• 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

Is the support for the Death Penalty driven by:

  • Emotion (ie revenge)

    Votes: 6 40.0%

  • Logic (ie best possible solution)

    Votes: 9 60.0%

  • Other and why...

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    15
Bodi

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
123,630
Reaction score
27,977
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Is support for the Death Penalty driven by Emotion or by Logic?

I am curious to hear what people think, but more importantly, for them to back their beliefs with evidence or well thought out arguments.
 
You maybe should have had a choice for light and instructive family entertainment, as capital punishment was seen in an earlier time.
 
Oftencold said:
You maybe should have had a choice for light and instructive family entertainment, as capital punishment was seen in an earlier time.
Click to expand...


Yeah... that would qualify as an "Other".
Or as a telling sign of Sadistic Pleasure, letting it fall under Emotion(ally depreved). ;)
 
The death penalty is a pretty minor issue for me, and I could easily be swayed, but I think it is necessary. At the very least, there needs to be a way to deal with people who already serve life in prison, yet continue to kill. Other than that I'm pretty neutral as far as the normal arguments go. For people not already in prison, I don't think that the death penatly is an effective deterrent if life in prison is not. On the other hand, I shed no tears for rapists and murderers and am not bothered in the slightest by their executions. There are certainly some problems with the application of the death penalty in the US, but on principle I do not oppose the death penalty
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yeah... that would qualify as an "Other".
Or as a telling sign of Sadistic Pleasure, letting it fall under Emotion(ally depreved). ;)
Click to expand...
It's only seen as depraved to take children to watch executions in some cultures. There are even photographic collections I've seen of at least two Muslim children being guided to conduct the killings.

In America, taking kids to observe public hangings was seen, as I understand it, as a way to teach young men to connect actions with consequences.

Of course, they had a far lower murder rate, so what did they know?
 
Oftencold said:
It's only seen as depraved to take children to watch executions in some cultures. There are even photographic collections I've seen of at least two Muslim children being guided to conduct the killings.

In America, taking kids to observe public hangings was seen, as I understand it, as a way to teach young men to connect actions with consequences.

Of course, they had a far lower murder rate, so what did they know?
Click to expand...

Who had a lower murder rate?
 
Oftencold said:
It's only seen as depraved to take children to watch executions in some cultures. There are even photographic collections I've seen of at least two Muslim children being guided to conduct the killings.

In America, taking kids to observe public hangings was seen, as I understand it, as a way to teach young men to connect actions with consequences.

Of course, they had a far lower murder rate, so what did they know?
Click to expand...

I was making a joke...


Kernel Sanders said:
Who had a lower murder rate?
Click to expand...

Muslims?

It might also be because they are religious tyrrants and oppressive dictators with some of the worst human rights records on the planet scaring the **** out of their populations and subjegating over half of the population to the whims of fanatical men.
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
My ancestors in the late 1800's
Click to expand...

I didn't know that there were accurate statistics, or even statistics at all that went back that far. I was only able to find consistent stats from the 1960's on, and the best I could dig up was a single source that goes back to 1900. Do you have a source? I'd also be careful about inferring the causes of such trends for that time period. The nation underwent a hell of a lot of relevant changes such as urbanization to name just one

The eastern part of country was fairly peaceful for a while after the WONA.
Click to expand...

Google and AcronymFinder both came up blank. What is the WONA?
 
I support the death penalty for completely logical reasons. If something bad
had happened to someone close to me, I would also support it for emotional reasons.

A swift death penalty should be put in place accross the country in a way that it is a "given" that if you commit first degree murder you are also committing suicide.

Then let's see what happens to the crime rates.....

This will also help keep money from being misdirected to the lifelong support of an anti-life human monster. This would keep more money in circulation, driving the economy.:)
 
Bodhisattva said:
Is support for the Death Penalty driven by Emotion or by Logic?

I am curious to hear what people think, but more importantly, for them to back their beliefs with evidence or well thought out arguments.
Click to expand...

I'd say largely emotion. The Death penalty according to the SCOTUS does not have evidence for acting as a deterrent (when you use the proper definition). Furthermore, it costs a hell of a lot more then life in prison. That money comes almost always out of county coffers. And counties rarely if ever plan for these cases. That means either tax increases on the county or something gets cut. Historically things that get cut range from after school programs to cops. If you're thinking, wait don't those cuts eventually lead to more crime, you'd be right. Back in the 80s, programs for troubled youth outreach were particularly the first to go to pay for a trial. One has to wonder just how many brain cells the guy who suggested that had.

Estimates for additional costs aggregate to something like an extra billion on trials for capital punishment. That's $1 billion NOT going to schools, prevention, cops etc. Sure it doesn't seem like a lot but you figure we could simply throw these scumbags away to rot for life and be a billion dollars richer, well, that my friend is logic. Furthermore, per capita crime doesn't show any strong trends based on states that have capital punishment and states that don't. States without it have varying rates and states with it have varying rates. What the trends DO suggest is that states with terrible economies tend to have higher rates of violent crime, but really, that's not news to anyone.

The system in the US does not make a whole lot of logical sense. High cost, low execution rate, no evidence of deterrence. And we don't even execute those who steal billions.

While in theory the idea isn't bad, in practice America's system is totally screwed up. You're more likely to be killed on the street selling crack then you are on death row.
 
Logical

It is NOT about Revenge

revenge   /rɪˈvɛndʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-venj] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -venged, -veng⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother's murder.

revenge definition | Dictionary.com


Revenge is done out of an emotive response. The DP is not about revenge for me. It is about CONSEQUENCE.

consequence   /ˈkɒnsɪˌkwɛns, -kwəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-si-kwens, -kwuhns] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
4. importance or significance: a matter of no consequence.
5. importance in rank or position; distinction: a man of great consequence in art

CONSEQUENCE definition | Dictionary.com


If my kid eats a cookie before dinner without asking, then they get a time out.
Is that "Revenge"? No... it is a CONSEQUENCE for the action that she undertook.

Ethics...

explains the rightness of actions in terms of the goodness of the state of affairs that occurs because of that action. If some action genuinely brings about greater good in the world, then it is a right action, and this rightness is independent of the nature of the action or the intentions of the person carrying out the action.

Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers
- John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

Pro-death penalty.com


"It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."


FROM ENGLAND:

"Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not."

Lord Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeals in England said to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1950


Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.

In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762


"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." -Exodus 21:12

Pro Capital Punishment Page


The Death Penalty is a consequence. End of story. Those that commit murder and rape and such forfeit their lives as a matter of fact, not as an emotional vengence or anything else, their life is not worth anything, so it is ended. Done.

Provide irrefutable proof that:

1. The death penalty stance is based purely on emotion.
2. A logical argument would have to refer to deterrence theory
 
1. The death penalty stance is based purely on emotion.
Click to expand...

Since when were you a Sith Lord? There's no question that some people support it for emotional reasons. There's no question some people do it for reasons they believe to be logical. Emotional is not always a revenge based notion. "I support the penalty because I think some actions are morally and ethically wrong." That's not revenge but it is clearly emotional.

2. A logical argument would have to refer to deterrence theory
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Cost and the effect of those costs would be logical as well, not to mention alternatives that could function better and be cheaper. Deterrence theory isn't necessarily logical as well. We could make it a deterrent but it could turn out to be so ridiculous and over the top that it becomes emotional.

Btw, you might want to segregate the practice of the penalty here (and in other countries) and the principal idea. They are quite different.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem with the death penaulty is its only used on nutcases who dont give a ****.If the penaulty for mugging
was death it might work.
 
I would say that I support it for a combination of logical and emotional reasons. It is far more expensive than life without parole, and it has been proven not to create a sufficient deterrent effect to justify that extra expense. On the other hand, I recognize that some criminals cannot be rehabilitated-- and I cannot justify in my own heart caging men like animals.

I could argue logically that life without parole creates a caste of people with nothing to live for and gives them the opportunity to hurt our society through violence against convicts that we are supposedly "rehabilitating", but I have to admit that my primary motivation is that the idea of keeping men in cages disgusts me.

In general, I would say that most support of the death penalty is emotional, originating in bloodthirsty feelings. One needs only listen to the arguments in favor of it to hear it-- declarations that certain criminals are monsters or scum, accusations that opponents have no regard for the victims, et cetera.

Then again, I'd also say that most opposition to the death penalty is also emotional, since it seems to revolve so much around the possibility of people being executed for crimes they didn't commit-- rather than any quantifiable ill effects upon society, including the incontrovertible fact of the added expense. Scratch the cold moral calculus and you'll still find a bleeding heart.
 
obvious Child said:
Since when were you a Sith Lord? There's no question that some people support it for emotional reasons. There's no question some people do it for reasons they believe to be logical. Emotional is not always a revenge based notion. "I support the penalty because I think some actions are morally and ethically wrong." That's not revenge but it is clearly emotional.



Not necessarily. Cost and the effect of those costs would be logical as well, not to mention alternatives that could function better and be cheaper. Deterrence theory isn't necessarily logical as well. We could make it a deterrent but it could turn out to be so ridiculous and over the top that it becomes emotional.

Btw, you might want to segregate the practice of the penalty here (and in other countries) and the principal idea. They are quite different.
Click to expand...

This is the qualifier though, for people that think that it is based ONLY on emotion:

Provide irrefutable proof that:

1. The death penalty stance is based purely on emotion.
2. A logical argument would have to refer to deterrence theory
 - Bodi
 
I think that the death penalty is driven by emotion, but that logic is used to justify the emotionally driven desire.

The desire for the death penalty in lieu of more economical and effective means of punishment can only be driven by emotive need for "eye for an eye" justice.

And the thing is, that revenge IS the purpose of the type of consequence.

The only reason that the death penalty exists is that people feel that commiting certain heinous crimes makes the criminals deserve to die. Sure, the fact that a punishment is rendered is a consequence, but the driving force behind that type of punishment can only be vengence.

Vengeance in and of itself is not a bad thing. My issue with the death penalty is that it grants the governemnt the power to exact revenge instead of the people.

I would be in favor of organized duels before I would favor the death penalty. This could exact revenge without granting extra power to the government.



Now, let me add, that it is possible to have logical reasons for favoring the death penalty, but emotion is the driving force behind the majority of people's opinions on the issue in either direction (for and against).

Anti-death penalty types often use the emotional plea of "What about innocent people" when that is a pull at the emotions regarding false imprisonment. While pro-death penalty types typically cite the victim's family and their well-being as a reason for the death penalty.

This doesn't mean that all people do so, just that the majority do. I rarely encounter truly logical arguments regarding the death penalty from either side.

Thus, I would say that both sides are driven by emotion, not logic.

I would not say that is the only way it can be viewed, though.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
. . . and I cannot justify in my own heart caging men like animals.
Click to expand...
There is something I've noted over the years. it is that I don't believe that incarceration is nearly so odious to most determined criminals nor an effective deterrent. The reason for this is that they have little concept of personal freedom. That is they seem to believe that their lives are entirely controlled by unseen, external and uncontrollable inner forces.

When you cage them, you are making the Unseen World visible to them-- the cages they are certain that they have always lived in are now simply visible.

I believe that quite a few even find the visibility of forces comforting.

In any event, for many career criminals, incarceration is seen as a perfectly natural state, perhaps to be resisted, but hardly unexpected or terribly undesirable.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Scratch the cold moral calculus and you'll still find a bleeding heart.
Click to expand...
Especially if broken glass is used. A bleeding heart though, will allow pressurized blood to escape into the pericardium, and eventually will be likely to produce death by Cardiac tamponade. No on should have a bleeding heart.
 
Should have had a button for choosing the first two. I tried and it would only let me choose one. Both of the choices seem in my opinion approprieate.
 
Who supports abortion but not the death penalty?
 
American said:
Who supports abortion but not the death penalty?
Click to expand...

I support abortion at the local level, but I would never support government funded abortions or the government performing abortions. The reasons for my beliefs are logical, not emotional.
 
Tucker Case said:
I think that the death penalty is driven by emotion, but that logic is used to justify the emotionally driven desire.

The desire for the death penalty in lieu of more economical and effective means of punishment can only be driven by emotive need for "eye for an eye" justice.

And the thing is, that revenge IS the purpose of the type of consequence.

The only reason that the death penalty exists is that people feel that commiting certain heinous crimes makes the criminals deserve to die. Sure, the fact that a punishment is rendered is a consequence, but the driving force behind that type of punishment can only be vengence.

Vengeance in and of itself is not a bad thing. My issue with the death penalty is that it grants the governemnt the power to exact revenge instead of the people.

I would be in favor of organized duels before I would favor the death penalty. This could exact revenge without granting extra power to the government.



Now, let me add, that it is possible to have logical reasons for favoring the death penalty, but emotion is the driving force behind the majority of people's opinions on the issue in either direction (for and against).

Anti-death penalty types often use the emotional plea of "What about innocent people" when that is a pull at the emotions regarding false imprisonment. While pro-death penalty types typically cite the victim's family and their well-being as a reason for the death penalty.

This doesn't mean that all people do so, just that the majority do. I rarely encounter truly logical arguments regarding the death penalty from either side.

Thus, I would say that both sides are driven by emotion, not logic.

I would not say that is the only way it can be viewed, though.
Click to expand...


Then read or re-read my post a few above yours and will encounter one! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom