• 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!

Capital Punishment

What do you think of Capital Punishment?

  • Support it

    Votes: 35 45.5%

  • Condone it

    Votes: 16 20.8%

  • Neutral

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • other (explain)

    Votes: 25 32.5%
  • Total voters
    77
Draco said:
So what do you aim to accomplish? Because it seems that punishment is not much if any deterent, should it be removed or not?
Click to expand...

Punishment? No. Death penalty? yes, do away with it. But for another reason. As I have said, I appose it because one innocnet death is one too many. Life imprisonment is enough, and is punishment.
 
X Factor said:
This is a red herring, in my opinion. If the DP is imposed only when we know for certain who the guitly party is, as in Loughner's case, would you support it then?
Click to expand...

You'd have a better shot of getting my support. Down deep I believe killing is wrong, even by the state. But I've seen people I think should die. So, I would at least listen, to both sides. Might even abstain from voting, should the issue come up for a vote. But any risk of killing an innocent is too much.
 
Boo Radley said:
You'd have a better shot of getting my support. Down deep I believe killing is wrong, even by the state. But I've seen people I think should die. So, I would at least listen, to both sides. Might even abstain from voting, should the issue come up for a vote. But any risk of killing an innocent is too much.
Click to expand...
Okay then, your only objection is not that an innocent person might be executed (the odds of which are virtually nil now btw), but that it's "wrong". How about what the murderer did? Are you equally offended by their actions?
 
Boo Radley said:
I have given you the opportunity to present evidence that it deters. I don't believe there is any such evidence. Perhaps you should take another track?
Click to expand...

Logic provided all the evidence needed......

If there was no punishment at all for murder.....and the public was permitted to murder at will without any fear of reprimand.....under your premis the murder rate would remain unchanged. Since no deterrent has ever prevented one murder in the history of the world.

.....tis insanity.
.
.
.
.
 
Boo Radley said:
The point is, however, the reasons a person kills overrides any thougth of a deterent.
Click to expand...

A person who is motivated to kill is unlikely to be deterred. Thus, the point of the death penalty and incarceration are to INCAPACITATE them from being able to do further harm. That's the only point of such measures, and really, at that point, incapacitation is the only method that we have found to be 100% effective at keeping really determined criminals from committing crimes.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I have given you the opportunity to present evidence that it deters. I don't believe there is any such evidence. Perhaps you should take another track?
Click to expand...

This is a fraudulent position. Please stop expecting people to defend fallacies. The point of imprisonment and the death penalty IS NOT deterrence. It's incapacitation from committing further harm. The level of imprisonment and/or administration of the death penalty is based upon the individual's level of harm-doing and propensity for committing future criminal acts.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
This is a fraudulent position. Please stop expecting people to defend fallacies. The point of imprisonment and the death penalty IS NOT deterrence. It's incapacitation from committing further harm. The level of imprisonment and/or administration of the death penalty is based upon the individual's level of harm-doing and propensity for committing future criminal acts.
Click to expand...

Catz, I think Boo understands this perfectly well, it's just Draco and Badmutha keep harping on about deterrence. They are the ones expecting deterrence to be an issue. You know it's not, I know it's not, and I'm pretty sure Boo does too. But
Badm Post 141
Deterrents are only as effective as the punishment is harsh........
Click to expand...
Post 145
So why have any penalty at all then? If most murderers are inclined to kill regardless.......
Click to expand...
Post 148
....thus we dont need as severe a deterrent do we?
Click to expand...
Draco Post 158
Is punishment and it's varying degrees not a deterent?

If not, then why have punishments?
Click to expand...
Post 166 I know people who would steal but don't because of the laws. Is it not plausible to think the some people decide not to do the crime, because they don't want to be punished? I would think that some people secretly wish to do crimes but don't because of their fears.
Click to expand...

These are not examples of Boo's 'fraudulent positions', but the insistence that the DP is indeed a deterrent, coming from supporters of it who believe that. Why don't YOU tell those guys that they are reading the party line wrongly?
 
Andalublue said:
These are not examples of Boo's 'fraudulent positions', but the insistence that the DP is indeed a deterrent, coming from supporters of it who believe that. Why don't YOU tell those guys that they are reading the party line wrongly?
Click to expand...

I don't even know what to do with those people. I don't think that word means what they think it means.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
A person who is motivated to kill is unlikely to be deterred. Thus, the point of the death penalty and incarceration are to INCAPACITATE them from being able to do further harm. That's the only point of such measures, and really, at that point, incapacitation is the only method that we have found to be 100% effective at keeping really determined criminals from committing crimes.
Click to expand...

"unlikely".........

.........it seems you left a little room for deterrence.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
"unlikely".........

.........it seems you left a little room for deterrence.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

:doh I don't think you're having the effectiveness in this discussion that you'd like to believe that you're having.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
This is a fraudulent position. Please stop expecting people to defend fallacies. The point of imprisonment and the death penalty IS NOT deterrence. It's incapacitation from committing further harm. The level of imprisonment and/or administration of the death penalty is based upon the individual's level of harm-doing and propensity for committing future criminal acts.
Click to expand...

Actually, he said it was. I realize you have a different take. This was mentioned earlier.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
A person who is motivated to kill is unlikely to be deterred. Thus, the point of the death penalty and incarceration are to INCAPACITATE them from being able to do further harm. That's the only point of such measures, and really, at that point, incapacitation is the only method that we have found to be 100% effective at keeping really determined criminals from committing crimes.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. I disagree with the person who siad the point was to deter.
 
X Factor said:
Okay then, your only objection is not that an innocent person might be executed (the odds of which are virtually nil now btw), but that it's "wrong". How about what the murderer did? Are you equally offended by their actions?
Click to expand...

No. My major objection is the threat of an innocent person being killed. This moves me from any question on the subject. Remove that, and I'm more open to it. My secondary objection is the feeling that it is fundamentally wrong, being a good Catholic. But, as I said, I can't help but feel some people should die.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
A person who is motivated to kill is unlikely to be deterred. Thus, the point of the death penalty and incarceration are to INCAPACITATE them from being able to do further harm. That's the only point of such measures, and really, at that point, incapacitation is the only method that we have found to be 100% effective at keeping really determined criminals from committing crimes.
Click to expand...

So what would you say to the families......of the thousands of prison guards, correctional officers, and other inmates killed by convicted murderers during their incarceration?

Tell them about the 100% effective rate.......
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
So what would you say to the families......of the thousands of prison guards, correctional officers, and other inmates killed by convicted murderers during their incarceration?

Tell them about the 100% effective rate.......
.
.
.
Click to expand...

While I doubt anyone is arguing for prison gaurds to be killed, do you have any statisitics on this?
 
Badmutha said:
So what would you say to the families......of the thousands of prison guards, correctional officers, and other inmates killed by convicted murderers during their incarceration?

Tell them about the 100% effective rate.......
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Unless I am missing something, this is an Appeal to Emotion...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
This is a fraudulent position. Please stop expecting people to defend fallacies. The point of imprisonment and the death penalty IS NOT deterrence. It's incapacitation from committing further harm. The level of imprisonment and/or administration of the death penalty is based upon the individual's level of harm-doing and propensity for committing future criminal acts.
Click to expand...

It is also simply a consequence to an action. An action as horrific as murder or rape deserves a consequence of equal value in order to show that we respect the life of the innocent, that we represent human life as the most important thing. By extracting the highest cost from a person, their life, we show that we respect human life as our highest value. I know that there are those out there that this will confuse, since it seems a contradiction, but it isn't.
 
Argument against that we execute people who are actually innocent :

We can establish that it is only appropriate in cases that they Guilty beyond a Shadow of Doubt.

We can make it as a requirement that only trials preceded by a Grand Jury Trial can impose the death penalty. Make sure that the defendant's lawyer is not waiving that right without good reason.

We can make it as a requirement that only someone who specializes in Capital Cases is the lawyer for the defendant. And not just any lawyer who is handling regular cases.
 
Badmutha said:
Deterrents are only as effective as the punishment is harsh........

.....the penalty of death for taking innocent life is both appropriate and necessary.
.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Agree. Bleeding hearts wish to whine and cry that it is not a deterrent due to all these lame ass studies but the fact is that we have not used Capital Punishment in the way that we should be so no study in the USA world can speak about things we are not doing.

I am pretty sure that if we started killing these monsters and sending a clear message to anybody living in the U.S.A.: if you kill someone in cold blood for no reason we can and will kill you in a speedy fashion? The lower than **** asswipes doing these things will stop and re-think their actions.

I am also 100% sure that if we started killing these little prick assholes that rape babies and small children that these digusting monsters would re-think what they do.

If we send a clear message that if you do this in this country you will DIE? You damn sure bet your ass it will go down. Period. Point. Blank.
 
Last edited:
hi guys,,,
I have a neutral view regarding the Capital punishment.It varies by jurisdictions.Capital punishment also known by its other names the death penalty, or execution.It is the infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.
 
Montague10 said:
hi guys,,,
I have a neutral view regarding the Capital punishment.It varies by jurisdictions.Capital punishment also known by its other names the death penalty, or execution.It is the infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.
Click to expand...

So do you support it in some cases?
 
Montague10 said:
hi guys,,,
I have a neutral view regarding the Capital punishment.It varies by jurisdictions.Capital punishment also known by its other names the death penalty, or execution.It is the infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.
Click to expand...
Ohhhhhh, see, I didn't get what was meant by "death penalty". :mrgreen:

I'm just messin' with you. ;) Welcome. :)
 
Last edited:
Badmutha said:
So what would you say to the families......of the thousands of prison guards, correctional officers, and other inmates killed by convicted murderers during their incarceration?

Tell them about the 100% effective rate.......
.
.
.
Click to expand...
'

Try reading her post again in its entirety. Seems you missed the jist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom