• 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
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

In general I strongly support it!


but thats going by a perfect world and perfect standards which we do not have.

Similar to like Lizzy said, not a crime of passion but in cold blood simply because that person is mentally broken, and say theres video, DNA and witness evidence. Yes I have no problem with the death penalty. I would even extend it to rape/child crimes in some cases.

But again the issue is with the system of guilt/innocence, NOT the punishment.

For me I can easily justify the punishment but defending the process of innocence/guilt isnt not always easy.

Also on another side note, while we should not be botching executions things do happen and its not a reason to scrap everything.
 
I find myself conflicted on this question.

On the one hand, I find the chance of executing an innocent person extremely abhorrent.

On the other hand, if the worst we can do to a person is imprison them for life, what kind of deterrent does that provide against performing certain acts?

Because that's really the entire point of the death penalty and, really, any and all sentences that can be handed out - they're a threat intended to make people think twice about doing certain things.

And at some point, even the threat of life without the possibility of parole won't stop a sufficiently motivated individual.

--------------

On another note, how hard do we try to rehabilitate convicts these days? I read about how a portion of crime is committed by released prisoners, in many cases with help or knowledge gained in prison.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Its inhumane
Click to expand...

Right. This individual tortured and murdered thousands of his own people. He got off easy, but I suppose people like you believe he should have had an airconditioned jail cell, three healthy meals each day, healthcare, exercise, and entertainment instead. Ridiculous.



TheDemSocialist said:
I did see it and i found it disturbing as well.
Click to expand...

crybaby-300x249.jpg

yes, poor mass murderer.
 
NGNM85 said:
That's basically exactly what the state is saying.

There is no justification. These are people who are in custody, they are locked down, they have been removed from society. There is no justification for killing them. The burden of proof always needs to be on the side of killing, I don't neef to prove why someone shouldn't be killed, and that burden is very high.
Click to expand...

There sure is justification. They murdered, raped or molested an innocent person. For that fact they forfeit their right to life as a consequence. Simple.
 
NGNM85 said:
If state-sanctioned murder is not barbaric, what is? To put it in starker relief; can you honestly say that state-sanctioned murder is civilized?
Click to expand...

It is not civilized but it is a necessity that must be done in order to uphold the value that a society places on life (innocent).
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is not civilized but it is a necessity that must be done in order to uphold the value that a society places on life (innocent).
Click to expand...
There's this sci-fi book series wherein one nation-state uses...harsh...sentences.

They started somewhere around hard labor, and got harsher from there, with most major crimes ending in execution, and the worst ones working up to and including impalement as a form of execution.

Either the author was quite good at making a fictional world, or he has some kinda extreme views on capital punishment.
 
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...

I guess it depends on what is meant by the term *sacred*. If by sacred we mean something that is to be worshipped religiously then I agree. If we mean sacred as in something that is considered with respect and importance then I disagree. Obviously, the Founders had written the Constitution with the mindset that life was "sacred" as well as certain individual freedoms such as speech and property.
 
Alyssa said:
I prefer permanently removed. But since many people don't even want to hurt a murderer's feelings, I suppose I'll settle for imprisoned until overcrowding.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the murderer's feelings.
 
Cephus said:
The same is true of people who get put in prison. There are lots of people behind bars that never committed the crime for which they were convicted. I don't see anyone wanting to close the prisons because of it though.
Click to expand...

That is true, but the death penalty is final. You cannot go back on that if you find he/she was innocent later on. At least if they are still in prison you have a chance to correct that wrong and give them some restitution for what was unjustly taken from them.
 
Cephus said:
Doesn't do him any good to waste the best years of his life behind bars either.
Click to expand...

What exactly is your point? Would you prefer being put to death for a crime you did not commit or be put in prison for 20 years and then be set for the rest of your life financially?
 
Cephus said:
Hate to say it, but individuals have virtually no importance to society at all. Sure, there are some exceptions, but if someone gets gunned down in the street, their death has no bearing whatsoever to the actual health of society.
Click to expand...

That is the argument of a dictator who tries to justify the extermination of innocent people. I live near Chicago where innocents are murdered every single day. Tell me how the health of that community is doing.
 
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...

There's a case in Texas where a guy shot a lady in the face at an ATM then raped her, claiming she wanted it (after being shot in the face mind you) and murdered her. I have trouble understanding why anyone would want anything less than death for that guy.
 
Geoist said:
That is true, but the death penalty is final. You cannot go back on that if you find he/she was innocent later on. At least if they are still in prison you have a chance to correct that wrong and give them some restitution for what was unjustly taken from them.
Click to expand...

Imprisonment is final too. Whatever years are spent behind bars can never be returned. Your lifespan is finite, every second spent incorrectly incarcerated is taken away forever and no amount of money can ever compensate for a single moment of your lifespan lost.

Do try again.
 
Geoist said:
What exactly is your point? Would you prefer being put to death for a crime you did not commit or be put in prison for 20 years and then be set for the rest of your life financially?
Click to expand...

Honestly? I'd rather be put to death than spend any time behind bars, where the crime rate is much, much higher than in the outside world.
 
Geoist said:
That is the argument of a dictator who tries to justify the extermination of innocent people. I live near Chicago where innocents are murdered every single day. Tell me how the health of that community is doing.
Click to expand...

Yes, innocent people. Now show me the people on death row who have never been committed of any crime, they're there for their first offense. Can't do it, can you?
 
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 think I'm more in favor of lifetime imprisonment with no possibility for parole, so the person can be reminded everyday why he or she is there.

But, I'm not talking about a cushy prison either, no television, no cell phone, limited phone use, no workout rooms, no weight rooms, laborious work, one hour a day outside, not cruel or unusual, just enough to make that person know they really screwed their life up.
 
Cephus said:
Honestly? I'd rather be put to death than spend any time behind bars, where the crime rate is much, much higher than in the outside world.
Click to expand...

REALLY?! You'd rather be put to death than spend even one day in prison? I think you are being silly.
 
Cephus said:
Yes, innocent people. Now show me the people on death row who have never been committed of any crime, they're there for their first offense. Can't do it, can you?
Click to expand...

Whether they have committed a crime before or not does not matter. If you have not done the crime you are on death row for then you are legally innocent of that crime.
 
So far; 55% against, 42% for.

That's about what I figured it would be.

So slightly more people are enlightened then UNenlightened on this.

;)
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
So far; 55% against, 42% for.

That's about what I figured it would be.

So slightly more people are enlightened then UNenlightened on this.

;)
Click to expand...

We are moving in the right direction, though slowly.
 
Geoist said:
REALLY?! You'd rather be put to death than spend even one day in prison? I think you are being silly.
Click to expand...

Not one day, but certainly any long period of time. And it doesn't matter what you think, I think you're being silly too, that doesn't mean a thing, does it. It matters what you can demonstrate rationally, not your opinions.
 
Cephus said:
Not one day, but certainly any long period of time. And it doesn't matter what you think, I think you're being silly too, that doesn't mean a thing, does it. It matters what you can demonstrate rationally, not your opinions.
Click to expand...

Well if the convicted wishes to take your easy way out then they will find a way. Unless they are severely depressed, I believe most individuals would prefer life with hope over death with no hope.
 
X Factor said:
There's a case in Texas where a guy shot a lady in the face at an ATM then raped her, claiming she wanted it (after being shot in the face mind you) and murdered her. I have trouble understanding why anyone would want anything less than death for that guy.
Click to expand...

It's not about whether or not they deserve death, because oftentimes they do. The debate's about the government's right to decide the life of its own citizens. In my opinion, if one innocent person is wrongly put to death, then the government no longer has the moral authority to take the life of any Americans.
 
MadLib said:
It's not about whether or not they deserve death, because oftentimes they do. The debate's about the government's right to decide the life of its own citizens. In my opinion, if one innocent person is wrongly put to death, then the government no longer has the moral authority to take the life of any Americans.
Click to expand...

Do you apply that to all crimes? If just one person has been wrongly imprisoned there's no moral authority any more to put anyone else in prison ever?
 
X Factor said:
Do you apply that to all crimes? If just one person has been wrongly imprisoned there's no moral authority any more to put anyone else in prison ever?
Click to expand...
Personally, I think that, at the least, the required proof and evidence of a crime must be extremely complete before I would consider supporting the death penalty - if there is a chance that the person is innocent, death is an unacceptable option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom