• 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
Well, there had to be a first time...didn't there?

Ok, so we've established that the Nazis murdered people and the millions of dead Ukrainians starved by the Russians? Just killing.
 
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.

I know. I was the one who originally referenced both the UDHR and the ICCPR. It doesn't change the fact that these conventions did not legitimize the death penalty.
 
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?

Yes, it is legal, does not mean it is right. Abortion is legal, some say that is not right. In both cases it is legal so cannot be called "murder" according to people on this thread. I think state-sanctioned killing is murder -- that is my opinion. Also my opinion -- abortion is not murder, most of the time when people disagree with me about abortion it has to do with the beginning of life. I will discuss that in the appropriate thread. This is a death penalty thread.
 
I not only believe in the death penalty for all capital crimes but it should be expanded to include certain criminal convicted of rape and child abuse.

So in other words...you're not a good catholic. Is that what you are saying?
 
Yes, it is legal, does not mean it is right. Abortion is legal, some say that is not right. In both cases it is legal so cannot be called "murder" according to people on this thread. I think state-sanctioned killing is murder -- that is my opinion. Also my opinion -- abortion is not murder, most of the time when people disagree with me about abortion it has to do with the beginning of life. I will discuss that in the appropriate thread. This is a death penalty thread.

And I gave and example of the hypocrites anti death people people are.......

More then LA and NY combined....... Liberals like you have compassion for rapists and murderers.. but none for the baby in the womb. I wonder if you would feel the same if God Forbid your mother, sister or someone else close to you was raped and murdered............Would you still have the same compassion for that scum of the earth?
 
Last edited:
And I gave and example of the hypocrites anti death people people are........Do you have any idea how many people 42,000,000 are?

More then LA and NY combined....... Liberals like you have compassion for rapists and murderers.. but none for the baby in the womb. I wonder if you would feel the same if God Forbid your mother, sister or someone else close to you was raped and murdered............Would you still have the same compassion for that scum of the earth?

this thread is about the death penalty. not abortion.
 
So in other words...you're not a good catholic. Is that what you are saying?

I definitely have my faults, But I do remember the sermon on the mount where Jesus said and I paraphrase " Render to Cesar what is Cesars and render to God what is Gods",.........The death penalty is legal law.
 
this thread is about the death penalty. not abortion.

Yeah but I love the comparison my far out left wing friend and you can't argue it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
And I gave and example of the hypocrites anti death people people are.......

More then LA and NY combined....... Liberals like you have compassion for rapists and murderers.. but none for the baby in the womb. I wonder if you would feel the same if God Forbid your mother, sister or someone else close to you was raped and murdered............Would you still have the same compassion for that scum of the earth?

I have compassion for all things that suffer. Since you appear to be a god fearing man, what ever happened to forgiveness? or this a tenent of religion that is not as important as retribution and sin?
 
I definitely have my faults, But I do remember the sermon on the mount where Jesus said and I paraphrase " Render to Cesar what is Cesars and render to God what is Gods",.........The death penalty is legal law.

So is selling your daughter into slavery.
 
I definitely have my faults, But I do remember the sermon on the mount where Jesus said and I paraphrase " Render to Cesar what is Cesars and render to God what is Gods",.........The death penalty is legal law.

So in other words, you are a cafeteria catholic. Agreed?
 
I know. I was the one who originally referenced both the UDHR and the ICCPR. It doesn't change the fact that these conventions did not legitimize the death penalty.

Perhaps we are using legitimize a bit differently. What they don't do is make it illegal. Therefore it's not murder. I believe it's unjust....but then I believe several legal things are unjust.
 
Perhaps we are using legitimize a bit differently. What they don't do is make it illegal. Therefore it's not murder. I believe it's unjust....but then I believe several legal things are unjust.

Nothing is made "illegal" by the UN or these conventions. We don't even adhere to the ICC.
 
Nothing is made "illegal" by the UN or these conventions. We don't even adhere to the ICC.

So, therefore, by that logic, the death penalty is not murder. :shrug:
 
So, therefore, by that logic, the death penalty is not murder. :shrug:

It is YOUR logic. So, yes, the death penalty is not murder. By that same logic, homicide is not murder.
 
So, therefore, by that logic, the death penalty is not murder. :shrug:

You may have been able to effectively demonstrate that the Nazis murdered their own people...

But you have yet to respond to the numerous other examples I have given. According to your logic, the Nazis murdered, and the Stalinists did not?
 
It is YOUR logic. So, yes, the death penalty is not murder. By that same logic, homicide is not murder.

Homicide is the killing of one human by another. Technically, that can include self defense, though in common usage it is synonymous with murder.

btw, it's not MY logic. It's just logic.

You may have been able to effectively demonstrate that the Nazis murdered their own people...

But you have yet to respond to the numerous other examples I have given. According to your logic, the Nazis murdered, and the Stalinists did not?

I haven't said that Stalinists did not murder.
 
Homicide is the killing of one human by another. Technically, that can include self defense, though in common usage it is synonymous with murder.

btw, it's not MY logic. It's just logic.

Your logic is flawed, given that you conveniently use international standards even when those standards are not necessarily explicit.

And again, if you really want to be strict in your logical undertakings, the Nazis did not murder and they did not commit genocide because those standards were implemented AFTER the fact.

I haven't said that Stalinists did not murder.

No, but your logic would dictate that they did not murder.
 
Your logic is flawed, given that you conveniently use international standards even when those standards are not necessarily explicit.

And again, if you really want to be strict in your logical undertakings, the Nazis did not murder and they did not commit genocide because those standards were implemented AFTER the fact.

My logic is not flawed. Murder is an illegal killing. It's really that simple. The only reason we are talking about international law is because you brought up the Nazis, and genocide existed despite not being recognized as a distinct crime.

No, but your logic would dictate that they did not murder.

Negligent homicide is murder. By any standard, a government killing it's people who have committed no crime and have not been so convicted in any court is illegal.
 
My logic is not flawed. Murder is an illegal killing. It's really that simple. The only reason we are talking about international law is because you brought up the Nazis, and genocide existed despite not being recognized as a distinct crime.

The Nazi killings were legal under their own state laws. There was no international law condemning genocide at the time, so your entire argument falls apart for two reasons. First, laws regarding crime and punishment are served at the national and state level NOT the international level. Second, there was no convention or standard on genocide during the holocaust. Your logic dictates that in order for something to be murder, it has to be illegal under the law. Ergo, there was no law (whether looking at state or international) at that time.

Negligent homicide is murder. By any standard, a government killing it's people who have committed no crime and have not been so convicted in any court is illegal.

Negligent homicide is a completely separate issue. And we're not talking about standards or guidelines, but LAWS. There was no law which made Stalin's reign of terror illegal.
 
The Nazi killings were legal under their own state laws.

Which were deemed inconsistent with international law, and more importantly, considered war crimes.

There was no international law condemning genocide at the time, so your entire argument falls apart for two reasons. First, laws regarding crime and punishment are served at the national and state level NOT the international level. Second, there was no convention or standard on genocide during the holocaust. Your logic dictates that in order for something to be murder, it has to be illegal under the law. Ergo, there was no law (whether looking at state or international) at that time.

Whether or not genocide was recognized or not doesn't change the status of Nazi actions as war crimes.

Negligent homicide is a completely separate issue. And we're not talking about standards or guidelines, but LAWS. There was no law which made Stalin's reign of terror illegal.

No it isn't. It's murder, and there is law against it. International law prohibits the death penalty without conviction in a court.
 
Back
Top Bottom