Politics The Death Penalty debate

Jake84

Super Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
TheMess.Net
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
4,060
Points
384
Ukraine
It’s been discussed to death, probably here before and on any forums and outlets on the internet.

To start, I’ll state the obvious but you’re either pro death penalty or against not as we sometimes hear “only in cases of terrorism, mass-murders and pedophile or child murderer.” And to be honest, I still think many people even in Western Europe would agree that people like Salah Abdeslam (Survivor of the Paris attacks in Nov 2015), or the Oslo and Utoya mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik would have deserved the death penalty for their horrendous crimes.

Then for merely philosophical reasons some people oppose it, even in the worst incidents and high number of victims. I can see why to an extent... redemption?

Okay, I’ll just put it out here: in France the Death Penalty by Guillotine was abolished during the first tenure of Francois Mitterrand in 1981.

So my opinion was that up until 2012 and the first antisemitic attack against a Jewish school in Toulouse plus three soldiers of Maghreb ancestry were killed by the Jihadi Mohammed Merah, who was later gunned down by the Raid; I was against the death penalty but my stance on this has changed ever since all other attacks France and Europe (and The US) have endured,

So if you want to debate this, this is the right place, it can be a heated debate so please argue thoughtfully and use civility.

PS: so to not be accused of any Double Standard if any White Nationalist were to kill a bunch of Jews or Muslims during their prayer I’d be asking for the same proper capital punishment.
 
I'm against it. Not because I don't think that some people deserve it, but because I don't think human justice can administer it fairly. We've seen too many cases (not just in death penalty trials) where evidence has been withheld or lied about in order to advance a political career rather than justice.
 
hang them high - no appeal no messing about - free up some prison space for our politicians
 
I'm against it. Not because I don't think that some people deserve it, but because I don't think human justice can administer it fairly. We've seen too many cases (not just in death penalty trials) where evidence has been withheld or lied about in order to advance a political career rather than justice.

That’s a valid point.
 
I'm against it. Not because I don't think that some people deserve it, but because I don't think human justice can administer it fairly. We've seen too many cases (not just in death penalty trials) where evidence has been withheld or lied about in order to advance a political career rather than justice.

I tend to agree, and while there are clear cut evil people who were caught red handed and there is no doubt, you can't run a two tier justice system for those who were caught red handed and those who are just as evil, but were more sneaky about it.
 
I disapprove of capital punishment on technical grounds. We can release a man that has been wrongly imprisoned; we cannot resurrect a man that has been wrongly executed. I see no moral reason whatsoever to oppose death penalty, though.
I should actually go so far as to claim the inability or unwillingness to consider any crime as grave enough to demand the penalty of death is not a sign of morality but the lack thereof. In my eyes, such a stance is tantamount to intellectual depravity and indicates a complete and utter lack of empathy. Any person who states a monster like Peter Madsen does not deserve to die is either a pretentious liar or seriously wrong in the head.
 
Well thought out post here Herr @muck
 
See, I like debating stuff and I'll be the first to admit an argument's value is mostly subjective. One argument against death penalty has always puzzled me though: the ubiquous "we become what we oppose" argument, the idea being a society that imposes death penalty stoops to the same depths of depravity as the criminal – i.e. if we were to execute a murderer we would be not better than the murderer himself.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Western civilization's concept of wrongdoing revolves around the motive of a deed. One and the same deed – say a fatal shooting – could constitute a murder, an unpremeditated homicide, an accident, a mercy killing on the victim's request or an act of lawful self defence. The motive decides; and evidently, societies may formulate rules under which a deed may be regarded as less culpable or even as excusable.

How then could there possibly be a uniformity between the murderer that, say, abuses and murders a woman and the capital punishment-retaining state that in response decides the perpretrator ought to die? The motives of the state and the murderer aren't congruent, the state isn't motivated by sadism or whatever reason the murderer might've had.

As a matter of fact, the judiciary has a motive which society has deemed acceptable, not unlike a killing in self defence or an act of voluntary euthanasia (where applicable).

My point is, only then could a society be unable to legitimize a criminal's execution if the motive of a deed didn't matter. As a consequence, a deed like a self defence-killing couldn't be regarded as any less evil than intentional murder. That's obviously not the case, though. Therefore, a society wishing to retain the death penalty acts well within its rights and doesn't draw a parallel between the murderer and itself.
 
It's very easy to be against the death penalty , I myself am against it . But to be put in a circumstance where someone close is murdered and the opportunity arises geographically dependent to seek the ultimate vengeance , that's a tough call whatever your views are .
 
I'm for it .. when caught on video or something else solid. If there's the least doubt, I'm not.
 
I'm against it. Not because I don't think that some people deserve it, but because I don't think human justice can administer it fairly. We've seen too many cases (not just in death penalty trials) where evidence has been withheld or lied about in order to advance a political career rather than justice.
That s the main point why i am against. There are too much examples of innocents walking the plancks already.
And once it is done there is no way back obviously.
 
I believe in Right to Life, but the death penalty should be given to rarest of the rare and most heinous crime. If someone pedophile rape a minor girl, who have no idea about reality, that person should have no place in the world and deserved to go.
 
I'm totally for it, as there are plenty of people who show that they are not fit to be members of society in any way.

Convicted murderers, where the proof is without doubt of their guilt, need to be pushed outside the airlock.
 
Another argument against death penalty that makes no sense to me is costs. Our criminal systems engage in a lot of activities that aren't exactly economical, but they're the right thing to do. In the developed world, for instance, only one in ten burglaries on average is ever solved by the authorities. Does that mean we should stop pursuing burglars, gaining so little for our dime? Of course not.

Besides, the very same argument could be turned against endeavours the anti-death-penalty-crowd usually agrees with, like rehabilitation programs. The reoffending rate of most countries doesn't seem to suggest it's a worthwhile effort.

But most importantly – has anyone ever checked if this argument actually holds true? Isn't the question of costs one that pertains mostly to the American court system? What did the accountants of e.g. France or the United Kingdom have to say before those two countries abolished death penalty?
 
Last edited:
Another argument against death penalty that makes no sense to me is costs. Our criminal systems engage in a lot of activities that aren't exactly economical, but they're the right thing to do. In the developed world, for instance, only one in ten burglaries on average is ever solved by the authorities. Does that mean we should stop pursuing burglars, gaining so little for our dime? Of course not.

Besides, the very same argument could be turned against endeavours the anti-death-penalty-crowd usually agrees with, like rehabilitation programs. The reoffending rate of most countries doesn't seem to suggest it's a worthwhile effort.

But most importantly – has anyone ever checked if this argument actually holds true? Isn't the question of costs one that pertains mostly to the American court system? What did the accountants of e.g. France or the United Kingdom have to say before those two countries abolished death penalty?
Legalize drug taking and get the Government to supply the drugs cheap and 3/4 of burglaries would not happen

It would also remove a lot of money from criminals who sell and import drugs - all they would have left is prostitution

I also think that drug taking would reduce massively if they made it legal
 
Legalize drug taking and get the Government to supply the drugs cheap and 3/4 of burglaries would not happen

In the UK, maybe. I doubt this statement holds true elsewhere. It certainly doesn't do in Germany.

It would also remove a lot of money from criminals who sell and import drugs - all they would have left is prostitution

No offence, but I'm confident that you are mistaken. One of the most violent crime syndicates in Europe is the Vietnamese cigarette mafia, and one of the most profitable sectors of Ndrangheta's activities is the peddling of counterfeit medicine. As long as there's a way to edge out the white market with cheaper goods (e.g. through tax evasion, unregulated labour, smuggling, illegal dilution etc.pp.), the illegal trade in a good is not going to cease.

And it is impossible for legally-operating competitors to undercut the black market's prices. Even the least regulated economies on the planet couldn't tolerate the sale of tainted drugs or the exploitation of labour in production. They'd put regulations in place, fee-based licences, trade control inspections and so forth. In other words, there'll always be cost-saving opportunities open to those willing to break the law.

Last but not least, even if all of the above were not true, there'd still be plenty of business segments for them to exploit: the trade in illegal arms, in counterfeit medicine, counterfeit goods in general, human trafficking, organized immigration crime, illegal gambling, organized moonlighting, protection rackets…

History has proven time and again organized crime doesn't make itself dependant on one source of income. Shut down one source, and they'll find another. I'm absolutely certain the legalization of drugs would neither put an end to burglaries in the United Kingdom, nor to the violence in places like Mexico.

I also think that drug taking would reduce massively if they made it legal

For all I know, this statement contradicts the observations made in countries that have legalized marijuana. Legalize a good, and more people who would otherwise have hesitated will try it out. The lowering of entry barriers has a way of enticing people – not one of doing the opposite.
 
Those types also have alcohol. Arguable more domestic violence is attributed to that according to police own statistics yet they never say ban it.
Other side effects, depression, insomnia and death or injury under the influence.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top