Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is capital punishment... ?

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:51:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Still practised in the USA?

"Singapore, Indonesia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and 32 out of 50 states in the United States are the only developed countries that have retained the death penalty."

"In 2011, the USA was the only source of executions (43) in the G8 countries or Western Hemisphere."

For numbers executed in 2011, it is in fifth place. It is behind; 1- China, 2- Iran, 3- Saudi Arabia and 4- Iraq. It may also be behind 6- Yemen and 7- North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 8:55:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Prof. Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University analysed monthly data from 1977 to 1999 and found:

(1) That each execution on average, is associated with three fewer murders.

(2) That executions also deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races.

(3) Shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:05:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your OP isn't a compelling argument at all. There are good arguments against capital punishment, saying that Europe doesnt do it isn't one of them.
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: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:16:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:05:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
Your OP isn't a compelling argument at all. There are good arguments against capital punishment, saying that Europe doesnt do it isn't one of them.

Why Europe doesn't have capital punishment might be though...
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:33:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:16:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:05:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
Your OP isn't a compelling argument at all. There are good arguments against capital punishment, saying that Europe doesnt do it isn't one of them.

Why Europe doesn't have capital punishment might be though...

Maybe so. I doubt it, but those aren't the arguments presented.

Albinobunny, if the opposite were true and countries we aren't supposed to like had abolished CP and Europe hadn't, would you consider that an argument in favor of capital punishment?
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
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:41:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't have any prima facie (TUF) issue with CP.
http://www.reactiongifs.com...
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 3:02:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:05:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
Your OP isn't a compelling argument at all. There are good arguments against capital punishment, saying that Europe doesnt do it isn't one of them.

I didn't see any arguments. He just asked why we still do it. Which is a sensible question if we're the last ones doing it.

Personally, I think it's only because we're obsessed with a sorta of "cowboy persona". Americans are romantics and it gets into everything we do. Which is usually something I love. But we just had to pick the worst way to do it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:33:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not presenting an argument for why you shouldn't use capital punishment, I'm just asking why you think the statistics are the way they are?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:39:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the issue was the usage of the word 'still', which perhaps implies a belief that such practices are archaic and old fashioned. He could have been a little more generous in his interpretation though.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:39:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You lie. You made a VERY poor argument - namely "all the other kids are jumping off the bridge I should too". And yes, all the Menshevicks in Europe decided to stop punishing criminals and to coddle them instead. It's stupid. Put a bullet in their head and bill the family for the cost of it.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:43:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Killing innocent people.

Is this justified?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:44:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 4:39:55 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
You lie. You made a VERY poor argument - namely "all the other kids are jumping off the bridge I should too". And yes, all the Menshevicks in Europe decided to stop punishing criminals and to coddle them instead. It's stupid. Put a bullet in their head and bill the family for the cost of it.

Lol. So you think revenge and making the family pay are justified actions of the State?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:49:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 4:39:29 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I think the issue was the usage of the word 'still', which perhaps implies a belief that such practices are archaic and old fashioned. He could have been a little more generous in his interpretation though.

Well they are.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:55:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3"

... Interesting.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:13:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 4:49:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/1/2013 4:39:29 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I think the issue was the usage of the word 'still', which perhaps implies a belief that such practices are archaic and old fashioned. He could have been a little more generous in his interpretation though.

Well they are.
Well you can hardly expect to get a reasonable response out of a pro-DP person with that attitude can you?
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:19:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Lol. So you think revenge and making the family pay are justified actions of the State?"

I think that a critical element of a just legal system is proportionality. The punishment should fit the crime. The victim - or in the case of a murder, the victim's heirs - should have the right to exact justice OR settle for restitution.

But let me guess... you think the rights of the creep who rapes someone are more important than the rights of their victim, yah?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:27:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:19:41 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
"Lol. So you think revenge and making the family pay are justified actions of the State?"


I think that a critical element of a just legal system is proportionality. The punishment should fit the crime. The victim - or in the case of a murder, the victim's heirs - should have the right to exact justice OR settle for restitution.

But let me guess... you think the rights of the creep who rapes someone are more important than the rights of their victim, yah?

So you think justice should be an eye for an eye? I think that the crime can't be reversed by committing the same crime against the criminal. I also don't think that the State should have such powers. Also, the "creep" might turn out to be innocent, but by that time, they're dead.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:32:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sure, you can punish an innocent person with death. You can also punish them with any other form of punishment. Do you think sitting in a cage and getting raped by some dude named Bubba for 10 years is really that preferable to a bullet in the head? Of course every step should be taken to ensure that the innocent are not convicted; and luckily very few are because of the way the legal system is structured (the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard of proof).

Actually, a crime can best be 'reversed' through restitution. The problem with a crime (excluding victimless crimes like drug use, which shouldn't be crimes at all) is that a victim was hurt. So why not make the criminal pay financial restitution to the victim? This doesn't undo what happened BUT it DOES benefit the person who was hurt. This should be the ENTIRE focus of the legal system but it is not.

Punishment for a crime is not a crime itself. The same action can be in one case a crime and in another not a crime. If you punch me in the head, that is a crime. if I punch you in the head in order to prevent you from doing that to me, that is not a crime and in fact a glorious act of self defense.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:36:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:32:51 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
And yes, I think justice should be an eye for an eye, or more accurately three eyes for an eye.

Awha, a LeVeyan.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:48:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:32:30 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Sure, you can punish an innocent person with death. You can also punish them with any other form of punishment. Do you think sitting in a cage and getting raped by some dude named Bubba for 10 years is really that preferable to a bullet in the head?

They shouldn't allow rape in prisons. Prison is reversible, and doesn't require the State to murder anybody.

Of course every step should be taken to ensure that the innocent are not convicted; and luckily very few are because of the way the legal system is structured (the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard of proof).

LOL, are you kidding?


Actually, a crime can best be 'reversed' through restitution.

Reparation can sort of treat the wound of the crime.

The problem with a crime (excluding victimless crimes like drug use, which shouldn't be crimes at all) is that a victim was hurt. So why not make the criminal pay financial restitution to the victim? This doesn't undo what happened BUT it DOES benefit the person who was hurt. This should be the ENTIRE focus of the legal system but it is not.

Well there you go. What about along with reparation, we have some rehabilitation, some protection and a bit of vindication.

I honestly think the near "ENTIRE" focus of the legal system should be prevention. There are some common stats that criminals hold, such as poor upbringing etc.


Punishment for a crime is not a crime itself. The same action can be in one case a crime and in another not a crime. If you punch me in the head, that is a crime. if I punch you in the head in order to prevent you from doing that to me, that is not a crime and in fact a glorious act of self defense.

Mhmm.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:49:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:32:51 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
And yes, I think justice should be an eye for an eye, or more accurately three eyes for an eye.

And why's that?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.
It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 6:00:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.
It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 6:01:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 6:00:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.
It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

Why? Why not just put the proviso in the law now?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 6:02:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 6:01:44 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:00:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.
It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

Why? Why not just put the proviso in the law now?

Because it would probably be a one off case, which can be properly considered at the time for the case it actually is.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 6:11:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 6:02:58 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:01:44 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:00:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.
It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

Why? Why not just put the proviso in the law now?

Because it would probably be a one off case, which can be properly considered at the time for the case it actually is.

That's not how the law works. If you make it illegal in legislature the court has no recourse. If you instead stipulate that it can only apply in cases where the accused cannot reasonably be kept in custody then you can take the case on its merits. Unless you support retroactive legislation? I do only in very limited circumstances and sentencing constraints would definitely not be one of them. A person needs to know what their potential punishment for a given crime is.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 6:25:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 6:11:37 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:02:58 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:01:44 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:00:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:56:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I agree that capital punishment should be a power vested in the state, though not on grounds of proportionality or punishment or revenge or any of the usual reasons.

My reasoning is this. Death achieves a goal that no other mechanism can, it removes a person from society permanently and irrevocably. This is a power that could be useful but only insofar as it achieves an end that needs this response.
It is conceivable that at some point a person could have so many resources at their disposal that it is impossible for the state to guarantee that said person could be imprisoned for life. If such a person were likely to offend again (and in doing so cause great harm to the people of the nation) then we should have the ability to ensure that they never will.

I do not think it should be used anywhere near as frequently as it is. I don't think it should be used for murderers if life imprisonment is a reliable option. But to deny the state this power even under the strictest of regulations is overkill and could come back to bite us one day. I would prefer a society in which the death penalty is available, but never used.

You're saying that it should be available for someone who can't be kept in prison? We'll have to deal with that as it comes.

Why? Why not just put the proviso in the law now?

Because it would probably be a one off case, which can be properly considered at the time for the case it actually is.

That's not how the law works. If you make it illegal in legislature the court has no recourse. If you instead stipulate that it can only apply in cases where the accused cannot reasonably be kept in custody then you can take the case on its merits. Unless you support retroactive legislation? I do only in very limited circumstances and sentencing constraints would definitely not be one of them. A person needs to know what their potential punishment for a given crime is.

I think the State should do a better job of keeping them in prison. If they can escape prison, extra maximum security, then they can escape death row. Hell, they could probably fake their own death via "lethal injection" and then pretend to be dead while committing further crimes.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!