• 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
If it's getting reported either way then why is it so significant to the difference between capital punishment and life imprisonment?
Because the defendent is killed and silenced and the warning to others is greater.



But what would they say related to whether or not they are innocent that they wouldn't have said during the trial
That is less important to what they can say and do in other spheres like their politics.

And maybe this was true during the cold war or whatever, but we don't live in a society in which a government with access to capital punishment is resulting in people being charged of murder because of extreme political ramblings. If that were true, Noam Chompsky would have been executed by now.
I thought you were a socialist party member?

But this isn't about thier political beliefs, this is about thier ability to voice thier innocence. Anything they could have said to convince the jury they were innocent would have been said before the conviction anyway, so its irrelevent.
I'm talking about them being silenced on everything particularly on spreading their political views which is one of the main reasons for the fitting up of people like Joe Hill.
 
Because the defendent is killed and silenced and the warning to others is greater.

Let me ask you something. If the general population was SO AFRAID of being executed by the government for nothing they did wrong, WHY do many states still have it when the voters could have easily elected a politician who would have abolished it?

That is less important to what they can say and do in other spheres like their politics.

Why would the govenrment go through the process of setting someone up for murder just to kill them, when they could just hire an assasin to do it? Wouldn't it be more effective?

You realize subversively executing someone DEFIES THE PURPOSE of 'making an example out of them'? If the government were some tyranical monarch who needed to kill people to make them afraid of chalenging them, they would have to execute people explicitly for that purpose.

How does tricking the public into thinking they executed a guilty criminal cause them to be more afraid of thier government? That does the opposite, it makes them less afraid because they don't believe anything out of the ordinary happened.

I thought you were a socialist party member?

So? Why haven't people with extreme political points of view been executed recently? I'am pretty sure at least quite a few states still have capital punishment do they not?

I'm talking about them being silenced on everything particularly on spreading their political views which is one of the main reasons for the fitting up of people like Joe Hill.

Joe hill wasn't killed by the government, he was killed by an ignorant, early 1900s jury from Utah.
 
Let me ask you something. If the general population was SO AFRAID of being executed by the government for nothing they did wrong, WHY do many states still have it when the voters could have easily elected a politician who would have abolished it?
Hardly a decent argument. There could be any number of reasons including that they believe this fear is a good thing. A lot of Germans voted for the Nazis.



Why would the govenrment go through the process of setting someone up for murder just to kill them, when they could just hire an assasin to do it? Wouldn't it be more effective?
Ask those who set up Joe Hill.

You realize subversively executing someone DEFIES THE PURPOSE of 'making an example out of them'? If the government were some tyranical monarch who needed to kill people to make them afraid of chalenging them, they would have to execute people explicitly for that purpose.
Not really, if it is thought among a particularl group that he was executed for his views then they are likely to take this on board.

How does tricking the public into thinking they executed a guilty criminal cause them to be more afraid of thier government? That does the opposite, it makes them less afraid because they don't believe anything out of the ordinary happened.
You are confusing things. In this part we were talking about particular groups.



You attackecd Chomsky or seemed to.

Why haven't people with extreme political points of view been executed recently? I'am pretty sure at least quite a few states still have capital punishment do they not?
Who knows? It has happened and could happened and is one reason I don't want the UK bringing the death penalty back. I don't particular care about the US.


Joe hill wasn't killed by the government, he was killed by an ignorant, early 1900s jury from Utah.
It was the gov't of Utah. The jury did not bring him to trial.
 
Hardly a decent argument. There could be any number of reasons including that they believe this fear is a good thing. A lot of Germans voted for the Nazis.

It's unavoidable, without variation a Nazi or Hitler reference is inevitable in any thread given a bit of time.

But no. I garuntee you if you polled the population of Texas as to why they suppport the death penalty, little to none would say "because I'am afraid of the government and it's a good thing". Almost all of them would say "because they deserve it". Some might be inclined to use deterance argument, but one way or another.

Ask those who set up Joe Hill.

Joe Hill was convicted by a jury of his peers. He also had an alibi he refused to explain. I don't see how you can use one or two (weak) examples of a likely mistrial from the early 1900s to justify your argument.

Not really, if it is thought among a particularl group that he was executed for his views then they are likely to take this on board.

Anytime anyone from a 'particular group', which is almost everybody, is convicted the fellows of that group are always going to suspect it was some currupt political exectution.

Should we not be able to convict black people, at all ever, because a significant amount of people will believe that whenever it does happen it's "Just because he is black"?

You are confusing things. In this part we were talking about particular groups.

See above.

It was the gov't of Utah. The jury did not bring him to trial.

Bringing someone to trial does not kill them, sentencing them to death does. The jury did that not the government.
 
In world history, "conservatives" historically do ultimately come to murdering individually and then in mass all opposing voices. I've posted many times that as I came into politics I was stunned by the extreme intolerance in general and hatred of freedom and free speech most conservatives have. Conservative and Dictator come to be the same word.

You got your words mixed up, so I fixed them for you. I know that you want to portray the truth.

Too bad you don't want to portray the truth...:roll:
 
They can and they have. What about Julian and Ethel Rosenberrg? Teh thing is, that once you open the door to granting that kind of power to the government, they WILL abuse it. Guaranteed it will happen eventually.

I don't think it was abused in the Rosenberg case. They got what they deserved, especially during that time period.
 
But no. I garuntee you if you polled the population of Texas as to why they suppport the death penalty, little to none would say "because I'am afraid of the government and it's a good thing". Almost all of them would say "because they deserve it". Some might be inclined to use deterance argument, but one way or another.
So?



Joe Hill was convicted by a jury of his peers. He also had an alibi he refused to explain. I don't see how you can use one or two (weak) examples of a likely mistrial from the early 1900s to justify your argument.
Because you said only murderers had to fear.



Anytime anyone from a 'particular group', which is almost everybody, is convicted the fellows of that group are always going to suspect it was some currupt political exectution.

Should we not be able to convict black people, at all ever, because a significant amount of people will believe that whenever it does happen it's "Just because he is black"?
IN the South years ago that might have been justified. In the cases we were talking about there was corruption involved.


Bringing someone to trial does not kill them, sentencing them to death does. The jury did that not the government.
Who set it all up? Who called for execution? What was the standard sentence for murder in Utah at the time?
 
Hello there people,

Just a thought here: in many developed regions we see the abolishment of capital punishment as a penalty for any crime. However, there still exists countries that do still exercise the death penalty system (approximately 90 countries) with 38 out of 50 states in the U.S. still endorsing the death penalty.

A major element of the argument will be the value of life: 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? Moreover, who is the judiciary system to have the right to take away one's right to life - the most fundamental of all rights? We all know how prejudice clouds judgement, especially in the fragile glass sheet that is today's society. Social bias makes secularity impossible, making the system unequal and as such, impossible to implement capital punishment in.

So what do you think? Should the use capital punishment be supported or opposed?

-Alex

I'm not sure how silly I am for saying this, but if someone commits a crime that most people say deserve the death sentence, then that person should not be given the death sentence.

Being in prison for the rest of a person's life is far worse in my opinion. Why not give these criminals a life sentence and only the bare minimums (food and water)?
 
Last edited:
As part of my undergrad I wrote a paper on the history of sexuality in Asia. (I'll explain why this is relevant in a second.) One book I read for that paper was by a French author named Michael Foucault, the title being "The History of Sexuality". In it, he traces the tendency of Western civilization, since the beginning of industrialization, to go from a period where life was relatively dispensible, to a period where life is preserved at all costs. Nations all over the world are now adopting this kind of policy. The term he coins to describe it is "bio power". You can read a short blurb about it here.

In a era where environmental disasters, threats of nuclear war, resiliant diseases, increasing social problems, and a wealth of other threats continue to appear, our governments have become regulators of life. For instance, when one person dies of something as a result of human error or even disease, the government will implement a regulation to make sure no one else dies of it. We have gradually transformed from a society where war and death are the status quo, to one where life is preserved to even ridiculous levels.

When I read the OP, I was thinking about how execution in the developed world is a remnant of the era when we gave little concern to the regulation of life. People used all sorts of crazy chemicals in their daily lives that are now banned; people engaged in risky, life threatening behaviours that could now land you jail time; soldiers went to war routinely, and criminals were punished severely. The reason why a lot of developed nations are now outlawing capital punishment is, in my opinion, due to the influence of biopower.

However, in the U.S., as is its tradition, modern influences are often clashed with traditional influences, so you see a strange dichotomy happening. On one hand you have biopower trying to keep people safe and make sure human lives can proliferate, and on the other hand you have the older, traditional model demanding classic forms of punishment for criminals. This is why I enjoy U.S. politics... there is always a clash of cultures happening there and nothing ever seems to be cut and dry.
 
Can any of you anti-death penalty, but pro-Obama supporters give a link to your message in which you rage against Obama for supporting the death penalty for the rape of children?

I'm sure you went into a real disagreement fit against Obama over that in very furious messages against Obama's stance on the issue. Please link to your past messages on that topic.
 
Can any of you anti-death penalty, but pro-Obama supporters give a link to your message in which you rage against Obama for supporting the death penalty for the rape of children?

I'm sure you went into a real disagreement fit against Obama over that in very furious messages against Obama's stance on the issue. Please link to your past messages on that topic.

I wasn't an Obama supporter, but I don't really see how he is an issue. Did someone attack a political party or politicians and I missed it?
 
I wasn't an Obama supporter, but I don't really see how he is an issue. Did someone attack a political party or politicians and I missed it?

I'm being sarcastic.
 
Being in prison for the rest of a person's life is far worse in my opinion. Why not give these criminals a life sentence and only the bare minimums (food and water)?

Because they will never get that, the "criminal advocacy groups" will insist that they get cable TV and lots of exercise time and every modern convenience. Most people in prison live better inside than they would on the streets.
 
Being in prison for the rest of a person's life is far worse in my opinion. Why not give these criminals a life sentence and only the bare minimums (food and water)?

Because it doesn't accomplish anything. The purpose of 'punishment' is reform, you punish people to change behavior, not just to be wicked and vengeful. If someone is spending the rest of thier life in prison there is no reason for them to be there, thier suffering is not going to bring back the ones they murdered, there is no reformation to be made no matter how many times they re-find Jesus while in prison. They are wasting tax money they don't deserve to burden us anymore then they already have, just kill them. Death is not barbaric, it's not unnatural, it's not inhumane, it's simply the most logical way to deal with these people and I don't see why we shouldn't.
 
Because it doesn't accomplish anything. The purpose of 'punishment' is reform, you punish people to change behavior, not just to be wicked and vengeful. If someone is spending the rest of thier life in prison there is no reason for them to be there, thier suffering is not going to bring back the ones they murdered, there is no reformation to be made no matter how many times they re-find Jesus while in prison. They are wasting tax money they don't deserve to burden us anymore then they already have, just kill them. Death is not barbaric, it's not unnatural, it's not inhumane, it's simply the most logical way to deal with these people and I don't see why we shouldn't.

I've always been thankful that Canada doesn't have capital punishment. I believe that the way we treat our criminals is a reflection of our society in general, and killing them displays a poor disposition towards the value we place on life.

State sponsored murder is the easy way out. It's essentially sweeping the problem under the rug and letting it rot there, mostly because it prevents us from considering the complex web of events that lead to heinous crimes. Instead, it is more convenient to condemn the criminal, who is the last step in those series of events, as evil, and do away with him/her. That is not taking responsibility.

If a criminal gets to the point of killing mercilessly, then it shows that not enough attention was paid to the warning signs when that person was growing up. Society has failed these people because their mental disturbance was not taken seriously enough early on.

In my view, society SHOULD bear the burden for as long as the person remains alive, because it failed to take notice when it would have counted. I'm not claiming that intervention can save every person, but if you watch interviews with criminals on death row or read some of the books they publish, a lot of them are super intelligent people. Some are geniuses that have channeled their genius into crime and slaughter.
 
Last edited:
I've always been thankful that Canada doesn't have capital punishment. I believe that the way we treat our criminals is a reflection of our society in general, and killing them displays a poor disposition towards the value we place on life.

It's a poor disposition toward the value of life when you don't stomp out people who take innocent peoples' lives with the fury of a 1000 sun Gods. It's a poor disposition toward the value of life to recognize murderers as humans deserving of rights.

State sponsored murder is the easy way out. It's essentially sweeping the problem under the rug and letting it rot there, mostly because it prevents us from considering the complex web of events that lead to heinous crimes. Instead, it is more convenient to condemn the criminal, who is the last step in those series of events, as evil, and do away with him/her. That is not taking responsibility.

I sense a criminal reformation argument approaching.

If a criminal gets to the point of killing mercilessly, then it shows that not enough attention was paid to the warning signs when that person was growing up. Society has failed these people because their mental disturbance was not taken seriously enough early on.

That isn't mutually exclusive of supporting the death penalty. I agree that we should be more observant toward the warning signs and offer help and preventative measures. That said, anyone who slips past that and is in the mental stage where they feel it's ok to murder another person, there is no reformation, not that they even deserve it.

This is reminding me of A Clockwork Orange. "I was cured all right"

In my view, society SHOULD bear the burden for as long as the person remains alive, because it failed to take notice when it would have counted.

That's assuming it's societies responsibility to prevent people form murdering. It isn't in my opinion, it's something society should be interested in, it's something society should help, but not it's responsibility.

I'm not claiming that intervention can save every person, but if you watch interviews with criminals on death row or read some of the books they publish, a lot of them are super intelligent people. Some are geniuses that have channeled their genius into crime and slaughter.

And that speaks volumes of thier character. They have proven that they have no concern about other people's lives, they have proven that they view society as something to be exploited for personal gain, and don't see why we should offer them a chance to do it a second time and ruin another life. They'll do and say anything to get out including pleaing that they are changed, but there is no reason to believe them.
 
It's a poor disposition toward the value of life when you don't stomp out people who take innocent peoples' lives with the fury of a 1000 sun Gods. It's a poor disposition toward the value of life to recognize murderers as humans deserving of rights.

I don't think it's about justice, but it's about revenge. Most people who are put to death also fear for their lives, and that, in principle, is supposed to make the family and friends of their victim somehow feel better. I will never understand how reproducing fatal suffering is supposed to right a wrong.

It depends on who you are talking to, but I'm not convinced that inflicting death on another is going to make you feel better per se. Forgiveness is the more ever lasting route, because then you can learn let it go. Forgiveness is not the same as doing nothing. Doing nothing is easy, but forgiving is hard.

I sense a criminal reformation argument approaching.

Not really. I'm not suggesting that all murderers can be reformed. This has to do more with our disposition towards those murderers. I don't believe murdering a murderer makes us any better. And I'm not in favor of execution, so my tax dollars should not pay for it.

That isn't mutually exclusive of supporting the death penalty. I agree that we should be more observant toward the warning signs and offer help and preventative measures. That said, anyone who slips past that and is in the mental stage where they feel it's ok to murder another person, there is no reformation, not that they even deserve it.

Well, herein lies the problem. Why does one person who murders deserve the death penalty while another does not? The law is not applied consistency. Why is one instance more grave than another? It all has to do with subjectivity sensibilities... what jury you get, what the judge thinks, what city you're in, if what people think you did is "bad enough" to warrant execution. There are plenty of mentally disturbed murderers idling away in jail for the rest of their lives, yet others die.

Why do some places think it's worth trying to reform, while other places just want to kill them and be done with it? Both approaches exist simultaneously in the U.S. It's not fair that some die based on where they committed the crime while others get lesser sentences. It's not fair that some die and some don't based on the luck of how the jury is comprised.

If some don't deserve to die, then none should deserve to die. That would correct the discrepancy.

This is reminding me of A Clockwork Orange. "I was cured all right"

It's not just about rehabiliating the criminal, it's also about what our treatment of them does for us.

That's assuming it's societies responsibility to prevent people form murdering. It isn't in my opinion, it's something society should be interested in, it's something society should help, but not it's responsibility.

That's not exactly what I meant. I didn't mean finding a murder suspect, sitting them down and trying to get to the root of the problem. By then it might be too late. I mean... when the kid grows up, is bullied, has strange tendencies, clearly is "different", shows patterns of behaviour that aren't quote/unquote "normal". A lot of people just don't want to get involved, or they contribute to the problem. Murderers aren't just born, they develop.

And that speaks volumes of thier character. They have proven that they have no concern about other people's lives, they have proven that they view society as something to be exploited for personal gain, and don't see why we should offer them a chance to do it a second time and ruin another life. They'll do and say anything to get out including pleaing that they are changed, but there is no reason to believe them.

And why do they view society as something to exploit? Why do they feel lives are dispensible? They got that impression from somewhere, or someone. This is what I'm talking about. Execution is putting away a mistake that is partially a collective one. I'm not trying to absolve the person of responsibility, they did their crime.

Maybe, in a sense, executing them is permanently putting away something that we feel is a mistake... something that we are so ashamed of that we don't ever want to see it again. After all, if a vicious person is still alive in jail, then we cannot convince ourselves that our society is such a great place. Killing them at least puts that disgrace to an end.
 
Last edited:
Can any of you anti-death penalty, but pro-Obama supporters give a link to your message in which you rage against Obama for supporting the death penalty for the rape of children?

If he supports the death penalty for the rape of children, does he also support the death penalty for himself for the murder of children?
 
I've always been thankful that Canada doesn't have capital punishment. I believe that the way we treat our criminals is a reflection of our society in general, and killing them displays a poor disposition towards the value we place on life.

State sponsored murder is the easy way out. It's essentially sweeping the problem under the rug and letting it rot there, mostly because it prevents us from considering the complex web of events that lead to heinous crimes. Instead, it is more convenient to condemn the criminal, who is the last step in those series of events, as evil, and do away with him/her. That is not taking responsibility.

If a criminal gets to the point of killing mercilessly, then it shows that not enough attention was paid to the warning signs when that person was growing up. Society has failed these people because their mental disturbance was not taken seriously enough early on.

In my view, society SHOULD bear the burden for as long as the person remains alive, because it failed to take notice when it would have counted. I'm not claiming that intervention can save every person, but if you watch interviews with criminals on death row or read some of the books they publish, a lot of them are super intelligent people. Some are geniuses that have channeled their genius into crime and slaughter.

That's lame. So you're saying it's our fault because someone is a ****ing lunatic? Pfffft!:roll:
 
It depends on who you are talking to, but I'm not convinced that inflicting death on another is going to make you feel better per se. Forgiveness is the more ever lasting route, because then you can learn let it go. Forgiveness is not the same as doing nothing. Doing nothing is easy, but forgiving is hard.

:2rofll: Yes, People like Jeff Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy just needed a little forgiveness and a hug. How dare the parents of those victims be angry?
 
Back
Top Bottom