The Glade 4.0

This is to start discussions on what you, each of you consider the real issues in politics today. Start off civilly, present your issues or issues, open your own threads if you like.

Argue why your position is correct, stay away from emotional rhetoric, keep to the Constitution, the facts, and the reasons why you are right. Don't pre-argue points from the opposition that haven't been brought up or aren't part of your main thesis.

Starting here - Death Penalty

Are you for it or against it. Why and what citations can you make to justify your stance.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I am against it. In my opinion, in a civilized society people don't kill each other.

Well, this thread is already in the toilet. Aside from the fact that saying "keep to the Constitution" means an inevitable impasse around here, we're right off the bat with a one-line post stating a vague and completely unrealistic position.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not unrealistic to ban the death penalty on the premise that people shouldn't unecessarily kill eachother.

The problem with that is that the entire question is whether it's necessary. Your premise assumes it is not, and thus begs the question.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

137 countries have abolished the death penalty, and they are getting along just fine. It's clearly unnecessary.

Appeal to popularity.

Furthermore, no one is claiming the nation will fall apart without it. You're changing "necessary" into "necessary for basic societal survival".

I would say "necessary" is "necessary in order to have the most fair justice system possible". Since after a certain length of prison sentence it is impossible to meaningfully add more prison time, it is not possible to fairly punish people for crime beyond a certain severity without executing them, unless conditions are simply made more and more inhumane. It is even arguably the case that prolonged imprisonment, especially with no possibility of release, is less humane than an execution.

Are you going to put any actual effort into posting, or just continue to make silly one-line arguments that indicate no thought whatsoever on your part?

Oh wait.. I know already.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

For. So much useless wastes of oxygen in the prisons. Capital crime such as murder/rape/etc, execution. Life in prison? ****, execution. We don't need to waste resources on someone that'll just get out and rape/kill/etc again.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I honestly really would like to know where people get the impression that, if the death penalty were abolished, those currently on death row would have a chance of being freed in the future. That will never happen. You need to come up with a better reason to use the death penalty than "they deserve it." It clearly doesn't deter crime now. Some people would argue that expanding use of the death penalty would cause it to deter crime, but that's a lot of people you want to kill in order to prove your untested theory.

For my part, I am going to go out on a limb and say that, unlike what so many here like to argue, the nebulous concept of "freedom" (let's say it means giving people back the same amount of freedom that white males had in this country 150 years ago) is not worth it if getting there requires World War II levels of death.

My view on this has changed over time. As much as I would emotionally love to see some of these monsters get the needle (although I think that is too kind) there have been too many issues with it for my taste. How many people on death row have been exonerated after DNA tests or new evidence. How many were put there by corrupt police or overzealous prosecutors? I know people will say that shows the system works, but did it really? What if there was no innocence project, how many of them would have died. There are very few cases where you can be 100% sure and since it is the ultimate penalty personally I think unless you can be 100% sure you should err on the side of restraint.

So let them rot in prison, although I think our prisons need to be more austere, no tv's, the prisoners should be working from morning to night, even if it is just making gravel.

_________________
I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil

Against.

Aside from not wanting to give the government the power to kill it's citizens... If we as a society believe that taking an innocent life merits the death penalty, and that results in the taking of an innocent life, then we all deserve death. I'd rather suffer the guilty locked away for ever than to deny an innocent person their life, such as it is, spent in prison. Officals can lie. On P&T episode they brought up a man who was in jail at the time police said he commited the murder... Corruption got him conviced. We're not going to be able to perfect the system. If I were a victim's family member, I'd probably be tempted to kill them myself. We can't let our emotions and desire for vengeance jeapordize the lives of other innocents.

The DP is not a deterrent. People kill for three reasons.
1) They don't think they will get caught. Why else would they do it?
2) Impulse. In a fit of rage. Acting without thinking. Not a deterrent.
3) Compulsion. Serial killers know what they do is wrong, but do it anyway. The DP doesn't enter their minds.
And even if it did deter murder, without a sure way to prevent innocent people being put on Death Row (not the record label) I can't agree. Although, very clear cases like the Fort Hood shooting make me want reconsider, I'd rather him rot than give the government the power.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Really? You think US prisons aren't harsh enough? I can tell you right now that if pretty much any US prison (not jail, prison) got transplanted to pretty much any EU country, the European Court on Human Rights would order every prisoner released and their sentences expunged simply on principle and harshly sanction the country. We live in a country where prison rape is joked about because in the back of their minds people believe that the prisoners deserve it. Think about that for a second. The conditions in US prisons are absolutely horrifying compared to the rest of the first world.

And if you think that's not enough, remember that after you get out of prison, the felony conviction on your record means you'll never make more than $11/hour for the rest of your life unless you start your own business, regardless of what skills or experience you may have.

I am for the death penalty.

Laws are a deterrant. Criminals roughly know the penalty for the crimes they commit. They also know how far they can roughly go within those crimes to avoid catching another charge. All that being said, there needs to be an actual penalty for the most henious crimes against society. Right now the death penalty = life in prison. There is no deterrant there. In addition, the law of unintended concequences kicks in. If the penalty for a crime is the same as that crime + removing witnesses- from a risk vs reward standpoint Id like my chances having my story be the only one heard.

My big reservation is that justice needs to be swift and it needs to be sure. Right now it isn't either. Id put the death penalty to a State referendum and allow the citizens decide if they wish that responsibility. If it passes, the States need to establish a set criteria for what qualifies, to include certain testing of evidence, as well as mandatory evidence to be collected. In an absense of that evidence, the death penalty would be off the table.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I am against the death penalty because I am pro-life in all things. Life sentences will prevent people from causing further societal harm without the, imho, gratuitiously punitive aspect.

_________________

Honestly? I don't really care. Whatever the locals like.

It should be very difficult, though. A higher standard of proof, only used for the worst crimes.

For.

However only in cases where there is overwhelming proof such as five witnesses, video, confession -and then only after dna evidence links.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If Mexico gets any more Somalia-esque, can we just banish people to it, and tell them they're now KoS with the Freeport guards?

Death by sand giant isn't something one would look forward to.

I simply don't like debating 99% of topics that much. Not my thing. Deal with it.

Why?

No, the conditions in the rest fo the first world are appalling compared to the U.S. There is no excuse whatsoever for the behavior of European countries in having such lenience, nor in their haughty attempt to claim a nonexistant mroal high ground in that regard.

The Eurpoean system is an example of "human rights" run amok. It is not a just society; criminals inflict harm on their victims and commesurate punishment is not inflicted.



This is true, but only on the surface. It is unknown whether inmates' lack of prospects after going to prison causes them to be reciddivst, or the reverse. In any case, it is a red herring when dealing with the internal severity of prisons. Certainly, people who have completed their sentences could have better chances than they do but that is not an excuse to make prison less harsh. About the only good argument in favor of prisoners having it as easy as they do is that keeping them busy keeps them out of trouble.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Against.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of "an eye for an eye," but results from trial are hardly reliable enough, and I firmly believe that getting the wrong verdict on one innocent person and executing them makes you just as bloodguilty as a murderer. But trial results are likely off by as much as 20-30%.

And Lex is right, even if it is an appeal to popularity. There's a reason that only the nations with the worst human rights records still execute prisoners. The USA is in good company with China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. If one favors capital punishment, you really have to question their commitment to a society of rights and freedoms.

This also falls in line with the fact that all governments abuse the power they are given. Any power you give them, some will find a way to misuse it. This includes giving any government the power to execute its own citizens.

Lastly, there is no evidence that capital punishment provides any more deterrent -- Countries that abandon it have not seen increases in murder rates, places that reinstate it have not seen corresponding decreases in rates. It doesn't work.

Now, that said, I'm all in favor of corporal punishment instead of jail time for many crimes. Caning, despite its unpopularity in the west as barbaric (what's more barbaric, beating someone's *** with a stick? Or killing them?) has strong evidence that it is HIGHLY effective as a deterrent, and avoids most of the costs associated with incarceration. Caning is used in countries like Singapore for many serious crimes even without incarceration, and recidivism rates are much lower than incarceration results in.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Aside from the fact that capital punishment is assigned by juries, not the government, it does not constitute "giving the government the power to execute its own citizens". This sentence vastly oversimplifies, making it appear that the government can execture pretty much whoever it pleases, when anything is the case.

As for being in company with China, Pakistan, and the like, the mere presence of capital punishment does no such thing. It puts us largely in our own category, which is far better than being in the category of self-inflicted delusion that the rest of the so-called "First World" pompously moralizes from.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Right, because habeus corpus and laws with regard to treatment of POWs has also prevented the USA from incarcerating suspect terrorist threats pretty much at will, because juries make that decision, not the government, right?

It isn't any different, and that's no slippery slope. Give the government any power at all, it will eventually be abused.


The leaders of China, Pakistan, and the like, defend their use of the death penalty the same way you do. Incidentally, they use similar arguments many violations of human rights that you don't agree with.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't see what this has to do with anything since no one ever claimed juries also apprehend criminals. I suppose you're also opposed to allowing the government to arrest its citizens now too?

In any case, I can only assume you refer to the Gitmo terrorists, which are irrelevant anyhow since they were not apprehended pursuant to the criminal justice system, but as a matter of national action against forieng threats.



It's completely different, and moreover, your claim that about the government abusing its power is silly. It relies entirely on defining anytihng one doesn't like as "abuse".



Do they? Where exactly do they even bother to defend it other than "We'll do as we please". I ahve not argued for their system of administering it.

Your second sentence is unintelligable.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."