Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

What is your oppinion on death penalty?

Group_nice
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 4:28:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hi everybody who reads this!
We have made a group concerning our theme week. We have a project task to do, and it is about death penalty in the U.S.A. We want to know all about how you guys feel. Our group is against death penalty, but still we want to hear your opinions. How does the legalization of death penalty have an effect on your society in the U.S.A. Are you guys more satisfied about murderers getting what they "deserve" or are you guys just sad about it? Just write down everything you feel. And of course if you don't want to share then it is okay.
DevonNetzley
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 1:06:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel that the death penalty is completly justifiable.
"If you truly want to do something, the only person standing in your way is yourself"
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 2:02:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Slightly con. But I don't really care either way. There are good arguments from both sides and I'm not one of those softies who think it's a barbaric and cruel form of punishment.

There is always the chance that the person being convicted is innocent.

Well over eighty people in the past quarter century have been condemned but then released before execution.

This source shows detailed accounts of eleven innocents being executed.

http://www.justicedenied.org.........

One researcher says he has found at least 74 cases in which wrongful executions have most likely taken place.

69 inmates on death row have been released since 1973 (Source is from 1997 so it would be allot higher now). This clearly shows the risks of the DP. Risks which are completely unnecessary and should be gotten rid of immediately. These men were lucky to escape with their lives.

I should add that there have, undoubtedly, been cases in which innocent people have been executed but have not been proved innocent afterwards. After being executed there is not much need for someone to try too prove the innocence of someone who is already dead. So there are undoubtedly instances in the past where we have executed an innocent man but did not know so, and still do not know.

With life imprisonment there is zero chance of killing an innocent man.

It is a horrible thing for an innocent person to be killed at the hands of the state. It is also completely unnecessary.

http://www.the-slammer.org.........
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.........

Criminals may be rehabilitated without DP.

Purpose of taking action against law breakers:
1. Punishment
2. Segregation from society
3. Rehabilitation or reform

With the use of life imprisonment we have the chance of accomplishing all three of these. However with the use of capital punishment the third is impossible, unless they are reformed before they are executed. But it is much more likely they would be reformed if they have their whole life to be reformed. Thus life imprisonment obviously accomplishes the third goal much better than the death penalty. The death penalty deprives criminals of a second chance which SHOULD be given to them.

The question is, why would we be using a form of punishment that only accomplishes two of the three main purposes of taking action against criminals, when there is another option that may accomplish all three?

With life imprisonment those convicted have a much better chance of repenting, and after repentance have a much longer time too do good works.

Two murderers, Van Houten and Krenwinkel, were sentenced to life imprisonment, but latter expressed remorse at their actions.If they had been sentenced to death they would never have had the chance to repent.

Watson and Atkins, two other murderers, became Christian Fundamentalists after being given a life sentence.

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu......

With the use of the death penalty the State is not accomplishing what it is supposed too.

This argument may appeal to any human being, but it may appeal even stronger to those that are religious.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ricky_Zahnd
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 5:21:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh man definitely pro death penalty. Seems likely that some of the people killed aren't even guilty, but seriously we have just got to be making less people and killing more people. Also I think we should stop discouraging suicide as an answer to trivial problems.
"My argument was that by believing in God, it causes many people to live better lives than if they didn't believe in atheists which, then, would also cause them to be better citizens."

-keytarhero
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:39:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 5:21:29 PM, Ricky_Zahnd wrote:
Oh man definitely pro death penalty. Seems likely that some of the people killed aren't even guilty, but seriously we have just got to be making less people and killing more people. Also I think we should stop discouraging suicide as an answer to trivial problems.

Okay........that's disgusting...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I used to be pro, but am undecided now...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 12:58:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 5:21:29 PM, Ricky_Zahnd wrote:
Oh man definitely pro death penalty. Seems likely that some of the people killed aren't even guilty, but seriously we have just got to be making less people and killing more people. Also I think we should stop discouraging suicide as an answer to trivial problems.

The force is strong in this one.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 1:39:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Definitely Con. From all the viewpoints. Ethically, I cannot imagine killing anyone can ever be justified. There is this terrible cliche quote that says, ' Death penalty is the act of killing someone to prove that killing is wrong.'

Like, Exactly.

Also, even disregarding the ethical viewpoint, death penalty is often defended by using the viewpoint that death is the worse possible punishment. It is not. Life imprisonment is far much more worse than death penalty/ capital punishment. Once you are dead, you're gone. Poof. But life imprisonment, you are forced to live, and live with your crime. The deterrence effect often quoted by pro death penalty people, spearheaded by the Ehlrich studies, has been widely discredited. And has no more effect than life imprisonment. In fact it can be argued that death penalty actually de-sensitivises society and leads to more crimes.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 1:54:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 1:39:34 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
Definitely Con. From all the viewpoints. Ethically, I cannot imagine killing anyone can ever be justified. There is this terrible cliche quote that says, ' Death penalty is the act of killing someone to prove that killing is wrong.'

Killing =/= murder.

Anyways the analogy is like saying that one should not fine shoplifters because "Fining is the act of stealing from others to prove that stealing is wrong".

Also, even disregarding the ethical viewpoint, death penalty is often defended by using the viewpoint that death is the worse possible punishment. It is not. Life imprisonment is far much more worse than death penalty/ capital punishment.

I've never understood this argument. Anti-death penalty people state that the death penalty is unethical, but then turn an eye and say that it is too "humane". Well isn't that kind of hypocritical?

It's just false. Rarely is the sentiment: "No we shouldn't give this person the death penalty. We should torture him everyday, making his life as miserable as possible. We should suffocate him and then bring him back for air just enough to live, and then suffocate hims some more. let's waterboard this dude and then harm him some more. The death penalty is too kind. "

I'd say that living in a US prison is probably better then living in an impoverished area. I mean: how many murderers actually try to go for the death penalty? Almost all try to bargain their way out of it.

Once you are dead, you're gone. Poof. But life imprisonment, you are forced to live, and live with your crime.

The deterrence effect often quoted by pro death penalty people, spearheaded by the Ehlrich studies, has been widely discredited. And has no more effect than life imprisonment. In fact it can be argued that death penalty actually de-sensitivises society and leads to more crimes.

Do you have the sources that discredit this.

The de-sensitivities effect doesn't make too much sense. If it did exist, I'm pretty sure violent video games where your goal is to kill as many people as possible would have a greater effect.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 3:45:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 1:54:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/3/2012 1:39:34 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
Definitely Con. From all the viewpoints. Ethically, I cannot imagine killing anyone can ever be justified. There is this terrible cliche quote that says, ' Death penalty is the act of killing someone to prove that killing is wrong.'

Killing =/= murder.

Yes. However the definition of murder is extremely hazy. 'Unlawful' killing with 'malice intentions'. While discussing the validity of capital punishment, 'unlawfulness'
is redundant. And malice intentions is what distinguishes it from homicide, which for all terms and purposes, is still ethically wrong.


Anyways the analogy is like saying that one should not fine shoplifters because "Fining is the act of stealing from others to prove that stealing is wrong".

Stealing? The state does have a stake in the earnings of a person, taking away a portion of it because the person committed a crime, is not stealing. However, is it right? That would depend on the deterrence factor, if the punishment deters the crime rate, then yes, it is effective.


Also, even disregarding the ethical viewpoint, death penalty is often defended by using the viewpoint that death is the worse possible punishment. It is not. Life imprisonment is far much more worse than death penalty/ capital punishment.

I've never understood this argument. Anti-death penalty people state that the death penalty is unethical, but then turn an eye and say that it is too "humane". Well isn't that kind of hypocritical?

No it's not. Death penalty is unethical from the viewpoint of the person executing, it is too humane for the person who has already overstepped those ethical boundaries. I should not kill, because that's morally wrong; but if the person I was killing was a cannibal serial killer, it would be too humane for him.

It's just false. Rarely is the sentiment: "No we shouldn't give this person the death penalty. We should torture him everyday, making his life as miserable as possible. We should suffocate him and then bring him back for air just enough to live, and then suffocate hims some more. let's waterboard this dude and then harm him some more. The death penalty is too kind. "

The sentiment should not be equated the reality.

I'd say that living in a US prison is probably better then living in an impoverished area. I mean: how many murderers actually try to go for the death penalty? Almost all try to bargain their way out of it.

But that is just because the immediate fear of death is larger than the fear for life imprisonment. However, fear is not an adequate measure of usefulness. You fear death more than a life in a shoe box. But is a life in a shoe box worse than death? You suffer in prison. You suffer before the death penalty, but once you go through it, you suffer no more.



Once you are dead, you're gone. Poof. But life imprisonment, you are forced to live, and live with your crime.

The deterrence effect often quoted by pro death penalty people, spearheaded by the Ehlrich studies, has been widely discredited. And has no more effect than life imprisonment. In fact it can be argued that death penalty actually de-sensitivises society and leads to more crimes.

Do you have the sources that discredit this.

http://books.google.co.in...

Pg 141: Reaction to Ehrlich studies. I can find a few more sources, but then this does adequately answers the question.

The deterrence effect would be significant only if the punishment is employed consistently. Even in the US, the punishment is employed in the rarest of the rare cases. And moreover, the death crimes are often, not premeditated.

The de-sensitivities effect doesn't make too much sense. If it did exist, I'm pretty sure violent video games where your goal is to kill as many people as possible would have a greater effect.

http://www.aclu.org...

In China, where death penalty is much more frequent than US or in India, the effect is much more pronounced. There is death penalty for corruption, and corruption is one of the most severe problem there. And the society accepts the punishment, it flourishes because of public support. Is the society brutalised? So much so that this occured: http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Are they brutalized? Yes.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 3:56:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 3:45:03 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 2/3/2012 1:54:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/3/2012 1:39:34 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
Definitely Con. From all the viewpoints. Ethically, I cannot imagine killing anyone can ever be justified. There is this terrible cliche quote that says, ' Death penalty is the act of killing someone to prove that killing is wrong.'

Killing =/= murder.

Yes. However the definition of murder is extremely hazy. 'Unlawful' killing with 'malice intentions'. While discussing the validity of capital punishment, 'unlawfulness' is redundant. And malice intentions is what distinguishes it from homicide, which for all terms and purposes, is still ethically wrong.


Anyways the analogy is like saying that one should not fine shoplifters because "Fining is the act of stealing from others to prove that stealing is wrong".

Stealing? The state does have a stake in the earnings of a person, taking away a portion of it because the person committed a crime, is not stealing. However, is it right? That would depend on the deterrence factor, if the punishment deters the crime rate, then yes, it is effective.


Also, even disregarding the ethical viewpoint, death penalty is often defended by using the viewpoint that death is the worse possible punishment. It is not. Life imprisonment is far much more worse than death penalty/ capital punishment.

I've never understood this argument. Anti-death penalty people state that the death penalty is unethical, but then turn an eye and say that it is too "humane". Well isn't that kind of hypocritical?

No it's not. Death penalty is unethical from the viewpoint of the person executing, it is too humane for the person who has already overstepped those ethical boundaries. I should not kill, because that's morally wrong; but if the person I was killing was a cannibal serial killer, it would be too humane for him.

It's just false. Rarely is the sentiment: "No we shouldn't give this person the death penalty. We should torture him everyday, making his life as miserable as possible. We should suffocate him and then bring him back for air just enough to live, and then suffocate hims some more. let's waterboard this dude and then harm him some more. The death penalty is too kind. "

The sentiment should not be equated the reality.

I'd say that living in a US prison is probably better then living in an impoverished area. I mean: how many murderers actually try to go for the death penalty? Almost all try to bargain their way out of it.

But that is just because the immediate fear of death is larger than the fear for life imprisonment. However, fear is not an adequate measure of usefulness. You fear death more than a life in a shoe box. But is a life in a shoe box worse than death? You suffer in prison. You suffer before the death penalty, but once you go through it, you suffer no more.



Once you are dead, you're gone. Poof. But life imprisonment, you are forced to live, and live with your crime.

The deterrence effect often quoted by pro death penalty people, spearheaded by the Ehlrich studies, has been widely discredited. And has no more effect than life imprisonment. In fact it can be argued that death penalty actually de-sensitivises society and leads to more crimes.

Do you have the sources that discredit this.

http://books.google.co.in...

Pg 141: Reaction to Ehrlich studies. I can find a few more sources, but then this does adequately answers the question.

The deterrence effect would be significant only if the punishment is employed consistently. Even in the US, the punishment is employed in the rarest of the rare cases. And moreover, the death crimes are often, not premeditated.

The de-sensitivities effect doesn't make too much sense. If it did exist, I'm pretty sure violent video games where your goal is to kill as many people as possible would have a greater effect.

http://www.aclu.org...

In China, where death penalty is much more frequent than US or in India, the effect is much more pronounced. There is death penalty for corruption, and corruption is one of the most severe problem there. And the society accepts the punishment, it flourishes because of public support. Is the society brutalised? So much so that this occured: http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Are they brutalized? Yes.

That does not make sense. Homicide as in, distinguishes manslaughter from killing without planning beforehand/ and mistaken killing. You hit hard as s/he dies by mistake.