• 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 in Theory

Do you support the Death Penalty


  • Total voters
    78
The logical answer is not to execute the wrong person.

Well neither of our countries have a great record on that. I don't see what virtue the death penalty has that outweighs the inevitable loss of innocent life that it will produce except in cases like genocide and crimes against humanity.
 
Well neither of our countries have a great record on that. I don't see what virtue the death penalty has that outweighs the inevitable loss of innocent life that it will produce except in cases like genocide and crimes against humanity.

I refuse to give up on the rule of justice and law, just because mistakes are sometimes made.

Also, you find it easy to accept the inevitable loss of innocent life as repeat offenders are allowed to murder again?
 
I refuse to give up on the rule of justice and law, just because mistakes are sometimes made.

Also, you find it easy to accept the inevitable loss of innocent life as repeat offenders are allowed to murder again?

Isnt that what prison is for? I guess what this boils down is what does the death penalty do that prison doesn't that justifies innocent loss of life. If anything prison is more of a punishment
 
Last edited:
Isnt that what prison is for? I guess what this boils down is what does the death penalty do that prison doesn't that justifies innocent loss of life.

So you will lock these people up for the rest of their life without any chance of parole, never letting them out of their cell and not letting them come into contact with any persons?
 
So you will lock these people up for the rest of their life without any chance of parole, never letting them out of their cell and not letting them come into contact with any persons?

I think life should mean life as far as murder convictions are concerned but its probably fair to say that the number of innocent people executed fair outweighs the number of people killed during prison visiting hours.
 
I think life should mean life as far as murder convictions are concerned but its probably fair to say that the number of innocent people executed fair outweighs the number of people killed during prison visiting hours.

I'm glad to hear nobody has ever escaped from prison. This had escaped my attention.

I think the number of people killed by released or escaped repeat offenders far outweighs the number of mistakenly executed persons.
 
I'm glad to hear nobody has ever escaped from prison. This had escaped my attention.

I think the number of people killed by released or escaped repeat offenders far outweighs the number of mistakenly executed persons.

Well the last time we had a near miss in so far as executing innocent people can be heard about here Guildford Four and Maguire Seven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . At this time the death penalty had been abolished for murder but not for high treason against the crown. Fortunately the prosecution didn't charge these people with high treason but the judge expressed disappointment at this, saying that if they had been charged with this then he would have had no problem with sentencing these people to death. So that's 11 innocent people that we nearly killed. I have trouble believing that the amount of people killed by escaped prisoners that decade (or even that century) is greater then the amount of people that would have been killed in that one case. And that's not even taking into account those who would have been killed by the intensification of the conflict that would inevitably have resulted from this execution.
 
Well the last time we had a near miss in so far as executing innocent people can be heard about here Guildford Four and Maguire Seven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . At this time the death penalty had been abolished for murder but not for high treason against the crown. Fortunately the prosecution didn't charge these people with high treason but the judge expressed disappointment at this, saying that if they had been charged with this then he would have had no problem with sentencing these people to death. So that's 11 innocent people that we nearly killed. I have trouble believing that the amount of people killed by escaped prisoners that decade (or even that century) is greater then the amount of people that would have been killed in that one case. And that's not even taking into account those who would have been killed by the intensification of the conflict that would inevitably have resulted from this execution.

Miscarriages of justice will always happen. That doesn't mean you have to abolish justice.
 
But how is justice not served by a life sentence? (If life means life)

Because for certain crimes it is not the appropriate sentence and because it still leaves great risks to society. Besides really sentencing somebody to life without any possibility of ever being released means you tell him or her that they can commit any crime they want since they have nothing to lose anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom