• 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:
It is never acceptable, with the sole exception being self-defense. Torturing a man to death, regardless of who it is, is no more dignified than molesting children.
Click to expand...

Torturing the man that molested my nieces would have been quite acceptable to me....and my nieces.

Mensch said:
It is not false proof, but evidence that can be used legitimately to deteriorate the deterrent claim. It is not full-proof, but the primary burden of proof rests with those who make the claim.
Click to expand...

Bold: It is if it doesn't tell the whole story.

Underlined: Exactly. And those that are saying that it is not a deterrent are the ones making the claim.
 
Mensch said:
It makes no sense to uphold the value of human life by arbitrarily taking human lives.
Click to expand...

How do you get arbitrarily out of it?
 
Mensch said:
It makes no sense to uphold the value of human life by arbitrarily taking human lives.
Click to expand...

Since it is not done "arbitrarily" then I don't see where your concern is. The person that is sentenced to death went through a lengthy court proceeding. By the time they are finally executed they have had multiple attempts to convince that a stay of execution was needed or warranted. It takes years to go through all of these processes. That is anything BUT arbitrary.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is not barbaric to watch. It is barbaric to cheer as we used to. Is it barbaric to kill the offender? Well, that is an opinion. It might be but that does not make it the wrong action.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the rest. The catheter is irrelevant. Why have it be messy if it doesn't need to be? You are not addressing anything about why killing the offender is wrong.
Click to expand...

I was still speaking to how it is hidden, the gruesomeness is hidden from those who do get to view it. One of the reasons it is wrong is intrinsic, the shame people feel when they realize a decision of that magnitude has taken place, that an execution has been carried out in their name, for the betterment of their society. There is shame in that, and that is the first thing that tells us the death penalty is wrong.
Shame is the antithesis to dignity, by hiding the acts of the death penalty we are denying that we have taken their dignity and ours. The ethical considerations here are that when we feel negative feelings such as shame it is a sign that we should change the circumstance that made us feel that way (think about when you felt you had to apologize about something). If we do not take action, if we deny it and we let that shame build, we are not acting to make anything better, we are not even being stoic, we are simply shamed.

Shame is the force that gives violence meaning. It is the vessel in which tyranny is formed. Shame seeds violence--against spouses, against children, against the vulnerable, against those who are different, against those who we believe shamed us.The revenge shaped by shame spreads outward, radiating across groups, forming defensive solidarities and pseudo-unities of “us” against “them,” inspiring restitution through domination and greed.
Click to expand...

http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/EmeryEthicsofEngagement.pdf

Robert Emery, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Virginia. He also is an associate faculty member in the Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, and was Director of Clinical Training from 1993-2002. He received his B.A. from Brown University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1982. He has served or is serving on the editorial board of eleven professional journals, and he has been a member of the Social Sciences and Population grant review study section of the National Institutes of Health.
Click to expand...
 
roguenuke said:
You seem to be of the belief that everyone feels shame over executing people, but that is wrong.

Isn't it barbaric to watch soldiers killing during war/combat? Would it be okay to have a camera go around with a combat unit every minute of every day for a year just to show the killings as entertainment? Does that make all war and all combat shameful?
Click to expand...

When we do get to "see" the results of war or conflict there is more outrage against it, by not seeing it we are distanced from the reality of it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Since it is not done "arbitrarily" then I don't see where your concern is. The person that is sentenced to death went through a lengthy court proceeding. By the time they are finally executed they have had multiple attempts to convince that a stay of execution was needed or warranted. It takes years to go through all of these processes. That is anything BUT arbitrary.
Click to expand...

The application of the law is arbitrary. Poor people are more likely to be presented with a death sentence, minorities are, if you killed a LEO, famous person or white person you are more likely to face the death penalty. It is not applied evenly.
 
taxigirl said:
The application of the law is arbitrary. Poor people are more likely to be presented with a death sentence, minorities are, if you killed a LEO, famous person or white person you are more likely to face the death penalty. It is not applied evenly.
Click to expand...

This has more to do with society and money than it does with the law.
 
taxigirl said:
The application of the law is arbitrary. Poor people are more likely to be presented with a death sentence, minorities are, if you killed a LEO, famous person or white person you are more likely to face the death penalty. It is not applied evenly.
Click to expand...
It may not be applied uniformly but that does not mean that we are arbitrarily killing people like he said and Kal-Stang explained why. Arbitrarily killing people would be to just kill people regardless of offense at any moment for any reason.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Funny how people "doubt" another persons word just because it doesn't suit their beliefs. You can doubt it all that you want but the DP is precisely why I didn't torture and kill that person.
Click to expand...

Okie Dokie artichokie. I'm sure that that is exactly the reason (and nothing else).
 
Kal'Stang said:
This has more to do with society and money than it does with the law.
Click to expand...

Really....

Who decides who gets arrested? The Cops (aka The State)
Who decides who gets prosecuted? The DA (aka The State)
Who decides if the death penalty sentence is a just consideration? The Judge (aka The State)

When is society making the decision?

Indigent defendants are often given ineffective counsel. It is up to The State to make sure that they get a decent defense, the state is responsible.
 
Originally Posted by taxigirl
I was still speaking to how it is hidden, the gruesomeness is hidden from those who do get to view it. One of the reasons it is wrong is intrinsic, the shame people feel when they realize a decision of that magnitude has taken place, that an execution has been carried out in their name, for the betterment of their society. There is shame in that, and that is the first thing that tells us the death penalty is wrong.
Shame is the antithesis to dignity, by hiding the acts of the death penalty we are denying that we have taken their dignity and ours. The ethical considerations here are that when we feel negative feelings such as shame it is a sign that we should change the circumstance that made us feel that way (think about when you felt you had to apologize about something). If we do not take action, if we deny it and we let that shame build, we are not acting to make anything better, we are not even being stoic, we are simply shamed.
Click to expand...

You think that there is shame in that... I don't. Your reasoning is completely subjective. I would feel shame in knowing that the offender had not been put to death. I would feel shame in knowing that we valued the innocent life taken so little as to allow the criminal to continue living. So you are correct, if we do not take action and if we deny it and we let that shame build, we are not acting to make anything better, we are not even being stoic, we are simply shamed.
 
taxigirl said:
Really....

Who decides who gets arrested? The Cops (aka The State)
Who decides who gets prosecuted? The DA (aka The State)
Who decides if the death penalty sentence is a just consideration? The Judge (aka The State)

When is society making the decision?

Indigent defendants are often given ineffective counsel. It is up to The State to make sure that they get a decent defense, the state is responsible.
Click to expand...

Wrong...

Who decides who gets arrested? Societies laws written by elected members of the givernment voted in and out by said society.
Who decides who gets prosecuted? The DA who is elected by society and can be not re-elected if he does not represent their wishes.
Who decides who gets the Death Penalty? Again, the DA who seeks the DP and again the Judge is appointed by elected officials...

Society is involved at every step in the process and can change the process whenever they want.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It may not be applied uniformly but that does not mean that we are arbitrarily killing people like he said and Kal-Stang explained why. Arbitrarily killing people would be to just kill people regardless of offense at any moment for any reason.
Click to expand...

According to SCOTUS and to other leading legal scholars the correct legal terminology is arbitrary.

ABA Focus Vol. XII, Number 2 -- The Death Penalty: Arbitrariness and the Death Penalty

Death Penalty and Arbitrariness | Amnesty International USA

Twenty years have passed since this Court declared that the death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all, and, despite the effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this daunting challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice, and mistake."– U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, February 22, 1994
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wrong...

Who decides who gets arrested? Societies laws written by elected members of the givernment voted in and out by said society.
Who decides who gets prosecuted? The DA who is elected by society and can be not re-elected if he does not represent their wishes.
Who decides who gets the Death Penalty? Again, the DA who seeks the DP and again the Judge is appointed by elected officials...

Society is involved at every step in the process and can change the process whenever they want.
Click to expand...

Police determine who gets arrested. They put the effort in to investigate (which depending on the victim can be a large or not so much of an investigation).
Yes, the DA is elected, but they make the decision to request the death sentence, not the people who elected them.
The Judge who is appointed or elected decides.

not in one of those instances is government taking a poll of the members it represents asking them if the death penalty is appropriate.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You think that there is shame in that... I don't. Your reasoning is completely subjective. I would feel shame in knowing that the offender had not been put to death. I would feel shame in knowing that we valued the innocent life taken so little as to allow the criminal to continue living. So you are correct, if we do not take action and if we deny it and we let that shame build, we are not acting to make anything better, we are not even being stoic, we are simply shamed.
Click to expand...

How does the death penalty make it any better for the victim?
 
taxigirl said:
Police determine who gets arrested. They put the effort in to investigate (which depending on the victim can be a large or not so much of an investigation).
Yes, the DA is elected, but they make the decision to request the death sentence, not the people who elected them.
The Judge who is appointed or elected decides.

not in one of those instances is government taking a poll of the members it represents asking them if the death penalty is appropriate.
Click to expand...

A poll? The poll was predetermined... that is the point. And no, the police don't decide... they follow the rule of law as set down by society. If the people don't like the DA asking for the DP they replace him. That is how the system works. Same with the Judge and/or those that elected or appointed him. You are not arguing against the DP you are arguing against the enitre United States system of government as it is set up in the US Constitution.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Torturing the man that molested my nieces would have been quite acceptable to me....and my nieces.
Click to expand...

Fine. But if you did torture, you would hold the same level of honor as the perp.


Bold: It is if it doesn't tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

It tells a fact. A fact that, if not extinguishing, definitely hurts your argument.

Underlined: Exactly. And those that are saying that it is not a deterrent are the ones making the claim.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove a negative. You can't just claim it is a deterrent and let that statement stand on its own. You have to back it up. And if you can't, then you shouldn't bring it up.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Since it is not done "arbitrarily" then I don't see where your concern is. The person that is sentenced to death went through a lengthy court proceeding. By the time they are finally executed they have had multiple attempts to convince that a stay of execution was needed or warranted. It takes years to go through all of these processes. That is anything BUT arbitrary.
Click to expand...

When you're sentenced to death, it is because a judge (individual) made that sentence. The appeals do not serve to justify the severity of the punishment, but rather to ensure the law was carried out in a just and righteous manner.
 
Mensch said:
It ultimately rests with the judge. Despite whatever guidelines exist, the judge has ultimate discretion.
Click to expand...

That still isn't arbitrary thought...
 
Bodhisattva said:
That still isn't arbitrary thought...
Click to expand...

ar·bi·trar·y   [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -trar·ies.
adjective
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

Granted, there are cases where the maximum penalty would prohibit a death sentence. But in the majority of cases, the final decision is left completely up to the judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom