• 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
Bodhisattva said:
Wrong. The logical argument is to reduce cost and only execute those that are guilty beyond a doubt. This can be done too.
Click to expand...

There is really no such thing. There have been cases where people have actually even confessed to crimes they didn't commit. There have been cases where DNA has been tampered with and/or contaminated. There have been cases of prosecutorial misconduct, where the prosecutors have willfully mishandled or withheld important evidence in the course of trial, etc.

Not to mention, we can put them away for life in prisons. There is not a NEED to kill them except for perhaps overcrowding.
 
ChrisL said:
There is really no such thing. There have been cases where people have actually even confessed to crimes they didn't commit. There have been cases where DNA has been tampered with and/or contaminated. There have been cases of prosecutorial misconduct, where the prosecutors have willfully mishandled or withheld important evidence in the course of trial, etc.

Not to mention, we can put them away for life in prisons. There is not a NEED to kill them except for perhaps overcrowding.
Click to expand...
Bodhisattva said:
Wrong. The logical argument is to reduce cost and only execute those that are guilty beyond a doubt. This can be done too.
Click to expand...
ChrisL is straight up. The justice system is not perfect and when it comes to taking someone's life, that structural imperfection doesn't cut it.

Incidentally several of these imperfections are also why you don't ever, ever speak to police officers or ever enter a police interrogation of your own free without a lawyer. Such a case just literally happened to my sister last week. A girl backed up into my sister's car in the parking low. This girl apologized to my sister in front of the cop; for that reason alone, this girl is now 100% at fault.

I'd also go farther than ChrisL. The only logical argument for the death penalty is the pleasure derived from killing someone.
 
ChrisL said:
There is really no such thing. There have been cases where people have actually even confessed to crimes they didn't commit. There have been cases where DNA has been tampered with and/or contaminated. There have been cases of prosecutorial misconduct, where the prosecutors have willfully mishandled or withheld important evidence in the course of trial, etc.

Not to mention, we can put them away for life in prisons. There is not a NEED to kill them except for perhaps overcrowding.
Click to expand...

There is a need to kill them... to uphold the value of innocent life.
 
Bodhisattva said:
There is a need to kill them... to uphold the value of innocent life.
Click to expand...

It does not do that in any way. It lessens the value of human life, if anything, and who in their right mind wants to give the government such power over us anyway, to use and abuse at their discretion? What chance does the average person or, God forbid, the poor minority person have against the government besides some crappy court-appointed lawyer?
 
brothern said:
don't ever, ever speak to police officers or ever enter a police interrogation of your own free without a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Agreed...

A girl backed up into my sister's car in the parking low. This girl apologized to my sister in front of the cop; for that reason alone, this girl is now 100% at fault.
Click to expand...

Not for that reason alone... she was 100% at fault regardless of police presence.

The only logical argument for the death penalty is the pleasure derived from killing someone.
Click to expand...

That is a bifurcation (logical) fallacy ... sorry. Nice try though.

Logical Fallacies» False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy
 
ChrisL said:
It does not do that in any way. It lessens the value of human life, if anything, and who in their right mind wants to give the government such power over us anyway, to use and abuse at their discretion?
Click to expand...

Innocent life. Innocent. It absolutely shows that society has no other higher value on innocent life.

teleological ethics (philosophy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

What chance does the average person or, God forbid, the poor minority person have against the government besides some crappy court-appointed lawyer?
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
 
ChrisL said:
Irrelevant? I don't think so. Just because you can't come up with a legitimate argument against a totally valid point does not make it irrelevant. Doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

How is a poor person having a bad lawyer relevant to executing a criminal who committed murder or rape (beyond the question of a doubt) then?
 
Bodhisattva said:
How is a poor person having a bad lawyer relevant to executing a criminal who committed murder or rape (beyond the question of a doubt) then?
Click to expand...

Poor people are the ones most likely to be railroaded by the system. :roll: They are easy pickings.

Perhaps the most important factor in determining whether a defendant will receive the death penalty is the quality of the representation he or she is provided.

Almost all defendants in capital cases cannot afford their own attorneys. In many cases, the appointed attorneys are overworked, underpaid, or lacking the trial experience required for death penalty cases.

There have even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a death case were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial. Other appointed attorneys have slept through parts of the trial, or arrived at the court under the influence of alcohol.

In 2001, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented: "People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty . . . I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial."
Click to expand...

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=83
 
ChrisL said:
Poor people are the ones most likely to be railroaded by the system. :roll: They are easy pickings.



Death Penalty : Inadequate Legal Representation
Click to expand...

So because they are guilty, but had a bad lawyer, they shouldn't have to face the consequences of their actions? You are rewarding the poor murderers because rich murderers get away with it more? That is idiotic. I only wish all murderers and rapists had bad lawyers.

...again, Irrelevant.
 
Bodhisattva said:
So because they are guilty, but had a bad lawyer, they shouldn't have to face the consequences of their actions? You are rewarding the poor murderers because rich murderers get away with it more? That is idiotic. I only wish all murderers and rapists had bad lawyers.

...again, Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It is not irrelevant. The point being that poor people get bad representation in court and that most certainly matters. There are no "rewards." Don't know what you're talking about, but you'd probably do much better if you'd just skip the hyperbole, backhanded insults and ridiculousness and just stick to arguing the points.
 
ChrisL said:
It is not irrelevant. The point being that poor people get bad representation in court and that most certainly matters. There are no "rewards." Don't know what you're talking about, but you'd probably do much better if you'd just skip the hyperbole, backhanded insults and ridiculousness and just stick to arguing the points.
Click to expand...

What insults? Like you rolling your eyes at me? Don't start being a hypocrite now.

Yeah, the poor get a bad rap in court. So the **** what if they are guilty. Have I not said REPEATEDLY that the DP should be for those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Most that are locked up or on DP have a reasonable doubt. Under my system LESS people would be executed, but they would be those that deserved it. And I don't know why you don't know what I am talking about... it is pretty clear.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What insults? Like you rolling your eyes at me? Don't start being a hypocrite now.

Yeah, the poor get a bad rap in court. So the **** what if they are guilty. Have I not said REPEATEDLY that the DP should be for those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Most that are locked up or on DP have a reasonable doubt. Under my system LESS people would be executed, but they would be those that deserved it. And I don't know why you don't know what I am talking about... it is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Rolly eyes are NOT an insult. They are a sign of exasperation.

You don't know if they are guilty if they are not adequately represented in court. AND that IS one of our rights, adequate representation in a court of law.
 
ChrisL said:
Rolly eyes are NOT an insult. They are a sign of exasperation.

You don't know if they are guilty if they are not adequately represented in court. AND that IS one of our rights, adequate representation in a court of law.
Click to expand...

How did I insult you?

And "adequate representation in Court" is not a right.

You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may)
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Right to counsel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Bodhisattva said:
How did I insult you?

And "adequate representation in Court" is not a right.

You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may)
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Right to counsel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? :roll:

In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of Kevin Wiggins and ordered a new sentencing hearing because his lawyers' assistance fell well below the standard of competent legal representation. Wiggins, a black man from Maryland, had been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1998 murder of Florence Lacs; he was arrested because he was in possession of Lacs' car and credit cards. Wiggins' counsel failed to conduct a thorough investigation into Wiggins' history of severe emotional, physical, and sexual abuse as a young child. Despite the fact that such an analysis is routine in capital cases, his counsel introduced no mitigating evidence and failed to even prepare a social history or hire an expert to do so. This omission is critical because juries often reject death and impose a life sentence when such evidence is presented.
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Agreed...

Not for that reason alone... she was 100% at fault regardless of police presence.
Click to expand...
The apology was interpreted as a confession. This girl did not intend it as such, because she just felt bad. However that was the consequence of being nice. Otherwise it would have been the word of my sister against hers.

Expanding on that, it is the reason why the Innocence Project finds such a high percentage of its exonerations have involved false confessions. People are generally good natured. They feel bad (like this girl did), want to be helpful or cooperative with the authorities, are tired, scared or sympathetic to someone, and lo and behold that goodwill leads them straight into giving a confession to something they didn't do. Even if they didn't intended it, or actually realize they are "confessing."

It's a crappy system for those that don't realize that their role is to be a complete, unresponsive jerk. It contributes to the issue of innocent death row inmates.

Bodhisattva said:
Brothern said:
The only logical argument for the death penalty is the pleasure derived from killing someone.
Click to expand...
That is a bifurcation (logical) fallacy ... sorry. Nice try though.

Logical Fallacies» False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy
Click to expand...
I'm curious then. If you believe that killing is a displeasure, what possible logic do you have to justify the idea that killing another human being "upholds the value of innocent life"?
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Are you kidding? :roll:
Click to expand...

No. Where does it say that he is innocent of killing the old lady? Take your time...

Kevin Wiggins

Kevin Wiggins was convicted and put on death row for the 1988 murder of an elderly woman in her Baltimore County apartment. The Baltimore County public defenders assigned to represent him during his first trial were young and inexperienced, and neither had ever been the primary attorney on a capital case. Rather than introducing very convincing mitigating factors of neglect and abuse that he suffered as a child during the sentencing phase of Wiggins' trial, his attorneys made the case for his innocence. His attorneys also failed to enter in the fact that Wiggins is borderline mentally retarded.

After being affirmed by Maryland's Court of Appeals, Wiggins' conviction and sentence were overturned in a federal district court on a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. However, shortly afterwards the decision was reversed and the Fourth Circuit Court reinstated both the conviction and death sentence.

Finally, in November of 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an appeal of Wiggins' sentencing hearing, but declined the appeal of his conviction. Appling a two-pronged test outlined in a 1984 decision, Strickland v. Washington, the Court sought to determine first whether or not Wiggins' counsel was deficient and second, if that deficiency prejudiced the outcome. In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that Wiggins' attorneys' failure to investigate and introduce mitigating factors was indeed due to carelessness as opposed to "reasoned strategic judgment," and that the presentation of such mitigating factors likely would have "led at least one juror to reject the death penalty." Thus, in June of 2003, Wiggins' death sentence was effectively overturned and he was resentenced to life in prison.

Specific Cases | Maryland Citizens Against State Executions
 
brothern said:
The apology was interpreted as a confession. This girl did not intend it as such, because she just felt bad. However that was the consequence of being nice. Otherwise it would have been the word of my sister against hers.
Click to expand...

If she hit the car and apologized then IT IS a confession. She did the right thing.

Expanding on that, it is the reason why the Innocence Project finds such a high percentage of its exonerations have involved false confessions. People are generally good natured. They feel bad (like this girl did), want to be helpful or cooperative with the authorities, are tired, scared or sympathetic to someone, and lo and behold that goodwill leads them straight into giving a confession to something they didn't do. Even if they didn't intended it, or actually realize they are "confessing."
Click to expand...

I have talked to police, lawyers, court psychologists and judges during at least three court appearances and other minor issues with police and never once did I confess to anything that I did not do. I doubt that even a fraction of those that talk to cops and lawyers do either...

It's a crappy system for those that don't realize that their role is to be a complete, unresponsive jerk. It contributes to the issue of innocent death row inmates.
Click to expand...

Something should be done to ensure that nobody innocent goes to Death Row. Throwing away the Death Penalty because of some problems is as illogical as throwing away your car because the breaks don't work properly. You fix the problem.

I'm curious then. If you believe that killing is a displeasure, what possible logic do you have to justify the idea that killing another human being "upholds the value of innocent life"?
Click to expand...

I don't understand you putting in displeasure the way that you do but here is the reason for the latter part...

Teleological ethics - New World Encyclopedia
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, though -- do you believe it is the government's duty to regulate emotion (i.e, suffering, anguish, etc.)?

I am against the death penalty entirely, but even if I were to condone it, it could only ever be on the basis of this being the most moral act.

The government can't stoop to the level of a murderer -- it would thus lose the moral high ground to dish out penalties in the first place.

Ergo, it is the duty of the government, when enacting the death penalty, to do so with the utmost respect and the least suffering. The point is for this person to be gone, not for this person to feel the wrath of the people he hurt.

Otherwise it's just barbaric.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No. Where does it say that he is innocent of killing the old lady? Take your time...

Kevin Wiggins

Kevin Wiggins was convicted and put on death row for the 1988 murder of an elderly woman in her Baltimore County apartment. The Baltimore County public defenders assigned to represent him during his first trial were young and inexperienced, and neither had ever been the primary attorney on a capital case. Rather than introducing very convincing mitigating factors of neglect and abuse that he suffered as a child during the sentencing phase of Wiggins' trial, his attorneys made the case for his innocence. His attorneys also failed to enter in the fact that Wiggins is borderline mentally retarded.

After being affirmed by Maryland's Court of Appeals, Wiggins' conviction and sentence were overturned in a federal district court on a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. However, shortly afterwards the decision was reversed and the Fourth Circuit Court reinstated both the conviction and death sentence.

Finally, in November of 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an appeal of Wiggins' sentencing hearing, but declined the appeal of his conviction. Appling a two-pronged test outlined in a 1984 decision, Strickland v. Washington, the Court sought to determine first whether or not Wiggins' counsel was deficient and second, if that deficiency prejudiced the outcome. In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that Wiggins' attorneys' failure to investigate and introduce mitigating factors was indeed due to carelessness as opposed to "reasoned strategic judgment," and that the presentation of such mitigating factors likely would have "led at least one juror to reject the death penalty." Thus, in June of 2003, Wiggins' death sentence was effectively overturned and he was resentenced to life in prison.

Specific Cases | Maryland Citizens Against State Executions
Click to expand...

That is besides the point. The point is that he had bad legal representation during a death penalty trial because he was poor and could not afford it. Are you seriously stating that none of this matters to you as long as people can still get the death penalty? What kind of priorities are these?
 
ChrisL said:
That is besides the point. The point is that he had bad legal representation during a death penalty trial because he was poor and could not afford it. Are you seriously stating that none of this matters to you as long as people can still get the death penalty? What kind of priorities are these?
Click to expand...

No. That is THE point. You offered a Red Herring with this "competent legal representation" tangent. If a person murders another I could care less what their representation is. In fact, the worse the better so that they can be convicted. If they are innocent then I care what their representation is like. Was Kevin Wiggens innocent of murdering the old lady? That is all that is relevant to the issue we are discussing. All I see you doing is offering a Red Herring logical fallacy.
 
Bodhisattva said:
If a person murders another I could care less what their representation is. In fact, the worse the better so that they can be convicted. If they are innocent then I care what their representation is like. Was Kevin Wiggens innocent of murdering the old lady? That is all that is relevant to the issue we are discussing. All I see you doing is offering a Red Herring logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

The problem with your little theory here is that if a person doesn't have adequate representation, then he doesn't have a good chance to prove his innocence.
 
ChrisL said:
The problem with your little theory here is that if a person doesn't have adequate representation, then he doesn't have a good chance to prove his innocence.
Click to expand...

No problem. Kevin Wiggens should not have been tried for the DP in the first place. There was no proof he was ever in her house. In fact, he should not have been tried for murder. The problem isn't the DP the problem is bad DA's and stupid jury's.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No problem. Kevin Wiggens should not have been tried for the DP in the first place. There was no proof he was ever in her house. In fact, he should not have been tried for murder. The problem isn't the DP the problem is bad DA's and stupid jury's.
Click to expand...

Yes, and these same bad or incompetent people also serve on DP cases, and that IS a big deal. We want adequate legal representation for all citizens when they are accused of a crime, don't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom