• 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!

Why the Death Penalty is a Good Thing

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The Death Penalty is a consequence. End of story.

Those that commit murder and rape and such forfeit their lives as a matter of fact, not as an emotional vengence or anything else, their life is not worth anything, so it is ended. Done.

The fact is, that by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life we are affirming the highest value of human life.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Death Penalty is a consequence. End of story.

Those that commit murder and rape and such forfeit their lives as a matter of fact, not as an emotional vengence or anything else, their life is not worth anything, so it is ended. Done.

The fact is, that by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life we are affirming the highest value of human life.
Death in and of itself means nothing, many even embrace it, and when death is eminent with no chance of escape, death is calmly accepted by everyone with no emotion. So death as a deterrent or threat doesn't work in real life, only in novels and movies.

ricksfolly
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Death in and of itself means nothing, many even embrace it, and when death is eminent with no chance of escape, death is calmly accepted by everyone with no emotion. So death as a deterrent or threat doesn't work in real life, only in novels and movies.

ricksfolly
The Death Penalty is not a deterrent, it is a consequence. Read it again...
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The fact is, that by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life we are affirming the highest value of human life.
That doesn't follow. If life is so valuable then we should not be committing the same act of murder to balance out a previous act of murder. That, and it's an expensive, unproductive punishment because it is not curbing the crime rate in any meaningful way. It has failed as a deterrent.

Finally, I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for such procedures. Maybe you are comfortable with that. If that's the case, then you can donate money to the judicial system that carries out the death penalty. My dollars should not pay for your vengeance.

The best way to treat criminals is to transform them into non-criminals. It takes the least amount of energy, money, and does not burden society with the negative karma of having killed them. Those that cannot be saved should be put away at our expense, since we as a society and system have failed them. That is the burden of a civilized community.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
75,400
Reaction score
43,424
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It is actually quite logical...
In fact it is not. If you're going to claim affirmation of human life having value above all else, then the death penalty is exactly counter to that. If you really believe in the high value of human life, then all human life is considered equal and highly valued. Thus the focus would be on rehabilitation, not death. The route you go is not an affirmation of human life, however. That is clear by the willingness to take life. Your route is the route of the "eye for an eye". Which is ironic given the reason why that ancient law was constructed. In short, it was made to LIMIT the amount of punishment which was handed out to criminals. In our current state of societal evolution, there is no longer a need for the death penalty. If you wish to affirm the high value of human life, then you will focus on preserving and proliferating it; not ending it. In that case, counseling and rehabilitation would be your goal for prison. Otherwise, it's just a misguided notion of "eye for an eye"; which does in fact line up exactly with your rhetoric.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Saw right through me, huh. Give yourself a pat on the back. You're the only one who has?

ricksfolly
Ummm... the quote wasnt of anything you said so I dont know what you mean. Unless I am missing something.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No, it isn't. Get rid of plea bargains and maybe you'd have a case.
It is a consequence... it may not always follow through to the end, but it is still a consequence.

That being said, I also think that plea bargains should be eliminated and/or reduced just like lobbying should be eliminated, but those are other debates...


Originally Posted by Orion
That doesn't follow. If life is so valuable then we should not be committing the same act of murder to balance out a previous act of murder. That, and it's an expensive, unproductive punishment because it is not curbing the crime rate in any meaningful way. It has failed as a deterrent.
John Stuart Mill, stated:
"Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall."

Robert A. Heinlien puts it:
"The idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is a historically untrue and immoral doctrine. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. People that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

Finally, I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for such procedures. Maybe you are comfortable with that. If that's the case, then you can donate money to the judicial system that carries out the death penalty. My dollars should not pay for your vengeance.
It is NOT about Revenge or vengeance

revenge  /rɪvɛndʒ/ 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/kɒnsɪkwɛns, -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

The best way to treat criminals is to transform them into non-criminals. It takes the least amount of energy, money, and does not burden society with the negative karma of having killed them. Those that cannot be saved should be put away at our expense, since we as a society and system have failed them. That is the burden of a civilized community.
Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.

In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762

Rousseau: Social Contract
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
In fact it is not. If you're going to claim affirmation of human life having value above all else, then the death penalty is exactly counter to that. If you really believe in the high value of human life, then all human life is considered equal and highly valued. Thus the focus would be on rehabilitation, not death. The route you go is not an affirmation of human life, however. That is clear by the willingness to take life. Your route is the route of the "eye for an eye". Which is ironic given the reason why that ancient law was constructed. In short, it was made to LIMIT the amount of punishment which was handed out to criminals. In our current state of societal evolution, there is no longer a need for the death penalty. If you wish to affirm the high value of human life, then you will focus on preserving and proliferating it; not ending it. In that case, counseling and rehabilitation would be your goal for prison. Otherwise, it's just a misguided notion of "eye for an eye"; which does in fact line up exactly with your rhetoric.
It is a completely valid, rational and logical ETHICAL ARGUMENT. Go read about it. It has nothing to do with an eye for an eye, nothing at all...
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What are your opinions on sharia law?
From what I know about it, I am against much of it. I am not an expert by any means though...
 
Last edited:

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
75,400
Reaction score
43,424
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It is a completely valid, rational and logical ETHICAL ARGUMENT. Go read about it. It has nothing to do with an eye for an eye, nothing at all...
Just because you claim it has nothing to do with it doesn't change the fact that it is well more aligned with that ideology than it is with the affirmation of human life. The way you try to sell it is disingenuous. If we are affirming the high value of human life, than you cannot push for the ending of human life. It's that simple. You want to make it seem like you're coming from this high moral ground with such a statement, but in fact nothing in your argument supports it. Your argument as presented does follow a twisted "eye for an eye" argument though. That's just reality. If you don't like it, refine your argument. But sitting there pretending you're coming from a moral high ground you don't possess and making arguments which cannot support those hefty moral statements does nothing for your argument. You want to kill because you feel that those who have acted out against the lives of others have forfeited their own life and as consequence of their actions are put to death through State power. That is an "eye for an eye" argument. Sorry, that's just what it is. Raging against reality isn't going to change it.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So, bodhi, tell me what is the societal value of the death penalty as a consequence to murder? Since it does not deter crime.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Just because you claim it has nothing to do with it doesn't change the fact that it is well more aligned with that ideology than it is with the affirmation of human life. The way you try to sell it is disingenuous. If we are affirming the high value of human life, than you cannot push for the ending of human life. It's that simple. You want to make it seem like you're coming from this high moral ground with such a statement, but in fact nothing in your argument supports it. Your argument as presented does follow a twisted "eye for an eye" argument though. That's just reality. If you don't like it, refine your argument. But sitting there pretending you're coming from a moral high ground you don't possess and making arguments which cannot support those hefty moral statements does nothing for your argument. You want to kill because you feel that those who have acted out against the lives of others have forfeited their own life and as consequence of their actions are put to death through State power. That is an "eye for an eye" argument. Sorry, that's just what it is. Raging against reality isn't going to change it.
It certainly doesn't seem as if you are trying to understand what I am saying, have you read any of my other posts in this thread?

Rousseau, Heinlien... just a couple of guys "raging against reality" along with me in our deluded, "eye for an eye" ignorance, eh? :roll:

An eye for an eye as interpreted by you and those that think that it is twisted is the problem and why I saw that it is not comparable. My assertion is comparable to aspects of an eye for an eye, but is in no way twisted or illogical like you claim.

My position is quite logical and I never said that I am morally above those that are against the Death Penalty. I completely understand and respect that opinion, get real Ikari.

Present an argument that can stand on it's own merit instead of trying to twist my intentions, because that is the basis of misunderstanding what I am saying but it is also...
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
"The idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is a historically untrue and immoral doctrine. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. People that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
So you take this as hienlin (sp, idc) condoning justifiable violence? To quote other men does no credit to you.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So, bodhi, tell me what is the societal value of the death penalty as a consequence to murder? Since it does not deter crime.
The Death Penalty DOES deter crime, and on various levels as well... I would not consider murdering a person, even one that deserved it due to the fact that not only do I not want to go to prison, but I don't want to be put to death. There are studies that also assert that it is a deterrent.

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.

(2003) University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan and Graduate Assistant R. Kaj Gottings found "a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons and homicide. Specifically each additional execution reduces homicides by 5 to 6, and three additional pardons (commutations) generate 1 to 1.5 additional murders." Their "data set contains detailed information on the entire 6,143 death sentences between 1977 and 1997.

(2001) University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini, found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found: "The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 (to as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost."

(2001) SUNY (Buffalo) Professor Liu finds that legalizing the death penalty not only adds capital punishment as a deterrent but also increases the marginal productivity of other deterrence measures in reducing murder rates. "Abolishing the death penalty not only gets rid of a valuable deterrent, it also decreases the deterrent effect of other punishments." "The deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishments on murder are greater in retentionist (death penalty) states than in abolition (non death penalty) states."

(2003) Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that each execution results, on average, in five fewer murders. Longer waits on death row reduce the deterrent effect. Therefore, recent legislation to shorten the time prior to execution should increase deterrence and thus save more innocent lives. Moratoriums and other delays should put more innocents at risk. In addition, capital punishment deters all kinds of murders, including crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions.

(2003) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds: "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.)

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions."

Regardless, I don't support it because it may or may not be a deterrent, but because making people pay the highest penalty, their life, we are affirming that we value innocent life as that of the highest value.

"Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not."

Lord Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeals in England said to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1950
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So you take this as hienlin (sp, idc) condoning justifiable violence? To quote other men does no credit to you.
I am simply quoting others that have the same view rather than trying to take credit for views that have already been documented. It looks like you don't have ****, to be honest, so you are now engaging in ad homs as a pathetic attempt to discredit me and my view. Seriously, is there anybody here that wants to actually debate? *looks around*
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Throw source at me
The Case Against the Death Penalty
Throw source at you... yar hardy blar...

Realistically I don't know how people expect a numerical trend in a decrease in homicides to bear directly from a increase in executions. That numerical correlation doesnt necessarily speak to a deterrent effect direct from the result of executions themselves. That seems quasi-religious.

:shrug:
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
75,400
Reaction score
43,424
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It certainly doesn't seem as if you are trying to understand what I am saying, have you read any of my other posts in this thread?

Rousseau, Heinlien... just a couple of guys "raging against reality" along with me in our deluded, "eye for an eye" ignorance, eh? :roll:

An eye for an eye as interpreted by you and those that think that it is twisted is the problem and why I saw that it is not comparable. My assertion is comparable to aspects of an eye for an eye, but is in no way twisted or illogical like you claim.

My position is quite logical and I never said that I am morally above those that are against the Death Penalty. I completely understand and respect that opinion, get real Ikari.

Present an argument that can stand on it's own merit instead of trying to twist my intentions, because that is the basis of misunderstanding what I am saying but it is also...
I've heard everything you've tried to say. You selling a bill of goods. You're trying to say that through the death penalty you are affirming the high value of human life. But that is a complete BS line. You cannot affirm the high value of life by devaluing other humans and taking their lives. Which is in essence what you do when you use State power and granted authority to kill other people. You argue a consequence argument, which is 100% in line with "eye for an eye". What's ironic is many supporters of "eye for an eye" have no idea the historical context under which that law came to be. It was a LIMITER to force used against criminals. But this whole "we're affirming the high value of human life" crap is a BS argument not supported by reality. The "we're affirming the high value of human life" line does not logically nor morally support the death penalty. While you may claim a certain logic...maybe even a weird morality to your argument, it does not come from the affirmation claim. That claim is at odds with the functional use of the death penalty. That's it, that's all there is to that one. You're trying to claim a morality and logic which is not supported by the hypothesis nor the argument.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,097
Reaction score
19,565
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Throw source at me
The Case Against the Death Penalty
Throw source at you... yar hardy blar...

Realistically I don't know how people expect a numerical trend in a decrease in homicides to bear directly from a increase in executions. That numerical correlation doesnt necessarily speak to a deterrent effect direct from the result of executions themselves. That seems quasi-religious.

:shrug:
Touche'

Again though... I am not concerned if it is a deterrent or not.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I am simply quoting others that have the same view rather than trying to take credit for views that have already been documented. It looks like you don't have ****, to be honest, so you are now engaging in ad homs as a pathetic attempt to discredit me and my view. Seriously, is there anybody here that wants to actually debate? *looks around*
I tore you down with a word, :doublethink: You've got an ego thats rooted deep in your brain.

Also, you completely missed the point of what I said when you were quoting heinlin, apparently youre absolutely concerted this great author thinks like you. You take what he said as a support for violence. Which is not apparent from this quote alone. To state that violence has solved disputes does not entail a support for violence. But you missed that and youre just some sortof internet forum he man and im sure youre just totally owning us. Especially with all the research in your .25 second google search. Accuse me of an 'ad hom' when you commit an error of logic and start screaming in caps how its 'quite logical'. You impress no one.
 
Top Bottom