• 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!

Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Should Capital Punishment be supported?

  • It should be supported in both principle and practice.

    Votes: 31 45.6%

  • Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.

    Votes: 11 16.2%

  • It should be opposed both in principle and practice.

    Votes: 26 38.2%
  • Total voters
    68
AKLee said:
Okay then, why not a life sentence as an alternative to all crimes that warrant capital punishment.
Click to expand...

As I said in another post. Sorry Jimmy's family and friends not only did this scumbag kill little Jimmy, now you get to support this scumbag for the rest of his life, you get to pay for that scumbag's medical care, food, housing, library, rat lawyer that may try to help him weasel out of his punishment, sex change operation(in some states), weight room, security and other things." Its seems like adding insult to injury to the victims,the victim's loved ones and other honest law abiding citizens forcing them to basically support those scum for the rest of their lives behind bars.


Do you see no hypocrisy in the system here?
Click to expand...

For it to be hypocritical the scumbag on death row would have to be innocent like his victim.

Levels of social tolerance toward certain issues are changing every single day; in 1607, the persecution of people of Sub Saharan African descent as slaves were seen as something tolerable. The maltreatment of a black man then would not warrant as heavy a punishment as it would have now. Then, who are you to say that we got it right this time?
Click to expand...

Those are not related to capital punishment of today.


Why prosecute criminals on the basis of contemporary social boundaries,
Click to expand...
You think things like murder, treason, and other heinous crimes are contemporary social boundaries?
 
Cookie Monster said:
I tend to agree with the principle that executions are acceptable. Some people are more trouble than they are worth keeping alive. Wiping the life can wipe the problem. It depends on the particulars. However, I have problems with both camps about the death penalty. Death penalty proponents tend to annoy me when they start blabbering about "justice for the victim" blah blah blah. I do not support the principle because of the revenge. Death penalty antagonists tend to annoy me with semi-pacifism.
Click to expand...

I'm a non-pacifist death penalty opponent. Yeah, we should avoid war whenever possible via diplomatic negotiations et all., but there are some extremely limited circumstances in which armed conflict is acceptable. But these are extremely limited. In my opinion, WWII was the last truly justifiable war we've had.
 
jamesrage said:
As I said in another post. Sorry Jimmy's family and friends not only did this scumbag kill little Jimmy, now you get to support this scumbag for the rest of his life, you get to pay for that scumbag's medical care, food, housing, library, rat lawyer that may try to help him weasel out of his punishment
Click to expand...

Point 1: You are conceding that the main motive then (in little Jimmy's case at least) is so the relatives of the victim can settle a score with the perpetrator of the crime. So its revenge, basically?

Point 2: The entire process from arrest to execution costs more money (taxpayer's money, which you keep harping on) than life imprisonment, as I have mentioned in an earlier post. Go check out the source I included there.

jamesrage said:
For it to be hypocritical the scumbag on death row would have to be innocent like his victim.
Click to expand...

Point 3: You are generalizing murderers in general. You have the idea that all murderers are child-raping madmen while they are not all that way. There is not just black and white, there is a significant shade of gray here. Tell me how different a state-sanctioned killing is from a civillian murder - they are both taking lives away, that's the bottom line.

jamesrage said:
Those are not related to capital punishment of today.


You think things like murder, treason, and other heinous crimes are contemporary social boundaries?
Click to expand...

Point 4: Try to detatch yourself from the social issues of today that we all drown ourselves in for just one second. Could there have been the slightest possibility that people in 1607 regarded the ownership and mistreatment of slaves as they would any other commodity? Yes, they were desensitized to what we now see as inhumane treatment of slaves which is why it happened on such a large scale, perhaps murder may be justified in the future. Impossible? Just consider it before busting a nut.
 
AKLee said:
However, why don't you consider the possibility of the criminal reforming and as a result, ultimately benefit society?
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The death penalty is just that, a PENALTY for actions taken. Whether or not the criminal reforms or potentially does something good with their lives doesn't change the fact that they deserve to be punished for their action and that punishment is the end of their lives. I don't care how sorry they are for their action, the fact that they committed said action at all needs to be addressed.
 
Tucker Case said:
IMO, the government should not be killing it's citizens for any reason. The only logical reason for capital punishment is as revenge. The Government is not in the revenge business.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
If a person is convicted of killing or raping (especially a child or senior) I see no reason for said person to remain alive risking the lives of their jailers. ie guards, nurses, doctors, jail house teachers and such.
 
Cephus said:
That's irrelevant. The death penalty is just that, a PENALTY for actions taken. Whether or not the criminal reforms or potentially does something good with their lives doesn't change the fact that they deserve to be punished for their action and that punishment is the end of their lives. I don't care how sorry they are for their action, the fact that they committed said action at all needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

A greater penalty would be allowing them to rot in prison for 60+ years.
 
I would have less of a problem in doing away with the death penalty if the convicted murderer received a life sentence with no parole and extremely curtailed prison perks and liberties. No more of this 'my cell is my castle' crap. The incarceration rules applied to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and Spandau come to mind.
 
EgoffTib said:
A greater penalty would be allowing them to rot in prison for 60+ years.
Click to expand...

Great, you pay for that. You pay for their food and upkeep, the prisons and the guards that have to be built and hired... oh, and have them build them in your back yard so others aren't inconvenienced.
 
I am for capital punishment.

Every year an inmate spends in prison costs taxpayers an average of $22,000. As prisoners get older, the cost of maintenance rises, ultimately reaching an average of $69,000 per year for those over the age of fifty-five. A study by a Stanford University professor estimated that the cost of a life term for an average California prisoner is $1.5 million.
Click to expand...

Inmate Costs - Fun Facts

Why do you want to pay to keep someone alive when they have absolutely no problem destroying someone else's life? Or multiple peoples' lives?

Either start a new Australia :lol: or "Put 'em down".
 
jamesrage said:
Of course they are irrelevant to you anti-death penalty nuts, you guys have as much compassion for victims and their loved ones as the scum on death row do. Which is why the scum on death row are there and why you and others like you advocate that we should not execute these scum.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY the type ofchildish emotionally charged nonsense the governemnt should not engage in.

You advocate that the victims loved ones and honest law abiding citizens should be forced to support these scum for the rest of their lives that we should pay for their room, food, medical care, security, entertainment, libraries, rat lawyers to help them weasel out of their punishment, sex change operation and drugs(in some states) and many other things.
Click to expand...


:confused: Geez! I wasn't aware I had these beliefs. Can you teach me more about what I advocate?
 
Tucker Case said:
Removal of the a potential recidivist person from the general population is beneficail to the society as a whole. Going that extra step and removing that person from teh realm of the living is unneccesary and vengeance driven.

What the victim and their loved one's want is irrelevant to my logic.

Emotionally, I feel for them, but the post facto consideration of them is only done for emotional reasons, and justice should be emotionless.
Click to expand...

Not going to disagree, but what is just then?
 
Shewter said:
I am for capital punishment.



Inmate Costs - Fun Facts

Why do you want to pay to keep someone alive when they have absolutely no problem destroying someone else's life? Or multiple peoples' lives?

Either start a new Australia :lol: or "Put 'em down".
Click to expand...
and yet it is still cheaper than a death sentence
 
Shewter said:
How much does it cost for 1 letha injection?
Click to expand...
some people do debate it, but there are many articles, including some in this very thread that show it is cheaper to give someone a life sentence than to give them the death penalty and all the appeals and expenses that come with it

I support the principal
the reality is that it is too inefficient for this fiscal conservative :lol:
 
Shewter said:
Not going to disagree, but what is just then?
Click to expand...

It's acknowledging that I do have sympathy for the victims and their families. justice is blind, and it should also be heartless. I don't think emotional arguemtns should be made in any direction. The reason we have justice is for the betterment of society.

The issue at hand when delivering a sentence is not "punishment" per se, it is prevention.

Any person who commits as heinous an act as what is considered a capital offense should be locked up for life and given the bare minimum necessary for survival.

I don't care about anything else besides removing them form society.

The only reason for the death penalty is to act as retribution. Punishemnt above and beyond what is necessary is pointless.

The ONLY arguemtns in favor of the Death Penalty are emotionally based. They are more expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, and valueless for the society as a whole.

I have yet to hear a logical argument in favor of a Government killing it's own citizens that is emotionless. I would listent to such an argument. I've yet to hear it.

I don;t make any emotional argumetns against the death penalty either. Liek I said, the issue is Justice, and Justice, IMO, should be blind and it should be emotionless.
 
AKLee said:
--: the side that supports capital punishment may argue that abolishing it results in the devaluation of respect for human life as the punishment is not proportionate and as such, does not reflect the significance of the crime. Also, the fact that the punishment is congruent to the crime proves that the system reflects the objective of the judiciary system: to deter.

The side that opposes capital punishment may argue that in the simplest of terms, execution is state-seanctioned killing - how different will taking the life of a killer be than taking the life of an innocent if the main objective is to preserve human life in general? --
Click to expand...

Hi Alex, I struggle with the two cases you bring forward.

Firstly, no matter how many criminals we may kill or have killed, it never brought any victims back or even prevented any new victims being created. Thus I cannot agree the position that Capital Punishment brings about any re-valuation of human life. (the side that supports capital punishment may argue that abolishing it results in the devaluation of respect for human life)

Also, those who tend to argue against Capital Punishment worry less about state sanctioned killing or more likely state sanctioned revenge than the worry that an innocent may be wrongly killed as has happened before. One innocent killed by the state is worse than 100 proven murderers being killed in my opinion and I believe in the opinion of those groups that oppose the death penalty.

Personally, I would agree death sentence for paedophiles only as it seems these are the only people who cannot be changed of their condition - I was in favour of chemical castration but now I read it doesn't always work. I'd rather see as Tashah states proper life sentences for convicted killers and without the little luxuries many prisoners take for granted now.
If a society chooses to have death sentences then I would want that society to make 100% sure the perpetrator is 100% guilty of the crime.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's acknowledging that I do have sympathy for the victims and their families. justice is blind, and it should also be heartless. I don't think emotional arguemtns should be made in any direction. The reason we have justice is for the betterment of society.

The issue at hand when delivering a sentence is not "punishment" per se, it is prevention.

Any person who commits as heinous an act as what is considered a capital offense should be locked up for life and given the bare minimum necessary for survival.

I don't care about anything else besides removing them form society.

The only reason for the death penalty is to act as retribution. Punishemnt above and beyond what is necessary is pointless.

The ONLY arguemtns in favor of the Death Penalty are emotionally based. They are more expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, and valueless for the society as a whole.

I have yet to hear a logical argument in favor of a Government killing it's own citizens that is emotionless. I would listent to such an argument. I've yet to hear it.

I don;t make any emotional argumetns against the death penalty either. Liek I said, the issue is Justice, and Justice, IMO, should be blind and it should be emotionless.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, I just don't see the point in giving them even the bare minimum for survival. Completely removing them from the equation eliminates any risks or potential for them to cause any further problems.

To be completely honest, (gonna get a few comments for this one I'm sure) if someone is seen unfit for society, an inexpensive, quick death would be key. Lethal injections are silly, the electric chair is.... erm... well, you've seen The Green Mile :mrgreen: , the Guillatine however, and they are gone. The only expenses would be that of disposal, cleaning, and maintenance on the device.

I just really don't see the point in imprisoning someone for that period of time.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Also, those who tend to argue against Capital Punishment worry less about state sanctioned killing or more likely state sanctioned revenge than the worry that an innocent may be wrongly killed as has happened before. One innocent killed by the state is worse than 100 proven murderers being killed in my opinion and I believe in the opinion of those groups that oppose the death penalty.
Click to expand...


Dunno about you, but I would rather be killed quickly than spend the rest of my life in prison.
 
Shewter said:
I agree with you, I just don't see the point in giving them even the bare minimum for survival. Completely removing them from the equation eliminates any risks or potential for them to cause any further problems.

To be completely honest, (gonna get a few comments for this one I'm sure) if someone is seen unfit for society, an inexpensive, quick death would be key. Lethal injections are silly, the electric chair is.... erm... well, you've seen The Green Mile :mrgreen: , the Guillatine however, and they are gone. The only expenses would be that of disposal, cleaning, and maintenance on the device.

I just really don't see the point in imprisoning someone for that period of time.
Click to expand...

The thing is its actually cheaper to lock 'em up for life. teh appeals process is not usually stretched to the limit simply because of a life sentence unless the person is actually innocent. But even a scumbag like Gacy cost millions to kill. It's not econmically viable.

Even more important, the govenrment isn't in the business of killing it's citizenry for any reason. It's not logical for a govenrment to kill its people. It is the governments job to protect its people, and that means removing any threat from being a threat.

But killing its citizens is overstepping its duties.
 
Tucker Case said:
That would be irrelevant, IMO. What the criminal would prefer is not the issue.
Click to expand...

It's not the criminal I am referring to. It is the "innocent" individual wrongly accused and sentenced to life in prison. I am arguing from my opinion as an innocent.
 
Tucker Case said:
The thing is its actually cheaper to lock 'em up for life. teh appeals process is not usually stretched to the limit simply because of a life sentence unless the person is actually innocent. But even a scumbag like Gacy cost millions to kill. It's not econmically viable.

Even more important, the govenrment isn't in the business of killing it's citizenry for any reason. It's not logical for a govenrment to kill its people. It is the governments job to protect its people, and that means removing any threat from being a threat.

But killing its citizens is overstepping its duties.
Click to expand...

The way it is set up now it MAY be more expensive to kill someone. I can't confirm or deny this as I havent been able to get a "single death" answer :shrug:

I don't see why we should be spending money to keep people alive, just like I don't see why it costs so much to kill them. Guillatine. Done. There is absolutely NO room for error when it comes to that sentenced individual harming ANYONE ever again.
 
Shewter said:
I don't see why we should be spending money to keep people alive, just like I don't see why it costs so much to kill them. Guillatine. Done. There is absolutely NO room for error when it comes to that sentenced individual harming ANYONE ever again.
Click to expand...

It's mostly Lawyer costs. The appeals are exhausted in Death Penalty cases, but they aren't in life imprisonment cases. That adds up real quick.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's mostly Lawyer costs. The appeals are exhausted in Death Penalty cases, but they aren't in life imprisonment cases. That adds up real quick.
Click to expand...

I see how this could be true. But like I said I have not seen a "single death" example. The only thing I've seen are generalizations and speculations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom