• 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
Mensch said:
You do not have rights over another person's body parts. Until it is able to survive outside the womb, it is a part of the woman's body.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. It is in the womans body, it is not part of the womans body.

According to Christian doctrine, aren't we all born into sin?
Click to expand...

Re-read your sentence.
 
mac said:
The simple truth is that the Death penalty is not murder under US law, nor is it made illegal by international law. . Murder is an illegal killing, the death penalty is not an illegal killing however unjust we may think that is.
Click to expand...

The UN doesn't specify in this case. It only demands that ALL human beings have a right to life.

But I'll go one more time around the rosies. If murder is an illegal killing, than the government of China never murdered its citizens. North Korea never murdered its citizens.
 
I get a huge kick out of some of our left wing friends who say when you execute someone you are taking away their civil rights.......What about the victim? What about their rights?
 
mac said:
Then you don't understand what murder means.
Click to expand...

I understand what the definition of murder means. Unfortunately, the term is used by proponents of the death penalty (again, you claim to be against it but yet spend considerable time and energy defending it) to distinguish between what they consider to be rightful and wrongful killing.

If you ask any rational person whether or not China or North Korea (or a sleuth of other countries) murders its own citizens, you would likely get a "yes" response. Literally, it may be incorrect to consider state-sanctioned killing as murder. But in so many governmental circumstances, the term definitely feels adequate.
 
Mensch said:
The UN doesn't specify in this case. It only demands that ALL human beings have a right to life.
Click to expand...

That's not true, it does both. Just as the US Constitution forbids the taking of human life without due process of law.

But I'll go one more time around the rosies. If murder is an illegal killing, than the government of China never murdered its citizens. North Korea never murdered its citizens.
Click to expand...

If it's consistent with their laws, then it is not. By the way, neither China nor NK are signatories on the UDHR.
 
Navy Pride said:
OK can you tell me what crime and innocent defenseless infant in the womb has committed to kill it....Now a person who is sentenced to death has committed a capital crime such as first degree murder where in a lot of cases he has raped and murdered someones daughter, mother or sisiter............

I wonder if you can see the difference?
Click to expand...

I can recognize your hyperbolic argument. A woman's body is a woman's body. YOU have no moral jurisdiction over someone else's body. As I will continue to say, my skin is my skin and you're not entitled to anything underneath it.

As for killing as punishment, I believe that is considered cruel.
 
Navy Pride said:
I get a huge kick out of some of our left wing friends who say when you execute someone you are taking away their civil rights.......What about the victim? What about their rights?
Click to expand...

Read the constitution. Even the convicted have rights.
 
Mensch said:
I understand what the definition of murder means. Unfortunately, the term is used by proponents of the death penalty (again, you claim to be against it but yet spend considerable time and energy defending it) to distinguish between what they consider to be rightful and wrongful killing.
Click to expand...

Wrongful killing isn't murder. Illegal killing is murder. I'm not defending the death penalty, I'm pointing out to you (for you) what is wrong with your argument.

If you ask any rational person whether or not China or North Korea (or a sleuth of other countries) murders its own citizens, you would likely get a "yes" response. Literally, it may be incorrect to consider state-sanctioned killing as murder. But in so many governmental circumstances, the term definitely feels adequate.
Click to expand...

Well, let's stick to facts instead of feelings, shall we?
 
mac said:
That's not true, it does both. Just as the US Constitution forbids the taking of human life without due process of law.
Click to expand...

Where does the UDHR make exceptions? You should read the work of Benjamin Rush on this issue.

If it's consistent with their laws, then it is not. By the way, neither China nor NK are signatories on the UDHR.
Click to expand...

Neither is the United States. That doesn't justify what they do to their citizens or what we do to ours. Despite the strict literal definition, it is still murder in my mind. A government's decree doesn't justify the wrongful killing of another. Killing is only justified in self-defense.
 
mac said:
Wrongful killing isn't murder. Illegal killing is murder. I'm not defending the death penalty, I'm pointing out to you (for you) what is wrong with your argument.



Well, let's stick to facts instead of feelings, shall we?
Click to expand...

Great! You win! According to your stubborn logic, the Nazis did not murder people in concentration camps. See how many people in the world accept that assertion.
 
Mensch said:
Where does the UDHR make exceptions? You should read the work of Benjamin Rush on this issue.
Click to expand...

"In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=in%20countries%20which%20have%20not%20abolished%20the%20death%20penalty%2C%20sentence%20of%20death%20may%20be%20imposed%20only%20for%20the%20most%20serious%20crimes%20in%20accordance%20with%20the%20law%20in%20force%20at%20the%20time%20of%20the%20commission%20of%20the%20crime%20and%20not%20contrary%20to%20the%20provisions%20of%20the%20present%20covenant%20and%20to%20the%20convention%20on%20the%20prevention%20and%20punishment%20of%20the%20crime%20of%20genocide.%20this%20penalty%20can%20only%20be%20carried%20out%20pursuant%20to%20a%20final%20judgment%20rendered%20by%20a%20competent%20court.&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibanet.org%2FDocument%2FDefault.aspx%3FDocumentUid%3D5482860b-b9bc-4671-a60f-7b236ab9a1a0&ei=hnpiT6bEEM-x0QGq-4i9CA&usg=AFQjCNE6M0l1rqGOE9AvarddPtKpSO_Tmw This is a pretty informative paper on the issue.

Neither is the United States. That doesn't justify what they do to their citizens or what we do to ours. Despite the strict literal definition, it is still murder in my mind. A government's decree doesn't justify the wrongful killing of another. Killing is only justified in self-defense.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are wrong. The US is a signatory.
 
Mensch said:
Great! You win! According to your stubborn logic, the Nazis did not murder people in concentration camps. See how many people in the world accept that assertion.
Click to expand...

We've been over this. It was concluded that their actions were war crimes. Illegal under international law.
 
mac said:
We've been over this. It was concluded that their actions were war crimes. Illegal under international law.
Click to expand...

As you might recall, official war crime conventions did not exist prior to Nuremberg. If we take your stubborn literal adherence to laws and their meaning, it was perfectly legal at the time it was being committed. In fact, that was the main argument pushed forward by the defendants at Nuremberg.
 
Mensch said:
Read the constitution. Even the convicted have rights.
Click to expand...

I have a flash for you. The death penalty is legal in the USA..........I notice you did not respond to my comparison of abortion and the death penalty...You lefties never do....cat got your tongue?
 
mac said:
"In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=in%20countries%20which%20have%20not%20abolished%20the%20death%20penalty%2C%20sentence%20of%20death%20may%20be%20imposed%20only%20for%20the%20most%20serious%20crimes%20in%20accordance%20with%20the%20law%20in%20force%20at%20the%20time%20of%20the%20commission%20of%20the%20crime%20and%20not%20contrary%20to%20the%20provisions%20of%20the%20present%20covenant%20and%20to%20the%20convention%20on%20the%20prevention%20and%20punishment%20of%20the%20crime%20of%20genocide.%20this%20penalty%20can%20only%20be%20carried%20out%20pursuant%20to%20a%20final%20judgment%20rendered%20by%20a%20competent%20court.&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibanet.org%2FDocument%2FDefault.aspx%3FDocumentUid%3D5482860b-b9bc-4671-a60f-7b236ab9a1a0&ei=hnpiT6bEEM-x0QGq-4i9CA&usg=AFQjCNE6M0l1rqGOE9AvarddPtKpSO_Tmw This is a pretty informative paper on the issue.
Click to expand...

That is not the UDHR.


I'm afraid you are wrong. The US is a signatory.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was mistaken on that account.
 
Navy Pride said:
I have a flash for you. The death penalty is legal in the USA..........I notice you did not respond to my comparison of abortion and the death penalty...You lefties never do....cat got your tongue?
Click to expand...

I did. In fact, I responded DIRECTLY to it. Simply read my response.

The fact that the death penalty is legal in this country does not make it right. And if it did, perhaps you should refrain from bringing up abortion.
 
Navy Pride said:
I have a flash for you. The death penalty is legal in the USA..........I notice you did not respond to my comparison of abortion and the death penalty...You lefties never do....cat got your tongue?
Click to expand...

The death penalty is legal in the USA? Really? In every state in the union?
 
Mensch said:
I did. In fact, I responded DIRECTLY to it. Simply read my response.

The fact that the death penalty is legal in this country does not make it right. And if it did, perhaps you should refrain from bringing up abortion.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and you know what that is worth.......Why is that? Because you have no answer when your kind murder in the womb?
 
Removable Mind said:
The death penalty is legal in the USA? Really? In every state in the union?
Click to expand...

So tell me something........How do you feel about abortion? Please be consistent If you don't want to execute mass murderers and such then you shouldnot want to kill innocent babies in the womb.
 
taxigirl said:
Were you asking if I wasn't repsonding to them or you? I have not repsonded to you because in the post where you finally addressed issues concerning the DP you began with the beginning of life again. You know my stance on abortion and the "life" issue and you just had to poke once more. Until you can discuss the DP as its own independent crisis, with very real concerns and consequences.

This is how you opened your post after I said I did not wish to discuss those items for the 4th time and tried to redirect you to the subject of the post.


That is not the beginning of a discussion on the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing abortion. I am arguing what you consider life in order to show that you sometimes allow for the killing of humans and therefore that makes your entire premise that "killing is wrong" incorrect or contradictory.

If you don't want to debate that though, consequently tearing a hole in your argument, then don't even address it. It isn't that hard. Just stick to the part where you asked me about ethics in a condescending way, I answered and you are subsequently ignoring that response. If you don't then I guess you concede the debate.
 
Mensch said:
As you might recall, official war crime conventions did not exist prior to Nuremberg. If we take your stubborn literal adherence to laws and their meaning, it was perfectly legal at the time it was being committed. In fact, that was the main argument pushed forward by the defendants at Nuremberg.
Click to expand...

Well, there had to be a first time...didn't there?
 
Its very hard for some of our left wing friends who want to give Mercy to muderers and rapists yet have no problem not giving mercy to and innocent, defenseless infant in the womb.........

They don't want to talk about it because they can not justify it.
 
Mensch said:
That is not the UDHR.
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear. It is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom