Capital Punishment

[TNF]

Well?

No (D)

[dead0man]

Yes (I)

I don't think it should be used very much (probably less than currently), but I think it should be an open option.

[Lambsbread]

I'm literally dead Neutral (I) on the issue.

I don't lean one way or the other.

[Supersonic]

No, absolutely not. It's abhorrent.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Is this a quarterly topic?  Yes, fully support. 

[Donerail]

No, absolutely not. It's abhorrent.

[fezzyfestoon]

No, it's barbaric and ineffective.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

No, absolutely not. It's abhorrent.

[Tender Branson]

No (D), in all situations.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I very strongly support it.

No, it's barbaric and ineffective.

What is barbaric about it?

[RogueBeaver]

Yes (R)

[fezzyfestoon]

I very strongly support it.

No, it's barbaric and ineffective.

What is barbaric about it?

Public murder is less than civilized.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I very strongly support it.

No, it's barbaric and ineffective.

What is barbaric about it?

Public murder is less than civilized.

I disagree with your description, but fine.

[fezzyfestoon]

How else do you describe the premeditated taking of another person's life? What is murder if not that? Ah, that's right, only bad guys can murder. If a good guy does something bad, you can just call it something else and it's all good. That on top of the fact that we insist on continuing it despite prohibitive costs and less than compelling results. It's fueled by a boorish need for revenge, nothing more. By all means support it all you want, just don't delude yourself into thinking it's some sort of tasteful, modern practice of justice.

[tmthforu94]

No (R)

[afleitch]

How else do you describe the premeditated taking of another person's life? What is murder if not that? Ah, that's right, only bad guys can murder. If a good guy does something bad, you can just call it something else and it's all good. By all means support it all you want, just don't delude yourself into thinking it's some sort of tasteful, modern practice of justice.

This.

It's state controlled murder. The whole point of the western justice system is a balance between punishment and the right to appeal if a perceived injustice has been done. Execution is finite; a person in life imprisonment for the most henious of crimes can appeal his sentence and if found innocent can be made free. An executed man cannot.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oppose, of course.

[Gamecock]

How else do you describe the premeditated taking of another person's life? What is murder if not that? Ah, that's right, only bad guys can murder.

The main distinction being that a murder committed by a criminal is an unlawful act committed against an undeserved person and that a state execution is a lawful act committed against a deserving person who committed a unlawful act. While the physical act of ending a life is the same, there are clear differences.

[Franzl]

How else do you describe the premeditated taking of another person's life? What is murder if not that? Ah, that's right, only bad guys can murder.

The main distinction being that a murder committed by a criminal is an unlawful act committed against an undeserved person and that a state execution is a lawful act committed against a deserving person who committed a unlawful act. While the physical act of ending a life is the same, there are clear differences.

Yes, but legality does not equal morality.

I oppose capital punishment in all cases without exception, as it is both barbaric and ineffective.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I oppose capital punishment in all cases without exception, as it is both barbaric and ineffective.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

How else do you describe the premeditated taking of another person's life? What is murder if not that? Ah, that's right, only bad guys can murder.

The main distinction being that a murder committed by a criminal is an unlawful act committed against an undeserved person and that a state execution is a lawful act committed against a deserving person who committed a unlawful act. While the physical act of ending a life is the same, there are clear differences.

"deserving" is a nonsensical term, Mr Gamecock.

[Gamecock]

How else do you describe the premeditated taking of another person's life? What is murder if not that? Ah, that's right, only bad guys can murder.

The main distinction being that a murder committed by a criminal is an unlawful act committed against an undeserved person and that a state execution is a lawful act committed against a deserving person who committed a unlawful act. While the physical act of ending a life is the same, there are clear differences.

Yes, but legality does not equal morality.

I oppose capital punishment in all cases without exception, as it is both barbaric and ineffective.

Not always of course. However, as a society, people set punishments to deter crime and it is not immoral to apply punishments to people who willingly commit crimes with the knowledge beforehand that their committing of a crime might result in punishment. The punishment he suffers is one that he risked suffering, so it is no more unjust to apply a punishment to him then any other event where one voluntarily assumes risk.

How do you classify it as ineffective? Some studies have argued that for every execution preformed 3 to 18 lives are saved.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In theory, Yes (I).  In practice, as currently practiced in those states that have it, No (I).  Any potential deterrent value the death penalty might have is negated by the lengthy time between conviction and execution of sentence.  The discretion applied in deciding who to seek the death penalty against leads to some questions as to whether it is being equitably applied.

So, while I support the death penalty in theory, I don't support the death penalty as currently practiced in the United States, and would prefer life without parole replacing the death penalty to the current system.

[Benj]

How else do you describe the premeditated taking of another person's life? What is murder if not that? Ah, that's right, only bad guys can murder.

The main distinction being that a murder committed by a criminal is an unlawful act committed against an undeserved person and that a state execution is a lawful act committed against a deserving person who committed a unlawful act. While the physical act of ending a life is the same, there are clear differences.

Yes, but legality does not equal morality.

I oppose capital punishment in all cases without exception, as it is both barbaric and ineffective.

Not always of course. However, as a society, people set punishments to deter crime and it is not immoral to apply punishments to people who willingly commit crimes with the knowledge beforehand that their committing of a crime might result in punishment. The punishment he suffers is one that he risked suffering, so it is no more unjust to apply a punishment to him then any other event where one voluntarily assumes risk.

So, if we implemented a law requiring execution for illegal music downloading, you would support executing music downloaders who were aware of the punishment? What if we implemented a law requiring execution for jaywalking?

Or, to a go a little further, suppose we had a law requiring execution for speaking out against the government?

[Gamecock]

How else do you describe the premeditated taking of another person's life? What is murder if not that? Ah, that's right, only bad guys can murder.

The main distinction being that a murder committed by a criminal is an unlawful act committed against an undeserved person and that a state execution is a lawful act committed against a deserving person who committed a unlawful act. While the physical act of ending a life is the same, there are clear differences.

Yes, but legality does not equal morality.

I oppose capital punishment in all cases without exception, as it is both barbaric and ineffective.

Not always of course. However, as a society, people set punishments to deter crime and it is not immoral to apply punishments to people who willingly commit crimes with the knowledge beforehand that their committing of a crime might result in punishment. The punishment he suffers is one that he risked suffering, so it is no more unjust to apply a punishment to him then any other event where one voluntarily assumes risk.

So, if we implemented a law requiring execution for illegal music downloading, you would support executing music downloaders? What if we implemented a law requiring execution for jaywalking? Or perhaps for speaking out against the government?

Be careful not to use a lighter near the straw man you've created, it might catch fire.