The Death Penalty

[Karl Marx]

By popular demand (http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2134-debate-topics/), we will debate the death penalty.

Who wants to go first?

[PiratePaul]

We are debating if it should be allowed, correct?

Edited July 7, 2014 by PiratePaul

[RedArmy BushMan]

Haven't we already had this debate?

[WISD0MTREE]

Haven't we already had this debate?

We have, but I think it ended in religion vs. atheism.

[PiratePaul]

Okay, well, I guess I can start the actual debate.

 

I think the death penalty should be allowed in extreme cases. (rape, serial killing, mass killing, etc.)

It should not be used in a minor case. (robbery, pooping in your neighbor's pool, etc.)

 

But, 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'

[RedArmy BushMan]

I stick by my original opinion.

 

Personally I think for most crimes education and rehibilitation is the way to go with jail rather than cramming people in, so that once they get out they can repay society. And hard labor. !@#$ needs to be reinstated.

 

As for more violent crimes or repeat offenders, death penalty.

[Grillick]

I don't believe it is ever appropriate for one individual to take another's life. Because the State cannot act except through individuals, it is never appropriate for the State to take an individual's life. Every punishment is preferable to the death penalty, even if they might be more expensive for the State (I don't believe the death penalty is cheaper than life in prison in any humane justice system that values liberty over punishment).

[RedArmy BushMan]

I don't believe it is ever appropriate for one individual to take another's life. Because the State cannot act except through individuals, it is never appropriate for the State to take an individual's life. Every punishment is preferable to the death penalty, even if they might be more expensive for the State (I don't believe the death penalty is cheaper than life in prison in any humane justice system that values liberty over punishment).

We know your stance well enough, you were pretty much the only one against it last time, and even Lamb agreed it has it's place. Let others have a turn.

[Ayayay]

I think we should kill everyone immediately upon a guilty conviction, regardless of the scope of the crime. 

"You're the CEO of BP and your company spilled oil in the gulf? Death."

"You attempted to hotwire someones car? To Hell with you!"

"You got high off a illicit substance? You aren't gonna get high in the afterlife."

"You're seven and brought a piece of candy into the movie theater? Your parents should have raised you better, so you will be able to sit on their lap in the chair."

[PiratePaul]

Okay, this is a terrible thing to know about, but every day, children are raped by someone who's mind is so twisted and monstrous that he doesn't even think of others as 'human'. If you think that that person should be allowed to live because 'no one should take another person's life' then that is your opinion, but remember, that man just destroyed that child's life. That kid will never be the same. The trauma from something that terrible is comparable to killing a man.
Serial rapist are worse, because they do it multiple times. They don't understand that their victims are human and have the right to say no. They force themselves upon their victims, and that person will never live again. They may survive. But they will never truly 'live' again.

 

Now, argue your side and be truthful, do you still think that a monster like that deserves to live?

[Sketchy]

Okay, well, I guess I can start the actual debate.

 

I think the death penalty should be allowed in extreme cases. (rape, serial killing, mass killing, etc.)

It should not be used in a minor case. (robbery, pooping in your neighbor's pool, etc.)

 

But, 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'

 

Considering most if not all pedophiles and serial killers are mentally instable, a death penalty doesn't really seem fitting.

[Saru]

The risk of executing an innocent person makes it very clear in my mind that the use of the death penalty should not be accepted.  You are dealing with people's lives, and facing the potential risk of making an irrevocable mistake far outweighs any apparent benefits -- most of which are questionable anyway, for example, I have never seen any credible evidence that it is an effective deterrent. Furthermore we know for a fact that our criminal justice system is far from perfect, and unjust in many ways. I just don't understand why you would support it, not from a practical or moral standpoint.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Saru

[Vincent]

Death sentence....lets be honest with ourselves....do we actually see a much reduced crime rate in countries that carry out death sentence...?

if people are really deterred by death sentence then why on earth there is still murder , rape and etc in the countries that imposed death sentence on those crime?

the purpose of the punishment is to stop others from doing/repeating the crime.....and when people still repeat or involved in those crimes....then fact speak for itself...that punishment doesn't work and something else should replace it

Edited July 8, 2014 by vincentsum8

[PiratePaul]

The risk of executing an innocent person makes it very clear in my mind that the use of the death penalty should not be accepted.  You are dealing with people's lives, and facing the potential risk of making an irrevocable mistake far outweighs any apparent benefits -- most of which are questionable anyway, for example, I have never seen any credible evidence that it is an effective deterrent. Furthermore we know for a fact that our criminal justice system is far from perfect, and unjust in many ways. I just don't understand why you would support it, not from a practical or moral standpoint.

My morals are terrible. You know that.

 

Seriously, tho.

I don't mean that this should be taken lightly. I don't think a judge should just say, "Hey, we all agree you did that bad thing, so we're just going to kill you." No, instead there should be some system, like if the accused admits to the crime, then the judge has the option to order an execution. If there is an overwhelming amount of evidence (such as video of the person commiting the crime, fingerprints and DNA on the weapon, victims blood on the accused) then it should be allowed.

[Saru]

My morals are terrible. You know that.

 

Seriously, tho.

I don't mean that this should be taken lightly. I don't think a judge should just say, "Hey, we all agree you did that bad thing, so we're just going to kill you." No, instead there should be some system, like if the accused admits to the crime, then the judge has the option to order an execution. If there is an overwhelming amount of evidence (such as video of the person commiting the crime, fingerprints and DNA on the weapon, victims blood on the accused) then it should be allowed.

 

In court, we already require an overwhelming amount of evidence. Yet time and time again, cases that have apparently been proven beyond doubt -- are proved to have been wrong. That coupled with the fact that our criminal justice system is flawed, and human beings are susceptible to corruption and mistakes makes me absolutely sure that it is not the right way to go about it.

[RedArmy BushMan]

 

Death sentence....lets be honest with ourselves....do we actually see a much reduced crime rate in countries that carry out death sentence...?

if people are really deterred by death sentence then why on earth there is still murder , rape and etc in the countries that imposed death sentence on those crime?

There's more to it than just deterring crime. It also reduces the costs associated with life sentances and other long term prison terms. The more costs are reduced the more we can fund programs like rehibilitating the ones that can be turned away from crime, funding the prisons so they aren't shit holes that breed more animosity between criminal and state.

 

Personally I think had labor+rehibilitation is the best option but in some cases some people are beyond help and they will only cause trouble in and out of prison, we all agree Hitler, Pol Pot, and other genocidal !@#$ heads deserved death (or worse) so at what point do killers start deserving death.

[Saru]

Okay, this is a terrible thing to know about, but every day, children are raped by someone who's mind is so twisted and monstrous that he doesn't even think of others as 'human'. If you think that that person should be allowed to live because 'no one should take another person's life' then that is your opinion, but remember, that man just destroyed that child's life. That kid will never be the same. The trauma from something that terrible is comparable to killing a man.

Serial rapist are worse, because they do it multiple times. They don't understand that their victims are human and have the right to say no. They force themselves upon their victims, and that person will never live again. They may survive. But they will never truly 'live' again.

 

Now, argue your side and be truthful, do you still think that a monster like that deserves to live?

 

Perhaps death is the easy way out for a person like that. It's pretty well known that rapists and child molestors in particular don't have the greatest time in jail. ( Not the reason for why I oppose the death penalty, but just preaching to your immorality whilst playing the devils advocate I guess )

Edited July 8, 2014 by Saru

[Saru]

 

we all agree Hitler, Pol Pot, and other genocidal !@#$ heads deserved death (or worse) so at what point do killers start deserving death.

 

 

Where do you draw the line? There's plenty of people that hold Isreali officials for genocide for example. It all becomes a matter of perceptions. And that's a slippery slope.

[Karl Marx]

Regardless of the morality of executing someone who is guilty of a crime, innocent people are sentenced to death.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row?scid=6&did=110

 

In fact as many as 4.1% of people currently on death row may be innocent. 

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230

 

 

Now, we get to the hard part. Does anyone deserve to die? I say no.

 

Take, for instance, Mary Bell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bell

Without a doubt, what she did was beyond horrible. However, the heavy abuse she suffered as a child most likely contributed to her decision to do what she did. After all, what sane, normal person decides to kill two children?

 

She did not receive the death penalty. What was gained from this? She is now a grandmother, meaning she holds a meaningful place in someones life. What was lost by allowing her to live? Nothing. She committed no further crimes after her release from prison.

 

What if she had been executed? What would have been gained? Nothing. Killing her would not have prevented any future crimes. What would have been lost? Her children and grandchildren would not be alive today if she had "faced justice".

 

But then if you asked me about Hitler, I would say he definitely deserved to die and my argument would fall apart.

[PiratePaul]

Perhaps death is the easy way out for a person like that. It's pretty well known that rapists and child molestors in particular don't have the greatest time in jail.

I agree with that. But, if that person is let out of jail, what is stopping him/her from commiting another crime?

[Ayayay]

Where do you draw the line? There's plenty of people that hold Isreali officials for genocide for example. It all becomes a matter of perceptions. And that's a slippery slope.

That's why we kill everyone. Someone who pirates a song is only one gun away from shooting up a school. Do we really need another Sandy Hook?

[Saru]

I agree with that. But, if that person is let out of jail, what is stopping him/her from commiting another crime?

 

There's an argument for treating the issue with more compassion, and getting professional psychologists and such involved. We don't know how much of a choice some of these people have in their severely disturbing preferences. I would hope that with professional help, and years to reflect upon what they did, would fix the issue. And if it the crime re-occurred they just simply wouldn't be let out of jail.

[Vincent]

Pirate paul...yup agreed there is nothing to stop any criminal from committing the same crime or other crime when they get out of prison...But what is there to say if he/she will commit a crime when he/she is out? He or she is supposed to be sentence to death just bcos he/she might....commit crime when they are out of prison?

who is to decide on that? I heard of  criminals who truly repents after their time in prison and remain good citizens till the end of their life....and to sentence them to death just bcos there is nothing to stop them from committing crime after their time in prison? come on....who are we to decide? sorry I don't want to appear before GOD on Judgement day with blood on my hands. 

[RedArmy BushMan]

Where do you draw the line? There's plenty of people that hold Isreali officials for genocide for example. It all becomes a matter of perceptions. And that's a slippery slope.

Why exactly are they being accused of that, because Isreal is kinda in a state of !@#$ed up, so their situation is different, but I don't know so maybe there's something I don't know.

 

-snip-

4.1% may be innocent, even if all 4.1% are innocent then that means 95.9% of the people on death row are in fact guilty of a crime that was determined by a court of law to be worthy of the death penalty.

 

Yes but how many cases are like her?

 

So if you think Hitler deserved death, where would you draw the line?

[Ayayay]

 I heard of  criminals who truly repents after their time in prison and remain good citizens till the end of their life....and to sentence them to death just bcos there is nothing to stop them from committing crime after their time in prison? come on....who are we to decide? sorry I don't want to appear before GOD on Judgement day with blood on my hands. 

I would like to point out that the Abrahamic religions see murder as one of the worst crimes imaginable since they are taking life from one of Gods creations. I am pretty sure that if all the evidence pointed to the fact that someone was obviously guilty, even if it was discovered later on that they were innocent, that God would not punish you since, ya know, the evidence at the time showed that the person was guilty.

Edited July 8, 2014 by underlordgc