• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should they banish the Death Sentence?

montymike

New member
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What are your views on capital punishment? Should it be banished? When asking this question there are many factors to take into account, such as error rate, cost of keeping prisoners compared to carrying out executions, whether exposed murderers/terrorists should be allowed to live, etc, etc.

It's also important to look at what purpose the death sentence serves. Is it used as an example to other potential criminals in the hope of reducing murders? Is it to get rid of that person for good, thus alleviating their risk to society. I don't know....

What are your thoughts? - should it be banished?

Here are some interesting studies on the issue:

http://ccjr.policy.net/cjedfund/jpreport/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385

Note to Mod: Please move this to 'US Politics' forum. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Each side it seems has good numbers to support their side so really it comes down to a case of morality and human rights. In that way, the case imho is quite clear. Whenever something becomes a being and stays one, we as a society must do all we can to protect it...but that isn't the opinion of the majority in the US so, I guess it has no relevance.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It's funny. My mother voted for Bush because she said he was "pro-life". I couldn't stop laughing at this. I told her, "You consider a man, that while he was govenor executed more people than any other govenor in the history of our country, as being "pro-life"? That is too funny.

I don't know what it is about people from Texas. They seem to have a death fetish.

I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm against the Death pelanty, only the US implements it in the Western World. The Death Pelanty just reeks of vengence not justice. Of course victims that have been caused so much pain and anger would want to see his/her dead but that does not mean it is right to take a life away.
Many who live deserve death, many who die deserve life. How can we as a morale society arrogantly think that we have a right to end someones life?

Surely a worse punishment would to spend his/her life behind bars without parole - it would be cheaper than seeing him executed. Convicts have commited suicide to escape the torment of prison.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Not only should it be expanded.It should be returned to more gruesome forms,Eletrocution,Gas chamber.The form of execution coud have a remedial effect.Most important it should be made to happen faster ! no 600 people on death Row,like in California.
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am against the death penalty. I feel that government sponsered revenge is a bad idea. I think more focus should be made on punishment, by way of imprisonment, life for major crimes, and rehabilitation.
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
It's funny. My mother voted for Bush because she said he was "pro-life". I couldn't stop laughing at this. I told her, "You consider a man, that while he was govenor executed more people than any other govenor in the history of our country, as being "pro-life"? That is too funny.

I don't know what it is about people from Texas. They seem to have a death fetish.

I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?
Its even funnier how liberals are "pro-choice," but don't consider the simple choice of whether or not the baby wants to actually have the choice to live or not. The death sentence kills guiltylife, abortion kills innocent life. Theres clearly a difference. However, I do agree with you to some degree on the death penelty. I feel it is more of a punishment to suffer in a horrible prison for the rest of your life, rather than die instantly.. and thats that.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
It's funny. My mother voted for Bush because she said he was "pro-life". I couldn't stop laughing at this. I told her, "You consider a man, that while he was govenor executed more people than any other govenor in the history of our country, as being "pro-life"? That is too funny.

I don't know what it is about people from Texas. They seem to have a death fetish.

I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?
Yeah but don't you find it odd that the people that are against the death penalty that punishes people for horrific crimes they committed are the same people that have no problem in murdering 40,000,000 innocent babies in the womb who have committed no crime since 1972?
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I often wonder how you people who are for the rights of murderers and rapists and are against the death penalty would feel if it was the wife, mother, or daughter who was viciously murdered and raped........I wonder if these bleeding hearts would feel the same way..........
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
I often wonder how you people who are for the rights of murderers and rapists and are against the death penalty would feel if it was the wife, mother, or daughter who was viciously murdered and raped........I wonder if these bleeding hearts would feel the same way..........
No I wouldn't feel the same way. I would want the SOB tortured to death in a slow and painful way. But I call that revenge. Not justice.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
No I wouldn't feel the same way. I would want the SOB tortured to death in a slow and painful way. But I call that revenge. Not justice.
So are you saying that if a family member was butchered by one of these scum you would not want and eye for and eye? A little confused here, sorry...
 

montymike

New member
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Navy Pride said:
So are you saying that if a family member was butchered by one of these scum you would not want and eye for and eye? A little confused here, sorry...
If you were to torture someone who committed a horrible crime you are only bringing yourself down to their level. And as Kelzie quite rightly said - that's revenge, not justice.

Don't forget, a lot of those people are beaten to death in prison.....
 

mistermain

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?
The death penalty is not a deterrent, but that is only because we do not carry it out quickly enough. A punishment must be swift and severe if it is to be an effective deterrent. Allowing death row inmates decades worth of appeals defeats the purpose of the death penalty.
Maybe we would have more success if trials, appeals, and punishment were carried out in a specific time period, not to exceed say one year (maybe less). Of course the justice system needs some fine tuning. The rate of error in conviction is way to high. I do not know what the answer is to that.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Navy Pride said:
So are you saying that if a family member was butchered by one of these scum you would not want and eye for and eye? A little confused here, sorry...
Sure, an 'eye for an eye'...question is, at what extent do you then decide to put a 'limit' on your entire 'eye for an eye' reasoning, behind solving our catastrophe's?
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mistermain said:
The death penalty is not a deterrent, but that is only because we do not carry it out quickly enough. A punishment must be swift and severe if it is to be an effective deterrent. Allowing death row inmates decades worth of appeals defeats the purpose of the death penalty.
Maybe we would have more success if trials, appeals, and punishment were carried out in a specific time period, not to exceed say one year (maybe less). Of course the justice system needs some fine tuning. The rate of error in conviction is way to high. I do not know what the answer is to that.
You don't have an answer on how to solve or dramatically reduce the high error rate of death convinctions..

But.."We need to kill 'em quick, anyway, and that will surely stop the beggers from killing....after a little fine tuning...that I don't know how to do!"
 
Last edited:

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
montymike said:
If you were to torture someone who committed a horrible crime you are only bringing yourself down to their level. And as Kelzie quite rightly said - that's revenge, not justice.

Don't forget, a lot of those people are beaten to death in prison.....
Exactly. Who gives us the right to kill someone coldly, in a pre-meditated manner?
 

mistermain

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Brigand said:
You don't have an answer on how to solve or dramatically reduce the high error rate of death convinctions..

But.."We need to kill 'em quick, anyway, and that will surely stop the beggers from killing....after a little fine tuning...that I don't know how to do!"
Why did you use quotation marks on a sentence that I never typed? I said none of this. I said that quick action is necessary for a deterrent to work, and that part of the reason crime is so rampant in the United States is because of the lack of carrying out a swift punishment. I do believe crime rates would drop dramatically if the punishments were carried out in a more timely manner.

However, one issue that greatly concerns me is the error rate in conviction. If given the power I would enact swifter punishments. There would need to be some fine tuning with the judicial system (where I do not claim to be an expert), but if we do not take steps in a direction, we will never find a better answer to this problem.

Next time you want to debate, spare the liberal rhetoric. "Stop the beggers from killing." Yeah, that's exactly what I said smart guy.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hey, look. This debate ain't got too far, for one to get lost in. So anyone can quite clearly see that you didn't use those words I put between the quotes. It's called paraphrasing. It's essentially echoing your words, albeit, less wordy.

What I said, is exactly what you said..'Kill 'em quicker, fine tune the system, don't know how, though'.

If, were going to talk about rhetoric then we need only but look at your words of wisdom. It's pub talk. A few pints of lager, a couple of doubles and a packet of crisps and talk about ridding the world of it's probems.

Yes, I am a smart guy, fella. Thankyou for pointing it out, also.

Your logic fails because of this: If you recognize a fault with a particular system, then you define what the fault is. You then go about twirling a few ideas around on how to alleviate the problem. Take the cost and benefits of each idea and do the math. Then talk about implimentation of the appropriate plan.
1) Now, the problems are:-
A high crime rate
A high error rate of convictions.

2) Take your ideas on how to alleviate the problems:-
For the crime rate, you say: Substantially reduce the time to kill convicts.
3) Do the Cost/Benefit math:-
Have you done this? enlighten me, if you have.
4) Impliment your idea:-
Let's deal with step 3. Also, you haven't given any ideas on how to reduce the high error rate of convinction, yet...you've only said "I don't know how to do it".
Use the plan, man.
There is no logic behind statements like: "I don't know how to do it....But it will Work!!!."

I've got an idea on a way of reducing the error rate of death convictions...Give more time for reviewing a case and the appeals. But, that essentially goes against the grain of your - "Kill them quicker" policy.
 
Last edited:

mistermain

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Brigand said:
Your logic fails because of this: If you recognize a fault with a particular system, then you define what the fault is. You then go about twirling a few ideas around on how to alleviate the problem. Take the cost and benefits of each idea and do the math. Then talk about implimentation of the appropriate plan.
1) Now, the problems are:-
A high crime rate
A high error rate of convictions.

2) Take your ideas on how to alleviate the problems:-
For the crime rate, you say: Substantially reduce the time to kill convicts.
3) Do the Cost/Benefit math:-
Have you done this? enlighten me, if you have.
4) Impliment your idea:-
Let's deal with step 3. Also, you haven't given any ideas on how to reduce the high error rate of convinction, yet...you've only said "I don't know how to do it".
Use the plan, man.
There is no logic behind statements like: "I don't know how to do it....But it will Work!!!."
That was fairly incoherrent.
First, who says I need to solve all the problems. I poised a solution to the first problem of lowering the crime rate. Maybe it is a pub talk, but neither one of us are trying to pass any laws here.

The original post asked why we have a death penalty if it is not a deterent. I simply explained that is not an effective deterrent when it is not implemented correctly. I never said I was for using the death penalty at all however, so your "paraphrasing" was more like an assumption.

I do not have all the answers, that is why I poised the second one regarding the error rate in conviction. This is a debate, and discussion forum. We are not necessarily here to destroy each other's ideas. I have no good ideas about cutting down the rate of wrongful convictions. If anybody does, let's hear them.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mistermain said:
That was fairly incoherrent.
If it's so incoherent, why have you been able to provide an appropriate response to everything I said?

mistermain said:
First, who says I need to solve all the problems.
Not me.

mistermain said:
The original post asked why we have a death penalty if it is not a deterent. I simply explained that is not an effective deterrent when it is not implemented correctly. I never said I was for using the death penalty.
NOW, thats inchorence! and one BIG contradiction.

mistermain said:
We are not necessarily here to destroy each other's ideas.
Not if the ideas are good ones and fairly proved to be good ones. but you haven't said why your ideas are good.

It's a debate. Which means we're allowed to disect each others words, ideas and plans. If I say... Every home should be give a servant at the cost of the Banks. Then it sounds pretty good, But it deserves to be taken apart.
If I also say, We should give free crack cocaine to every man woman and child, then I think it should be destroyed.
 
Last edited:

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
MISTERMAIN QUOTES:
I have no good ideas about cutting down the rate of wrongful convictions. If anybody does, let's hear them.

I gave you one, just.

BRIGAND QUOTES:
I've got an idea on a way of reducing the error rate of death convictions...Give more time for reviewing a case and the appeals.
 

mistermain

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Brigand said:
MISTERMAIN QUOTES:
I have no good ideas about cutting down the rate of wrongful convictions. If anybody does, let's hear them.

I gave you one, just.

BRIGAND QUOTES:
I've got an idea on a way of reducing the error rate of death convictions...Give more time for reviewing a case and the appeals.
That's your answer? Some of these trials already stretch out over six months. O.J. was given one of the longest trials in recent memory, and they still gave the wrong verdict (if you fell otherwise, please start a different thread). I asked for good ideas.
 

thapcballa

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Location
Port Clinon, Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I know sometime when comes down to it, it seems like someone deserves the death penalty. But people always complain about high taxes and it costs more money to put someone to death with the death penalty than to keep them in prison for life. I know that doesn't sound right but after all the appeals, its way more expensive.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mistermain said:
That's your answer? Some of these trials already stretch out over six months. O.J. was given one of the longest trials in recent memory, and they still gave the wrong verdict (if you fell otherwise, please start a different thread). I asked for good ideas.
You didn't ask for an answer, You asked for an 'idea'. We're talking about 'ideas' and that was my point in the first place..devising ideas, man. Furthermore, It's FAR better than your...."Duh, I don't know want to do" utterance..

Look, I have no clue, whatsoever, as to what OJ Simpsons trial has got to do with reducing crime rate, by cutting short the time to carry out death sentences on people.

...And I don't want to know. It's now twice now, that you've thoroughly made no sense and had the effrontery to say that I was incoherent!

This conversation is done, Killa!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom