Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Capital Punishment

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.
"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
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 11:49:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I realised my mistake in the second part.

Revision:

If he had been executed, could you imagine what I'd be like to find out 2 years after that he was innocent?

1 in 10 *on death row turn out to be innocent.

And now I'll put this off until later.
"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
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 11:54:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I should remember to double check my sources and what I write before posting but I had to rush this one lol.
"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
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 12:33:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
If you think capital punishment is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping? What's the difference between giving a innocent man life without parol and lining him up in front the firing squad?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 1:26:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.

Why does the government has the right to inprison someone therefore violating their freedom of movement but doesn't have the right to execute someone that you'll say they are violating his right to life?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 1:30:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:26:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.

Why does the government has the right to inprison someone therefore violating their freedom of movement but doesn't have the right to execute someone that you'll say they are violating his right to life?

Because the government does not have the legal authority to take the lives of American citizens, and the government does not have the moral authority to decide who is worthy of death and who is worthy of life-long punishment.

You do not have the freedom of movement, which by the way is not a freedom, once you commit a crime. When you are indicted of criminal action, you lose a set amount of rights, since you broke the law. If the law was more geared towards crimes that involve a victim, then victim-less crimes, as it should always be, will be ignored.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 1:38:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:30:00 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:26:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.

Why does the government has the right to inprison someone therefore violating their freedom of movement but doesn't have the right to execute someone that you'll say they are violating his right to life?

Because the government does not have the legal authority to take the lives of American citizens, and the government does not have the moral authority to decide who is worthy of death and who is worthy of life-long punishment.

Why? If the government or society was wronged then they have the right to prosecute.

You do not have the freedom of movement, which by the way is not a freedom, once you commit a crime. When you are indicted of criminal action, you lose a set amount of rights, since you broke the law. If the law was more geared towards crimes that involve a victim, then victim-less crimes, as it should always be, will be ignored.
I may not have freedom of movement but I do have the right to pursue happiness. And being in jail will greatly limit that. It's not like the government is willy-nilly executing everyone, they execute murderers and traitors.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 1:43:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:38:06 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:30:00 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:26:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.

Why does the government has the right to inprison someone therefore violating their freedom of movement but doesn't have the right to execute someone that you'll say they are violating his right to life?

Because the government does not have the legal authority to take the lives of American citizens, and the government does not have the moral authority to decide who is worthy of death and who is worthy of life-long punishment.

Why? If the government or society was wronged then they have the right to prosecute.

No one is stating that they do not have the right to prosecute. However, we have an Amendment that denies cruel and unusual punishments. The crime has to merit the punishment, and the punishment, in my opinion, should not be a death sentence. It's immoral, innefficient, and the amount of money it takes to appeal in court is a complete waste, when you can just switch to life in prison, or something along those lines.


You do not have the freedom of movement, which by the way is not a freedom, once you commit a crime. When you are indicted of criminal action, you lose a set amount of rights, since you broke the law. If the law was more geared towards crimes that involve a victim, then victim-less crimes, as it should always be, will be ignored.
I may not have freedom of movement but I do have the right to pursue happiness. And being in jail will greatly limit that. It's not like the government is willy-nilly executing everyone, they execute murderers and traitors.

Firstly, you conclude that I was right in the sense that you do not have the freedom to move once you break laws, as it always is.

Executing traitors? Really? This happened in the Dark Ages and Medieval times. It's the 21st century, and you still think the government has the authority to deem people traitors and execute them?

There's many regimes in the 20th century that executed traitors, including: Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, etc.

When you go to jail, you lose most Constitutional rights. The right to pursue happiness is lost once you go to prison, as you are now a criminal under the law. What part of that can you not comprehend?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 2:18:42 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.

But the government doesn't decide, a judge decides based on the verdict presented by a jury.

I don't think it is morally tenable to protect convicted criminals. Especially, those convicted of crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty.

Convicted of Rape: Castration (and Female equivalent) followed by firing squad
Convicted of Murder: Firing squad
Convicted of Treason: Firing squad

quick google piece on the whole cost thing
http://www.forbes.com...
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 2:43:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 12:33:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
If you think capital punishment is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping? What's the difference between giving a innocent man life without parol and lining him up in front the firing squad?

Sure, except if you are proved guilty, you can be released. Nobody has the right to take innocent life away.

(don't bring up abortion plez....)
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 3:29:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 2:43:10 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/16/2016 12:33:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
If you think capital punishment is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping? What's the difference between giving a innocent man life without parol and lining him up in front the firing squad?

Sure, except if you are proved guilty, you can be released. Nobody has the right to take innocent life away.

Don't you mean "if proved innocent"?

(don't bring up abortion plez....)

You brought it up. I won't make mention but someone else will.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 3:30:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 3:29:16 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 2:43:10 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/16/2016 12:33:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
If you think capital punishment is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping? What's the difference between giving a innocent man life without parol and lining him up in front the firing squad?

Sure, except if you are proved guilty, you can be released. Nobody has the right to take innocent life away.

Don't you mean "if proved innocent"?

yeah my bad

(don't bring up abortion plez....)

You brought it up. I won't make mention but someone else will.

True, but idk want to debate abortion now. It's too complicated.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 3:40:47 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:43:11 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:38:06 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:30:00 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:26:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.

Why does the government has the right to inprison someone therefore violating their freedom of movement but doesn't have the right to execute someone that you'll say they are violating his right to life?

Because the government does not have the legal authority to take the lives of American citizens, and the government does not have the moral authority to decide who is worthy of death and who is worthy of life-long punishment.

Why? If the government or society was wronged then they have the right to prosecute.

No one is stating that they do not have the right to prosecute. However, we have an Amendment that denies cruel and unusual punishments. The crime has to merit the punishment, and the punishment, in my opinion, should not be a death sentence. It's immoral, innefficient, and the amount of money it takes to appeal in court is a complete waste, when you can just switch to life in prison, or something along those lines.

Why not make the death sentence mandatory for crimes like murder? That'll cut on the cost of appeal and such. Also the death sentence is neither cruel nor unusual. It does not cause pain for the most part and we hear it all the time. Why its immoral and inefficient?


You do not have the freedom of movement, which by the way is not a freedom, once you commit a crime. When you are indicted of criminal action, you lose a set amount of rights, since you broke the law. If the law was more geared towards crimes that involve a victim, then victim-less crimes, as it should always be, will be ignored.
I may not have freedom of movement but I do have the right to pursue happiness. And being in jail will greatly limit that. It's not like the government is willy-nilly executing everyone, they execute murderers and traitors.

Firstly, you conclude that I was right in the sense that you do not have the freedom to move once you break laws, as it always is.

At the same time if you kill someone you lose your right to life. This is why people are allow to use deadly force in self defense.

Executing traitors? Really? This happened in the Dark Ages and Medieval times. It's the 21st century, and you still think the government has the authority to deem people traitors and execute them?

Sure, especially if it caused the nation their freedoms to another country.

There's many regimes in the 20th century that executed traitors, including: Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, etc.

That's a fallacy. Just because they did it doesn't make it wrong. What about Benedict Arnold? What punishment did he deserve?

When you go to jail, you lose most Constitutional rights. The right to pursue happiness is lost once you go to prison, as you are now a criminal under the law. What part of that can you not comprehend?

I'm making a point. Just as the government has the right to take away a person's right to pursue happiness, so does it also have the right to take away life.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 3:45:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 3:40:47 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:43:11 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:38:06 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:30:00 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:26:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.

Why does the government has the right to inprison someone therefore violating their freedom of movement but doesn't have the right to execute someone that you'll say they are violating his right to life?

Because the government does not have the legal authority to take the lives of American citizens, and the government does not have the moral authority to decide who is worthy of death and who is worthy of life-long punishment.

Why? If the government or society was wronged then they have the right to prosecute.

No one is stating that they do not have the right to prosecute. However, we have an Amendment that denies cruel and unusual punishments. The crime has to merit the punishment, and the punishment, in my opinion, should not be a death sentence. It's immoral, innefficient, and the amount of money it takes to appeal in court is a complete waste, when you can just switch to life in prison, or something along those lines.

Why not make the death sentence mandatory for crimes like murder? That'll cut on the cost of appeal and such. Also the death sentence is neither cruel nor unusual. It does not cause pain for the most part and we hear it all the time. Why its immoral and inefficient?

The court system doesn't just make mandatory sentencing. There are times in which the system is inefficient, or that those who happen to be proven guilty are then later exonerated because of new evidence, and putting them to death for a crime they did not do is not a moral act.



You do not have the freedom of movement, which by the way is not a freedom, once you commit a crime. When you are indicted of criminal action, you lose a set amount of rights, since you broke the law. If the law was more geared towards crimes that involve a victim, then victim-less crimes, as it should always be, will be ignored.
I may not have freedom of movement but I do have the right to pursue happiness. And being in jail will greatly limit that. It's not like the government is willy-nilly executing everyone, they execute murderers and traitors.

Firstly, you conclude that I was right in the sense that you do not have the freedom to move once you break laws, as it always is.

At the same time if you kill someone you lose your right to life. This is why people are allow to use deadly force in self defense.

They are allowed to use deadly force only when their own life is in danger. The castle doctrine also backs this up. I agree that everyone should be able to use deadly force in place of defending yourself and your property, but the court system is not effective at making these decisions. Sentencing someone to death over a crime they may not have committed is, once again, an immoral act.


Executing traitors? Really? This happened in the Dark Ages and Medieval times. It's the 21st century, and you still think the government has the authority to deem people traitors and execute them?

Sure, especially if it caused the nation their freedoms to another country.

That's called espionage and whisteblowing, and you are put in prison for 30 years. To kill someone for a nonviolent act is not a righteous action, nor is it logical.


There's many regimes in the 20th century that executed traitors, including: Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, etc.

That's a fallacy. Just because they did it doesn't make it wrong. What about Benedict Arnold? What punishment did he deserve?

When you go to jail, you lose most Constitutional rights. The right to pursue happiness is lost once you go to prison, as you are now a criminal under the law. What part of that can you not comprehend?

I'm making a point. Just as the government has the right to take away a person's right to pursue happiness, so does it also have the right to take away life.

Once again, I do not disagree, as in if someone has definitive proof, they should be put to death immediately, as the prison system costs us way too much money. I just believe that more caution should be taken to make sure someone isn't killed for no reason.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 5:10:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 3:45:58 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 3:40:47 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:43:11 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:38:06 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:30:00 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:26:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:23:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.

I agree completely. Regardless of morals, the government has no place to decide who deserves death and who does not.

Plus. everyone who outright deserves the worst type of punishment should be kept in prison, because the inmates don't take kindly to mass murderers.

Why does the government has the right to inprison someone therefore violating their freedom of movement but doesn't have the right to execute someone that you'll say they are violating his right to life?

Because the government does not have the legal authority to take the lives of American citizens, and the government does not have the moral authority to decide who is worthy of death and who is worthy of life-long punishment.

Why? If the government or society was wronged then they have the right to prosecute.

No one is stating that they do not have the right to prosecute. However, we have an Amendment that denies cruel and unusual punishments. The crime has to merit the punishment, and the punishment, in my opinion, should not be a death sentence. It's immoral, innefficient, and the amount of money it takes to appeal in court is a complete waste, when you can just switch to life in prison, or something along those lines.

Why not make the death sentence mandatory for crimes like murder? That'll cut on the cost of appeal and such. Also the death sentence is neither cruel nor unusual. It does not cause pain for the most part and we hear it all the time. Why its immoral and inefficient?

The court system doesn't just make mandatory sentencing. There are times in which the system is inefficient, or that those who happen to be proven guilty are then later exonerated because of new evidence, and putting them to death for a crime they did not do is not a moral act.



You do not have the freedom of movement, which by the way is not a freedom, once you commit a crime. When you are indicted of criminal action, you lose a set amount of rights, since you broke the law. If the law was more geared towards crimes that involve a victim, then victim-less crimes, as it should always be, will be ignored.
I may not have freedom of movement but I do have the right to pursue happiness. And being in jail will greatly limit that. It's not like the government is willy-nilly executing everyone, they execute murderers and traitors.

Firstly, you conclude that I was right in the sense that you do not have the freedom to move once you break laws, as it always is.

At the same time if you kill someone you lose your right to life. This is why people are allow to use deadly force in self defense.

They are allowed to use deadly force only when their own life is in danger. The castle doctrine also backs this up. I agree that everyone should be able to use deadly force in place of defending yourself and your property, but the court system is not effective at making these decisions. Sentencing someone to death over a crime they may not have committed is, once again, an immoral act.


Executing traitors? Really? This happened in the Dark Ages and Medieval times. It's the 21st century, and you still think the government has the authority to deem people traitors and execute them?

Sure, especially if it caused the nation their freedoms to another country.

That's called espionage and whisteblowing, and you are put in prison for 30 years. To kill someone for a nonviolent act is not a righteous action, nor is it logical.


There's many regimes in the 20th century that executed traitors, including: Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, etc.

That's a fallacy. Just because they did it doesn't make it wrong. What about Benedict Arnold? What punishment did he deserve?

When you go to jail, you lose most Constitutional rights. The right to pursue happiness is lost once you go to prison, as you are now a criminal under the law. What part of that can you not comprehend?

I'm making a point. Just as the government has the right to take away a person's right to pursue happiness, so does it also have the right to take away life.

Once again, I do not disagree, as in if someone has definitive proof, they should be put to death immediately, as the prison system costs us way too much money. I just believe that more caution should be taken to make sure someone isn't killed for no reason.
If that's the case then yeah I agree. In the Bible one is not executed unless two or three reliable witnesses saw the act. In our modern age cameras can be undeniable proof the person murdered. So my personal take on it is that if there are no witnesses then probably the person should spend life but I haven't worked that out fully.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:15:21 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?


I don't think you know what exoneration means. It does not necessarily mean innocence because you can get exonerated on a technicality (though wrongful execution DOES occur--but the number is a lot lower than you say it is).

And the example you cite, Hodgkins, was not actually executed. He was released during the appeals process before he was executed: http://justicedenied.org...

While the number of people exonerated is high, that is a good thing: the system is doing its job and weeding out those who are innocent. Only 18 people who have actually been executed have been proven innocent by DNA evidence (http://www.innocenceproject.org...). It is important that they are exonerated by DNA evidence because that means even if there was a technicality, we know they were innocent in reality and not just in the eyes of the law.

You can still oppose the death penalty because of innocence, I understand that. You argument isn't really wrong because people have been executed wrongly. But the numbers you used were a bit inflated. I presume you were using the DPIC list, which is fairly comprehensive but also extremely faulty.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:19:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 2:43:10 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/16/2016 12:33:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
If you think capital punishment is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping? What's the difference between giving a innocent man life without parol and lining him up in front the firing squad?

Sure, except if you are proved guilty, you can be released.

Actually, one big study cited by DP opponents admits that LWOP increases the risks to innocents. DP cases get much more review because we understand that death is permanent, but LWOP cases get much fewer resources and attention, meaning an innocent person on LWOP is actually less likely to get out. And as DP opponents always pull the "prison is so much worse" argument, that seems to weaken the innocence position.

The death penalty is a state issue.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:19:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:15:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

Just looking at the first few words, look at post 2.
"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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:22:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:19:36 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:15:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

Just looking at the first few words, look at post 2.

Well that really doesn't change my point. The number of people actually executed and innocent is much lower than the number you cite, and the fact that we let so many people off is proof that the system is working. I bet the exact same number of people sentenced to LWOP are innocent, but as those cases get much less review (despite those sentences lasting longer), the effect on innocents is far worse.

You probably have read the news reports about the Sam Gross study claiming 4% of those executed were guilty, or something like that. Anyway, on page 4, if I remember correctly, he says LWOP could be worse for those who are innocent.

I am utilitarian on this issue and just stick with deterrence, because source spam. The other issues matter, of course, but if solid panel data debunked deterrence I would probably switch sides.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:24:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:22:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:19:36 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:15:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

Just looking at the first few words, look at post 2.

Well that really doesn't change my point. The number of people actually executed and innocent is much lower than the number you cite, and the fact that we let so many people off is proof that the system is working. I bet the exact same number of people sentenced to LWOP are innocent, but as those cases get much less review (despite those sentences lasting longer), the effect on innocents is far worse.

I didn't actually cite any percentage number - I just thought it out in my head because I had no time to look for sources lol. I was off.

You probably have read the news reports about the Sam Gross study claiming 4% of those executed were guilty, or something like that. Anyway, on page 4, if I remember correctly, he says LWOP could be worse for those who are innocent.

I am utilitarian on this issue and just stick with deterrence, because source spam. The other issues matter, of course, but if solid panel data debunked deterrence I would probably switch sides.

I never really bought into the deterrence argument.
"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
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:49:56 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/15/2016 11:36:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My take on the death penalty is that it should never be used. I've come to the point where I don't find it useful, punishing, and I find discomfort in the ability for a government to lawfully kill people that are jailed. And so, I start with the questions.

1. For those who are guilty, what's the punishment?

Consider this scenario:

A dictator kills hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and morally upstanding forces capture him. What should happen to the dictator?

Say he's 40 to 50 years old. He has decades of life ahead of him. Is a quick and easy death an actual punishment?

Is life in today's prisons really worse than nonexistence? Is there any guarantee that the prisoner will consistently feel the level of guilt needed for his conscience to make every day or most days miserable? If Hell exists, is a longer putting off of Hell for the conditions of an earthly prison, no matter how horrific, worse than Hell?

2. What if the executed were innocent?

According to statistics on the matter, about 5 people per year in the United States are exonerated after they have been killed. Since 1971, 156 people have been exonerated. The most recent, Derral Wayne Hodgkins, was executed just 2 years before exoneration. It doesn't just happen decades after - could you imagine being the family of someone executed, to find out just 24 months later that they should be still alive?

This will become less relevant as forensic science becomes more advanced; it is almost certain that the number of percentage of executed people who were innocent in the past was higher than it is today.

If 1 in 10 people executed (1,423 total since '76) are innocent, what is this punishment good for?

---

More questions later.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 11:42:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
My position on capital punishment is really nuanced.

There's a lot of empirical research that seems to indicate that it deters homicides. The NRC and most criminologists disagree, but econometric research might suggest otherwise. A group of NRC economists presented two reviews of death penalty research and suggested that most of the studies were dumb (I know 16k disagrees with the NRC report as well), but there were many studies that the NRC neglected to mention. Lott had a study published in "More Guns, Less Crime," which seems to indicate a fairly high rate of deterrence- but it arguably runs into the same problems detailed by the NRC. I buy that there's some level of deterrence, and it could potentially outweigh innocent lives lost, but many experts claim that most pro-deterrence evidence is dumb. And I doubt there's any dispute on the fiscal costs of capital punishment, which is a pretty huge impact. The death penalty depends on the society in which it is exercised, due to different attitudes towards incentives and different costs depending on the nation. In countries like India and the US it isn't a good idea, seeing as there's stronger evidence against than for. In the status quo, customary international law would also say the death penalty is bad, and for major nations like the US to encourage the death penalty would be a bad thing for US citizens who get executed for minor drug offenses, etc in countries like Singapore. Furthermore, there are countries like Germany that don't trust the US to not execute extradited criminals, so they refuse to extradite. One could say that the US could stop executing extradited criminals, but (1) I doubt that will ever be done, and (2) I further doubt that most of the EU would trust the United States not to execute them. I also like Christopher Hitchens' argument -- whose views on the subject are shared by many users on the site (including YYW, I think) -- that the death penalty hands too much power to government, merely strengthening the authority they have on our lives.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 5:15:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:19:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/16/2016 2:43:10 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/16/2016 12:33:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
If you think capital punishment is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping? What's the difference between giving a innocent man life without parol and lining him up in front the firing squad?

Sure, except if you are proved guilty, you can be released.

Actually, one big study cited by DP opponents admits that LWOP increases the risks to innocents. DP cases get much more review because we understand that death is permanent, but LWOP cases get much fewer resources and attention, meaning an innocent person on LWOP is actually less likely to get out. And as DP opponents always pull the "prison is so much worse" argument, that seems to weaken the innocence position.

That's true, I have used that in my debates before (when I was pro), but thats assuming every case that would be DP is changed to LWP. Which isn't really the case.

I also don't think the costs justify the DP, since it's too expensive.

I also believe its in violation of the 8th Amendment.

The death penalty is a state issue.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:26:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 5:15:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:19:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/16/2016 2:43:10 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/16/2016 12:33:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
If you think capital punishment is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping? What's the difference between giving a innocent man life without parol and lining him up in front the firing squad?

Sure, except if you are proved guilty, you can be released.

Actually, one big study cited by DP opponents admits that LWOP increases the risks to innocents. DP cases get much more review because we understand that death is permanent, but LWOP cases get much fewer resources and attention, meaning an innocent person on LWOP is actually less likely to get out. And as DP opponents always pull the "prison is so much worse" argument, that seems to weaken the innocence position.

That's true, I have used that in my debates before (when I was pro), but thats assuming every case that would be DP is changed to LWP. Which isn't really the case.


I actually think that the vast majority would be switched to LWOP because the worst criminals get chosen for the death penalty. It is a lot harder to get a capital conviction because the standard for evidence is much higher, so the prosecutor would only do so if the criminal was extremely terrible and has a fairly solid case.

And the argument still applies regardless. Putting someone in jail for 20 years, while they have a lot of time to appeal, they get a lot less attention because it is a non-capital case, whereas someone on death row for the same amount of time (last time I checked, the DPIC said that was the average length on death row before execution or release) has a much higher chance of being released early as they have the ACLU, the Innocence Project, their own lawyers, and a lengthy appeals process all on their side.

The innocence argument really just doesn't sell it to me. It would if, and only if, deterrence was disproven. And I have read virtually all of the papers on that and the evidence seems to suggest some deterrence, unless (like the NRC) you conveniently delete the studies that you cannot refute.

I also don't think the costs justify the DP, since it's too expensive.

It is a good argument, but it is more of an argument for reform than for outright prohibition. Just because something has administrative problems does not mean a ban is required. And there is a lot of super weak literature hear showing high costs, and while it probably does cost more (unless you want to count deterrence again), the amount it costs more is way overstated. These studies don't take into account plea bargaining or geriatric care.

If you just want to look at short-term cost, the DP is probably 1.5 times more expensive. If you believe in deterrence, it costs considerably less.

I also believe its in violation of the 8th Amendment.

I don't buy this at all. The death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual. But I am not a fan of lethal injection because it has been difficult to get the proper drugs, and these improper drugs are cruel. I prefer nitrogen asphyxiation--painless and fast. In the low countries they use it for euthanasia. You pass out in a few seconds and within three minutes you are dead. It is fast, cheap, and effective. That would wipe out all cruelty concerns.


The death penalty is a state issue.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 10:49:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Of course there is always the point that capital punishment does not actually deter the crimes it is handed out as a punishment for from being committed. But thats only a minor point.

I guess the broader point is, as an enlightened society we are predicated on the belief that a penal system should be part punishment, part rehabilitation. And if you support the death penalty, you support purely retributive justice. If thats the case, then so be it, more power to you. But like i said, as an enlightened society, thats not exactly the goal, is it? Purely retributive justice is barbaric at its core, and hearkens back to the first days of society forming(eye for an eye) and fails to account for the second half to that (and the world goes blind).
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 11:02:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
and honestly, and this is purely opinion, i think if what one seeks is retributive punishment, than they are simply looking for an excuse to see someone die or be punished because they get a sense of pleasure from it. And there is a form of entertainment for that, its called snuff films. You can always get your jollies off to that.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 11:08:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
For me, capital punishment is a pragmatic issue. If it works to disincentivize homicide (it does), then we should use it.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 11:11:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 11:08:39 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
For me, capital punishment is a pragmatic issue. If it works to disincentivize homicide (it does), then we should use it.

it actually doesn't, such example like North Carolina, where the homicide rate dropped after the death penalty was abolished as a means of punishment for it, aren't enough to conclude the death penalty raises the homicide rate, but it is enough to conclude it doesnt deter it.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 11:15:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
the only issue with really trying to conclusively prove anything about whether or not x punishment deters y crime, is that there are of course other factors that play into it as well. One can really only hit the point where they can say its most likely it doesnt. Which, at this point there is enough evidence to show, its most likely that the death penalty doesnt deter crime.

Here is the other side to that coin though, the death penalty is only one form of punishment. Other forms of punishment most likely do deter it at least a little bit. But not all forms of punishment are created equal, just like not all crimes are equal. Tricky situation, but pragmatically, its likely the death penalty does nothing at all in terms of deterrance, and on top of that is rediculously expensive to carry out what with the nigh endless appeals processed that have to be gone through before it can actually be carried out.

The rational, practical, and moral verdict on the death penalty is pretty much a unanimous from all fronts that its just not a good idea.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion