Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Some rapists should face the death penalty

Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.
Fernyx
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 7:49:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

I think solitary confinement would be a better punishment. It would scare people a lot more and I feel like the death penalty is too strong outside of number 4.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 7:57:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 7:49:19 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

I think solitary confinement would be a better punishment. It would scare people a lot more and I feel like the death penalty is too strong outside of number 4.

Fair enough.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Especially bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors (who are already predisposed to violence) more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will provide exactly no deterrent value because all rapists believe when they commit the rape that they will never be caught, which is why they do it. They do not think about the implications until after the fact, which is when they would contemplate killing their victim. The reason killing their victim would be more likely is because it would reduce the one witness who could attest to the crime. Hence, why it would be a terrible plan and why society does not do it.

The whole idea of escalated punishments is that there could "always" be something worse. It's why you get a longer prison sentence is you kill four people than if you only kill one. It's why you're more likely to get executed if you plan your murder rather than just do it in the heat of the moment.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:00:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

All*
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:09:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Especially bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors (who are already predisposed to violence) more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will provide exactly no deterrent value because all rapists believe when they commit the rape that they will never be caught, which is why they do it. They do not think about the implications until after the fact, which is when they would contemplate killing their victim. The reason killing their victim would be more likely is because it would reduce the one witness who could attest to the crime. Hence, why it would be a terrible plan and why society does not do it.

The whole idea of escalated punishments is that there could "always" be something worse. It's why you get a longer prison sentence is you kill four people than if you only kill one. It's why you're more likely to get executed if you plan your murder rather than just do it in the heat of the moment.

^That

I would have responded to the OP, but YYW basically said what I would have said.
"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
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 5:10:01 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Why would you impose a death penalty for a crime that can be rehabilitated?

We're not stone age barbarians anymore. I can tell you desire this out of emotional anger, which is pretty primitive imo.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

Again I would implement the death penalty in the case of murder.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

Same argument, same response.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

Same argument, same response.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Especially bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors (who are already predisposed to violence) more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

Actually the realization they will face execution rather than just a few years in prison will act as a strong deterrent to murder or rape and will reduce the amount of both offences overall.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will provide exactly no deterrent value because all rapists believe when they commit the rape that they will never be caught, which is why they do it. They do not think about the implications until after the fact, which is when they would contemplate killing their victim. The reason killing their victim would be more likely is because it would reduce the one witness who could attest to the crime. Hence, why it would be a terrible plan and why society does not do it.

Society does not implement the death penalty because of two reasons. Feeling sorry for criminals and wanting to give them a second chance and the concern over possibly executing someone who was later found to be innocent.

The reason many rapists are prepared to risk attacks is they do not fear the punishment. If you know you will be executed for what you might like to do it would be a strong deterrent. Not all rapists would neccessarily want to murder their victims. If they were sure they would get away with the rape anyway, as you claim why would they want to?

The whole idea of escalated punishments is that there could "always" be something worse. It's why you get a longer prison sentence is you kill four people than if you only kill one. It's why you're more likely to get executed if you plan your murder rather than just do it in the heat of the moment.

I would implement the most severe punishment far more often. There are many evil people who are looked after in high security prisons. Some of my taxes goes towards looking after these murders and rapists who sit on their arse watching tv all day. I don't find that reasonable. There is no need for these people to be alive. They have fortified their right to life when committing their crimes. Life sentences are a waste of time. If someone is never considered deserving of release they should be executed.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 7:37:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
yes, they should
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 7:43:48 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 5:10:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Why would you impose a death penalty for a crime that can be rehabilitated?

1. It deters people from committing sexual assault. There is no bigger deterrent than the threat of execution.

2. It gives the victim justice.

3. It eliminates the risk of the offender re-offending, possibly going on to commit even more severe crimes.

4. It would reduce the amount of sexual assaults.

5. Victims would no longer feel their attacker got off lightly for their crime.

6. It sends a message to society how bad sexual assault is as it's possible you may receive the ultimate penalty.

7. Taxpayers money does not go towards looking after evil criminals with no prospects of being released.

We're not stone age barbarians anymore. I can tell you desire this out of emotional anger, which is pretty primitive imo.

Only a stone age barbarian would rape someone. I support the death penalty for many reasons and I can a sure you it's based on sound logic, not emotional anger. There is nothing barbaric about ending the lives of fundamentally evil individuals who commit atrocious selfish acts such as murder and rape.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 7:45:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 3:09:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Especially bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors (who are already predisposed to violence) more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will provide exactly no deterrent value because all rapists believe when they commit the rape that they will never be caught, which is why they do it. They do not think about the implications until after the fact, which is when they would contemplate killing their victim. The reason killing their victim would be more likely is because it would reduce the one witness who could attest to the crime. Hence, why it would be a terrible plan and why society does not do it.

The whole idea of escalated punishments is that there could "always" be something worse. It's why you get a longer prison sentence is you kill four people than if you only kill one. It's why you're more likely to get executed if you plan your murder rather than just do it in the heat of the moment.

^That

I would have responded to the OP, but YYW basically said what I would have said.

Read my response to YYW then.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 7:50:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.

Which is very bad policy.

Actually the realization they will face execution rather than just a few years in prison will act as a strong deterrent to murder or rape and will reduce the amount of both offences overall.

No, it wouldn't, and there is no proper credible evidence that suggests this.

Society does not implement the death penalty because of two reasons. Feeling sorry for criminals and wanting to give them a second chance and the concern over possibly executing someone who was later found to be innocent.

Well, those are two concerns.

The reason many rapists are prepared to risk attacks is they do not fear the punishment. If you know you will be executed for what you might like to do it would be a strong deterrent. Not all rapists would neccessarily want to murder their victims. If they were sure they would get away with the rape anyway, as you claim why would they want to?

First, it is not a "strong deterrent" and there is no evidence to suggest the same.

Second, rapists have an incentive to murder their victims to prevent complaint, etc. The only counter-incentive there is more severe punishment. But if both the rape and the rape-and-murder had the same punishment, any existent deterrent effect (though the deterrent effect is not specifically from the severity of the punishment so much as the *difference* between the punishments) would be eliminated and would allow a greater incentive to murder.

I would implement the most severe punishment far more often. There are many evil people who are looked after in high security prisons. Some of my taxes goes towards looking after these murders and rapists who sit on their arse watching tv all day. I don't find that reasonable. There is no need for these people to be alive. They have fortified their right to life when committing their crimes. Life sentences are a waste of time. If someone is never considered deserving of release they should be executed.

So we should waste money on an ineffectual plan on criminal justice reform that does nothing to reduce crime. Got it.
"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
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 8:00:34 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 7:43:48 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 5:10:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Why would you impose a death penalty for a crime that can be rehabilitated?

1. It deters people from committing sexual assault. There is no bigger deterrent than the threat of execution.

No it doesn't. The reason why the death penalty has been abolished in the majority of developed countries is because research findings indicate that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent at all. Case in point, countries which don't have the death penalty have lower murder rates than the USA.

2. It gives the victim justice.

No it doesn't. Death is an easy escape. Suicide rates among convicted criminals are far higher than ordinary civilians, they should not be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions through death.

3. It eliminates the risk of the offender re-offending, possibly going on to commit even more severe crimes.
4. It would reduce the amount of sexual assaults.

For both 3 and 4, if the aim is to prevent reoffense, incarceration has been found to be a cheaper method. It is extremely expensive to administer a death penalty, much more so than imprisonment. There's no reason why you'd want to kill them for this reason.

5. Victims would no longer feel their attacker got off lightly for their crime.
Victims will feel this way even more with a death penalty. Due to the way the courts work, a judge will decide if a rapist deserves a death penalty and they will always pick 'no.'

6. It sends a message to society how bad sexual assault is as it's possible you may receive the ultimate penalty.

No it doesn't send this message. We already know that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime rates, we know that people aren't fazed by it. Furthermore, sex crimes are incredibly complex to debate. Unlike murder, it is difficult to prove that it happened, and it's difficult to prove intent. The death penalty has one of the strictest burdens of proof. If you can't prove beyond any reasonable doubt, the sentence won't be passed, and then you're just letting off rapists.

7. Taxpayers money does not go towards looking after evil criminals with no prospects of being released.

As I've said, people tend to think that it's cheap to kill people, it isn't. You can't get a death sentence from your local courts, you have to be tried at a very high level. Demand is already high for the higher level courts, adding sex crimes to the list of capital crimes would likely mean that a sentence simply won't go ahead, as there are far too many rapes each year for the higher courts to hear.

We're not stone age barbarians anymore. I can tell you desire this out of emotional anger, which is pretty primitive imo.

Only a stone age barbarian would rape someone. I support the death penalty for many reasons and I can a sure you it's based on sound logic, not emotional anger. There is nothing barbaric about ending the lives of fundamentally evil individuals who commit atrocious selfish acts such as murder and rape.

No you appear to be quite misinformed.

Furtherore, "fundamentally evil individuals who commit atrocious selfish acts such as murder and rape." It's pretty clear that you're not a very objective individual, I can hear the emotion perfectly clear.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 8:19:02 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 8:00:34 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/18/2016 7:43:48 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 5:10:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Why would you impose a death penalty for a crime that can be rehabilitated?

1. It deters people from committing sexual assault. There is no bigger deterrent than the threat of execution.

No it doesn't. The reason why the death penalty has been abolished in the majority of developed countries is because research findings indicate that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent at all. Case in point, countries which don't have the death penalty have lower murder rates than the USA.

If you asked a criminal would they prefer to face the death penalty of a five year prison sentence we both know what their answer would be.

2. It gives the victim justice.

No it doesn't. Death is an easy escape. Suicide rates among convicted criminals are far higher than ordinary civilians, they should not be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions through death.

Death is the end. The ultimate penalty. It's not an easy escape if you no longer exist. It's not surprising criminals commit suicide more often than ordinary people. They are horrible people living in a horrible environment surrounded by lots of other unpleasant and often evil individuals.

3. It eliminates the risk of the offender re-offending, possibly going on to commit even more severe crimes.

No response here because as we both know, there isn't one for this argument because it's unquestionably true.

4. It would reduce the amount of sexual assaults.

For both 3 and 4, if the aim is to prevent reoffense, incarceration has been found to be a cheaper method. It is extremely expensive to administer a death penalty, much more so than imprisonment. There's no reason why you'd want to kill them for this reason.

If a criminal is executed there is a 0% chance of them re-offending. If they are rehabilitated its possible they still may go on to commit further crimes. People released from prison are far more likely to commit offences than people who have never been convicted of a crime.


5. Victims would no longer feel their attacker got off lightly for their crime.
Victims will feel this way even more with a death penalty. Due to the way the courts work, a judge will decide if a rapist deserves a death penalty and they will always pick 'no.'

Well obviously it would require an overhaul of the justice system and the guidelines for when to impose the death penalty.

6. It sends a message to society how bad sexual assault is as it's possible you may receive the ultimate penalty.

No it doesn't send this message. We already know that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime rates, we know that people aren't fazed by it. Furthermore, sex crimes are incredibly complex to debate. Unlike murder, it is difficult to prove that it happened, and it's difficult to prove intent. The death penalty has one of the strictest burdens of proof. If you can't prove beyond any reasonable doubt, the sentence won't be passed, and then you're just letting off rapists.

If someone is convicted of a crime obviously the court has already decided there is sufficient evidence of their guilt. If implemented on a more regular basis the death penalty would reduce crime rates, save money and send a strong deterrent to potential offenders.

7. Taxpayers money does not go towards looking after evil criminals with no prospects of being released.

As I've said, people tend to think that it's cheap to kill people, it isn't. You can't get a death sentence from your local courts, you have to be tried at a very high level. Demand is already high for the higher level courts, adding sex crimes to the list of capital crimes would likely mean that a sentence simply won't go ahead, as there are far too many rapes each year for the higher courts to hear.

The American judicial system is a terrible example. The system I envisage would not see people kept alive for 20 years and given a ridiculous number of appeals. People would have one appeal and then be executed.

We're not stone age barbarians anymore. I can tell you desire this out of emotional anger, which is pretty primitive imo.

Only a stone age barbarian would rape someone. I support the death penalty for many reasons and I can a sure you it's based on sound logic, not emotional anger. There is nothing barbaric about ending the lives of fundamentally evil individuals who commit atrocious selfish acts such as murder and rape.

No you appear to be quite misinformed.

Furtherore, "fundamentally evil individuals who commit atrocious selfish acts such as murder and rape." It's pretty clear that you're not a very objective individual, I can hear the emotion perfectly clear.

Well if you sympathize with murders and rapists that's your choice. I have absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever.

Anyone who commits murder or rape is evil. There is nothing emotional about this statement. It's simply a reflection of reality.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 8:53:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 8:19:02 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
No it doesn't. The reason why the death penalty has been abolished in the majority of developed countries is because research findings indicate that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent at all. Case in point, countries which don't have the death penalty have lower murder rates than the USA.
If you asked a criminal would they prefer to face the death penalty of a five year prison sentence we both know what their answer would be.

You can't administer a death penalty if they would otherwise be charged with a 5 year term. Your proposal doesn't even work.

Death is the end. The ultimate penalty. It's not an easy escape if you no longer exist. It's not surprising criminals commit suicide more often than ordinary people. They are horrible people living in a horrible environment surrounded by lots of other unpleasant and often evil individuals.

This is where the stone age savage comment comes from. You think like a criminal. Criminals dehumanise other people in order to feel good about committing crimes against them. You are no different at all. In fact, would you be opposed to facing a death penalty for dehumanising?

This is something that a lot of people with severely sub par intellects get tripped up on. Do you know how the Nazi regime fielded a country of millions of perfectly ordinary people who were perfectly okay with genocide? They did exactly what you're doing here: dehumanisation and segregation. Once you stop thinking about people as being people, being told that 'we should kill these people' is a perfectly normal suggestion, and one you're displaying beautifully. I'm pretty sad that people like you still exist, please get educated.

Why don't we just execute everyone who commits a crime worthy of a 5+ year sentence? I don't see why rape is special, crimes are crimes, and all criminals are scum are they not?

No response here because as we both know, there isn't one for this argument because it's unquestionably true.
My response to 3 and 4 are together. I knew you wouldn't be able to make a self righteous comment here to make yourself feel better lol.

For both 3 and 4, if the aim is to prevent reoffense, incarceration has been found to be a cheaper method. It is extremely expensive to administer a death penalty, much more so than imprisonment. There's no reason why you'd want to kill them for this reason.

If a criminal is executed there is a 0% chance of them re-offending. If they are rehabilitated its possible they still may go on to commit further crimes. People released from prison are far more likely to commit offences than people who have never been convicted of a crime.

I think the point went completely over your head. It's cheaper to hold someone in prison for their entire lives than it is to execute them. The USA doesn't actually have the judicial resources to execute the number of people that you're talking about. If you want to prevent reoffence, you would definitely prefer to lock them up indefinitely than to execute them.

Well obviously it would require an overhaul of the justice system and the guidelines for when to impose the death penalty.
The thing is when talking with idiots, there's always a card that reads 'Anything can happen in my ideal world.' Unfortunately, no you cannot overhaul the justice system. It's a highly complex process that you don't appear to understand in the slightest. The state does not have the power to pass such laws.

No it doesn't send this message. We already know that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime rates, we know that people aren't fazed by it. Furthermore, sex crimes are incredibly complex to debate. Unlike murder, it is difficult to prove that it happened, and it's difficult to prove intent. The death penalty has one of the strictest burdens of proof. If you can't prove beyond any reasonable doubt, the sentence won't be passed, and then you're just letting off rapists.

If someone is convicted of a crime obviously the court has already decided there is sufficient evidence of their guilt. If implemented on a more regular basis the death penalty would reduce crime rates, save money and send a strong deterrent to potential offenders.

You do indeed have no idea. In a case on a traffic offense for example, there is a different sort of burden of proof on the prosecution compared to a murder trial. A trial will contain a jury and the prosecution has to prove malicious intent in addition to the action. Sex crimes are very difficult to debate, and way to get the best possible outcome for a victim is to not use a trial at all. In a trial, the jury will more often than not rule 'not guilty' because the burden of proof is that high. Prosecution rates are higher when there isn't a jury.

Your suggestion will literally let the vast majority of rapists go free. You're an apologist for rape, and it's quite nauseating to listen to.

Furthermore, your original point here was to send a message... You're suggesting however a system where rapists go free because the nature of their crime was simply too difficult to prove.

As I've said, people tend to think that it's cheap to kill people, it isn't. You can't get a death sentence from your local courts, you have to be tried at a very high level. Demand is already high for the higher level courts, adding sex crimes to the list of capital crimes would likely mean that a sentence simply won't go ahead, as there are far too many rapes each year for the higher courts to hear.

The American judicial system is a terrible example. The system I envisage would not see people kept alive for 20 years and given a ridiculous number of appeals. People would have one appeal and then be executed.

For capital crimes, there is already a more effective system in play: No appeals. If you get tried by the highest court, you can't appeal anywhere. That's what you currently have from what I understand. What you're suggesting is to have more appeals than there currently are for capital crimes.

Furthermore, you ignore the problem I already proposed: there are nowhere near enough people working in the justice system for you to be able to have death penalties for rapists. You need a highly qualified judge or set of justices to hear a trial of this significance. There aren't enough of those types of people in existence for this to work. It physically cannot be done.

If you suggest that regular Joe can hear a murder trial or whatnot, you'll next be complaining over the fact that the state is convicting too many innocent people. You already convict more innocent people to death than you should, I don't know why you would want more.

Well if you sympathize with murders and rapists that's your choice. I have absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever.

Anyone who commits murder or rape is evil. There is nothing emotional about this statement. It's simply a reflection of reality.

You're clearly quite a simple person. Here's a question for you:

How many innocent people would you sacrifice to successfully convict:
1) A single rapist
2) 5 rapists
3) 10 rapists
4) 100 rapists
5) 1000 rapists

The justice system is prone to making mistakes. It's become so intricate in an attempt to minimize as many mistakes as possible. What level of mistakes would you be satisfied with?

The thing you need to understand is that in the system you suggest, a murder trial for a sexual assault that wouldn't normally face trial would be used. What you fail to realise is that if a jury decides 'not guilty' that person will walk free, and the state cannot touch them. When it comes to the vast majority of sexual assault, there is nowhere near the level of evidence in existence required to successfully convict them, so you're saying that you're going to set up a system where people who commit sexual assault cannot be punished.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 9:40:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
You can't administer a death penalty if they would otherwise be charged with a 5 year term. Your proposal doesn't even work.

There is no reason why rules can't be changed. It's a hypothetical question anyway. Change the 5 years to 50 years and the criminal would still prefer the 50 years (especially when he/she knows it's possibleto be released after serving only half of the sentence).

This is where the stone age savage comment comes from. You think like a criminal. Criminals dehumanise other people in order to feel good about committing crimes against them. You are no different at all. In fact, would you be opposed to facing a death penalty for dehumanising?

For dehumanizing rapists and murderers?

Because they are evil people who deserve to be dehumanized and the act of dehumanizing is not worthy of the death penalty.

This is something that a lot of people with severely sub par intellects get tripped up on. Do you know how the Nazi regime fielded a country of millions of perfectly ordinary people who were perfectly okay with genocide? They did exactly what you're doing here: dehumanisation and segregation. Once you stop thinking about people as being people, being told that 'we should kill these people' is a perfectly normal suggestion, and one you're displaying beautifully. I'm pretty sad that people like you still exist, please get educated.

Yeah I have an IQ of 122 and earn 23, 500 pounds (not US dollars) a year at the age of 20. I must be a very stupid person. I'm so stupid I support the use of the death penalty, I even support executing serial killers.

If a criminal is executed there is a 0% chance of them re-offending. If they are rehabilitated its possible they still may go on to commit further crimes. People released from prison are far more likely to commit offences than people who have never been convicted of a crime.

I think the point went completely over your head. It's cheaper to hold someone in prison for their entire lives than it is to execute them. The USA doesn't actually have the judicial resources to execute the number of people that you're talking about. If you want to prevent reoffence, you would definitely prefer to lock them up indefinitely than to execute them.

It would not be more expensive to execute people than to incarcerate them for life if the USA improved its terrible capital punishment system.

Well obviously it would require an overhaul of the justice system and the guidelines for when to impose the death penalty.
The thing is when talking with idiots, there's always a card that reads 'Anything can happen in my ideal world.' Unfortunately, no you cannot overhaul the justice system. It's a highly complex process that you don't appear to understand in the slightest. The state does not have the power to pass such laws.

Well this is a thread about what should happen in my opinion not what is going to happen. When someone reverts to personal insults they are usually losing the intellectual battle. If enough people shared my opinion then change would happen. I acknowledge this is though unlikely in the foreseeable future.

You do indeed have no idea. In a case on a traffic offense for example, there is a different sort of burden of proof on the prosecution compared to a murder trial. A trial will contain a jury and the prosecution has to prove malicious intent in addition to the action. Sex crimes are very difficult to debate, and way to get the best possible outcome for a victim is to not use a trial at all. In a trial, the jury will more often than not rule 'not guilty' because the burden of proof is that high. Prosecution rates are higher when there isn't a jury.

What point are you making here?

All your doing is proving that as the burden of proof is so high in cases of sexual assault people are only convicted when there is overwhelming evidence of their guilt, in other words making a statement supporting my argument.

Your suggestion will literally let the vast majority of rapists go free. You're an apologist for rape, and it's quite nauseating to listen to.

That's a strange conclusion. Remember I didn't say all rapists deserve the death penalty even in the circumstances I outlined in the OP.

Furthermore, your original point here was to send a message... You're suggesting however a system where rapists go free because the nature of their crime was simply too difficult to prove.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that the death penalty is only implemented in cases where the evidence is clear cut.

Obviously I don't support convicting people with crimes where there is insufficient evidence.

For capital crimes, there is already a more effective system in play: No appeals. If you get tried by the highest court, you can't appeal anywhere. That's what you currently have from what I understand. What you're suggesting is to have more appeals than there currently are for capital crimes.

I'm not American but I know people are on death row for long amounts of time fighting their execution before it happens. I'm sure there is some kind of appeals process.

Furthermore, you ignore the problem I already proposed: there are nowhere near enough people working in the justice system for you to be able to have death penalties for rapists. You need a highly qualified judge or set of justices to hear a trial of this significance. There aren't enough of those types of people in existence for this to work. It physically cannot be done.

I don't see why training more of these people with a view to implementing this policy in the future is such an insurmountable problem.

If you suggest that regular Joe can hear a murder trial or whatnot, you'll next be complaining over the fact that the state is convicting too many innocent people. You already convict more innocent people to death than you should, I don't know why you would want more.

I would not want innocent people sentanced to death obviously.

Well if you sympathize with murders and rapists that's your choice. I have absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever.

Anyone who commits murder or rape is evil. There is nothing emotional about this statement. It's simply a reflection of reality.

You're clearly quite a simple person. Here's a question for you:

How many innocent people would you sacrifice to successfully convict:
1) A single rapist
2) 5 rapists
3) 10 rapists
4) 100 rapists
5) 1000 rapists

That's a silly question. It's not neccessary to falsely convict anyone.

The justice system is prone to making mistakes. It's become so intricate in an attempt to minimize as many mistakes as possible. What level of mistakes would you be satisfied with?

0% is the target but obviously hard to achieve. It's a balance between ensuring everyone guilty is convicted and enduring no one is wrongly convicted. I accept a small number of mistakes are inevitable. Where things are unclear I would be happy to see cases left open until the right decision can be made rather than a rushed and potentially incorrect decision be made.

The thing you need to understand is that in the system you suggest, a murder trial for a sexual assault that wouldn't normally face trial would be used. What you fail to realise is that if a jury decides 'not guilty' that person will walk free, and the state cannot touch them. When it comes to the vast majority of sexual assault, there is nowhere near the level of evidence in existence required to successfully convict them, so you're saying that

In my country a jury is used in cases of murder and in cases of sexual assault to determine someone's guilt. I don't claim to know any of the intricate details of the American judicial system.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 11:59:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
No I just enjoy contradicting people who have an obvious emotional attachment on something ridiculous, like this.

Firstly, your justifications for dehumanising are why you remain a peon. Humans are significantly more complex than you think, and when someone like you is in a position of power, we get things like Mao's China and Donald Trump. Overly simplistic and idealistic visions of the world that don't actually work.

Dehumanising is a categorically negative thing because we want to educate the public to not be primitive savages like they turned out to be during WWII. People are easy to manipulate and control, and people like you are the easiest. I simply spread propaganda that dehumanises a certain group and you lap it all up and call for blood, just like you're doing now. There's no difference between calling for the deaths of rapists or any criminal. The fact that you allow that sort of mentality to thrive in the first place merely proves how easy you are to manipulate. You follow your emotions, and would follow them off a cliff if that's what I wanted. People who dehumanise tend to also be racist, and that's largely due to the fact that you have a cognitive tendency to subdivide humans into discrete groups.

You clearly aren't thinking past your emotions because you come off as a narrow minded child who thinks the world operates the way the fantasize about it.

Secondly, you still believe that the rules can be changed to accommodate your ridiculous ideas. What rules would you change? Because you'd have to abolish the justice system all together and replace it with one where a single person is allowed to decide if a person is guilty or not and sentence them to death.

The justice system currently works on a balance. For every handful of criminals you sentence, you will inevitably nail innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens alarmingly often. We have very thorough procedures to ensure that this is kept as low as possible. When it comes to death penalties, we have trials. I can see that you don't know why this is relevant because you're spouting things like this:
"What point are you making here? All your doing is proving that as the burden of proof is so high in cases of sexual assault people are only convicted when there is overwhelming evidence of their guilt, in other words making a statement supporting my argument."
The entire point I was making is that the majority of convictions for the majority of sex crimes would not be successful if there were a trial, and it were under your system. The moment you bring the death penalty in, the standards are raised and it becomes very tough on the prosecution to be able to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Normally, a case which would convict a sexual criminal would succeed, but under your system, that same case would fail, and the criminal would walk free. Hence you are making the situation worse. If you still don't understand, here's an analogy:
I work at a doll factory (court) and monitor the dolls (defendants) that come past me. If they are above a certain height (guilty), I remove them and destroy them. If they are below that height, they are free to go. If you were to increase the mandatory sentence to death sentence, then you are also increasing the amount of evidence required to prove guilt. In terms of the analogy, it would raise the threshold for the acceptable heights such that fewer dolls are removed and destroyed and more get past.

...Do you finally see how raising the stakes will mean fewer convictions and more rapists in society??

Thirdly, A study by Dr. Ernest Goss found that each death penalty prosecution cost taxpayers about $1.5 million more than a life without parole prosecution. That means that it's $1.5 million cheaper to lock someone up for life than it is to execute them. Do you see what I mean when I say it's cheaper to imprison people for life than execute them??

Fourthly, the rest of your post revealed that you didn't even know that justice system occasionally hits innocent people. Most of your responses were 'Huh? why would that be?' Which is why I called you stupid in the first place. This information is not difficult to understand, but you really are doing your best to fail to comprehend it.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:31:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.

Then you are putting victims who might not have otherwise been killed at greater risk.

If you are a criminal, and the punishment is the same for rape that it is for both rape and murder, then you have no incentive not to murder.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:55:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.


YYW's point isn't that rapists would be incentivized to kill their victims in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence. Rather, they would be incentivized to kill their victims because a dead person can't go to the police or testify against them, and they also might just have an urge to kill them for the heck of it. Since they're already facing the death penalty for raping the person, they have nothing to lose by killing them. As matters now stand, a policy of "better safe than sorry" (killing the victim to silence them) has to deal with the fact that killing them would lead to harsher penalties and more police resources devoted to catching them.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:50:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense

If I read this post and it was from anyone else other then you Chloe8 ,
I'd be able to form a opinion, and as I'm not a rapist would probly agree .

But your post to me now stink of feminism. As soon as I read/ acknowledge it's a post from you. I lock in that mode of , how can she bag men this time.
So I look into a little of the stats. In a man Vs women way.
Since 1930. ( 32 ) females executed , ( 3827 ) males.

Not that , that has anything to do with your post.
It's just that a person that is so clearly , " how can I say it."
" Gender bias " should not have a opinion on this topic. I mean , I should not consider your opinion, and in fact in reading it sways me to not wanting to agree with you.
Wich then makes me read it and instantly think, what's wrong with this . Wich then makes me start picking at it in a what I think , " negative " way.

OK I'll just come out with it.
Chloe8
The way I see your , all for the women, stuff the man posts, has made me not like the Group of people they call ( feminists ).
I blame you for this Chloe8, and I want you to know that.
But I'm down with killing rapists , why not .
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 4:57:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 3:50:38 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense

If I read this post and it was from anyone else other then you Chloe8 ,
I'd be able to form a opinion, and as I'm not a rapist would probly agree .

But your post to me now stink of feminism. As soon as I read/ acknowledge it's a post from you. I lock in that mode of , how can she bag men this time.
So I look into a little of the stats. In a man Vs women way.
Since 1930. ( 32 ) females executed , ( 3827 ) males.

Not that , that has anything to do with your post.
It's just that a person that is so clearly , " how can I say it."
" Gender bias " should not have a opinion on this topic. I mean , I should not consider your opinion, and in fact in reading it sways me to not wanting to agree with you.
Wich then makes me read it and instantly think, what's wrong with this . Wich then makes me start picking at it in a what I think , " negative " way.

OK I'll just come out with it.
Chloe8
The way I see your , all for the women, stuff the man posts, has made me not like the Group of people they call ( feminists ).
I blame you for this Chloe8, and I want you to know that.
But I'm down with killing rapists , why not .

I don't really see why supporting implementation of the death penalty in some (remember not all) cases of rape is somehow linked to discrimination against men?

I oppose women being given more lenient sentences because of their gender and I acknowledge this currently happens on a regular basis and needs to be addressed.

I don't really see how any of my points are anti- men or misandrist?

I just call out misogyny when I see it.

This post however wasn't really anything to do with gender it was about criminal justice. It could be that a woman rapes a man and gets the death penalty.

I'm not concerned if you like me or my opinions. I'm here to argue not to make friends.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 5:49:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Firstly, your justifications for dehumanising are why you remain a peon. Humans are significantly more complex than you think, and when someone like you is in a position of power, we get things like Mao's China and Donald Trump. Overly simplistic and idealistic visions of the world that don't actually work.

A peon?

Definitions:

1. A Spanish-American day labourer or unskilled farm worker.

2. A low-ranking soldier or worker.

Haha someone obviously doesn't know the Australian dollar to British pound exchange rate.

I'm earning the equivalent of 40, 700 Aus dollars, at the age of 20.

Dehumanising is a categorically negative thing because we want to educate the public to not be primitive savages like they turned out to be during WWII. People are easy to manipulate and control, and people like you are the easiest. I simply spread propaganda that dehumanises a certain group and you lap it all up and call for blood, just like you're doing now. There's no difference between calling for the deaths of rapists or any criminal. The fact that you allow that sort of mentality to thrive in the first place merely proves how easy you are to manipulate. You follow your emotions, and would follow them off a cliff if that's what I wanted. People who dehumanise tend to also be racist, and that's largely due to the fact that you have a cognitive tendency to subdivide humans into discrete groups.

Yes you are intent on attacking me with a variety of baseless assumptions and claims. However you fail to consider the reality of the situation when doing so. We have a difference of opinion over whether certain criminals have a right to life. You stand up for their right to life while I think certain actions that cause significant harm to others take away that right. To associate this with me allegedly being racist shows a lack of awareness of what the word racist means. Intelligent people know that support for the death penalty is in no way a racist position.

You clearly aren't thinking past your emotions because you come off as a narrow minded child who thinks the world operates the way the fantasize about it.

Yes anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, narrow minded and childish. Your so clever aren't you.

Secondly, you still believe that the rules can be changed to accommodate your ridiculous ideas. What rules would you change? Because you'd have to abolish the justice system all together and replace it with one where a single person is allowed to decide if a person is guilty or not and sentence them to death.

I didn't say anything about changing the justice system to one where a single person makes a decision on whether someone is guilty. Since you asked for my opinion though I will offer it.

I would improve the accuracy of decision making on the guilt of individuals by using a team of professionals instead of selecting random individuals from the general population. These people would be part of a new type of profession that would obviously need a name. They would work on trials as a full time job after competing a university law degree and extra qualifications specific to the profession. I would propose a group of 12 individuals sitting on significant cases such as high level fraud, murder, rape etc where reaching the correct decision is vital.

These professionals would not be allowed to consult with each other. They would all make individual assessments of the case. They would each give their verdict at the end of the trial. If the verdict was not conclusive enough (An 8-4 majority or greater) I would order a retrial to ensure the correct verdict is reached.

Having an opinion on what should happen does not mean you think it's neccessarily going to happen. Lots of people have lots of different opinions. It's part of life. Get used to it. Criticism of individuals because they hold opinions you disagree with achieves very little. You achieve things by exposing the flaws of the opinions the person holds.

The justice system currently works on a balance. For every handful of criminals you sentence, you will inevitably nail innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens alarmingly often. We have very thorough procedures to ensure that this is kept as low as possible. When it comes to death penalties, we have trials. I can see that you don't know why this is relevant because you're spouting things like this:
"What point are you making here? All your doing is proving that as the burden of proof is so high in cases of sexual assault people are only convicted when there is overwhelming evidence of their guilt, in other words making a statement supporting my argument."
The entire point I was making is that the majority of convictions for the majority of sex crimes would not be successful if there were a trial, and it were under your system. The moment you bring the death penalty in, the standards are raised and it becomes very tough on the prosecution to be able to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Bringing in the death penalty as a possible sentence for conviction of sexual assault makes no difference to what should already be high standards of proof needed to determine someone's guilt. Remember not all convicts would receive the death penalty. It's one of a variety of numerous sentencing options available to a judge. The OP outlined the conditions where I thought it was reasonable to apply the death penalty. I didn't say the death penalty should be applied in all cases where these conditions are met.

Normally, a case which would convict a sexual criminal would succeed, but under your system, that same case would fail, and the criminal would walk free. Hence you are making the situation worse. If you still don't understand, here's an analogy:
I work at a doll factory (court) and monitor the dolls (defendants) that come past me. If they are above a certain height (guilty), I remove them and destroy them. If they are below that height, they are free to go. If you were to increase the mandatory sentence to death sentence, then you are also increasing the amount of evidence required to prove guilt. In terms of the analogy, it would raise the threshold for the acceptable heights such that fewer dolls are removed and destroyed and more get past.

There is no reason why standards of proof should neccessarily be higher. Standards should already be high when potentially handing someone a life sentence. There is no reason why the inclusion of the death penalty as a potential sentence would have any effect on the amount of convictions for sexual assault.

...Do you finally see how raising the stakes will mean fewer convictions and more rapists in society??

No because that's not what would actually happen! That's something you have assumed will happen because of ignorance.

Thirdly, A study by Dr. Ernest Goss found that each death penalty prosecution cost taxpayers about $1.5 million more than a life without parole prosecution. That means that it's $1.5 million cheaper to lock someone up for life than it is to execute them. Do you see what I mean when I say it's cheaper to imprison people for life than execute them??

There is no reason for it to neccessarily be more expensive. The US justice system handling the death penalty in an inefficient manner merely points out the flaws of the US justice system, not the death penalty itself.

Obviously innocent people are sometimes wrongly convicted of crimes. I don't dispute that fact.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 5:56:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 2:55:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.


YYW's point isn't that rapists would be incentivized to kill their victims in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence. Rather, they would be incentivized to kill their victims because a dead person can't go to the police or testify against them, and they also might just have an urge to kill them for the heck of it. Since they're already facing the death penalty for raping the person, they have nothing to lose by killing them. As matters now stand, a policy of "better safe than sorry" (killing the victim to silence them) has to deal with the fact that killing them would lead to harsher penalties and more police resources devoted to catching them.

What you are not considering is that not all rape convictions would result in a death penalty under my proposals. It would just be one of a variety of sentences available to a judge. Murdering someone would not be an incentive because under my proposals all murders would receive the death penalty. Murdering someone would ensure the ultimate penalty while refraining from doing so may give the criminal a chance of escaping it.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 5:59:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 2:31:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.

Then you are putting victims who might not have otherwise been killed at greater risk.

If you are a criminal, and the punishment is the same for rape that it is for both rape and murder, then you have no incentive not to murder.

Remember what I said in the OP. Generally (but not always) impose the death penalty. Refraining from murder gives the criminal a chance of avoiding the death penalty. Murder means you get the death penalty.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 6:08:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

The following system would absolutely deter crime and be cheap:
"John Smith, you are found to be guilty of sexual assault. After 2 hours of debate we have decided that your punishment shall be death. Security, take the prisoner to the firing squad at once!"
However, in a liberal democracy we can't do this. All people, even convicted rapists, have rights. In the rare event that society decides to execute this rapist (and thus take away his constitutionally guaranteed right to life) they have to show respect for these rights of his in the process. These rights include the right to appeal. That's why executions will continually fail to deter and why they'll be highly expensive.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 6:08:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 7:50:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.

Which is very bad policy.

Your entitled to your opinion.

Actually the realization they will face execution rather than just a few years in prison will act as a strong deterrent to murder or rape and will reduce the amount of both offences overall.

No, it wouldn't, and there is no proper credible evidence that suggests this.

Society does not implement the death penalty because of two reasons. Feeling sorry for criminals and wanting to give them a second chance and the concern over possibly executing someone who was later found to be innocent.

Well, those are two concerns.

Yes they are reasonable arguments to use when taking a stance opposing the death penalty.

The reason many rapists are prepared to risk attacks is they do not fear the punishment. If you know you will be executed for what you might like to do it would be a strong deterrent. Not all rapists would neccessarily want to murder their victims. If they were sure they would get away with the rape anyway, as you claim why would they want to?

First, it is not a "strong deterrent" and there is no evidence to suggest the same.

There is no bigger deterrent than the prospect of execution for whatever actions your considering.

Second, rapists have an incentive to murder their victims to prevent complaint, etc. The only counter-incentive there is more severe punishment. But if both the rape and the rape-and-murder had the same punishment, any existent deterrent effect (though the deterrent effect is not specifically from the severity of the punishment so much as the *difference* between the punishments) would be eliminated and would allow a greater incentive to murder.

Remember what I said in the OP. I would implement the death penalty in some but not all cases of rape. Refraining from committing murder offers the criminal a chance of escaping the death penalty. Murdering the victim guarantees the death penalty if caught

I would implement the most severe punishment far more often. There are many evil people who are looked after in high security prisons. Some of my taxes goes towards looking after these murders and rapists who sit on their arse watching tv all day. I don't find that reasonable. There is no need for these people to be alive. They have fortified their right to life when committing their crimes. Life sentences are a waste of time. If someone is never considered deserving of release they should be executed.

So we should waste money on an ineffectual plan on criminal justice reform that does nothing to reduce crime. Got it.

If you let me run the criminal justice system more money would be spent but crime rates would fall and less people would be wrongly convicted of crimes.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 6:11:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 5:56:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:55:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.


YYW's point isn't that rapists would be incentivized to kill their victims in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence. Rather, they would be incentivized to kill their victims because a dead person can't go to the police or testify against them, and they also might just have an urge to kill them for the heck of it. Since they're already facing the death penalty for raping the person, they have nothing to lose by killing them. As matters now stand, a policy of "better safe than sorry" (killing the victim to silence them) has to deal with the fact that killing them would lead to harsher penalties and more police resources devoted to catching them.

What you are not considering is that not all rape convictions would result in a death penalty under my proposals. It would just be one of a variety of sentences available to a judge. Murdering someone would not be an incentive because under my proposals all murders would receive the death penalty. Murdering someone would ensure the ultimate penalty while refraining from doing so may give the criminal a chance of escaping it.

Well, narrowing the gap between the severity of punishment handed out for rape and rape + murder would increase the frequency of the latter, whether or not some rapists are incentivized not to kill their victim since they might escape the death penalty by not doing so. It's not a black and white argument.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 6:13:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 6:08:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

2. Sexual assault where a perpetrator attacks a victim aggressively and violently without any reason to think the victim desired such action.

3. Sexual assault on someone you have a duty of care for, someone with learning difficulties, your child (even if older than 16), school pupils etc.

4. Long term imprisonment of a victim either physically or emotionally that included sexual assault.

5. Especially violent sexual assaults.

Imposing the death penalty for these types of crimes will be a strong deterrent and also eliminate the risk of individuals who commit such hideous crimes re-offending. It will also ensure the victims of these crimes receive justice. I would only impose the death penalty if it could be determined with absolute certainty the offender committed the offense.

The following system would absolutely deter crime and be cheap:
"John Smith, you are found to be guilty of sexual assault. After 2 hours of debate we have decided that your punishment shall be death. Security, take the prisoner to the firing squad at once!"
However, in a liberal democracy we can't do this. All people, even convicted rapists, have rights. In the rare event that society decides to execute this rapist (and thus take away his constitutionally guaranteed right to life) they have to show respect for these rights of his in the process. These rights include the right to appeal. That's why executions will continually fail to deter and why they'll be highly expensive.

Yes I would give convicts one chance to appeal their conviction. The same number of chances other convicts get to overturn their convictions. There is no reason why this should be ridiculously expensive or take a ridiculously long time like it currently does in the USA.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 6:16:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 6:11:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/18/2016 5:56:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:55:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.


YYW's point isn't that rapists would be incentivized to kill their victims in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence. Rather, they would be incentivized to kill their victims because a dead person can't go to the police or testify against them, and they also might just have an urge to kill them for the heck of it. Since they're already facing the death penalty for raping the person, they have nothing to lose by killing them. As matters now stand, a policy of "better safe than sorry" (killing the victim to silence them) has to deal with the fact that killing them would lead to harsher penalties and more police resources devoted to catching them.

What you are not considering is that not all rape convictions would result in a death penalty under my proposals. It would just be one of a variety of sentences available to a judge. Murdering someone would not be an incentive because under my proposals all murders would receive the death penalty. Murdering someone would ensure the ultimate penalty while refraining from doing so may give the criminal a chance of escaping it.

Well, narrowing the gap between the severity of punishment handed out for rape and rape + murder would increase the frequency of the latter, whether or not some rapists are incentivized not to kill their victim since they might escape the death penalty by not doing so. It's not a black and white argument.

Being concerned about rapists murdering their victims is not sufficient reasoning to not take a strong stance to deter rape.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 6:20:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 2:55:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/18/2016 7:32:24 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 2:58:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/17/2016 7:18:15 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I would generally (but not always) impose the death penalty for the following types of sexual assault:

1. Sexual assault on a child under 16 by an adult over 18.

Bad choice. Having the death penalty for this would make aggressors more likely to kill their victims, which is why we don't do it.

I would implement the death penalty for all cases of murder.


YYW's point isn't that rapists would be incentivized to kill their victims in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence. Rather, they would be incentivized to kill their victims because a dead person can't go to the police or testify against them, and they also might just have an urge to kill them for the heck of it. Since they're already facing the death penalty for raping the person, they have nothing to lose by killing them. As matters now stand, a policy of "better safe than sorry" (killing the victim to silence them) has to deal with the fact that killing them would lead to harsher penalties and more police resources devoted to catching them.

So when it comes to murdering , it's kind of like , buy 1 get the rest free.
If you want to kill ( Mr X ) and not spend 1 second in jail or be executed for doing so.
Even if you get caught.
You can just kill 1 person before killing Mr X .
Or If you get caught killing 41 people. You will not be sent to jail nor be executed for the 14th person you kill.
Freeroll.
I wonder what makes a serial killer.