• 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
Kal'Stang said:
Bolding the part that supports your statements and yet ignoring the part that doesn't does not help your case in the slightest. The words "without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion" cannot be applied to a judge for the simple fact that they are constrained in what sentences they must mete out.

If you're going to use a definition then you must apply all of it that is relevent. And the part that you did not bold is certainly relevent.
Click to expand...

I wish you would have READ my response. I responded directly and preemptively to the restriction clause. If the death sentence is not arbitrary, then show me an instance where it is decided (NOT recommended) by a panel of individuals rather than a single individual.

In crimes where the death penalty is an option, there is no restriction on the judge other than minimum sentencing.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Semantics...

Main Entry: restriction  [ri-strik-shuhn] Show IPA/rɪˈstrɪkʃən/ Show Spelled
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: limit
Synonyms: ball and chain, bounds, brake, catch, check, circumscription, condition, confinement, constraint, containment, contraction, control, cramp, curb, custody, demarcation, excess baggage, fine print, glitch*, grain of salt, handicap, hang-up, inhibition, limitation, limits, lock*, no-no, qualification, regulation, reservation, restraint, rule, small difficulty, stint, stipulation, stricture, string, stumbling block

Restrictions Synonyms, Restrictions Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
Click to expand...

A guideline is not a restriction. A recommendation is not a restriction. In cases where the DP is an option, there is no restriction on the judge other than a minimum sentencing guideline. If it is not arbitrary, name the panel which decides the ultimate fate of the accused.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Semantics...

Main Entry: restriction  [ri-strik-shuhn] Show IPA/rɪˈstrɪkʃən/ Show Spelled
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: limit
Synonyms: ball and chain, bounds, brake, catch, check, circumscription, condition, confinement, constraint, containment, contraction, control, cramp, curb, custody, demarcation, excess baggage, fine print, glitch*, grain of salt, handicap, hang-up, inhibition, limitation, limits, lock*, no-no, qualification, regulation, reservation, restraint, rule, small difficulty, stint, stipulation, stricture, string, stumbling block

Restrictions Synonyms, Restrictions Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
Click to expand...


Arbitrariness is a LEGAL notion. Just as an objection in court means something more than and objection in a conversation, just as reasonable doubt has a meaning, just as liability, just as burden. All these words have dictionary meanings as well as legal meanings. We are referring to the legal meaning of Arbitrary in the context of fairness in the application of law.

Are you telling us that the application of the DP is without flaw? That race / victim / socioeconomic status etc... never play a role in how a case is prosecuted?
 
taxigirl said:
Study, after study, after study show that the DP is not a deterrent. Not just in the US but elsewhere as well.
Click to expand...

As I have consistently argued and which you have ignored those studies are not valid. I have stated why. Show me why I am wrong in what I have said instead of just repeating what you have said previously.

taxigirl said:
The family of the victim needs closure not retribution / revenge, they need someone to help heal them and the very limited funds we have that go to victims rights and victim family organizations can't do much. Why doesn't the state spend more time helping the victims instead of seeking retribution?
Click to expand...

They need both. Closure can come from the death of the perpetrator.

taxigirl said:
Anybody you put in prison can commit a murder. There is a prison culture that leads to more violence, that is their society. It is too bad, but that is what we have created in this country and it does not have to be so.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you have a better way of treating criminals then by all means speak up about it. Show us how your solution would work. Show us that it is practical and far better than the current system. Personally I would be happy to do away with both the DP and prison period. But the only way that is going to actually happen is if we develop a way to fundementally change a persons behavior.

Otherwise you are putting killers with those that do not deserve death. Like those that just steal. Or those that are in prison because some state is against the Castle Doctrine Law. Or because they are in there for involuntary manslaughter...which usually means that the person didn't really mean to kill someone.

taxigirl said:
As for you repeatedly mentioning your time in jail it is making me begin to think that you wear it as a badge. You know no more of solitary confinement and endless years in prison than we do. Were you in jail as you said or prison?
Click to expand...

It is not a badge. It is simply fact.

And you are correct in making the distinction between jail and prison. But the other person did not. They stated jail...not prison. But not even prison would bother me. You see I'm an introvert and mildly agoraphobic. As such I relish and love every second that I am left alone. Hell if I was sent to prison I would purposely find a way to be sent to solitary confinement for that simple fact.
 
Mensch said:
A guideline is not a restriction. A recommendation is not a restriction. In cases where the DP is an option, there is no restriction on the judge other than a minimum sentencing guideline. If it is not arbitrary, name the panel which decides the ultimate fate of the accused.
Click to expand...

I know that a guideline and a recommendation is not a restriction since they are not even synonyms... you said conditions and that is why I posted what I posted. They are synonymous. You are going in circles. The Judge makes the final decision WITH RESTICTIONS.
 
taxigirl said:
Arbitrariness is a LEGAL notion. Just as an objection in court means something more than and objection in a conversation, just as reasonable doubt has a meaning, just as liability, just as burden. All these words have dictionary meanings as well as legal meanings. We are referring to the legal meaning of Arbitrary in the context of fairness in the application of law.

Are you telling us that the application of the DP is without flaw? That race / victim / socioeconomic status etc... never play a role in how a case is prosecuted?
Click to expand...

You keep throwing out these illogical and fallicious arguments... we are not talking about race or economic status and I have never argued that the system is flawless.

Irrational; capricious.

The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.

An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence.

arbitrary legal definition of arbitrary. arbitrary synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
mac said:
LWOP is not a consequence?
Click to expand...

Sure is... but it isn't a severe enough consequence to show highly we value life. Only the offenders life can show that.
 
Kal'Stang said:
As I have consistently argued and which you have ignored those studies are not valid. I have stated why. Show me why I am wrong in what I have said instead of just repeating what you have said previously.
Click to expand...

The one factor that is missing from all of the studies (and you may have already pointed this out) is that they have ZERO DATA on those that did not commit a murder because they were afraid of getting the death penalty. I don't commit crimes or stay within the bounds of the law because the DP and jail act as a deterrent. IF somebody molested or killed my daughter the ONLY THING that would stop me from killing that person with extreme prejudice would be not wanted to be put to death myself and depriving my other daughter of her father. Deterrent. But you will never find me in a study since I will never intentionally kill a person.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I know that a guideline and a recommendation is not a restriction since they are not even synonyms... you said conditions and that is why I posted what I posted. They are synonymous. You are going in circles. The Judge makes the final decision WITH RESTICTIONS.
Click to expand...

Synonyms are not the same as definitions. A restriction and a condition can be closely related, but not absolutely. They can also infer different implications.

As for the judges decision to put a man to death...in these cases, the ONLY restriction is a minimum sentence. If you look at all the men on death row (and all those executed), you will see that none of them are there because a judge was restricted to one option. Death penalty cases depend on the arbitrary decision of a judge who is not bound by law to execute the criminal. He makes the final decision.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
From your source listed above "Like the "Principle of Permissible Harm", the "Doctrine of Productive Purity" is an attempt to provide a deontological prescription for determining the circumstances in which people are permitted to act in a way that harms others."

"Some deontologists are moral absolutists, believing that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of the intentions behind them as well as the consequences."

----You chose one of the most criticized philosophies of ethics to prove your point. You forgot about the moral absolutists and the critiques of deontology that it is incoherent, subjective and leaves no guides for prioritizing.

Bodhisattva said:
Rousseau: Social Contract
Click to expand...
"There is not a single ill-doer who could not be turned to some good. The State has no right to put to death, even for the sake of making an example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger."-- From Book II, your source above
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
The one factor that is missing from all of the studies (and you may have already pointed this out) is that they have ZERO DATA on those that did not commit a murder because they were afraid of getting the death penalty. I don't commit crimes or stay within the bounds of the law because the DP and jail act as a deterrent. IF somebody molested or killed my daughter the ONLY THING that would stop me from killing that person with extreme prejudice would be not wanted to be put to death myself and depriving my other daughter of her father. Deterrent. But you will never find me in a study since I will never intentionally kill a person.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove a negative.

You are showing your reluctance to look at well-performed studies because they can't address a negative.

They can show that crime rates go up and down around the time of an execution, that rates are different once the DP is instituted or put on hold or outlawed.
 
taxigirl said:
From your source listed above "Like the "Principle of Permissible Harm", the "Doctrine of Productive Purity" is an attempt to provide a deontological prescription for determining the circumstances in which people are permitted to act in a way that harms others."

"Some deontologists are moral absolutists, believing that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of the intentions behind them as well as the consequences."

----You chose one of the most criticized philosophies of ethics to prove your point. You forgot about the moral absolutists and the critiques of deontology that it is incoherent, subjective and leaves no guides for prioritizing.
Click to expand...

There is no need to prioritize and there is nothing wrong with the ethical position. Critiques abound...

"There is not a single ill-doer who could not be turned to some good. The State has no right to put to death, even for the sake of making an example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger."-- From Book II, your source above
Click to expand...

You are taking that part our of context and need to provide the rest.

We may add that frequent punishments are always a sign of weakness or remissness on the part of the government. There is not a single ill-doer who could not be turned to some good. The State has no right to put to death, even for the sake of making an example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger.

The right of pardoning or exempting the guilty from a penalty imposed by the law and pronounced by the judge belongs only to the authority which is superior to both judge and law, i.e., the Sovereign; each its right in this matter is far from clear, and the cases for exercising it are extremely rare. In a well-governed State, there are few punishments, not because there are many pardons, but because criminals are rare; it is when a State is in decay that the multitude of crimes is a guarantee of impunity. Under the Roman Republic, neither the Senate nor the Consuls ever attempted to pardon; even the people never did so, though it sometimes revoked its own decision. Frequent pardons mean that crime will soon need them no longer, and no one can help seeing whither that leads. But I feel my heart protesting and restraining my pen; let us leave these questions to the just man who has never offended, and would himself stand in no need of pardon.

All of this backs up my original post:

Again, every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country; by violating its laws be ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it. In such a case the preservation of the State is inconsistent with his own, and one or the other must perish; in putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy. The trial and the judgment are the proofs that he has broken the social treaty, and is in consequence no longer a member of the State. Since, then, he has recognised himself to be such by living there, he must be removed by exile as a violator of the compact, or by death as a public enemy; for such an enemy is not a moral person, but merely a man; and in such a case the right of war is to kill the vanquished.

Rousseau: Social Contract: Book II
 
taxigirl said:
You cannot prove a negative.

You are showing your reluctance to look at well-performed studies because they can't address a negative.

They can show that crime rates go up and down around the time of an execution, that rates are different once the DP is instituted or put on hold or outlawed.
Click to expand...

I know you can't prove a negative and that is why the studies are flawed... the same issues revolves in the religious debates. You can use the studies as an indicator and as long as you know that they are not absolute.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You keep throwing out these illogical and fallicious arguments... we are not talking about race or economic status and I have never argued that the system is flawless.

Irrational; capricious.

The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.

An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence.

arbitrary legal definition of arbitrary. arbitrary synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Click to expand...

You asked: How do you get arbitrarily out of it?
I responded: Arbitrarily because the rules are not applied uniformly and without bias and they never could be.

I will now add: Those rules are not applied uniformly and without bias because of race / economic status etc.... this is addition to allowing particular people instead of (maybe a board) decide, shows that the DP is applied arbitrarily
 
Bodhisattva said:
There is no need to prioritize and there is nothing wrong with the ethical position. Critiques abound...

You are taking that part our of context and need to provide the rest.

We may add that frequent punishments are always a sign of weakness or remissness on the part of the government. There is not a single ill-doer who could not be turned to some good. The State has no right to put to death, even for the sake of making an example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger.

The right of pardoning or exempting the guilty from a penalty imposed by the law and pronounced by the judge belongs only to the authority which is superior to both judge and law, i.e., the Sovereign; each its right in this matter is far from clear, and the cases for exercising it are extremely rare. In a well-governed State, there are few punishments, not because there are many pardons, but because criminals are rare; it is when a State is in decay that the multitude of crimes is a guarantee of impunity. Under the Roman Republic, neither the Senate nor the Consuls ever attempted to pardon; even the people never did so, though it sometimes revoked its own decision. Frequent pardons mean that crime will soon need them no longer, and no one can help seeing whither that leads. But I feel my heart protesting and restraining my pen; let us leave these questions to the just man who has never offended, and would himself stand in no need of pardon.

All of this backs up my original post:

Again, every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country; by violating its laws be ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it. In such a case the preservation of the State is inconsistent with his own, and one or the other must perish; in putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy. The trial and the judgment are the proofs that he has broken the social treaty, and is in consequence no longer a member of the State. Since, then, he has recognised himself to be such by living there, he must be removed by exile as a violator of the compact, or by death as a public enemy; for such an enemy is not a moral person, but merely a man; and in such a case the right of war is to kill the vanquished.

Rousseau: Social Contract: Book II
Click to expand...
You are arguing that his belief that there is no man who cannot be redeemed is irrelevant because he also says that these punishments should be few in number? does that mean you think they are few in number in the US?
 
taxigirl said:
You asked: How do you get arbitrarily out of it?
I responded: Arbitrarily because the rules are not applied uniformly and without bias and they never could be.

I will now add: Those rules are not applied uniformly and without bias because of race / economic status etc.... this is addition to allowing particular people instead of (maybe a board) decide, shows that the DP is applied arbitrarily
Click to expand...

You have to show how Judges are making decisions without regard to rules or standards. You aren't. You haven't.
 
taxigirl said:
You are arguing that his belief that there is no man who cannot be redeemed is irrelevant because he also says that these punishments should be few in number? does that mean you think they are few in number in the US?
Click to expand...

Straw Man.

We are not arguing the current US system... we are arguing about the notion or idea of the Death Penalty.
 
 
 
taxigirl said:
My quote from Camus begins to address one ethical concern of the death penalty. If it is so right to do, if it is just, then why is it hidden away, why is the process not discussed? If it is the right thing to do we should not be afraid to see it. Is it unethical to have public executions?
Click to expand...

There are times when justice is not a pretty thing. It was barely 100 years ago that public hangings were common. We have just emotionally become unaccustomed to it- the ethics haven't changed.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And there are many more that are not biased. A few isolated incidents does not an argument make...
Click to expand...

You did not even bother to read the reports before you responded. There are 2 specific incidents and 3 reports on judicial bias. You asked me to show how and I provided you with the information so you could make an informed decision. I posted the studies at 7:58 and you dismissed me without reading them at 8:05. I am not asking that you bow and agree with me, I am asking that you at least look at the information you asked for.

I challenged you to debate, you pursued me regarding it, even chiding me with "so you concede" when I had forgotten. If you do not wish to engage me in an informed, intelligent discussion please let me know as I would not want to waste your time.
 
taxigirl said:
You did not even bother to read the reports before you responded. There are 2 specific incidents and 3 reports on judicial bias. You asked me to show how and I provided you with the information so you could make an informed decision. I posted the studies at 7:58 and you dismissed me without reading them at 8:05. I am not asking that you bow and agree with me, I am asking that you at least look at the information you asked for.

I challenged you to debate, you pursued me regarding it, even chiding me with "so you concede" when I had forgotten. If you do not wish to engage me in an informed, intelligent discussion please let me know as I would not want to waste your time.
Click to expand...

I will read them later. I thought that they were simply two examples of a Judge being arbitrary and nothing more. Tomorrow then... Cool?
 
taxigirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most people are not outraged by war. They may be outraged by parts of war that go against our beliefs of right and wrong, but most do not consider killing during war something to feel shame over just because people do not get to see every part of the war. And others may be outraged by why we go to war, but that is a different thing and generally does not apply to most people nor to every single war.
 
roguenuke said:
Most people are not outraged by war. They may be outraged by parts of war that go against our beliefs of right and wrong, but most do not consider killing during war something to feel shame over just because people do not get to see every part of the war. And others may be outraged by why we go to war, but that is a different thing and generally does not apply to most people nor to every single war.
Click to expand...

I think we should feel shame. There was certainly a lot of shame felt over the Vietnam War (I do not mean to disrespect any Vets here - I am talking about feeling shame as an ethical response to the outrage of people dying). Today photographers do not have as much freedom, there may be more images from, Iraq, but images of armament and buildings are in no way as striking as photos of people as we had in Vietnam.

Rather than typing I will give you a link that sums up what I would say to you on this topic.
Photography.com » War Photography and Combat Photography

and a second link because Photographers Can’t Hide Behind Their Cameras, Images of war are raw, dirty, ugly, personal and disturbing. And they ought to be.
Nieman Reports | Photographers Can

What I think is a disservice is that we cannot have pictures of the flag draped coffins anymore. To me they were symbolic of sacrifice to the country, honorable. Now we are shamed if we distribute them and told it is disrespectful to the families. I don't agree.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom