• 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
disneydude said:
Sorry....call it whatever you want, but the bottom line, what you are advocating is classic vengence. Thats just the reality.
Click to expand...

Then so is any consequence... you are advocating that grounding your kid for not obeying your rules is vengeance. That is ridiculous.
 
Geoist said:
You say there are other reasons yet you fail to provide one.
Click to expand...

I have been providing another reason for endless pages now... you say it is just about revenge and you are wrong. It is also an ethical consequence that shows that a society values innocent life as the most important thing that there is and by exacting the highest price from an individual that violates this, their life, we are upholding that value.
 
Geoist said:
They don't. But if they wish to take themselves out of this world then I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

Then the DP isn't only about revenge... according to you. That is a contradiction.
 
digsbe said:
No, it serves as a just punishment and deterrent. And in your reasoning, why is the DP vengeance but a lifetime in jail not vengeance? The DP is a known consequence for certain crimes and serves as a punishment, deterrent and removal of someone from this life who is deemed unfit to live here due to their actions for which a life of confinement is not enough. Sometimes it may be in the best interest for the safety of others in the case of serial killers that would kill again if they ever escaped or came into contact with another person (even in prison).
Click to expand...

So many misnomers here that I don't even know where to start. First off, the idea that a prisoner sentenced to life without the possibility of parole could escape is ludicrous. Its not going to happen and is just thrown out there to appeal to people with irrational fears.
Second, the overwhelming evidence out there is that there is no deterrent effect from the death penalty. People who commit murders do not sit and think rationally about "hmmmm...well I would kill this person if all I could get is life in prison, but since I could get the death penalty, I'm not going to do it". It just doesn't happen that way.

The rest of the civilized world does not practice the barbaric act of capital punishment. We are better than the likes of Iraq, Iran, China and other less civilized countries of the like that practice executions.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then so is any consequence... you are advocating that grounding your kid for not obeying your rules is vengeance. That is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not at all....look up the definition. Vengence is punishment that is inflicted to an extreme or excessive degree. Not all punishment is vengence.
 
disneydude said:
Not at all....look up the definition. Vengence is punishment that is inflicted to an extreme or excessive degree. Not all punishment is vengence.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should look it up...

infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person;

Vengeance | Define Vengeance at Dictionary.com

Life in prison is also a form of vengeance. Not all vengeance need be the lone gunman out to kill those that killed his family. Stop watching so much Death Wish.

I suggest you look up teleological ethics (philosophy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
 
Although I have an abundance of reasons for opposing the death penalty, my main concern is the potential to execute innocents. The margin of error for killing people is unacceptable; if one person dies for a crime he or she did not commit, then the "benefits" of the death penalty (read: satisfying a useless and overemotional desire for revenge) are sharply outweighed by the costs. Even in a hypothetical world where innocent people will never be killed by the death penalty, I would still be hard-pressed to support the death penalty, because I do not believe in the morality of killing armed and helpless people that are under control, but this is and should be the overriding factor in deciding whether or not the death penalty is justifiable.
 
NoC_T said:
I find it interesting that certain posters level accusations of emotionality without mediation of reason, whereas neither side of this fundamentally emotive issue are exempt from such. There's no logical basis to what amounts to a moral issue. Whatever logic there may be in justification, it exists in every position, and any conclusions are ultimately defined by morality, which is immune to logic. However we weigh the value of one life relative to another, these are always value judgements which were never eternal.
Click to expand...

There's a subtle but important difference between basing one's position off of rationally deduced morality and simply including melodramatic emotions and substituting them for an actual argument. Saying "the benefits of the death penalty outweigh the cost to society, and therefore the death penalty is acceptable" is leagues above saying "they deserved it!" even though I disagree with both statements. Both sides of the debate use both tactics, of course, but I've found that the pro-death penalty side has a greater tendency to rely on the latter as the entire basis for their opinion.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then the DP isn't only about revenge... according to you. That is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Calling it a 'death penalty' in such a scenario is a tongue-in-cheek statement. Obviously it is just sponsored suicide.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Maybe you should look it up...

infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person;

Vengeance | Define Vengeance at Dictionary.com

Life in prison is also a form of vengeance. Not all vengeance need be the lone gunman out to kill those that killed his family. Stop watching so much Death Wish.

I suggest you look up teleological ethics (philosophy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Click to expand...

I do not seek imprisonment to "injure, harm, or humiliate" a murderer. I seek it to keep them isolated from society.
 
MadLib said:
There's a subtle but important difference between basing one's position off of rationally deduced morality and simply including melodramatic emotions and substituting them for an actual argument. Saying "the benefits of the death penalty outweigh the cost to society, and therefore the death penalty is acceptable" is leagues above saying "they deserved it!" even though I disagree with both statements. Both sides of the debate use both tactics, of course, but I've found that the pro-death penalty side has a greater tendency to rely on the latter as the entire basis for their opinion.
Click to expand...
There's no possibility of 'rationally deduced morality'. Only rationality as justification.

I'm not quite sure how your response relates to my post, but okay, for the record, I don't find the pro-DP camp to be any more judgemental or sanctimonious than the anti-camp. Especially given that the latter will be dominated by Liberals, who of course eschew reason in favour of egalitarian platitudes and gratuitous emotionality.

With all due respect, MadLib, I find that a Liberal decrying 'melodrama' is scarcely less amusing than the idea of a neo-Nazi complaining of bigotry.
 
Henrin said:
If the sentenced finds their action of killing another just and you find your killing of them just then there is really no difference between the two of you. The action you both committed was the same and both of you find your reasons for doing it just.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a difference. I would not kill someone who was harmless and innocent, and for no justifiable reason. A murderer will and does. There is a world of difference between the two concepts.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm flattered that you think my off-hand remarks are bumper-sticker material. I am pretty good with words, aren't I?

:)
Click to expand...

Yes, the perspective, philosophy, content, and lack of logic does resemble a bumper sticker... as in catch phrase, cliché-ridden nonsense. I laugh at anyone who thinks that's a compliment. :lol:
 
Alyssa said:
Yes, the perspective, philosophy, content, and lack of logic does resemble a bumper sticker... as in catch phrase, cliché-ridden nonsense. I laugh at anyone who thinks that's a compliment. :lol:
Click to expand...

:kissy:
 
SheWolf said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, I support the death penalty. However, I disagree with the methods used (lethal injection). A bullet to the head is cost friendlier and quicker. And 'death row inmates' should not be living 5+ years after being sentenced to death.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The DP isn't designed to reduce murder... though that is a by-product.

a) costs can be reduced by using more simple methods of killing
b) although some may want the DP as vengeance that does not make the DP about vengeance. It is a consequence plain and simple.

...and life in prison does not remove the threat from society. Prison is in our society and guards and other inmates can be affected.
Click to expand...

Where did you read the 'official' reason for the death penalty?

Yes, I agree costs can be reduced, esp. by reducing the appeals periods and legal fees. (However it's nearly impossible to do that while trying to protect those incorrectly convicted)

And I dont consider the prison system 'society'. It is specifically designed to keep dangerous people OUT of society. Anyone working there or incarcerated is knowingly subject to that environment.
 
SheWolf said:
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
Click to expand...

I support the general idea of the death penalty for real monsters, like Bundy (Ted, to be clear), McVeigh...

However I think it's over used.
 
Bodhisattva said:
If just one guard is harmed... and it happens more than you think (I know some prison guards - Sherriff Deputies) then that one is already too much. It affects them and their families. It should never happen.
Click to expand...

They chose to take a dangerous job protecting society just like cops or firemen. No one forced them to do so.

Are there any stats on how many DP incarcerated inmates have killed inside compared to inmates jailed for lesser offenses? Or are you saying no one should be in jail? Because anyone of those inmates is a potential danger, not just those convicted of DP offenses.
 
I couldn't give a definitive answer to the question. There are people who commit crimes so vile they forfeit their right to live on the same planet as me. Not all murderers fit into this category, but enough do to make it very difficult for me to absolutely oppose it.
 
mak2 said:
Government should hold all life sacred.
Click to expand...

It's not the govt's job to hold anything sacred. At all. Nothing. No one. It *explicitly* is instructed not to, nor is it any of 'its' business.
 
Dont worry, it sure dont seem to.
Lursa said:
It's not the govt's job to hold anything sacred. At all. Nothing. No one. It *explicitly* is instructed not to, nor is it any of 'its' business.
Click to expand...
 
polgara said:
How do you feel about thousands of criminals being released in California because they don't have the money to keep them incarcerated? Who is responsible if even one of them kill again? If a jury has found them guilty in a court of law, why is punishment wrong? What would you suggest be done with them?

Greetings, Cyrylek. :2wave:
Click to expand...

This is one reason to support the DP in my opinion. That and the small possibility of escape.

My main reason for being against the DP is because it is not proven to be a deterrent to murder and other vile crimes against persons. Since it does not prevent those crimes, then life in prison performs the same purpose as the DP....it removes the threat from society.

Otherwise, prison removes them from society and I believe that is the purpose of prison...to protect society. (Supposedly it is to rehabilitate but I see a very poor record there).
 
rocket88 said:
I support the general idea of the death penalty for real monsters, like Bundy (Ted, to be clear), McVeigh...

However I think it's over used.
Click to expand...

I would agree. Also, I think we are less likely to kill innocent if the death penalty were only used on the most heinous, sadistic, serial killers. They tend to plead guilty and enjoy talking about their murders, torture, and abuse.
 
Lursa said:
My main reason for being against the DP is because it is not proven to be a deterrent to murder and other vile crimes against persons. Since it does not prevent those crimes, then life in prison performs the same purpose as the DP....it removes the threat from society.
Click to expand...

Not to pick on you or anything because this is a general statement, but where do you get the absurd idea that the death penalty has anything whatsoever to do with being a deterrent? Who said that? It's not a deterrent, it's not intended to be a deterrent, why do you keep evaluating it like it is?

After all, prison isn't a deterrent either, the majority of people who go to prison reoffend and go back to prison. I don't hear anyone claiming we ought to get rid of prisons because they're not deterrents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom