• 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, for or against

Do you support the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    134

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,542
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The death penalty is in the news again in America because states are turning to new, untested drug concoctions to use for lethal injection, and sometimes the drugs being used in executions cause complications and prolonged dying. There was a case a few months ago out of Ohio, but the story coming out of Oklahoma seems the most controversial yet. It actually delayed another man's execution.

A link to the story is below...



So do you favor the death penalty?

Do you think the death penalty will last in America considering the declining availability of traditional lethal injection drugs?



Oklahoma’s horrible ‘botched execution’ shows again why the death penalty should be abolished
 
It's a complicated question. In THEORY, I don't have a problem with the death penalty in and of itself in that I believe that some people have committed heinous crimes worthy of such punishment. In PRACTICE, however, with the potential of botching executions, the wildly inconsistent application of the death penalty, and the potential for executing innocents, there are simply too many issues with it for the death penalty to remain a practice.
 
I favor the death penalty in cases of murder, which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, and in which there is no evidence of a strong emotional basis (ie crimes of passion). Imo, if you can kill in cold blood, without having any reason to do so, besides just your desire to kill and maim, then you forfeit your humanity card when you commit the act.
 
I favor the death penalty in cases of murder, which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, and in which there is no evidence of a strong emotional basis (ie crimes of passion). Imo, if you can kill in cold blood, without having any reason to do so, besides just your desire to kill and maim, then you forfeit your humanity card when you commit the act.

"Proven beyond any doubt whatsoever" is itself a subjective measuring stick which I view as problematic.
 
I am against the death penalty except in extreme cases such as genocide and other human rights violations because there is always that chance the person is innocent even if it may not be seen at the time of the trial. I also beleive that even murderers can be reformed.
 
Last edited:
I favor the death penalty in cases of murder, which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, and in which there is no evidence of a strong emotional basis (ie crimes of passion). Imo, if you can kill in cold blood, without having any reason to do so, besides just your desire to kill and maim, then you forfeit your humanity card when you commit the act.

Yes, well, I don't forfeit my humanity card. I believe killing a helpless harmless captive is inhuman. It sets a bad example and thereby promotes murder through the justification of rationalization.
 
"Proven beyond any doubt whatsoever" is itself a subjective measuring stick which I view as problematic.

I don't have a problem with it at all. There are cases where there is absolutely no doubt who did it.
 
I favor the death penalty in cases of murder, which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, and in which there is no evidence of a strong emotional basis (ie crimes of passion). Imo, if you can kill in cold blood, without having any reason to do so, besides just your desire to kill and maim, then you forfeit your humanity card when you commit the act.

What Lizzie said----------------------------^ I'm lazy, and she summed it up for me.
 
Yes, well, I don't forfeit my humanity card. I believe killing a helpless harmless captive is inhuman. It sets a bad example and thereby promotes murder through the justification of rationalization.

No, it doesn't promote murder. The murder is the unjustified taking of a life for no reason other than the desire to do so. The death penalty is a just penalty for someone who committed murder.
 
The only person who should decide whether a person lives or dies is God. Even a convicted killer should die in God's time, not the government's.
 
I favor the death penalty in cases of murder, which can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, and in which there is no evidence of a strong emotional basis (ie crimes of passion). Imo, if you can kill in cold blood, without having any reason to do so, besides just your desire to kill and maim, then you forfeit your humanity card when you commit the act.

What about murderers who can be reformed? Some murderers are not calculating psychopaths but rather people who may have taken things a bit too far in the heat of the moment or felt they needed to protect their family, etc. Due to how self-defense laws work here, you can very easily end up with a murder charge just because you were trying to defend yourself but went too far.
 
No, it doesn't promote murder. The murder is the unjustified taking of a life for no reason other than the desire to do so. The death penalty is a just penalty for someone who committed murder.

Of course it does. People figure... if the government can kill a helpless harmless person who is definitely guilty of bad things, then so can I.

Do you not understand what "rationalization" means?

How do you not understand that it sets a bad example? It's clearly saying "doing this is ok".

Abandon your emotion and you will abandon the bloodthirsty vengeance of the death penalty.
 
The death penalty is in the news again in America because states are turning to new, untested drug concoctions to use for lethal injection, and sometimes the drugs being used in executions cause complications and prolonged dying. There was a case a few months ago out of Ohio, but the story coming out of Oklahoma seems the most controversial yet. It actually delayed another man's execution.

A link to the story is below...



So do you favor the death penalty?

Do you think the death penalty will last in America considering the declining availability of traditional lethal injection drugs?



Oklahoma’s horrible ‘botched execution’ shows again why the death penalty should be abolished

I am all for the death penalty. I do not care how it is carried out, but I would prefer the Guillotine. No worries, just swish. I think we worry way too much how someone who killed another person or many people, who may have made them suffer tremendously whether the means of execution will case the perp to suffer some.

I also am not worried if the death penalty is a deterrent or not. what the death penalty does is guarantee that whoever receives it will not commit another murder or a bunch of murders.
 
What about murderers who can be reformed? Some murderers are not calculating psychopaths but rather people who may have taken things a bit too far in the heat of the moment or felt they needed to protect their family, etc. Due to how self-defense laws work here, you can very easily end up with a murder charge just because you were trying to defend yourself but went too far.

What you refer to would be included in the crimes of passion category, which I stated I would not support the death penalty for.
 
Of course it does. People figure... if the government can kill a helpless harmless person who is definitely guilty of bad things, then so can I.

Do you not understand what "rationalization" means?

How do you not understand that it sets a bad example?

Yes, I do understand what rationalization means, and it's is perfectly rational to take the life of a cold-blooded killer.
 
Yes, I do understand what rationalization means, and it's is perfectly rational to take the life of a cold-blooded killer.

It's only rational to take life in defense. Bloodthirst and vengeance are the work of emotion, not logic and reason.
 
What you refer to would be included in the crimes of passion category, which I stated I would not support the death penalty for.

We should have more pity for those without empathy than we do for those who act in emotion.
 
I am 100% against the death penalty. It is fallible, inefficient, inhumane, and increases state power. Government can hardly be trusted with healthcare, yet most conservatives think it's a good idea to entrust them with the power to take someone's life?

Pretty good article on the subject: Government Can
 
I believe the DP (done correctly) is more humane than locking someone in a cell for life.

But. it's not about what happens to you in life that counts. There's a special place in Hell for some of these people.
 
Bloodthirst and vengeance are the work of emotion, not logic and reason.

Personally, I think maintaining the life, at perpetual taxpayer expense, of a human being who has proven himself to be little more than a rabid animal is both illogical and unreasonable.
 
I am happy to see nearly half of the voters so far express a strong opposition to the death penalty. There is no reason to have the death penalty except as a form of revenge... something we are taught is wrong at an early age.
 
I don't have a problem with it at all. There are cases where there is absolutely no doubt who did it.

Even if there is absolutely no doubt, as a libertarian I cannot approve of granting the power of life and death to a State that is inherently corrupt and has no reason to kill another human being when he/she can be isolated from society.
 
Absolutely, positively strongly support, we don't use it nearly often enough.
 
Of course it does. People figure... if the government can kill a helpless harmless person who is definitely guilty of bad things, then so can I.
Do you not understand what "rationalization" means?

How do you not understand that it sets a bad example? It's clearly saying "doing this is ok".

Abandon your emotion and you will abandon the bloodthirsty vengeance of the death penalty.

the difference is the the Constitutional allows for capital punishment with due process.
 
I believe the DP (done correctly) is more humane than locking someone in a cell for life.

I wouldn't have a problem with a voluntary death penalty. The prisoner submits a request form and their life imprisonment could be quickly and humanely ended.
 
Back
Top Bottom