• 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
Some cases are that cut and dry.

And why is this? What didnt we have 50 years ago?
DNA evidence.
We live in a different world with the advancements of forensic science.

If you really think that mistakes are still not made, I pity you.
 
Maybe because cash doesn't alter the fact that the state has murdered an innocent man?

Nor does it make up for having your life destroyed by false imprisonment.

"Give me freedom or give me death!" :2razz:
 
I am not sure it is worth the risk to execute someone who may be innocent.

With the current legal challenges and system, it has actually been shown to cost more to execute someone than it does to keep them incarcerated; is this really a cost benefit argument, or one of moral integrity?

Much like my argument for the life of an unborn child, I would also argue that society needs to maintain its moral high ground when it comes to executions; maybe it is a barbaric past we need to distance ourselves from.

I used to always be in favor of executions, as I grow older and I would hope wiser, I have tended to believe that perhaps this is something we need to take a long hard look at.

Do I really care if these murderers as charged are a potential threat to the other thugs in the prison? Hell no.

Should they have all the luxuries of home? Hell no.

I believe the ONLY reason they are permitted exercise rooms and TVs is to control them and make the guards jobs a little safer. Can you imagine if we incarcerate people for life and remove all these things? There would be never ending violence and riots.

Any way, that is my :twocents: on this topic.

Where do you get the idea that it's cheaper to support their sorry asses for the rest of their lives instead of putting them to death? Not only would we have to build a gazillion more prisons, we have to feed them---give them food when there are so many other deserving hungry people in this country...jeez, I'm sounding liberal...WTF? There is DNA testing and other modern technologies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are guilty. I could see your point if we didn't have this. As for all the comforts of home? Screw 'em. This isn't Disneyland, this is prison. You make prison feel like a vacation, who is going to not want to go there? If the prisoners want exercise, they can get on with the chain gang and go out and clean up the highways, fix the roads...hell, they can do anything that city and state employees do. (all they do is sit around and drink coffee while ONE guy does the work anyway)

People that are guilty without a doubt should not have all the appeals that they get...just take them out back after the trial and shoot them! LOL!! The ones that are eligible for life in prison, put them to work. They'll get fresh air, exercise, and a feeling of worth. (and a pack of cigarettes as pay! LMAO!!) And if they do REAL good work, let them have a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 to unwind with!

Shit, I think I'll run for president.
 
Not only would we have to build a gazillion more prisons, we have to feed them---give them food when there are so many other deserving hungry people in this country...jeez, I'm sounding liberal...WTF?
Umm... only around 50 people are executed each year. :2wave:

There is DNA testing and other modern technologies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are guilty. I could see your point if we didn't have this.
..and yet mistakes are still made. New technology brings with it unforeseen faults.
 
Truth Detector said:
I am not sure it is worth the risk to execute someone who may be innocent.

Why not? If that's the case, then is it worth the risk to improson someone who may likewise be innocent? Or to fine someone money who may be innocent? Or to do anything, simply because you may be wrong?

We need to accept that we're not perfect, we will never be perfect, and not allow our imperfection to leave us quivering in our boots out of fear of making a mistake. May we make mistakes? Sure. It's part of being human. Should we do everything in our ability to minimize mistakes? Absolutely.

Besides, it isn't like we're wrongly executing little old ladies for murder. The overwhelming majority of people who wind up on death row are life-long criminals with a long, long, long rap sheet, very often for violent crimes. While that doesn't mean they deserve to be wrongly executed by any means, it does ramp my sympathy for their "innocence" way down. These are not good, wholesome, law-abiding citizens who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, they're anti-social criminals who have a lot to answer for and aren't much of a loss to society.

With the current legal challenges and system, it has actually been shown to cost more to execute someone than it does to keep them incarcerated; is this really a cost benefit argument, or one of moral integrity?

The *ONLY* cost are the legal challenges, simply because we allow endless appeals at taxpayer expense and the majority of appeals can be summed up with "I don't want to die". Not wanting to die is not a legitimate reason to appeal a sentence, only the factual innocence of the criminal or judicial misconduct are legitimate reasons. If we limit appeals to only those reasons, and then only those appeals which have new evidence to present, we can make death penalty cases positively cheap.
 
Maybe because cash doesn't alter the fact that the state has murdered an innocent man?

Not does it alter the fact that the state has imprisoned an innocent man, but that's what is done every time we figure out we screwed up. How is the solution in one case not an adequate solution in another?
 
I never thought I'd thank a TD post... Hell must be freezing over
bananadance.gif

Let's not get carried away with niceties.:lol:
 
I don't think the gross injustice (and deaths) done to so many truly innocent victims by released criminals is justified to avoid the fear of there ever being one wrongly executed person. I don't see how that is respecting life or protecting the innocent. Rather, it is total indifference to the truly and unquestionably innocent victims - therefore a murderous philosophy pretending to be to protect innocent lives.
 
I don't think the gross injustice (and deaths) done to so many truly innocent victims by released criminals is justified to avoid the fear of there ever being one wrongly executed person. I don't see how that is respecting life or protecting the innocent.

This is a blatantly false dichotomy. there has been no one arguing for the release of any guilty people. These are not the only two options. This is why these emotion-based arguments are pointelss... because they invariably lead down the road of which emotionally-bassed side can fabricate and make-up the more absurd scenario.

The fact of the matter is, nobody has EVER given me a single logical reason why the governemnt should have the power to murder any of it's citizens without the need tto resort to irrational emotionally-charged rhetoric.
 
This is a blatantly false dichotomy. there has been no one arguing for the release of any guilty people. These are not the only two options. This is why these emotion-based arguments are pointelss... because they invariably lead down the road of which emotionally-bassed side can fabricate and make-up the more absurd scenario.

The fact of the matter is, nobody has EVER given me a single logical reason why the governemnt should have the power to murder any of it's citizens without the need tto resort to irrational emotionally-charged rhetoric.
and here I thought our entire legal system was based upon
It is better for 10 guilty people go free, than 1 innocent be convicted
 
and here I thought our entire legal system was based upon
It is better for 10 guilty people go free, than 1 innocent be convicted

That's still an emotional arguemtn. The real issue is that the power is retained by the people, not the govenremnt. It's the government's job to argue succesfully to remove the power from the individual. This action does not grant powe rto the State, it removes it form teh Citizen.

The issue here is that the people do NOT have the right to kill others, but the GOVERNMENT claims that it does have the right to kill its citizens in the form of the death penalty.

What the criminal in question did or did not do is actually irrelevant to teh actual issue at hand, IMO.

The innocent vs. Guilty issue is unaffected by the Death Penalty vs. permanent incarceration issue. Inclusion of this in the auguemtn only serves to stoke the emotional fires.

The only issue at hand is if the governemtn should have the power to kil its citizens... This must be looked at regardless of the specific reasoning for the killing of the citizen. The "crime" is irrelevant because if it can be justified in one scenario, it can be justifised in others.

So the ultimate questions is, "Should the government have the right to kill it's citizens for ANY reason it so chooses?"
 
I am for the death penalty, but I feel it's vastly overused. I have no problem seeing someone like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy put to death; they were serial killers, proven so beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, nearly every murder case has the death penalty on the table now, more as a means of extorting a plea bargain than because it really merits the ultimate punishment.

Too many people are sentenced to death, and many of those on circumstantial evidence. Yes, I understand circumstantial evidence is good evidence, but unless it offers positive proof that the defendant commited a crime so heinous that it merits the death penalty, capital punishment shouldn't be used. There's not a doubt in my mind that innocent people have been executed. Not a doubt. Look how many death row inmates have been proven innocent because of the development of DNA?

So I believe in the death penalty, but it should be rarely used and only on the most heinous cases where proof of guilt is irrefutable.
 
Last edited:
T The real issue is that the power is retained by the people, not the govenremnt.

Fine, I'll shoot the bastards then. I haven't been to target practice in ages!:2wave:
 
I am for the death penalty, but I feel it's vastly overused. I have no problem seeing someone like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy put to death; they were serial killers, proven so beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, nearly every murder case has the death penalty on the table now, more as a means of extorting a plea bargain than because it really merits the ultimate punishment.

Too many people are sentenced to death, and many of those on circumstantial evidence. Yes, I understand circumstantial evidence is good evidence, but unless it offers positive proof that the defendant commited a crime so heinous that it merits the death penalty, capital punishment shouldn't be used. There's not a doubt in my mind that innocent people have been executed. Not a doubt. Look how many death row inmates have been proven innocent because of the development of DNA?

So I believe in the death penalty, but it should be rarely used and only on the most heinous cases where proof of guilt is irrefutable.

I don't think it's used enough. Too many false insanity pleas...The Devil made me do it, God told me to do it, The Prozac made me do it...all bull****.
 
Capital Punishment is really the only thing that deters violent crimes. Most criminals dont really care if they get locked up for X amount of years because in prison they get three squares a day and a roof over their head. If they realize that they too can be killed, they will stop and think. NY had a real problem with car jackers that killed the person that they jacked so Albany decided to add that one can be punished with the Death Penalty if caught and it reduced the problem a whole hell of alot.
 
I agree. john Wayne Gacy is a great example of someone who was definitely guilty.

My thinking is that, "Yes. These peices of **** DESERVE to die". I don't deny that. In fact, I usually agree with that in most cases on an emotional level.

My argument hinges entirely on the fact that I do not think it is the government's job to exact revenge.

I most definitely think that the government should NOT have this ability.

I've never seen any compelling argument for that which did not rely solely on emotionality.

Emotionality is irrational by nature, so deciding something based on this is irrational.

I know sometimes I post with emotional overtones but the real reasons are more down to earth.
By removing the person from the gene pool its guaranteed he/she will never commit the act again.
 
This is a blatantly false dichotomy. there has been no one arguing for the release of any guilty people. These are not the only two options. This is why these emotion-based arguments are pointelss... because they invariably lead down the road of which emotionally-bassed side can fabricate and make-up the more absurd scenario.

The fact of the matter is, nobody has EVER given me a single logical reason why the governemnt should have the power to murder any of it's citizens without the need tto resort to irrational emotionally-charged rhetoric.

Your usage of "power to murder" is a strawman unless you oppose all war actions too.

Are you denying that people are murdered in prison by convicted murderers? Or is it your view that anyone in prison regardless of reason therefore should be subjected to murder by other inmates as just punishment for any felony crime? Murder is ok - as long as the government isn't directly doing it?

There are people who see being in prison as just another no-labor-required society to be in, even easier than the outside world. For those, life sentence with no parole (why you think that is humane is beyond me) is the ultimate welfare system at our expense - what a free ride in life? Just murder a bunch of people you don't like.
 
The part where innocent people die. Those mistakes. :2wave:

At least innocent people who die due to capital punishment KNOW how they're going to die.

:2wave:

Better than being thrown into a lock-down facility with REAL criminals who can/will do horrible things to each other and you. Including killing you.

Just sayin'
 
No, it isn't the death penalty that is expensive, it's all the ridiculous amount of legal wrangling we allow death row inmates to engage in at taxpayer expense. Instead of limiting appeals to claims of factual innocence, we let them appeal on any basis whatsoever in a desperate attempt to stay alive. It extends their lives for decades and they stand a better chance of dying of old age than of actually getting executed.

The actual execution, if it ever comes, is positively cheap in comparison.

If the state is going to take the risk of killing an innocent person who is wrongly accused I have no problem with every avenue being explored to prove their innocence or guilt.

Even with DNA evidence there have been mistakes - more particularly where Low Copy Number DNA cases have been proven wrong.
 
If the state is going to take the risk of killing an innocent person who is wrongly accused I have no problem with every avenue being explored to prove their innocence or guilt.

And I have no problem with that, should they have new evidence that demonstrates factual innocence. However, that doesn't happen very often, most appeals are simply because the condemned doesn't like the sentence, not because they're even pretending they didn't do it.
 
Your usage of "power to murder" is a strawman unless you oppose all war actions too.

I clearly state repeatedly power to murder their own citizenry.

And I only agree with military action if it is in direct defensze of us or anotehr nation. Not preemptive defense, but direct defense.

Are you denying that people are murdered in prison by convicted murderers? Or is it your view that anyone in prison regardless of reason therefore should be subjected to murder by other inmates as just punishment for any felony crime? Murder is ok - as long as the government isn't directly doing it?

My arguemtn is that the govenrtment should not have the power to kill its citizens for any rteason. It's clear. I could give two ****s about what the crime is, or preventing future crime. The only issue at hand is should the government have the right to murder it's own citizens for any reason(I clarify "citizens" so that the red herring of "war" is not tossed around yet again)
 
Back
Top Bottom