• 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
Why didn't you have an option for those who oppose the death penalty. That, to me, skews your result.
 
Plato
Every argument except vengeance collapses under pressure. And of course the vengeance argument isn't an argument. It's an emotional reaction.

I clearly refuted your assertions in post #263 yet you voided answering... pretty telling.
 
I clearly refuted your assertions in post #263 yet you voided answering... pretty telling.

I'm afraid I don't accept your 'consequence' argument, not at all. You are saying that the DP is not vengeance, but consequence of the action they have undertaken in taking another life. That might hold water were it not for the fact that the DP is an entirely arbitrary consequence, devised by politicians and therefore imperfect in its conception, as are indeed all punishments. There is no such thing as a 'natural' consequence unless we are discussing the laws of nature (gravity, relativity etc) and not the laws of man.

We (or rather those who have it) choose to make the DP the consequence of murder. Why they do so, well we are in the process of discussing that matter, are we not? You dismiss the idea that vengeance is involved, but in putting in its place 'consequence', you entirely miss the mark.
 
I oppose the death penalty based on the following reasons.
1. With the potential for wrongful convictions you can never assure that you are not convicting an innocent man. The recent results of DNA are just one example. Additionally, the established weakness of eye witness testimony has been demonstrated to be significant.The reality is that 130 people have been released from death row based on innocence from 1973. Between 1973-1999 there have been 3.1 released based on innocence per year and between 2000-2007 there have been 5 on innocence per yea. The possibility of executing an innocent person alone, in my opinion, justifies that capital punishment be repealed.
2. Contrary to popular opinion, the judicial system is not about truth but rather about winning. It is hoped that in an adversarial system truth will surface. Having worked in the criminal justice system throughout may working years, that is not always the case. Attorneys are concerned about putting a Win before there name rather than concentrate on the truth. Economics also comes into play. The better the attorney, the greater the opportunity of not receiving the death penalty. Ninety percent of all people on death row cannot afford an attorney.
 
I'm afraid I don't accept your 'consequence' argument, not at all. You are saying that the DP is not vengeance, but consequence of the action they have undertaken in taking another life. That might hold water were it not for the fact that the DP is an entirely arbitrary consequence, devised by politicians and therefore imperfect in its conception, as are indeed all punishments. There is no such thing as a 'natural' consequence unless we are discussing the laws of nature (gravity, relativity etc) and not the laws of man.

We (or rather those who have it) choose to make the DP the consequence of murder. Why they do so, well we are in the process of discussing that matter, are we not? You dismiss the idea that vengeance is involved, but in putting in its place 'consequence', you entirely miss the mark.

It might be about vengeance for many, just not for me and my reasoning. I am completely on the mark and just saying that I am replacing a word and missing it certainly doesn't hold any water. Whether or not the DP is arbitrary or not is absolutely irrelevant, as you say, all punishments are arbitrary. So if you are saying that my reasoning doesn't hit the mark, then no punishments hit the mark. I have no idea why you are bringing up natural consequences at all... but a natural consequence of trying to kill my child will be that I kill you. That is seen in the natural world the world over...

Look, if you are not going to accept it and then challenge it, at least challenge the ethical aspects of the argument that I am utilizing and not introduce all this other irrelevant stuff about gravity when discussing the DP.
 
I oppose the death penalty based on the following reasons.
1. With the potential for wrongful convictions you can never assure that you are not convicting an innocent man. The recent results of DNA are just one example. Additionally, the established weakness of eye witness testimony has been demonstrated to be significant.The reality is that 130 people have been released from death row based on innocence from 1973. Between 1973-1999 there have been 3.1 released based on innocence per year and between 2000-2007 there have been 5 on innocence per yea. The possibility of executing an innocent person alone, in my opinion, justifies that capital punishment be repealed.
2. Contrary to popular opinion, the judicial system is not about truth but rather about winning. It is hoped that in an adversarial system truth will surface. Having worked in the criminal justice system throughout may working years, that is not always the case. Attorneys are concerned about putting a Win before there name rather than concentrate on the truth. Economics also comes into play. The better the attorney, the greater the opportunity of not receiving the death penalty. Ninety percent of all people on death row cannot afford an attorney.

Past failures need to stop being used. Failures in the past in no way indicate that those convicted with DNA evidence now are innocent nor will they be proven innocent, so those convicted with DNA evidence now should be killed without question.
 
A fine argument if you scrap the humanity of man.

Judging by the kind of people we have on death row, it doesn't seem like the "humanity of man" is worth a hill of beans in the first place.

I don't ask for people to be useful; I only ask that they refrain from being actively detrimental to society.
 
It might be about vengeance for many, just not for me and my reasoning. I am completely on the mark and just saying that I am replacing a word and missing it certainly doesn't hold any water. Whether or not the DP is arbitrary or not is absolutely irrelevant, as you say, all punishments are arbitrary. So if you are saying that my reasoning doesn't hit the mark, then no punishments hit the mark. I have no idea why you are bringing up natural consequences at all... but

Then the entire 'consequence' argument needs to be dropped. We are discussing whether capital punishment SHOULD be used. Merely saying it is a consequence of a criminal action is describing the current state of affairs, not explaining it. In those circumstances, I will agree with you. The Death Penalty IS the current consequence of committing certain criminal acts in certain states. That doesn't justify it, merely describes it. So what IS your justification?
a natural consequence of trying to kill my child will be that I kill you. That is seen in the natural world the world over...
No, it is not. Not everyone who has a child that is the victim of attempted murder kills the attacker. It is a decision, a fairly understandable emotional decision perhaps, but not inevitable and does not occur in even 50% of cases. THAT'S why I mentioned 'natural' consequences, which are utterly different to the example you gave.

Look, if you are not going to accept it and then challenge it, at least challenge the ethical aspects of the argument that I am utilizing and not introduce all this other irrelevant stuff about gravity when discussing the DP.
Well, I'm just not sure what your ethical argument is.

I did not introduce irrelevant stuff, merely pointed out the fallacy inherent in using a word like 'consequence' when it has several different meanings. 'Natural' consequences are entirely different to human reactions to events, which are not inevitable.

So far, the only pro-DP argument that seems to make any ethical sense is the one Catz uses about incapacitating dangerous criminals from harming others. I would argue that incarceration can do that, but I recognise that people can hold her position in all good conscience.
 
Last edited:
Past failures need to stop being used. Failures in the past in no way indicate that those convicted with DNA evidence now are innocent nor will they be proven innocent, so those convicted with DNA evidence now should be killed without question.

DNA is not as sure evidence as you appear to believe
 
Judging by the kind of people we have on death row, it doesn't seem like the "humanity of man" is worth a hill of beans in the first place.
And that's the problem with a fascistic take on morality. Order is all, humanity, in all its imperfection, is merely something to be controlled. It's an easy argument to make when you are dealing with murderers. The problem is, as you've expressed many time when discussing an aspect of dissent within society, that you believe the iron fist is the right and the responsibility of rulers. Given the anti-democratic nature of fascist attitudes to governmental change, the de facto power of rulers is not always legitimate, hence often tyrannical.

I don't ask for people to be useful; I only ask that they refrain from being actively detrimental to society.
Unfortunately, what you might deem 'actively detrimental', others would call legitimate dissent or ethical disobedience.
 
Last edited:
And that's the problem with a fascistic take on morality. Order is all, humanity, in all its imperfection, is merely something to be controlled. It's an easy argument to make when you are dealing with murderers, the problem is, as you've expressed many time when discussing an aspect of dissent within society, that you believe the iron fist is the right and the responsibility of rulers. Given the anti-democratic nature of fascist attitudes to governmental change, the de facto power of rulers is not always legitimate, hence often tyrannical.


Unfortunately, what you might deem 'actively detrimental', others would call legitimate dissent or ethical disobedience.

Must admit Andalblue the thought that crossed my mind in reading Viktyr Korimir's post was I wonder how many of us would be left. You put it much better. ;)
 
Arguing in support of capital punishment is saying that you approve of a government funded and operated death panel. Now are you guys sure you want to support that?

Past failures need to stop being used. Failures in the past in no way indicate that those convicted with DNA evidence now are innocent nor will they be proven innocent, so those convicted with DNA evidence now should be killed without question.

These are the words of somebody who has not done their homework. New forensic science is frequently misused. Look at some of the cases in which DNA evidence has been presented and later found to be absolute garbage. To all those people saying that it's ok as long as most of the people we execute are actually guilty, what if the one innocent person tried and executed is you? Are you alright with sacrificing your life in order to maintain this system? I'm sure those of you saying "we should execute more people" would think differently if you were currently on death row because you had the wrong tattoo or you drove the wrong car or you were in the wrong place on the wrong night.
 
Then the entire 'consequence' argument needs to be dropped. We are discussing whether capital punishment SHOULD be used. Merely saying it is a consequence of a criminal action is describing the current state of affairs, not explaining it. In those circumstances, I will agree with you. The Death Penalty IS the current consequence of committing certain criminal acts in certain states. That doesn't justify it, merely describes it. So what IS your justification?

That these crimes merit that a person forfeit their right to life. They have chosen to be removed by their actions and any positive future use that they may have is irrelevant.

No, it is not. Not everyone who has a child that is the victim of attempted murder kills the attacker. It is a decision, a fairly understandable emotional decision perhaps, but not inevitable and does not occur in even 50% of cases. THAT'S why I mentioned 'natural' consequences, which are utterly different to the example you gave.

If just about any parent is standing there while some person tries to kill their child, they will try to kill the perpatrator in order to stop them. I don't know what kind of parents you know... I doubt any parent would waste a nano-second in thinking "how can I stop this guy from killing my child in a manner that will not kill this murdering savage, hmmm?"

Well, I'm just not sure what your ethical argument is.

I did not introduce irrelevant stuff, merely pointed out the fallacy inherent in using a word like 'consequence' when it has several different meanings. 'Natural' consequences are entirely different to human reactions to events, which are not inevitable.

So far, the only pro-DP argument that seems to make any ethical sense is the one Catz uses about incapacitating dangerous criminals from harming others. I would argue that incarceration can do that, but I recognise that people can hold her position in all good conscience.

Deontological Ethics...
 
DNA is not as sure evidence as you appear to believe

Upon doing some research, I am finding that you are correct.
 
That these crimes merit that a person forfeit their right to life. They have chosen to be removed by their actions and any positive future use that they may have is irrelevant.
Okay, again arbitrary. Deontological arguments are necessarily subjective. It's your judgement that decides what these crimes merit. Do I assume that you apply US judicial norms for applying the DP? That these are the ones with which you agree and, for want of argument, that you may not deem the Chinese norms as equally valid?


If just about any parent is standing there while some person tries to kill their child, they will try to kill the perpatrator in order to stop them. I don't know what kind of parents you know... I doubt any parent would waste a nano-second in thinking "how can I stop this guy from killing my child in a manner that will not kill this murdering savage, hmmm?"

Okay, you've just applied a new dynamic to this argument. Now you are saying that a justification for applying lethal force against an aggressor to your child is the fact that you may be able to prevent that aggressor from harming your child if you take lethal action.

That may be true, although you are shifting the goalposts, and that in itself is an admission of the weakness of your position.

Deontological Ethics...

Yes, I know what they are and the subjectivity inherent in their application.
 
And that's the problem with a fascistic take on morality. Order is all, humanity, in all its imperfection, is merely something to be controlled. It's an easy argument to make when you are dealing with murderers. The problem is, as you've expressed many time when discussing an aspect of dissent within society, that you believe the iron fist is the right and the responsibility of rulers. Given the anti-democratic nature of fascist attitudes to governmental change, the de facto power of rulers is not always legitimate, hence often tyrannical.

Do you support the right of the individual-- each and every individual-- to decide for themselves the legitimacy of their government? If not, what percentage of the people has to hold that the government is illegitimate before they have the right to overthrow it? Should a government simply fold when it encounters organized opposition to their rule?

And if your answer to any of these questions is "yes", then how do you propose that a government-- any government, legitimate or otherwise-- maintain order in the face of civil unrest?

The iron fist of the ruler, the de facto power of the government, are always legitimate because it is the power itself that grants them legitimacy. Illegitimate governments are incapable of ruling, so any government that has the capacity to maintain its authority over the people is legitimate by default. You may accuse me of condoning tyranny in this argument, and you may be correct, but there is no alternative by which to measure the legitimacy of a government objectively, and leaving it up to the subjective attitudes of the mob is to promote lawlessness and anarchy.

Unfortunately, what you might deem 'actively detrimental', others would call legitimate dissent or ethical disobedience.

Yes. And those others would then be under the moral imperative to attempt to overthrow my government. We wouldn't know for certain which of us was right until the one left standing has the opportunity to re-write the history books.

Do I assume that you apply US judicial norms for applying the DP? That these are the ones with which you agree and, for want of argument, that you may not deem the Chinese norms as equally valid?

American justice is sufficient for Americans, while Chinese justice is better suited to the Chinese. I would no more tell them how to run their country than I would suffer them to tell us how to run ours, except to offer and/or receive advice offered under the auspices of friendship. My own personal judicial norms are only valid when applied to people under my own authority; the best I can hope for is to influence the norms of my country to move more in my direction.
 
Do you support the right of the individual-- each and every individual-- to decide for themselves the legitimacy of their government?
Of course I do. The right of the individual to approve or disapprove of their government, and act to change or maintain it, is democracy.

If not, what percentage of the people has to hold that the government is illegitimate before they have the right to overthrow it? Should a government simply fold when it encounters organized opposition to their rule?
If you have a nation, governed by consent, under an agreed constitution and with proper mechanisms in place for governmental accountability and removal, then the idea of overthrowing a government, and by that I assume you mean the violent take-over, becomes very much a minority preserve. If we are discussing merely the violent overthrow of a government, then it takes as big a percentage of the population to do so as can be militarily successful.

I do think that you are mistaking the concept of de facto power for legitimacy, however, as most dictators do. Gaddafi believes he has legitimacy when everyone else knows that all he has is power, and a declining amount of that. If he had legitimacy then he would need fewer police and troops to grind his people into submission.

And if your answer to any of these questions is "yes", then how do you propose that a government-- any government, legitimate or otherwise-- maintain order in the face of civil unrest?
There are many strategies, as we can see from different examples around the world. The constant to me appears to be the equation that the greater the legitimacy of a government, the less civil unrest you are likely to need to quell.

The physical maintenance of order is a judgement call for each government in each situation. There is no doubt that those that choose the most heavy-handed route impose a temporary order at the expense of their legitimacy. The more you kill and repress your own citizens, the less likely you are to have your citizens believe you are the right people to be governing them.

The iron fist of the ruler, the de facto power of the government, are always legitimate because it is the power itself that grants them legitimacy. Illegitimate governments are incapable of ruling, so any government that has the capacity to maintain its authority over the people is legitimate by default. You may accuse me of condoning tyranny in this argument, and you may be correct, but there is no alternative by which to measure the legitimacy of a government objectively, and leaving it up to the subjective attitudes of the mob is to promote lawlessness and anarchy.
Well, I think I've dealt with this already. Legitimacy resides in the individual and collective hearts of the people, not in their acquiescence to coercion. That a tyrant is able to prevent dissent from becoming overt does not mean they have legitimacy. What you're saying is that because we cannot measure legitimacy, we might as well pretend that a cowed and uncomplaining populace is an acceptable alternative indicator of it.

Yes. And those others would then be under the moral imperative to attempt to overthrow my government.
Only if your government lacked legitimacy in the hearts and minds of the people. It is quite possible for people to demonstrate and engage in civil disobedience on a particular issues, or set of issues, while not questioning the legitimacy of the government to remain the government. I marched and campaigned against Tony Bliar and his Iraqi War plans without once questioning his legitimacy as the elected leader of the British government. The moral imperative was to protest that issue, not his entire claim to authority.

American justice is sufficient for Americans, while Chinese justice is better suited to the Chinese. I would no more tell them how to run their country than I would suffer them to tell us how to run ours, except to offer and/or receive advice offered under the auspices of friendship. My own personal judicial norms are only valid when applied to people under my own authority; the best I can hope for is to influence the norms of my country to move more in my direction.
Okay, just checking. It's just that there are many different sets of issues and assumptions depending on which system you are discussing. This thread is about the DP generally, not about the DP purely as it applies to the US. The US is not my chief concern. I've been discussing the principles relating to the DP.
 
Last edited:
Okay, again arbitrary. Deontological arguments are necessarily subjective. It's your judgement that decides what these crimes merit. Do I assume that you apply US judicial norms for applying the DP? That these are the ones with which you agree and, for want of argument, that you may not deem the Chinese norms as equally valid?

Yes, I know what they are and the subjectivity inherent in their application

The whole issue is subjective... so?

Okay, you've just applied a new dynamic to this argument. Now you are saying that a justification for applying lethal force against an aggressor to your child is the fact that you may be able to prevent that aggressor from harming your child if you take lethal action.

That may be true, although you are shifting the goalposts, and that in itself is an admission of the weakness of your position.

I am not shifting the goal posts, I am clarifying my original answer for you...
 
I do not support it. It's expensive and there are better alternatives to death as punishment.
 
I do not support it. It's expensive and there are better alternatives to death as punishment.

A bullet in not expensive... and what better alternative is there when dealing with someone who rapes, murders and then butchers a body?
 
A bullet in not expensive... and what better alternative is there when dealing with someone who rapes, murders and then butchers a body?

The chemicals in the lethal injection aren't expensive, either; I'm willing to pay a little extra to cull our mistakes humanely. What's expensive is the years of appeals and due process that we use to ensure that we're executing the right people. Seeing as we still make mistakes in this process, I'm not comfortable cutting any more corners.
 
I clearly refuted your assertions in post #263 yet you voided answering... pretty telling.

I'm sorry but I found your post to be a very weak argument. Consequences are thongs that follow on from other things. So what? The DP argument is not that the DP is a consequence of murder ipso facto but that it SHOULD be. The appropriate discussion is not around dictionary definitions of the words consequence and revenge but in answering the question "why should DP be a consequence of crime?" Your only argument is " because I say so" which is a little weak to say the least.

George Bush gave the best pro DP speech I have ever heard at the execution of Tim McVeigh. But he still failed to answer what gives the State the right to kill. Saying that this respresents the esteem in which you hold life is all fine and dandy but it's really no more justification than those who used to make sacrifices to the Gods as a mark of what they held in esteem.
 
I support capital punishment, but only for truly heinous crimes that demonstrate complete and incurable disregard for human life. (Obviously, that's not the actual standard I would push for, but it's the best I can do at the moment).

For example: Hitler would be a good candidate for the death penalty. Somebody who raped and murdered seven children over the course of a decade would probably be another.

But the government should be better than "an eye for an eye." It shouldn't punish in the same way the offender offended.

I also think, because of the recent DNA exonerations, there should be an even higher standard of proof in order for someone to get death. Like, there needs to be some kind of direct, conclusive evidence.
 
I support capital punishment, but only for truly heinous crimes that demonstrate complete and incurable disregard for human life. (Obviously, that's not the actual standard I would push for, but it's the best I can do at the moment).

For example: Hitler would be a good candidate for the death penalty. Somebody who raped and murdered seven children over the course of a decade would probably be another.

But the government should be better than "an eye for an eye." It shouldn't punish in the same way the offender offended.

I also think, because of the recent DNA exonerations, there should be an even higher standard of proof in order for someone to get death. Like, there needs to be some kind of direct, conclusive evidence.

I sometimes think it would be the utmost humiliation for someone like Hitler to have rotted in prison for the rest if his life, a sort of triumph of civilized over barbaric values where this once all powerful fiend is reduced to the drab ordinariness of being prisoner 12345 and the awesome power of civilized peoples to refuse the most intense provocation to revenge is clearly demonstrated. This too would be a much better fate than the lynching of Saddam who now to some will still be remembered for his power and the fact that he only did to his enemies what they would do to him - a wholly disgusting legacy that would not be if the mass killer was now just a sad grey old man living his days out in humiliation.

People who deny revenge as a motive argue that DP is a solemn affirmation of life. This is a windy statement backed up by nothing which clearly does not apply to even the most excessive cases. Those who truly affirm the sanctity of life simply never take it when that life is no threat to anyone else (oh apart from the millions of prison guards who are routinely killed in American prisons but that garbage seems to have gone away now).
 
Back
Top Bottom