• 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
It's drivel because it is plainly nonsensical that a threat of punishment would turn psychopaths into saints. But maybe if you could explain how, I might be able to see the counter intuitive genius behind your thesis and acknowledge my mistake.

I already did explain. If we send a clear message we are going to kill you in a timely manner then it makes sense that it would go down. This is simple stuff.
 
Kill the killers because killing is wrong. I'm not seeing the logic in that. If you're going to say an action is wrong, and that people who do it are evil, doesn't it negate the legitimacy of that notion when you perform the act that you say to be wrong?

Think if it is tough love parenting then. Sometimes parents have to give their children a slap on the hand to keep them away from a hot stove burner but in return parents do not allow their kids to smack their hands. Think of it that way. Does that even make sense?
 
I already did explain. If we send a clear message we are going to kill you in a timely manner then it makes sense that it would go down. This is simple stuff.

That's it?

I suppose it does have the merit of being simple. Congratualtions. You have found the perfect cure to cure psychopathy and to mitigate the most harmful effects of schizophrenia.

Kill a few quickly.

Of course, for people who are not mad, as "being caught" seems to have nothing to do with deterrence in your "simple" world, we can disband all the police forces in the world as well.

As long as we kill people quickly all our problems will be solved.

I expect the Nobel Prizes will be rolling in.
 
Last edited:
It's drivel because it is plainly nonsensical that a threat of punishment would turn psychopaths into saints. But maybe if you could explain how, I might be able to see the counter intuitive genius behind your thesis and acknowledge my mistake.
You're right, psychopaths cannot be cured or rehabilitated, that's why they need to be executed when they kill, like a rabid dog would be destroyed in the interest of public safety.
 
You're right, psychopaths cannot be cured or rehabilitated, that's why they need to be executed when they kill, like a rabid dog would be destroyed in the interest of public safety.

I do question the equating of the man and the dog.
Humans are supposed to be on a higher level, both the criminal and the lawmaker..
Today this distinction seems to be burred, between the felon and the congressman.
Not doing ones responsibilities is close to a criminal act.
Lets join the civilized world and ban the executions..
 
You're right, psychopaths cannot be cured or rehabilitated, that's why they need to be executed when they kill, like a rabid dog would be destroyed in the interest of public safety.

So you are clear that capital punishment is not a deterrent.

Of course you have thought your solution through. So you presumably support executing psychopaths whether they have committed a crime or not, as, like a rabid dog that had killed or bitten no-one, psychopaths are a serious threat to public safety at five years old when they have committed no crimes but their eyes have began to swivel.

Or is it not quite the same?

Every argument except vengeance collapses under pressure. And of course the vengeance argument isn't an argument. It's an emotional reaction.
 
Last edited:
That's it?

I suppose it does have the merit of being simple. Congratualtions. You have found the perfect cure to cure psychopathy and to mitigate the most harmful effects of schizophrenia.

Kill a few quickly.

Of course, for people who are not mad, as "being caught" seems to have nothing to do with deterrence in your "simple" world, we can disband all the police forces in the world as well.

As long as we kill people quickly all our problems will be solved.

I expect the Nobel Prizes will be rolling in.

If you wish to have a dialogue with me? You are gonna have to leave your pomposity at the door.
 
Last edited:
So you are clear that capital punishment is not a deterrent.

Most murders are commited due to fits of rage or commited while commiting another crime. If I remember right psychopaths actually make up for around 1% or less of all murders. So while a death sentence wouldn't deter a psychopath it should be a deterrant for those commiting a murder for other reasons.
 
Most murders are commited due to fits of rage or commited while commiting another crime. If I remember right psychopaths actually make up for around 1% or less of all murders. So while a death sentence wouldn't deter a psychopath it should be a deterrant for those commiting a murder for other reasons.

A death penalty is seldom rendered for death caused by spontaneous outbursts of anger, nor should it be. Premeditated, Methodical planning in the use of deadly force..i.e., MURDER must be punished by a sentence of death as these perpetrators will repeat the same if given the chance by society as these people have no moral compasses, a human life is often just an obstacle standing in the path of whatever they lust after.

As much as some attempt to apply a false premise in relation to DEATH, there indeed are degrees to consider in the act of killing. Some killings are due to natural happenstance and cannot be avoided, i.e., ACCIDENTS, some killings are carried out as an act of righteous punishment as explained above, while the immoral act of killing is called MURDER, the taking of an innocent life by the premeditated planning thereof in this nation where life is documented as being UNALIENABLE (non-transferable) by man or man's government void of DUE PROCESS which is determined through proxy of the peoples will...i.e., standard of morality as held by society.
 
If you wish to have a dialogue with me? You are gonna have to leave your pomposity at the door.

Trust me, THAT is not going to happen. :mrgreen:
 
Most murders are commited due to fits of rage or commited while commiting another crime. If I remember right psychopaths actually make up for around 1% or less of all murders. So while a death sentence wouldn't deter a psychopath it should be a deterrant for those commiting a murder for other reasons.

So how does it cure "fits of rage"?

There are many other states of mind that impair someones ability to control themselves. Certain typres of epilepsy for one.

The people who commit the most heinous crimes - the ones that inspire the clamours for vengeance the most - are generally suffering from conditions which impair their ability to make clear choices. If there is any deterrent that can make any difference here it is clearly around the certainty of being caught, not the punishment. Even then it is likely that this effect would be marginal as one of the underlying characteristics of these conditions is an inability to assess the consequences of ones actions.
 
If you wish to have a dialogue with me? You are gonna have to leave your pomposity at the door.

Sorry... are you now trying to give the impression that you have conducted this discussion with impeccable respect for the persons who disagree with you?

Just to be clear, this is you:

Kali said:
Bleeding hearts wish to whine and cry...

isn't it? Before I addresed your "arguments"?

It seems you like to give out the abuse of your opponents (in posts like the one I cite here) but a little polemic in return makes the kitchen a bit too hot?

I suspect this is what happens when your arguments are demolished, as they have been. If you don't wish to reply that is up to you. Others may notice that my "pomposity" followed your vilification of the opponents of the death penalty as a whole.

Yours (as quoted here) is a tired and tedious debating tactic in this area - attacking your opponents as being morally, physically and spiritually weak. Mine was an entirely appropriate way to respond to the drivelly arguments that were posted. It involved no ad hominem attack, unlike your post. It just demonstrated the speciousness of your argument. I don't mind if you need to rely on snidey sneering abuse of those who disagree with you, like me. I can handle myself.

Now that your argument has come under some pressure....you don't like it.
 
Last edited:
So you are clear that capital punishment is not a deterrent.

Of course you have thought your solution through. So you presumably support executing psychopaths whether they have committed a crime or not, as, like a rabid dog that had killed or bitten no-one, psychopaths are a serious threat to public safety at five years old when they have committed no crimes but their eyes have began to swivel.

Or is it not quite the same?

Every argument except vengeance collapses under pressure. And of course the vengeance argument isn't an argument. It's an emotional reaction.

Having the DP as a consequence to an action certainly does not collapse under pressure.

It is NOT about Revenge or vengeance anyway...

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 | Define Revenge at 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 | Define Consequence at 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."
 
So how does it cure "fits of rage"?

Honestly it doesn't. But those that kill while in a rage normally don't get sentenced to death. The ones that we can definitely target with this are people like gang bangers that repeatedly kill, drug lords, etc etc. IE the type of people that kill because of stupid crap like money, drugs, turf.

There are many other states of mind that impair someones ability to control themselves. Certain typres of epilepsy for one.

Last I knew epilepsy does not trigger one to kill. Unless of course the person that is having the epilepsy attack is holding a gun at the time....Then its purely accidental.

The people who commit the most heinous crimes - the ones that inspire the clamours for vengeance the most - are generally suffering from conditions which impair their ability to make clear choices. If there is any deterrent that can make any difference here it is clearly around the certainty of being caught, not the punishment. Even then it is likely that this effect would be marginal as one of the underlying characteristics of these conditions is an inability to assess the consequences of ones actions.

Where there is a clear mental condition those people are not normally condemned to death. So is irrelevant.
 
I would be more for capital punishment if there weren't so many innocents (as has been previously pointed out). For me, it is quite a stretch that people can decide whether or not someone deserves to live, but I am willing to consider the idea.

If I could be guaranteed that everyone convicted was guilty, I would be more inclined to side with capital punishment.
 
Trust me, THAT is not going to happen. :mrgreen:

It seems you were correct:2razz::lol:

I cannot converse with such big ego. I just cannot as it is like talking to someone who feels they are up in the air while sitting down here on a chair:lamo
 
I would be more for capital punishment if there weren't so many innocents (as has been previously pointed out). For me, it is quite a stretch that people can decide whether or not someone deserves to live, but I am willing to consider the idea.

If I could be guaranteed that everyone convicted was guilty, I would be more inclined to side with capital punishment.

This is similar to my view. I believe the DP is used much too much for leverage and political ambition. Every single murder one case is now being threatened with capital punishment as leverage for the defendent to avoid it by taking a plea bargain. Often District Attorneys will push for the DP even in circumstantial cases, because a big DP win can mean promotion and recognition. I mean, execute someone based on circumstantial evidence?? But it has been done, and there are still people on death row who are innocent, I'm absolutely certain.

Bottom line, I do not believe the DP should ever be on the table except for the most heinous multiple murders, when there is literally no doubt of innocence... like when cops find a dozen bodies buried under the floorboards. Serial killers and mass murderers, with overwhelming physical and DNA evidence... now we're talking about realistic death penalty cases.

We need to severely restrict the ability to bring DP cases to court so that when we do so, there can be no doubt that the individual is guilty of mass murder, and is legally sane.
 
Last edited:
This is similar to my view. I believe the DP is used much too much for leverage and political ambition. Every single murder one case is now being threatened with capital punishment as leverage for the defendent to avoid it by taking a plea bargain. Often District Attorneys will push for the DP even in circumstantial cases, because a big DP win can mean promotion and recognition. I mean, execute someone based on circumstantial evidence?? But it has been done, and there are still people on death row who are innocent, I'm absolutely certain.

Bottom line, I do not believe the DP should ever be on the table except for the most heinous multiple murders, which there is literally no doubt of innocence... like when cops find a dozen bodies buried under the floorboards. Serial killers and mass murderers, with overwhelming physical and DNA evidence... now we're talking about realistic death penalty cases.

We need to severely restrict the ability to bring DP cases to court so that when we do so, there can be no doubt that the individual is guilty of mass murder, and is legally sane.

You said it much more eloquently than I did. :)

But then you have those like Tucker Carlson who believe Michael Vick should have been executed for dog fighting.
Tucker Carlson: Michael Vick Deserves to Die - Sports Blog - CBS News

"I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances. But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that. He wasn't, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale."

These are the people that give us our news and these are the people that sway public opinion.
 
Of course there are many different arguments for the death penalty and the last few posts have avoided the "you whiney liberals love child killers' bollocks that many arguments shelter under.

Temporal lobe epilepsy used to exempt one from the Death Penalty in the UK as it could lead to momentary loss of control. It did not mean that you got locked up though. A diagnosis of temporal lobe epilepsy is not a clear cut thing. There is no such thing as a "clear mental condition", especially in the most heinous crimes. The USA continually executes mentally subnormal people. Clinton sent an insane person to his death, for public popularity.

And look how everyone disagrees on which crimes should be capital crimes. Some believe that insane people should not be executed. And yet clearly "the most heinous" crimes are commited by nutters - serial killers, child killers etc.. virtually no mass murderer is "sane". So when we punish them we do so from a completely different moral vantage point. We knew right from wrong and execute them as if they knew it just like us.

Others would execute them in a heartbeat regarding questions of their mental state as 'liberal whining" or such like.

So it would be drug dealers - everyone hates them. But who knows the circumstances of the death? Was it really a scumbag with no value for human life, or was it gun toting bravado that went wrong? Some kid out of their depth. Who decides? How is the Court not fallible in this?

You know talking of gangs and deterrents: joining a gang in some areas is almost an act of suicide and yet it doesn't stop people. These highly abnormal social groups do not have a sense of long term consequence, and so for them there can be no deterrent. Getting caught and imprisoned is no different from being shot. It's the end of your life. No deterrent.

So even though a majority of people believe in the DP, there is very little agreement on who should get it. The majority usually disagree with the status quo, one way or another.
 
Last edited:
And yet clearly "the most heinous" crimes are commited by nutters - serial killers, child killers etc.. virtually no mass murderer is "sane". So when we punish them we do so from a completely different moral vantage point. We knew right from wrong and execute them as if they knew it just like us.
This is not true, and it doesn't really help our anti-DP case to believe that it is. You do not have to be insane to step over the line into killing and heinous acts. Psychiatry draws a clear line between mental illness and personality disorders. One is not the other. One can understand the distinctions between right and wrong and, while not necessarily empathising with their victims, can recognise the consequences of their violent actions. The others cannot. I am as anti- the death penalty as you, but we only win the argument if we concentrate on rational and ethical, rather than ad hominem, arguments.
 
This is not true, and it doesn't really help our anti-DP case to believe that it is. You do not have to be insane to step over the line into killing and heinous acts. Psychiatry draws a clear line between mental illness and personality disorders. One is not the other. One can understand the distinctions between right and wrong and, while not necessarily empathising with their victims, can recognise the consequences of their violent actions. The others cannot. I am as anti- the death penalty as you, but we only win the argument if we concentrate on rational and ethical, rather than ad hominem, arguments.

This is not true. The ability to make moral choices cannot easily be assessed by psychiatrists. A rational understanding of right and wrong is not a capability to choose between the two. Psychopaths are unable to choose between right and wrong being driven by a neurosis to act as they do, but they are able to rationally understand what society sees as right or wrong. And psychiatrists reject psychopathy as mental illness on the basis that it cannot be cured, not on any assessment of ability to make moral choices. Also there is no clarity as often there is conflicting medical evidence. In UK prisons for example there are clearly loopy people like Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, who were found sane despite defense psychiatrists evidence. There are many US death row cases where the intelligence of the accused is so low that moral competence is highly questionable. That may not be insanity but it is the flipside of the psychopath.

Insane people can be protected from the death penalty by compassion but they are also protected due to the patent irrelevance of the deterrent argument towards them, which was my argument. This equally extends to those people with personality disorders like psychopaths who are often indifferent to the consequences of their actions.

The only examples of clearly sane people committing mass murder or serial killing would be political killers although often these organizations attract pathological killers rather than people who make conscious and empathizing moral choices.
 
Last edited:
... Clinton sent an insane person to his death, for public popularity...

Andalublue adequately responded to the rest of your post, but could you please give further information on the above statement? Who was this insane person, and in what capacity was Clinton (which Clinton, btw, Bill or Hillary) responsible for sending him to his death?
 
Andalublue adequately responded to the rest of your post, but could you please give further information on the above statement? Who was this insane person, and in what capacity was Clinton (which Clinton, btw, Bill or Hillary) responsible for sending him to his death?

Bill Clinton. Governor of Arkansas. During the 1992 Presidential election.

Ricky Ray Rector

Famous because at his last meal he asked for his dessert to be saved for after the execution.

Often cited as an example of Clinton's total lack of principles and his ruthless prioritization of popularity above all else. Particularly by Christopher Hitchens.

This type of execution is now judged cruel and unusual punishment by SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes, a very strange and disturbing case. I think the execution was absolutely wrong. However, your initial statement implied that Clinton had actually prosecuted Rector, when in fact he simply refused to issue an order of executive clemency to stop it eleven years later. As I understand it, an order of excutive clemency would not have simply stopped the execution; it would have set the man completely free, basically wiping his conviction off the books. This is a pretty touchy situation. Ray had murdered two people. After agreeing to turn himself in for the first murder, he shot the police officer who negotiated his surrender in the back, murdering him. Then he shot himself in the head, but survived.

The situation is touchy because Ray was sane when he committed the 1981 murders, and any mental condition he had afterwards was by his own hand. Now I don't think he should have even been tried. However, there were apparently enough psychiatrists willing to state that he was legally sane that he was tried, convicted and sentenced to execution, a sentence that was repeatedly upheld on appeal.

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with any of this. He simply refused to set aside the verdicts of all the courts and appeals courts that had refused to overturn the conviction. I can't find any statistics on how many governors have stopped executions over the years, but frankly it's damned few because doing so means overruling the entire justice system and appeals process. Although the system doesn't work perfectly, it's all we've got at the moment.

Cases like this are the reason I continue to believe that capital cases are being prosecuted far too often, and for all the wrong reasons.

And Christopher Hitchens is an ass, with zero credibility to anyone except those desperate for the good-old-days of Clinton-bashing.
 
Back
Top Bottom