EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Capital Punishment

< Return to subforum
Page: 123Most Recent
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Nov 21 2016 9:42 AM
What are your views on the death penalty?
Provide some arguments for your view.
Krazy
By Krazy | Nov 21 2016 1:56 PM
Bi0Hazard: Death penalty for what? Which crimes?
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Nov 21 2016 4:41 PM
Krazy: Any crimes. You may specify for which crimes. Mostly referring to murder though.
admin
By admin | Nov 21 2016 5:02 PM
Bi0Hazard: Opposed, because life is a natural right that cannot be surrendered, therefore it is not part of the social contract.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Nov 21 2016 5:03 PM
admin: Opposed, because life is a natural right that cannot be surrendered
Define "Natural right".
admin
By admin | Nov 21 2016 5:07 PM
Bi0Hazard: A bundle of morally permissible actions one has because one is human. Also called human rights.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Nov 21 2016 5:10 PM
admin: A bundle of morally permissible actions one has because one is human.
But isn't objective morality nonexistent in your view? Wouldn't you agree that natural rights aren't inherent in Humans existence?
admin
By admin | Nov 21 2016 5:13 PM
Bi0Hazard: Natural rights are inherent. Just because I don't believe in the death penalty doesn't mean it can be objectively proven worse, at least until a reliable future predictor is invented.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Nov 21 2016 5:25 PM
admin: Natural rights are inherent.
How? You defined "Natural Rights" as:
A bundle of morally permissible actions one has because one is human.
Morality didn't preexist, at least according to your worldview, so that sounds inconsistent. Natural rights are just a man-made construct.
The only "rights" that exist are legal rights, which can be changed.
admin
By admin | Nov 21 2016 8:57 PM
Bi0Hazard: To be clear: I believe in natural rights. I understand that somebody else's understanding of natural rights may not be the same as mine. Therefore from their perspective, they may subjectively consider the death penalty moral. Based on my understanding of natural rights, I do not agree. I think all people have those rights, but I can't objectively prove that to everyone.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Nov 22 2016 11:28 AM
admin: Even though you believe capital punishment violates natural rights, do you think it is an overall efficient or inefficient punishment? Do you think life in prison is a harsher punishment? Do you think some undeveloped countries could use the death penalty to control high crime rates?
admin
By admin | Nov 22 2016 11:59 AM
Bi0Hazard: Efficient compared to what? In general it's not terribly efficient but without some point of reference it's a bit meaningless.

I think the death penalty is harsher because
1) it restricts a more fundamental right
2) it is irreversible and
3) prisoners can contribute meaningfully to society

It is a poor solution for those undeveloped countries. I think they should look to the example of leaders like Confucius - education, ending corruption, and respect are keys to stopping crime.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Nov 22 2016 1:30 PM
admin: I think the death penalty is harsher
Not necessarily.
1) it restricts a more fundamental right
Your moral opinion doesn't effect how harsh a punishment is.
2) it is irreversible
That actually makes it less harsh, since you don't have to suffer any consequences of your current life. Here in the U.S., the death penalty is done with minimal suffering mostly by lethal injection. With life in prison, you have a lifetime in the hands of the state.
3) prisoners can contribute meaningfully to society
If it is life in prison without parole, a prisoners life becomes meaningless.
ColeTrain
By ColeTrain | Dec 1 2016 9:22 AM
Bi0Hazard: I am opposed to the death penalty. For one thing, many criminals who would receive the death penalty for their crime commit suicide, so it seems rather dubious to PUNISH these people by restricting them of something on which they place no apparent value (life). For another, the expenses of the death penalty are more than life in prison without parole (in the large majority of cases). Also, I highly question the validity of retributive justice. From a Biblical standpoint, the death penalty is not an option. Moreover, it is immoral to facilitate the incredulous idea that all who killed should be killed. That invalidates the life of the execution, and places a double standard on killing. Lawless, or under the law, murder is never morally permissible. Besides all of that erroneous convictions make up about 4.1% of those who received capital punishment from 1973 through 2004 (in the US). Because the death penalty is an absolute, irreversible "punishment," innocent people die. Lastly, there is a flawed argument which suggest the death penalty deters future crime.. but this argument is unpersuasive and immensely fragile. One could even argue any deterrent effect is matched by innocent convictions -- so in the end, more people are innocently killed (whether by criminal murder or execution) when capital punishment is in place.
"Man is not free unless government is limited" -- Ronald Reagan
Topics: http://tinyurl.com/oh9tm6u
Krazy
By Krazy | Dec 18 2016 3:07 PM
I think the "capital punishment" debate is so stupid because everybody believes in the death penalty. Everybody. Because people who are "against" the death penalty believe in life-in-prison as a substitute. And that is a death penalty. Some people scoff at that, but how long are people in prison if they are life-sentenced? Until they die, right? Yeah exactly. That's a death penalty.
Wylted
By Wylted | Dec 19 2016 12:42 AM
For it. Ted Bundy's escapes and murders after conviction is one of my many premises.
Polymath
By Polymath | Dec 19 2016 8:12 PM
Krazy: You are almost exactly right in your view. Almost everybody except those bleeding heart professional whiners like Liberty International want the death penalty.The odd thing is that people have this perception that these sites reflect their true personalities and they give, not their real views, but the views they think they SHOULD have.The rigid, unchanging, one option only moral path.No ethics nor pragmatism will trouble them because the answer is given them. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. So we don't. We should but we don't.
Tejretics
By Tejretics | Dec 20 2016 12:55 AM
Strongly oppose. It represents the ultimate centralization of state authority - fundamentally antithetical to any limit posed on the state. At the point at which political power is so centralized that the state can kill innocent people (i.e. people falsely convicted of a crime) and cause direct psychological harm to third parties such as its own executioners, and other innocent people, with no greater good to society, the very core essence of democracy (and its effects on social stability) is eroded.
I'm attempting to be #1 Judge and #1 forum poster here.
Tejretics
By Tejretics | Dec 20 2016 12:57 AM
ColeTrain: When, and why, should political decisions be influenced by religious text (e.g. the Bible)?
I'm attempting to be #1 Judge and #1 forum poster here.
Krazy
By Krazy | Dec 20 2016 12:17 PM
Polymath: Well when Jesus quoted the commandments, he said "...Thou shalt do no murder..." Matthew 19:18 KJV. So it's actually murder, not killing in general. It's okay to kill in certain circumstances.
Page: 123Most Recent