• 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
emdash said:
so what you're saying is, anyone who advocates unjust executions deserves an unjust execution.

uh-oh.
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, I was being rhetorical to make a point, of course. You knew that, of course, but decided to play the 'pretend it's meant literally' card as I knew someone would.

However, I am unsure. There is a part of me that feels that if someone vigorously advocates for a specific system, and shows a callous disregard toward the plight of those who will become innocent victims of that system, that they ought to 'walk a mile in those people's shoes' so that they can better understand just what they are advocating.

So, in the end, I'd absolutely relish his being accused, sentenced, be convinced he was going to be put to death and be exonerated on his millionth appeal. I would find that satisfactory. I think that would adequately teach the value of our cautious system to him... don't you agree?
 
Dezaad said:
Well, to be honest, I was being rhetorical to make a point, of course. You knew that, of course, but decided to play the 'pretend it's meant literally' card as I knew someone would.

However, I am unsure. There is a part of me that feels that if someone vigorously advocates for a specific system, and shows a callous disregard toward the plight of those who will become innocent victims of that system, that they ought to 'walk a mile in those people's shoes' so that they can better understand just what they are advocating.

So, in the end, I'd absolutely relish his being accused, sentenced, be convinced he was going to be put to death and be exonerated on his millionth appeal. I would find that satisfactory. I think that would adequately teach the value of our cautious system to him... don't you agree?
Click to expand...

i say we have a simple system, it works, the death sentence should resume, but the court system should be improved to make sure the right criminals receive the right punishment for their crime. agree?
 
Dezaad said:
There is a part of me that feels that if someone vigorously advocates for a specific system, and shows a callous disregard toward the plight of those who will become innocent victims of that system, that they ought to 'walk a mile in those people's shoes' so that they can better understand just what they are advocating.
Click to expand...

his approach is rational and impersonal. yours is compassionate and humanitarian. both are necessary in a comprehensive analysis of the issue.

Dezaad said:
So, in the end, I'd absolutely relish his being accused, sentenced, be convinced he was going to be put to death and be exonerated on his millionth appeal. I would find that satisfactory. I think that would adequately teach the value of our cautious system to him... don't you agree?
Click to expand...

I don't know, he seems very stubborn. it might convince him that he is right, when he sees how much money went into his million appeals with the end result being a warped old man who has spent most of his life on death row.
 
Re: Particulars

emdash said:
deathpenaltygraph2.jpg
Click to expand...

Why does your study have no mention of other factors? That sounds very questionable.
 
Re: Particulars

emdash said:
-- deterrence --
Click to expand...

:spin:

Wesley Lowe (author) on AuthorsDen

Wesley Lowe - The Necromancer Wars

This is not an independent study - the website is from a novelist and graduate in Physics. I think an US Federal Govt or FBI website review or even an Academic source would have been a better source. :roll:

You might have been better with a recognised Academic paper by a pro-death penalty source like Ernest van den Haag

Here are the argument and response by him recorded at IAState

Argument againstMiscarriages of justice: Innocent people have been executed in the past and it is likely to happen again.



Response:

1. All human activities sometimes cost the lives of innocent bystanders, but we still do these activities.
2. IE more innocent people killed by car crashes than by mistaken executions of innocent people, yet we never argue that there ought not to be cars.


Argument againstDeterrence: There is no conclusive evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent.


Reponse:

1. Haag thinks that even if there were no deterrent value he would argue in favor of capital punishment from a retribution view.
2. It doesn’t have to deter every one in order to deter someone. And capital punishment is worthwhile even if it just deters a few potential murderers.
3. It is a better deterrent than prison because of its finality.
4. It is not worth saving the lives of murders because their execution might not deter others.
Click to expand...

Even here, he has no proof to offer that the death penalty deters anyone else from killing.

Take a look at the UN comparative study instead to give you a better picture.

US - many states have a death penalty yet your homicide rate per 100,000 of the population in 1998 was 6.9. similar study in the UK where the Death Penalty was only for high treason and sabotage during war (and has now been abolished in full) was 0.8 per 100,000 of the population in 1999 - and that is even with the possibility of this HEUNI study on statistical variation due to different counting methods included.

If you want reviews - Amnesty USA published the results of a 2000 New York Times comparison of homicide in US states with the death penalty against US states without the death penalty and guess where the rates were higher?

A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Even then however, it is wrong to just look at US rates or rates in any one country as a guide to whether the Death Penalty works as a deterrent or not - you have to look at International Comparative Studies of similar countries like that by the UN.

However, I guess the independence of many unhelpful UN reports is another big reason that the UN is so unpopular in the US. :roll: Trouble is - if you want to rubbish Amnesty - you have to rubbish the New York Times study too.. trouble is the same facts came out of the FBI study.
 
sotang said:
well i must say , some of you people here don't get what is going through the criminal mind. hmm...i think i can just kill 100 people in the most brutal way to get a kick then have someone pay my way through a easy life., ARE YOU TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!, i mean if there is not enough evidence to say he did it for sure, life, rather than death sounds good, at least till they get the evidence to send him down the toobs. VERILY VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, THOU SHALT DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. don't forget that we live in a world WERE THE ONLY PUNISHMENT WE UNDERSTAND IS CAPITOL. WHO CARES WHAT THAT CRIMINAL DIES. HIS DEATH KEEPS MAYBE HUNDREDS MORE THINKING TWICE BEFORE SAYING, I FEEL LIKE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER TODAY., then you have to remove them, . CRIMINALS KNOW THAT THEY ARE SIGNING THEIR LIFE AWAY WHEN THEY DO THESE CRIMES. END OF STORY GOODBYE LOGIC.
Click to expand...

Your post makes me giggle. Let's solve the problem of killing by killing! Hooray!
 
Tucker Case said:
Premeditated killing is not self-defense, though. Once incarcerated, the defense of the public at large has been achieved. Then the issue changes to the woeful state of a prison system that lets dangerous criminals re-enter the civilian population.

By allowing the government to exterminate the offender in a premeditated fashion, the issue changes from defense to murder.

For example, if I were to kill someone who murdered my son 15 years prior, I would be guilty of premeditated murder. I would not be able to use the defense of saying I was "defending" future victims of that murderer. It is a separate action.

This is analogous to the death penalty.

Thus we are granting the Government a right not retained by the people.

The nature of the death penalty as post facto is inherently why it is purely retaliatory.
Click to expand...

The gov. has the moral obligation to protect its citizens, and that's the end of it. Close the thread.:2razz:
 
Invayne said:
The gov. has the moral obligation to protect its citizens, and that's the end of it. Close the thread.:2razz:
Click to expand...

So you agree that permanent incarceration is a better alternative than death penalty. Excellent. Glad you finally understand. :2razz:
 
Tucker Case said:
"Any prior conviction illustrates.... a continued threat to the rights of the people"? Really? What about drug charges? What rights of the people are threatened by someone who was caught with a small amount of marijuana in their youth? How does that conviction illustrate that? And why does that grant the government the authority to kill someone?
Click to expand...
Who the hell ever got put to death for drug charges? You have a link to that?:confused:
 
Invayne said:
Who the hell ever got put to death for drug charges? You have a link to that?:confused:
Click to expand...

I was pointing out a variant of "prior convictions" as that is what Goobieman had alluded to, but he didn't give a clear cut description of what those convictions were for. I was illustrating how a prior conviction does not suggest what he saiud it did.
 
Pinu7 said:
Not when damage is measured in human life.
Click to expand...

Why? To serve the greater good, I have no problem with a little collateral damage. Imagine this scenario: a terrorist group is going to release a highly fatal strain of smallpox into the general population. The only way to stop them and kill the strain is to incinerate their hideout, but there may be people not involved in the plot there and they cannot be warned without risking the release of the smallpox. Personally, I see nothing at all wrong with potentially killing a few innocents in order to save what could be millions. It's not an optimal choice, but it's one I'd make any second of the day.

I also cite the line "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the declaration of independence to argue that the founding fathers made life an unalienable right.
Click to expand...

And yet... people die every day. Darn that Declaration for lying to us all!

sn't that also a somewhat baseless reason. I agree that the government should not be executing its citizens.
But what plausible reason would make it "bad" for the government to kill its citizens? It is only based on your own personal credo.
Click to expand...

And yet, you do exactly the same thing when you say:

I will admit, my Pro-Life is based mostly on moral values.
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle.
 
Re: Particulars

Cristina said:
Does every criminal released from prison reoffend?
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority do. Depending on what country you're talking about, between 60-85% of released inmates re-offend and end up back in prison.
 
Re: Particulars

Cristina said:
Remember you were arguing that the death penalty was a deterant. Haven't I proven that it isn't?;)
Click to expand...

But prison isn't a deterrent either, yet I'm sure you're not going to argue not putting people in jail. The simple fact is, people who commit murder aren't likely to stop and think rationally about the consequences. They are either insane or act emotionally, either way there isn't any punishment that will deter them.

In fact, that's why we don't call it the "death deterrent". It's the DEATH PENALTY, it's a PUNISHMENT for an act so heinous that the criminal no longer deserves to breathe the same air as the rest of us.
 
Re: Losing At Natural Selection

Tucker Case said:
If the people had a right to premedtiated homicide undercertain conditions, then I'm OK with the govenrment having the right to premeditated homicide.
Click to expand...

There is such a thing called Justifiable Homicide. If someone breaks into my house, I can shoot his sorry ass and get away with it. Capital punishment is justifiable homicide, since other members of society are being protected. Keeping them in prison for life costs too damned much anyway.
 
Tucker Case said:
This is the real crux of our disagreement.

Incarceration for life is enough in and of itself to act in defense of society. You need to show a logical reason for the leap from "Incarceration of life" To govenremnt sponsored premeditated homicide not in direct defense of another's life.


The fact that it goes beyond what is necessary for pure defense is what makes the Death Penalty pure vengeance and retaliation.


Since the killing is unnecessary for defense purposes, there hasn't been an argument given for why the government should have the right to kill its citizens.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's cheaper for the taxpayer.;)
 
Cephus said:
Why? To serve the greater good, I have no problem with a little collateral damage. Imagine this scenario: a terrorist group is going to release a highly fatal strain of smallpox into the general population. The only way to stop them and kill the strain is to incinerate their hideout, but there may be people not involved in the plot there and they cannot be warned without risking the release of the smallpox. Personally, I see nothing at all wrong with potentially killing a few innocents in order to save what could be millions. It's not an optimal choice, but it's one I'd make any second of the day.
Click to expand...

I would actually support the government making such a choice as it would be done in direct defense of its citizens.
 
Re: Losing At Natural Selection

Invayne said:
There is such a thing called Justifiable Homicide. If someone breaks into my house, I can shoot his sorry ass and get away with it. Capital punishment is justifiable homicide, since other members of society are being protected. Keeping them in prison for life costs too damned much anyway.
Click to expand...

From the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice

  • “The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”
Click to expand...

That's for California alone. 63.3 million.
 
Invayne said:
Like I said, it's cheaper for the taxpayer.;)
Click to expand...

Really?

A new study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 found that Maryland taxpayers have paid at least $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since 1978 when the state reenacted the death penalty. The study, prepared by the Urban Institute, estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that seeking the death penalty in those cases cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not been sought. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

The 106 cases in which a death sentence was sought but not handed down in Maryalnd cost the state an additional $71 million. Those costs were incurred simply to seek the death penalty where the ultimate outcome was a life or long-term prison sentence.
Click to expand...


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf
 
Bonnie1988 said:
I could use your logic to argue that no one should ever be put in prison:

Premise 1: The government should not have a power than the power of its citizens.

Premise 2: Citizens do not have the right to involuntarily imprison another citizen.

Premise 3: Therefore, government does not have the right to involuntarily imprison another citizen.

Declaring "It's that simple."
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm....if citizens did this, it would be called kidnapping, or whatever. The gov is allowed to do this though. What's the difference between this and the death penalty? In either case, the gov has more powers than its citizens.
 
Invayne said:
Hmmmmm....if citizens did this, it would be called kidnapping, or whatever. The gov is allowed to do this though. What's the difference between this and the death penalty? In either case, the gov has more powers than its citizens.
Click to expand...

Bounty Hunters do it all the time.
 
Re: Particulars

Cristina said:
Emdash, here is something for you:

Death Penalty

This website shows that States that do not have the death penalty have lower murder rates than those States that do, which proves that the death penalty does not act as a deterant.



From here

Also see this site and click on 'Homicide Rates In The United States'. It takes you to a graph and shows which States have the highest murder rates. Louisiana is number one - and I believe this State has the death penalty.

There are many other sources which all claim the same thing - that States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you take into consideration the amount of bleeding heart judges and politicians in those states? In some states people get off easier than in others, I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom