Total Posts:140|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Death Penalty

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 2:02:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If there's zero chance of wrongful conviction/sentencing, should we have the death penalty?

Yes.

We could apply the same principle now. Currently, criminals are convicted if proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". For the death penalty, we could require that their guilt be proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt". This means we must eliminate unreasonable doubt as well. If we can't do that, the most we can do is sentence them to life in prison.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 1:07:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

Yes.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 1:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I would think probably in cases of murder. I'm undecided if it should be used as a punishment for rape and child abuse.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 1:14:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Absolutely.

If you eliminate innocence from the equation I see very little moral difference between execution and locking a person in a 6 by 8 foot box for 50 years.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 1:25:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?
Only for murders or attemptive murders or anything between those lines is the only way id agree with death penalty, otherwise. No.
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 6:18:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The death penalty in this sense seems to assume retributivism. The view that the guilty deserve punishment for what they did. The idea of them deserving such a thing assumes free will. If there is no free will the guilty don't deserve punishment anymore than someone with cancer or bronchitis deserves punishment because they didn't choose such a thing. There is a good sci-fi story where people are punished for having sicknesses to show how absurd punishing someone for something out of their control is.

I reject the idea of libertarian freedom, so I reject a retributionist death penalty.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 6:32:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

Yes.

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

The standard I would codify into law is that evidence must be irrefutable to execute. That would mean video evidence, confession, DNA, etc.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 6:33:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 6:18:37 PM, n7 wrote:
The death penalty in this sense seems to assume retributivism. The view that the guilty deserve punishment for what they did. The idea of them deserving such a thing assumes free will. If there is no free will the guilty don't deserve punishment anymore than someone with cancer or bronchitis deserves punishment because they didn't choose such a thing. There is a good sci-fi story where people are punished for having sicknesses to show how absurd punishing someone for something out of their control is.

I reject the idea of libertarian freedom, so I reject a retributionist death penalty.

Ah, the old Clarence Darrow argument.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 6:48:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I'm probably biased, but i find evidence supporting that the death penalty will not stop crimes from happening. It actually produces more crimes. There's alot of negative consequences from the death penalty such as cost.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 6:50:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 6:32:16 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

The standard I would codify into law is that evidence must be irrefutable to execute. That would mean video evidence, confession, DNA, etc.

Innocent people have been known to confess.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 7:06:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 6:50:31 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 6:32:16 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

The standard I would codify into law is that evidence must be irrefutable to execute. That would mean video evidence, confession, DNA, etc.

Innocent people have been known to confess.

Confession is merely one thing to look at.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:18:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I oppose the death penalty for most crimes. I think that the death penalty should be reserved for the kind of people that you enumerated, war criminals, genocidal maniacs, oppressive dictators, terrorists, and so on.

People who commit other, relatively minor, crimes (such as mass shootings in the US) should either be sentenced to life-imprisonment in a jail or a mental asylum, after all quite a number of the worst criminals (serial killers, serial rapists, and so on) are mentally unstable.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:26:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 6:33:29 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 6:18:37 PM, n7 wrote:
The death penalty in this sense seems to assume retributivism. The view that the guilty deserve punishment for what they did. The idea of them deserving such a thing assumes free will. If there is no free will the guilty don't deserve punishment anymore than someone with cancer or bronchitis deserves punishment because they didn't choose such a thing. There is a good sci-fi story where people are punished for having sicknesses to show how absurd punishing someone for something out of their control is.

I reject the idea of libertarian freedom, so I reject a retributionist death penalty.

Ah, the old Clarence Darrow argument.

It worked IIRC. The kids got life in prison instead of the death penalty.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 9:05:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:26:36 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 6:33:29 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 6:18:37 PM, n7 wrote:
The death penalty in this sense seems to assume retributivism. The view that the guilty deserve punishment for what they did. The idea of them deserving such a thing assumes free will. If there is no free will the guilty don't deserve punishment anymore than someone with cancer or bronchitis deserves punishment because they didn't choose such a thing. There is a good sci-fi story where people are punished for having sicknesses to show how absurd punishing someone for something out of their control is.

I reject the idea of libertarian freedom, so I reject a retributionist death penalty.

Ah, the old Clarence Darrow argument.

It worked IIRC. The kids got life in prison instead of the death penalty.

It worked, yes, but so did the Twinkie defense.
Student4Life1975
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 5:31:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I like the way you think, many people cant make the distinction between what works on paper and where it falls apart in practice. The Death Penalty is certianly a good example of this. The Death penalty itself is useful in terms of removing threats from society, and giving people a feeling of satisfaction in terms of justice. It is not an effective deterrent by any means. I would support it if we knew for sure there were no innocent people wrongly convicted. But sadly that is not the case, therefore I cannot support it in the way we currently implement it. If its a case of 100% undeniably guilty, then yes I can condone it.
there is no progress without compromise"
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:07:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

Only under limited conditions.

The death penalty should only be employed will reduce the occurrence of the crime committed.

1) If there criminal is not put to death, there is a good possibility of him recommitting the crime then yes.

2) If the prisoner's death is sufficient deterrent to others committing the same crime.

The means by which the state can put a person to death is such that it is an act of Just War by the state against the individual. If a state is attacked by another state, the defending state is not justified in wiping the first state off the map unless they are confident that if they do not additional attacks will occur. In the same way, if there are many enemies who would attack knowing that there would be no severe internal repercussions for doing so, it may be necessary for the state to take extraordinary measures against the initial attacker so as to dissuade attacks from others.

Otherwise the inherent value of the offender should be protected, even if they do not provide equal recognition of value to others.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:16:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:07:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

Only under limited conditions.

The death penalty should only be employed will reduce the occurrence of the crime committed.

1) If there criminal is not put to death, there is a good possibility of him recommitting the crime then yes.

2) If the prisoner's death is sufficient deterrent to others committing the same crime.

Otherwise the inherent value of the offender should be protected, even if they do not provide equal recognition of value to others.

I disagree. I think there is good evidence out there that deterrence doesn't really work, and life imprisonment usually solves for your first concern.

As I see it, in a position of perfect knowledge, the death penalty is justified as the person's due. I explain that more here: http://www.debate.org...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:26:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I find this question pointless, because it is impossible to achieve this hypothetical.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:28:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:26:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I find this question pointless, because it is impossible to achieve this hypothetical.

Sure, the question is purely academic, but I find it of philosophical interest.

I do favor the death penalty in certain IRL cases. I believe that genocidaires and people who commit large-scale human rights violations qualify for the death penalty.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:31:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:28:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/28/2015 7:26:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I find this question pointless, because it is impossible to achieve this hypothetical.

Sure, the question is purely academic, but I find it of philosophical interest.

What is the point of a philosphical question if it is useless, and is not able to be applied to the world?

I do favor the death penalty in certain IRL cases. I believe that genocidaires and people who commit large-scale human rights violations qualify for the death penalty.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the executed are not genocidaires.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:34:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:16:27 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/28/2015 7:07:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

Only under limited conditions.

The death penalty should only be employed will reduce the occurrence of the crime committed.

1) If there criminal is not put to death, there is a good possibility of him recommitting the crime then yes.

2) If the prisoner's death is sufficient deterrent to others committing the same crime.

Otherwise the inherent value of the offender should be protected, even if they do not provide equal recognition of value to others.

I disagree. I think there is good evidence out there that deterrence doesn't really work,

I never said that it does work for the most part. However, I could see it being an effective deterrent during times of anarchy. A typical example of which would be after natural disasters, looters will be shot on sight. (not advocating the correctness of doing so, just providing a typical example).

and life imprisonment usually solves for your first concern.

In the modern west that is true. Consider an agrarian society where they lack the resources to afford to pay to support someone sitting unproductively in prison. They have 2 choices for a serious crime. They banish the person or they execute capital punishment on the criminal. Now if there is zero chance that the criminal would recommit then banishment from society is the correct choice. If he is an inherently bad apple who they are convinced has a high probability of recommitting the crime then they would be justified in using the death penalty.

I've laid out the two reasons that the death penalty should be employed. It is up to each society, given their circumstances, to determine whether either of those justifications has been met.

As I see it, in a position of perfect knowledge, the death penalty is justified as the person's due. I explain that more here: http://www.debate.org...

I'll take a look at that sometime soon.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:39:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:31:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/28/2015 7:28:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/28/2015 7:26:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I find this question pointless, because it is impossible to achieve this hypothetical.

Sure, the question is purely academic, but I find it of philosophical interest.

What is the point of a philosphical question if it is useless, and is not able to be applied to the world?

Academic interest. Also, if elucidates the moral theory behind the thing, by removing it from real-world contexts. Once the moral theory is understood more clearly, it can sometimes help us apply it better. Perhaps that isn't true in this case, but in other cases, it is.

I do favor the death penalty in certain IRL cases. I believe that genocidaires and people who commit large-scale human rights violations qualify for the death penalty.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the executed are not genocidaires.

Correct. I think only International Courts of Human Rights ought to have the authority to hand down death sentences.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:46:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I believe that life, and the right to it, is higher than state power. Given the sophistication of modern prisons, where killing someone is not necessary to defend society, there is no circumstance in which I would support the death penalty.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:50:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2014 1:14:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely.

If you eliminate innocence from the equation I see very little moral difference between execution and locking a person in a 6 by 8 foot box for 50 years.

There is a huge difference. If we have execution, then we have empowered the state to take human life. If we do not have execution and only have life without parole, then the state can do no more than deprive an offender of his liberty. Deprivations of liberty are the extent to which I would empower the state to punish the culpable.

As an aside, it's always been amazing to me that conservatives are usually the first to support the death penalty -but that doesn't make a lot of sense if conservatism requires a preference for a limitation on state power. There is no higher power than the power to take human life without fear of retribution; doing so is by definition acting as a sovereign over men and men's rights. But, if some rights --especially the right to life-- are prior to government power (as would be indicated by every natural law argument ever) then the death penalty is an impermissible exercise of state power.
Tsar of DDO
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2014 1:14:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely.

If you eliminate innocence from the equation I see very little moral difference between execution and locking a person in a 6 by 8 foot box for 50 years.

So then why not the latter?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:58:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:46:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I believe that life, and the right to it, is higher than state power. Given the sophistication of modern prisons, where killing someone is not necessary to defend society, there is no circumstance in which I would support the death penalty.

I am not sure I agree. I think that people can forfeit their lives by violating the most basic moral standards in extremely perverse and repugnant ways. The genocidaire who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, who has orchestrated incidences of mass rapes as tools of war, and who has used and sought out child soldiers has done something so heinous, so morally condemnable, that he no longer retains the right to live.

I do not believe that rights are inalienable. I believe that as rational agents, we can voluntarily forfeit them through our actions. The kind of person described above has surpassed evil, and no longer has rights to anything. I would go so far as to say such a person has no human dignity at all, and so has no moral claim against death, torture, imprisonment, etc.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:00:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:54:14 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/7/2014 1:14:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
Absolutely.

If you eliminate innocence from the equation I see very little moral difference between execution and locking a person in a 6 by 8 foot box for 50 years.

So then why not the latter?

leave me alone i'm starting to change my position
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:03:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:58:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/28/2015 7:46:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2014 11:34:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I am going to ask you to respond to the following hypothetical: in a world in which we were perfectly positioned to know a defendant's guilt--i.e., in a world in which no innocent man were convicted--would the death penalty be a moral/morally permissible punishment in certain cases? If so, in what cases and why?

I ask this because, in this hypothetical, I would agree that the death penalty is morally permissible punishment for crimes against humanity as they are, IMO, the most severe. Yet, what is good in theory, cannot always be borne out in practice, as is the case here. In reality, the death penalty is wrong, again, IMO, because innocents could be killed. But if that threat were removed, I wouldn't have a problem with its usage.

So, what are your thoughts?

I believe that life, and the right to it, is higher than state power. Given the sophistication of modern prisons, where killing someone is not necessary to defend society, there is no circumstance in which I would support the death penalty.

I am not sure I agree. I think that people can forfeit their lives by violating the most basic moral standards in extremely perverse and repugnant ways. The genocidaire who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, who has orchestrated incidences of mass rapes as tools of war, and who has used and sought out child soldiers has done something so heinous, so morally condemnable, that he no longer retains the right to live.

Does a person who murders one and only person forfeit his right to life?

I do not believe that rights are inalienable. I believe that as rational agents, we can voluntarily forfeit them through our actions. The kind of person described above has surpassed evil, and no longer has rights to anything. I would go so far as to say such a person has no human dignity at all, and so has no moral claim against death, torture, imprisonment, etc.

I didn't say "inalienable." I said "prior to." There's a difference there that the word "inalienable" seems to go further than what I said. But, I'll revisit this in a bit... (after you answer my question above)
Tsar of DDO