabilitate those who break the respective law. The death sentence however by itself is not rehabilitative, and of slight discouragement value. Therefore should the death penalty be removed from options a judge can offer and left to a board of review in the prison system. This board would determine the actual issuance of the death sentence based on certain criteria; such as. Will the individual ever leave prison within their reasonable lifetime? Has the individual committed crimes or acted in such a way as to believe that he is beyond rehabilitation? Does the individual exert a negative influence on fellow inmates whom are attempting to reform?

In short; the death sentence should be utilized to remove individuals from prison that in effect "take up space" and will never contribute again; and the BS about contributing from prison does not apply.

In many ways this is an act of mercy. We will not allow the individual out, and it is cruel to leave him in a cell which we all know he would never leave. Those who claim that he should stay there to "suffer" are bringing the wrong element to what prisons stand for. Should it be unpleasant, yes. Uncomfortable, certainly. Cruel, NO. Torturous, NO. Rehabilitative, yes.
 
This is just weird.

Does this woman deserve the death penalty? Is she a threat to others? I don't even really understand what happened.

Prosecutors seek death penalty in killing of Alabama third-grader - CNN.com

-- Alabama prosecutors will seek the death penalty against a grandmother who authorities say forced her granddaughter to run as punishment for eating chocolate, an official said Tuesday.

Joyce Garrard, 46, is facing a capital murder charge in her granddaughter's death, said Heather Rickles, a spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office in Etowah County, Alabama.

Authorities say Savannah Hardin died last month after her grandmother and stepmother forced her to run around the family's house for three hours as punishment for lying about taking a chocolate candy bar.
 
This is just weird.

Does this woman deserve the death penalty? Is she a threat to others? I don't even really understand what happened.

No, that does not deserve the death penalty. There was no intent to kill, nor premeditation to murder. The worst crime she is guilty of (imo) is stupidity and cruelty, but murder? No.
 
Yes. The Death Penalty should be used for extreme cases involving murder, rape, molestation or kidnapping.
 
This is just weird.

Does this woman deserve the death penalty? Is she a threat to others? I don't even really understand what happened.

Prosecutors seek death penalty in killing of Alabama third-grader - CNN.com

Later in the story it talks about how the grand mother was out there screaming "Move it! Move it! move it!" like a drill srg. and how the girl was crawling on the ground, crying and begging to be allowed to stop and the adults refused. They didn't even call 911 until the girl had passed out and was unresponsive. Not sure it should be the death penalty but it should be something very severe since this was obscene child abuse at the minimum.
 
there is no "fact" that it is living. Our definition of living may be different or our belief of what constitutes life may be different.

It is a human organism, it is growing and developing. It is most certainly alive.

This is a DP thread, if you want to talk about abortion go to the abortion thread, if you want to talk about when life begins you first need to convince me that I need to engage in that argument. When you have formulated your argument PM me.

I'm addressing a statement you made. You are hardly consistent in saying "killing is always wrong." and then endorse killing for other reasons.
 
I'm not real clear here if you are anti or pro DP. By looking at the post you are responding to I would say you are pro.
If the bible and the tenets of your belief which the bible organizes are your only (and I include your interpretation of justice within that) justification for the murder of another human being, I only have one thing to say and I will keep saying until someone gets it because killing is wrong, killing is bad. My one thing is this:

THE BIBLE IS NOT A WEAPON

I have beliefs other than the bible... does that make killing OK?
 
It is a human organism, it is growing and developing. It is most certainly alive.



I'm addressing a statement you made. You are hardly consistent in saying "killing is always wrong." and then endorse killing for other reasons.

Like I said, This is a DP thread, if you want to talk about abortion go to the abortion thread, if you want to talk about when life begins you first need to convince me that I need to engage in that argument. When you have formulated your argument PM me and we can talk about my beliefs regarding what life is. If you can convince me to believe what you believe I will concede. I have strong feelings about choice but am on the fence about the life issue, so let's go somewhere else to talk about that. This is a DP thread.
 
I have beliefs other than the bible... does that make killing OK?

I was responding to a post that said this "The Bible very clearly teaches about love and mercy, yes. But it is equally clear about justice. It's the very premise of the need for Christ's sacrifice." The poster implied that the bible determines justice, in this case the death penalty which I consider to be far from justice, but a means of revenge and murder. They were using the bible as a weapon.
 
Yes. The Death Penalty should be used for extreme cases involving murder, rape, molestation or kidnapping.

I personally don't support the death penalty for anyone besides murderers who have been proven beyond any doubt that they are guilty. As bad as rape, molestation, and kidnapping are, and can be, no life was taken, so no life should be forfeited.
 
Like I said, This is a DP thread, if you want to talk about abortion go to the abortion thread, if you want to talk about when life begins you first need to convince me that I need to engage in that argument. When you have formulated your argument PM me and we can talk about my beliefs regarding what life is. If you can convince me to believe what you believe I will concede. I have strong feelings about choice but am on the fence about the life issue, so let's go somewhere else to talk about that. This is a DP thread.

My argument is fine. You don't actually believe that killing is always wrong, do you?
 
I personally don't support the death penalty for anyone besides murderers who have been proven beyond any doubt that they are guilty. As bad as rape, molestation, and kidnapping are, and can be, no life was taken, so no life should be forfeited.

I understand. In my opinion a life need not be taken to warrant the death of the criminal... all that is needed is for them to show that they have so little regard for other people as to commit one of those acts for them to face the most extreme and ultimate consequence, their life.
 
I was responding to a post that said this "The Bible very clearly teaches about love and mercy, yes. But it is equally clear about justice. It's the very premise of the need for Christ's sacrifice." The poster implied that the bible determines justice, in this case the death penalty which I consider to be far from justice, but a means of revenge and murder. They were using the bible as a weapon.

I understand that. Are there sometimes that killing is OK?
 
No. Taking a life is wrong, I guess self defense trumps my argument, but that seems like a different topic.

By that standard, abortion would be wrong as well. You could argue that a fetus isn't a human, but it certainly has human DNA and genetic coding, and it certainly is alive. Otoh, you could consider that murderers aren't acting in a human manner, so do they still deserve to be treated humanely.
 
By that standard, abortion would be wrong as well. You could argue that a fetus isn't a human, but it certainly has human DNA and genetic coding, and it certainly is alive. Otoh, you could consider that murderers aren't acting in a human manner, so do they still deserve to be treated humanely.

I never said anything about "human". The arguments about abortion have to prove a fetus is a "person" as defined under the Constitution to gain protection.

Why are people trying to turn the DP argument into a supportive argument against abortion? One has nothing to do with the other. The DP is not used as punishment. It is retribution and revenge, there is no value to the public, it causes more strife and allows the government to kill you under the guise that the "state" ie. the people, are killing you.
 
I never said anything about "human". The arguments about abortion have to prove a fetus is a "person" as defined under the Constitution to gain protection.

Why are people trying to turn the DP argument into a supportive argument against abortion? One has nothing to do with the other. The DP is not used as punishment. It is retribution and revenge, there is no value to the public, it causes more strife and allows the government to kill you under the guise that the "state" ie. the people, are killing you.

It is simply a "consequence" for actions deemed to deserve it and it has nothing to do with revenge. It also has great value for society... it removes an individual that has shown a blatant disregard for fellow humans and their fights.

The reason people keep bringing up abortion, and now I will bring up self defence, is because it shows your position to be inconsistent.
 
I never said anything about "human". The arguments about abortion have to prove a fetus is a "person" as defined under the Constitution to gain protection.

You said "taking a life is wrong". I'm not trying to make the thread about abortion, but taking a life is still killing, whether or not we're talking about a fetal life or a murderer's life.
 
First, not all killing is wrong. War is an obvious exception. To answer the question of when is killing wrong, you need to first answer why killing is wrong.

Second, I cannot support the death penalty for several reasons, including.

a. Absolute proof is rare and, in any event, is not the legal standard used. Juries often misinterpret scientific data. Eye witness testimony is often unreliable. Therefore, the law allows for "reasonable" doubt but how do you counteract a series of horrific photos shown to a jury.

b. We need appeals before the state kills someone and that is more expensive than incarceration.

c. Incarceration is probably more of a punishment than death. Super-max facilities keep you safe but you get out of your cell 1 hour a day. Other prisons are lord of the flies on steroids.

d. Incarceration allows for after-trial evidence to exonerate. We are having a spate of DNA cases resulting in releases. What will be the next scientific breakthrough which shows that thousands have been falsely incarcerated or killed? Science will continue to develop forensic tools.
 
murder is wrong.

killing in war, in self-defense, by accident, is not wrong.

killing as part of the judicial process, in some cases...also isn't wrong.

side note: God says in the Bible "Thou shalt not MURDER". not "kill".
 
You said "taking a life is wrong". I'm not trying to make the thread about abortion, but taking a life is still killing, whether or not we're talking about a fetal life or a murderer's life.

Yes, that is what i have been saying. killing is wrong. our disagreement is about the definition of life, which is another thread.
 
It is simply a "consequence" for actions deemed to deserve it and it has nothing to do with revenge. It also has great value for society... it removes an individual that has shown a blatant disregard for fellow humans and their fights.

The reason people keep bringing up abortion, and now I will bring up self defence, is because it shows your position to be inconsistent.

No. My argument is not inconsistent. The abortion issue, in relation to my statements that killing is wrong, centers on when life begins. If there is no life there can be no taking of of life (killing).

Self defense: You are preventing your life from being taken. Should you allow yourself to be killed? either way it is wrong.

Please tell me how the DP is not revenge. Punishments in our penal system are meant to protect the public, rehabilitate, give closure to victims and act as deterrents. There is substantial research which proves that the DP does not act as a deterrent, it acts to protect the public as much as life in prison. Closure for victims just simply does not occur. It is either not enough or too much and it can never bring back the victim of the condemned.
 
Back
Top Bottom