• 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
AlabamaPaul said:
The voters of the individual States choose whether or not it is appropriate. Why should society be forced to support a person of a heinous crime as determined by a judge and jury for life?
Click to expand...

Because the cost of innocent life isn't worth your revenge. Supporting that person guilty of a heinous crime is cheaper than killing him. Killing him gets us nothing more other than debt, killing him will consume the innocent lives of others, killing him brings no additional benefit. It's illogical.
 
Cephus said:
No, the people decided that when they made the death penalty legal and designated certain crimes liable for execution. No emotion involved.
Click to expand...

You're full of it. Of course there was emotion involved in their votes, especially if you consider any moral judgement an emotional response. Humans are emotional creatures.
 
Ikari said:
Because the cost of innocent life isn't worth your revenge. Supporting that person guilty of a heinous crime is cheaper than killing him. Killing him gets us nothing more other than debt, killing him will consume the innocent lives of others, killing him brings no additional benefit. It's illogical.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeking revenge. I'm for upholding state laws regarding the appropriate punishment for the offense committed and convicted...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not seeking revenge. I'm for upholding state laws regarding the appropriate punishment for the offense committed and convicted...
Click to expand...

We're talking about whether it's right or wrong. A law can be morally wrong.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not seeking revenge. I'm for upholding state laws regarding the appropriate punishment for the offense committed and convicted...
Click to expand...

And the punishment is unreasonable. It costs more money, it costs innocent live, and it gets us nothing in the end. So why should we continue to endorse the broken system? LWOP does just as well without killing people. And it's cheaper. So why do we need to continue in this manner? It's illogical.
 
afr0byte said:
We're talking about whether it's right or wrong. A law can be morally wrong.
Click to expand...

There are relatively few morals guiding today's society as we appear to be in a more anything goes mode, but I would be interested in where you received your values (morals)...
 
Ikari said:
And the punishment is unreasonable. It costs more money, it costs innocent live, and it gets us nothing in the end. So why should we continue to endorse the broken system? LWOP does just as well without killing people. And it's cheaper. So why do we need to continue in this manner? It's illogical.
Click to expand...

If a felon's sentence was carried out the next day after conviction, how much would that cost?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
If a felon's sentence was carried out the next day after conviction, how much would that cost?
Click to expand...

If that were true, how many more innocents would you kill? Are you ok with that? You just exacerbate the current problems by speeding it up and taking out the checks. And then how much are you going to be paying out to the families of innocent people put to death by the State? How many millions per settlement is that? You're still going to cost us more money, only now you're going to kill more innocent people and still not net us out anything above that which LWOP provides.

It's illogical.
 
Ikari said:
If that were true, how many more innocents would you kill? Are you ok with that? You just exacerbate the current problems by speeding it up and taking out the checks. And then how much are you going to be paying out to the families of innocent people put to death by the State? How many millions per settlement is that? You're still going to cost us more money, only now you're going to kill more innocent people and still not net us out anything above that which LWOP provides.

It's illogical.
Click to expand...

You're the one stating it's cheaper to keep them incarcerated, not me. I have no problem with a reasonable appellate process, but IMV, federal courts should not be involved in a State's issue...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Reality is what has been created over the last hundred or so years, but it doesn't mean it is what is best for the country. If one is not informed, an informed decision cannot be made. If one depends on another for their support, that's where their vote will most likely go...
Click to expand...

Good evening, AP. :2wave:

When I think of the pioneers who pushed constantly Westward on this continent to make a life for their families better than the one they had, it makes me wonder what their thoughts would be while observing what's going on in today's society. They didn't have any of the modern technological wonders we enjoy, but they succeeded. Would they think "damn, I was born too soon," or were they ready and willing to try to improve their lives? So when and why did some become "entitled" to the fruits of someone's else's labor? That used to be called stealing or laziness back in those days, if you could provide for your family and chose not to.... :shock:
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You're the one stating it's cheaper to keep them incarcerated, not me. I have no problem with a reasonable appellate process, but IMV, federal courts should not be involved in a State's issue...
Click to expand...

You know, I think when killing someone maybe it can. And the SCOTUS is the One Ring, it rules over all others. Even State judiciary must yield to the SCOTUS.

However, it is cheaper to keep one incarcerated for life than to kill them, and that's just added to the pile of the DP costing innocent life and not yielding any additional protection nor benefit. So couple it all together and the DP is just illogical.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
There are relatively few morals guiding today's society as we appear to be in a more anything goes mode, but I would be interested in where you received your values (morals)...
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're a liberal? You don't talk like any liberal I've ever met. Anyways, I received my initial values from that same place most people do: my parents. Of course my values have developed over time as I've contemplated my own personal ethics. I also took an ethics class in college (discussing utilitarian, Kantian, etc ethics).
 
polgara said:
Good evening, AP. :2wave:

When I think of the pioneers who pushed constantly Westward on this continent to make a life for their families better than the one they had, it makes me wonder what their thoughts would be while observing what's going on in today's society. They didn't have any of the modern technological wonders we enjoy, but they succeeded. Would they think "damn, I was born too soon," or were they ready and willing to try to improve their lives? So when and why did some become "entitled" to the fruits of someone's else's labor? That used to be called stealing or laziness back in those days, if you could provide for your family and chose not to.... :shock:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we've gone way beyond this mentality in today's society...

Good evening pg...
 
afr0byte said:
Are you sure you're a liberal? You don't talk like any liberal I've ever met. Anyways, I received my initial values from that same place most people do: my parents. Of course my values have developed over time as I've contemplated my own personal ethics. I also took an ethics class in college (discussing utilitarian, Kantian, etc ethics).
Click to expand...

It's probably because your definition of liberal conforms with today's thinking of the term. Values are nothing more than personal beliefs and it's the collection of those beliefs that should shape a society. IMV, today, we pander to the fringe so as not to appear to be intolerant, but it has little relation to the values of society as a whole...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
It's probably because your definition of liberal conforms with today's thinking of the term. Values are nothing more than personal beliefs and it's the collection of those beliefs that should shape a society. IMV, today, we pander to the fringe so as not to appear to be intolerant, but it has little relation to the values of society as a whole...
Click to expand...

What society does your definition conform to? The 50's?
 
Anagram said:
I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Lately though, I've been moving away from that position somewhat. In theory, I accept that the death penalty can be an appropriate punishment. If a mentally healthy person willfully takes the life of another, I see that as forfeiting their own right to life. However, in our practice I'm not sure I can support it. There is at the very least controversy over whether or not the cost of the capital case outweighs that of life in prison, with actual statistics being very hard to come by. There is also the trouble of exonerated death row inmates and wrongful executions. In my opinion the difference in punishment between death and life in prison is not worth the chance of wrongful execution, which seems to be significant. There is also the question of whether the death penalty is equally applied among everyone. Lastly, although I'm not sure I agree with this, some people have argued that the death penalty is not an equal response to murder, because death row inmates must spend years waiting and knowing that they are going to die. It is suggested this is a torture exceeding that which the convicted gave his or her victims. I think this is the weakest argument of them, but it may have some merit. In a perfect world where a 100% guilty person was immediately put to death, with the whole thing costing less than life in prison, I could easily support that, but in our real world I'm not sure anymore that capital punishment is practical.

But I'm curious about how the people on DP feel about it. Especially to see if there are significant groups of people among those who oppose the death penalty who support the idea in theory, but not in reality and those who simply oppose the idea in principle.
Click to expand...

In theory, I'd personally would want people executed in 5 years for only the worst offenders. I'm talking Ariell Castro or the guy from Aurora bad. If that isn't possible, then its better to do away with it.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Why would you think that?
Click to expand...

Well, primarily because your comments, that I've seen on DP, seem to closely match with many of the comments of conservatives. And, what might have been progressive in say, the 50's, might be considered conservative today.
 
afr0byte said:
Well, primarily because your comments, that I've seen on DP, seem to closely match with many of the comments of conservatives. And, what might have been progressive in say, the 50's, might be considered conservative today.
Click to expand...

Answer one question if you would. Do you consider it acceptable for a society to condone and support such a high percentage of single parent households as we have in this country? I don;t consider this to be a question of the 50's but relevant to today's continuation of moral decline...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Answer one question if you would. Do you consider it acceptable for a society to condone and support such a high percentage of single parent households as we have in this country? I don;t consider this to be a question of the 50's but relevant to today's continuation of moral decline...
Click to expand...

Of course for function it works best with one working parent and one stay at home, but society has degraded to such point where it's not possible. So long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process, they are free to do as they like.
 
Ikari said:
Of course for function it works best with one working parent and one stay at home, but society has degraded to such point where it's not possible. So long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process, they are free to do as they like.
Click to expand...

Exactly...
 
afr0byte said:
What society does your definition conform to? The 50's?
Click to expand...

Greetings, afr0byte. :2wave:

The days of Eisenhower integrity, and balanced budgets, and the building of a national highway system that we all enjoy today? Yes, the 50s sound good to me! :thumbs:
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Answer one question if you would. Do you consider it acceptable for a society to condone and support such a high percentage of single parent households as we have in this country? I don;t consider this to be a question of the 50's but relevant to today's continuation of moral decline...
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you mean by support. I certainly don't see any problem, necessarily, with a single parent household, no. Again, it depends on the situation. I don't know what situation you're talking about.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, afr0byte. :2wave:

The days of Eisenhower integrity, and balanced budgets, and the building of a national highway system that we all enjoy today? Yes, the 50s sound good to me! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I'm talking about social issues, primarily. You're OK with going back to segregation?
 
afr0byte said:
I guess it depends on what you mean by support. I certainly don't see any problem, necessarily, with a single parent household, no. Again, it depends on the situation. I don't know what situation you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Support, in this instance, means government assistance. When an activity is subsidized you generally get more of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom