• 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
Using your logic, the death penalty and life in prison are equal in terms of deterrence. They serve the same purpose, and one is no better than the other.

Also, your statement that it is nearly impossible to execute an innocent person in the "age of DNA" assumes that DNA is present as evidence in all death penalty cases. It is not.

Additionally,

DNA’s Dirty Little Secret - Michael Bobelian

There have been many instances in which juries reached the wrong conclusion based on DNA evidence.

In capital cases DNA is effective a huge majority of the time. Life in prison without parole is very flawed because down the road some Liberal judge with grant parole...It happens all the time when killers without parole get out and murder again.
 
I thought there were always parole boards. Do lone judges decide that?
In capital cases DNA is effective a huge majority of the time. Life in prison without parole is very flawed because down the road some Liberal judge with grant parole...It happens all the time when killers without parole get out and murder again.
 
I thought there were always parole boards. Do lone judges decide that?

I am pretty sure that Judges have nothing to do with the actual parole...
 
Well then I dont suppose he would be able to cite a few examples of who liberal judges paroled then.
I am pretty sure that Judges have nothing to do with the actual parole...
 
In capital cases DNA is effective a huge majority of the time. Life in prison without parole is very flawed because down the road some Liberal judge with grant parole...It happens all the time when killers without parole get out and murder again.

Liberal judges only? Dang those liberal judges. Somebody needs to clean house. Put all conservative judges in. Then justice will be served.

:roll:

Navy...not even you believe that's how all early murder paroles happen.
 
In capital cases DNA is effective a huge majority of the time. Life in prison without parole is very flawed because down the road some Liberal judge with grant parole...It happens all the time when killers without parole get out and murder again.

You ignore the fact that while DNA is effective, it is not always present in capital cases. People can receive the death penalty without any DNA evidence introduced.

Do you think that it is fair to send someone to their death based on whether something is effective "a huge majority of the time?" You own statement admits that there are times when DNA is not effective. In those cases when it is not effective, either because it has been improperly handled or for some other reason, the risk is there that an innocent person would be executed.

Innocent people have been and will continue to be executed as long as the death penalty continues to exist.

In Georgia (not sure about your state) no judge has the authority to release an inmate on parole. And in Georgia, life means life. The same is true in almost every state that still has the death penalty.
 
I thought there were always parole boards. Do lone judges decide that?

The judges are actually the one that decide.......They can overrule a parole board but rarely do.
 
Liberal judges only? Dang those liberal judges. Somebody needs to clean house. Put all conservative judges in. Then justice will be served.

:roll:

Navy...not even you believe that's how all early murder paroles happen.

I totally agree.
 
The judges are actually the one that decide.......They can overrule a parole board but rarely do.

How about a legal link for that one... thanks.
 
And how bout a few names of the murderers that them liberal judges have released early. If it happens all the time there must be lots.
 
And how bout a few names of the murderers that them liberal judges have released early. If it happens all the time there must be lots.

Sadly it happens...Its amazing you don't believe it. I will try to find a few names of people who have done it.
 
How do you come up with that?

How do I come up with that? Easy. Compare the number of innocent people who have been killed by lifers, both inside and outside of prison, over the last 50 years with the number of innocent people who have been executed over the last 50 years for a crime they did not commit.

Even if true I'd argue that it doesn't really matter. The government shouldn't be in the business of killing innocent people, even if killing innocent people has the potential to save lives.

I don't think you're getting it. When the government fails to execute a criminal who has been convicted of a capital offense and this criminal kills yet another innocent person, the government is in the business of killing innocent people.


Edit: Thinking about it more, I'm even more against that line of reasoning. That opens up a huge can of worms about denying innocent people rights for the "greater good." Not something we should be doing.

What in the world are you blabbering about here? Am I expected to pull out a ouija board so to interpret this cryptic nonsense?
 
i fully and 100% support the death penalty.

In fact i would expand on it if it was up to me to be an OPTION for rape and child molestation.

now with that said i do have some issues with the process to get there, in todays world with DNA and Video etc the cases end up pretty lock tight but not so much in the past.
 
i fully and 100% support the death penalty.

In fact i would expand on it if it was up to me to be an OPTION for rape and child molestation.

now with that said i do have some issues with the process to get there, in todays world with DNA and Video etc the cases end up pretty lock tight but not so much in the past.

So, can we dispense with the lengthy appeals process in recent convictions?
 
So, can we dispense with the lengthy appeals process in recent convictions?

dispense with them? no i would say despence with them and i have to admit i dont know them well at all but i bet they could be shrunken down and its LOGICALLY wasteful in many situation. But of course that would be circumstantial.
 
dispense with them? no i would say despence with them and i have to admit i dont know them well at all but i bet they could be shrunken down and its LOGICALLY wasteful in many situation. But of course that would be circumstantial.

A more direct question would be, do you think the current appeal process of 10-15 years is a bit excessive for a conviction based upon DNA evidence?
 
A more direct question would be, do you think the current appeal process of 10-15 years is a bit excessive for a conviction based upon DNA evidence?

again circumstantial, was my DNA found on my dead girlfriend, not so much it should be there
if i happened to be driving to Florida and some lady is found dead and my DNA is found in her house and there no proof of me knowing her etc, maybe

with that said the years are always going to be excessive for me, admitting i dont know the process what is the road block from stream lining the appeals in capitol punishment cases
 
again circumstantial, was my DNA found on my dead girlfriend, not so much it should be there
if i happened to be driving to Florida and some lady is found dead and my DNA is found in her house and there no proof of me knowing her etc, maybe

with that said the years are always going to be excessive for me, admitting i dont know the process what is the road block from stream lining the appeals in capitol punishment cases

There was nothing circumstantial in the question. Have you ever answered a direct question directly?
 
1.)There was nothing circumstantial in the question.
2.) Have you ever answered a direct question directly?

1.) 100% false, your question is 100% circumstantial, you said "DNA evidence" Like i said thats broad and not specific enough it would depend on the degree of evidence like the examples i provided
2.) if they can be answered directly yes. Yours can not because its not a yes no question.
 
1.) 100% false, your question is 100% circumstantial, you said "DNA evidence" Like i said thats broad and not specific enough it would depend on the degree of evidence like the examples i provided
2.) if they can be answered directly yes. Yours can not because its not a yes no question.

I have asked you before not to number your responses to my posts. It was a direct question, but the response injected variables not asked...
 
1.)I have asked you before not to number your responses to my posts.
2.) It was a direct question, but the response injected variables not asked...

1.) dont remember you and im going to continue to do it because it makes it easier
2.) no i interjected reality

the reality is depending on the circumstances i might answer yes or no, if you dont like the answer the problem is yours
 
Back
Top Bottom