|
|
Post by HVP on Apr 4, 2008 21:07:01 GMT -6
Well I've got the same deal as basically everyone else here. I'm new to the boards, i'm 16, i'm from California and I have a debate/speech/essay thing coming and i was just wondering... What are the typical Anti-Death Penalty arguments? (It doesn't matter how grand/trivial they are because I go to a Catholic School so i'm prepared for anything...) I'm not really pro death due to religion but from a legal/constitutional stand point only i'm for it. I would just like to know what arguments u guys encounter. (  Greatly apreciated. U guys are Godly ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2008 23:41:34 GMT -6
There are no anti arguements that are logical, they are all based upon either emotion, or misinformation.
-Cruel
-Innocent might be executed
-costs to much
-punishes the inmates family
- they are icky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2008 5:22:46 GMT -6
firstly, innocent or guilty, the death penalty is wrong. My reasons for being an anti are:
1.It goes against the moral code of society ~ killing a person to say that killing is wrong. I believe the consequences of this are huge.
2. It is used as a smokescreen to hide the real issues and problems in society, in particular the justice system.
3. It does not address the real issues in society that contribute to the making of a murderer.
4. Morally, the right to life should be upheld, regardless of who the person is and what they have done, life is sacred.
|
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Apr 8, 2008 15:17:49 GMT -6
Neither side can boast having logic on their side. Both sides can be equally logical or illogical in their approach. That said, I am anti for a few reasons, but mainly because I don't feel that any human being has the right to decide whether another human being lives or dies; with self-defense (immediately protecting yourself from someone who is trying to make that decision) being the exception. I believe that once people give themselves that right, the result is a slippery slope.
I believe that we should protect ourselves but with the least harm possible done to others. Prison, under maximum security conditions, is largely effective in protecting society from murderers; the evidence for this is in the lack of escapes from those who are on death row waiting (some for many, many years); even those who have no appeals left.
Also, yes, I do believe in the possibility of executing an innocent, especially when the DP is by nature an emotional issue and the desire for revenge in the form of one life in exchange for another has the distinct potential to cloud a person's ability to objectively see the facts. Only God (or whatever form s/he/it takes) knows if there are innocents on DR or innocents who have been executed, but there are and have been innocents on DR who are there without adequate proof of their guilt, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Apr 9, 2008 3:01:25 GMT -6
Neither side can boast having logic on their side. Both sides can be equally logical or illogical in their approach. That said, I am anti for a few reasons, but mainly because I don't feel that any human being has the right to decide whether another human being lives or dies; with self-defense (immediately protecting yourself from someone who is trying to make that decision) being the exception. I believe that once people give themselves that right, the result is a slippery slope. I believe that we should protect ourselves but with the least harm possible done to others. Prison, under maximum security conditions, is largely effective in protecting society from murderers; the evidence for this is in the lack of escapes from those who are on death row waiting (some for many, many years); even those who have no appeals left. Also, yes, I do believe in the possibility of executing an innocent, especially when the DP is by nature an emotional issue and the desire for revenge in the form of one life in exchange for another has the distinct potential to cloud a person's ability to objectively see the facts. Only God (or whatever form s/he/it takes) knows if there are innocents on DR or innocents who have been executed, but there are and have been innocents on DR who are there without adequate proof of their guilt, IMO. That failrl;y succinctly sums up the bulk of my rationale for being an anti also. Well said! |
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Apr 9, 2008 8:19:59 GMT -6
Err, my last sentence came out weird. It should read *people* on DR, not *innocents* on DR. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Apr 9, 2008 8:26:06 GMT -6
Err, my last sentence came out weird. It should read *people* on DR, not *innocents* on DR. Sorry. your second last sentence was worse, it showed you take no pity on the pitiful! ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2008 8:56:58 GMT -6
Neither side can boast having logic on their side. Both sides can be equally logical or illogical in their approach. That said, I am anti for a few reasons, but mainly because I don't feel that any human being has the right to decide whether another human being lives or dies; with self-defense (immediately protecting yourself from someone who is trying to make that decision) being the exception. I believe that once people give themselves that right, the result is a slippery slope. I believe that we should protect ourselves but with the least harm possible done to others. Prison, under maximum security conditions, is largely effective in protecting society from murderers; the evidence for this is in the lack of escapes from those who are on death row waiting (some for many, many years); even those who have no appeals left. Also, yes, I do believe in the possibility of executing an innocent, especially when the DP is by nature an emotional issue and the desire for revenge in the form of one life in exchange for another has the distinct potential to cloud a person's ability to objectively see the facts. Only God (or whatever form s/he/it takes) knows if there are innocents on DR or innocents who have been executed, but there are and have been innocents on DR who are there without adequate proof of their guilt, IMO. Sounds logical to me kat  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2008 8:26:03 GMT -6
And what consequences are they. What we are all going to feel bad about ending the life of the murderer. You are wrong in equating the random act of a murderer with the execution of the murderer who has ample time to plea his or her case before a jury, appeals court and governer. You need to remember that the murderer acts as the judge jury and executioner for his or her victim
Now repeat after me...
Murderers are entirely responsible for their own actions.
Murderers are entirely responsible for their own actions.
Murderers are entirely responsible for their own actions.
Murderers are entirely responsible for their own actions.
Murderers are entirely responsible for their own actions.
It is not society, John Howards, kevin Rudds or their parents responsbility for their actions. When they are at the point of knowing murder is wrong and doing it anyway then they are soley responsible for their actions. Most people who live through poverty and child abuse grow up to be law abiding citizens.
Also note, grab a copy of the book Underbelly, in their you will see the story of the Melbourne Gangland war and note how many of the players had good opportunities to get away from crime but chose to be gangsters. Some of these people are responsible for many murders, that should place them high up in the list of Australia's most prolific murderers.
We should be in the business of frightening people out of committine murder. Yes, if you do this then the consicous experience you will have is dropping through the gallows when you are being hanged.
The greatest contributor to people becoming murderers are people making the decision to kill another in spite of having a full understanding of the consequences
Quite oddly I would pick you as a person who would believe in abortion on demand. Not a consistent view
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2008 0:31:42 GMT -6
There's also the whole racial disparity thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Apr 14, 2008 4:16:55 GMT -6
You are either outraged by the notion of killing healthy people or you are not. Simple as.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Apr 14, 2008 5:08:40 GMT -6
Doc, there are no anti arguments that are logical?  ? im surprised in you. What about it being gross, out dated and quite frankly sick, its state supported murder, period. Also what about the religeous conitations to this argument. If you take the bible literally, an eye for an eye blah blah blah or all are equal in gods eyes and love thy neighbour blah blah blah. What about the rammifications for the innocent that are executed??? I think its better to look at the causes of crime and deal with them rather then have the same old same old about the pros and the cons of the death penalty. What ever the argument, it is personal and to be blase about someones opinion is undemocratic and rude my friend. I disagree with it for religeous and other personal reasons, not because i just dont like it. It has caused me many sleepless nights, why? i have no idea because it doesnt effect us here in Blighty (the UK) but all the same the DP like abortion has strong emotions for both sides. I for one would not say that all pro arguments are illiogical just because i dont happen to agree. Peadaphilia (forgive the spelling) and pre-meditated murder i have personally debabted and lost sleep over for decades but still i cant condemn another to death because they killed someone. I just cant, regardless of the crime. To you it may be strange and im not a tree hugger or anything like that. I was Army for 15 years and saw death first hand but thats a different matter. The Dp in my opionion is sick and outdated for a civilised society to implement. That is just mine and countless others opinion, if you have a different opionion that that is your right but i certainly wouldnt call it illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 14, 2008 7:37:48 GMT -6
there are no anti arguments that are logical? ? What about it being gross That isn't logic. The death penalty can never be outdated. It's always worked as intended. Emotional, not logical. Also what about the religeous conitations to this argument. There are none. The death penalty predates religion. |
|
|
|
Post by publicexecutioner on Apr 14, 2008 13:40:16 GMT -6
Actually there are no arguments pro or anti that are logical.
It's just down to your moral sense which by definition is illogical.
I support the death penalty but you can't argue rationally for or against it.
It's just down to your conscience.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 14, 2008 14:06:15 GMT -6
Actually there are no arguments pro or anti that are logical. It's just down to your moral sense which by definition is illogical. I support the death penalty but you can't argue rationally for or against it. It's just down to your conscience. Logic only implies that a conclusion to an argument is forced by the premises. A good, logical argument, moral or otherwise, contains a few, irrefutable premises from which the conclusion is also irrefutable. Anyone guided by reason and logic naturally prefers the death penalty as a means of punishment for murder. |
|
|
|
Post by publicexecutioner on Apr 14, 2008 14:39:59 GMT -6
Actually there are no arguments pro or anti that are logical. It's just down to your moral sense which by definition is illogical. I support the death penalty but you can't argue rationally for or against it. It's just down to your conscience. Logic only implies that a conclusion to an argument is forced by the premises. A good, logical argument, moral or otherwise, contains a few, irrefutable premises from which the conclusion is also irrefutable. Anyone guided by reason and logic naturally prefers the death penalty as a means of punishment for murder. Actually our views on the subject - pro or anti - are based on moral arguments and are therefore inherently irrational. It is impossible to argue either in favour or against by using reason or logic. You and I might support execution and the antis might oppose it but both sides have to rely on irrational arguments since there are no other ones available. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 14, 2008 14:56:45 GMT -6
Actually our views on the subject - pro or anti - are based on moral arguments and are therefore inherently irrational. First you say illogical, and then you go beyond illogical to say irrational. That's an important difference. Your argument can be extended philosophically to say there's no such thing as reason. If all cognition is subjective, and all that is subjective is irrational, humans are incapable of reason. I offer the following logical argument in support of capital punishment. Premise One. In defense of itself, an organism will expunge a pathogen Premise Two. A murderer is a pathogen Premise Three: Human beings are organisms Conclusion: A murderer may be expunged in defense of human beings Nothing irrational about that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by publicexecutioner on Apr 14, 2008 15:21:05 GMT -6
Actually our views on the subject - pro or anti - are based on moral arguments and are therefore inherently irrational. First you say illogical, and then you go beyond illogical to say irrational. That's an important difference. Your argument can be extended philosophically to say there's no such thing as reason. If all cognition is subjective, and all that is subjective is irrational, humans are incapable of reason. I offer the following logical argument in support of capital punishment. Premise One. In defense of itself, an organism will expunge a pathogen Premise Two. A murderer is a pathogen Premise Three: Human beings are organisms Conclusion: A murderer may be expunged in defense of human beings Nothing irrational about that at all. Well, it begs the question and is also at least partly based on empirical rather than logical arguments. As the empirical side of your analysis can be disproved (on the analogy of William James' 'one white crow) it has no validity either. In the case of a cancer, for instance, the pathogen wins. In the case of suicide, the self-defence motive is clearly not operating. Premise Two is simply an emotive assumption without either empirical justification or logical validity and is therefore false by definition. Premise Three proves nothing. So too are microbes and other organisms that carry disease. Conclusion - your argument is both logically invalid and empirically false. Cheer up, Joseph. The anti arguments don't stack up either. All we have left is our moral sense - and all the best moral arguments are in FAVOUR of the death penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 14, 2008 15:54:15 GMT -6
Premise Two is simply an emotive assumption without either empirical justification or logical validity and is therefore false by definition. Certainly if a murderer isn't a pathogen, pathogens do not exist. The murderer is a perfect example of something that causes death. As such a murderer is a pathogen. I do understand your point, but a strictly rational, logical argument can be made for the death penalty, if one's only premise is increasing the survival of an organism. |
|
|
|
Post by publicexecutioner on Apr 14, 2008 16:01:05 GMT -6
Premise Two is simply an emotive assumption without either empirical justification or logical validity and is therefore false by definition. Certainly if a murderer isn't a pathogen, pathogens do not exist. The murderer is a perfect example of something that causes death. As such a murderer is a pathogen. I do understand your point, but a strictly rational, logical argument can be made for the death penalty, if one's only premise is increasing the survival of an organism. .[/quote] Certainly if a murderer isn't a pathogen, pathogens do not exist. The murderer is a perfect example of something that causes death. As such a murderer is a pathogen. .[/quote] On that analogy an executioner or a soldier would be a murderer. .[/quote] do understand your point, but a strictly rational, logical argument can be made for the death penalty, if one's only premise is increasing the survival of an organism.[/quote] As I said earlier, Joseph, your argument begs the question. Let's add that in most lifeforms it's the survival of the species that is more important than the survival of the individual. It's also clear that cancer cells, suicide and similar factual anomalies show that there is no validity to your claim that the death penalty can be demonstrated to be rational. The same goes for the equally specious arguments against it. Ultimately it's a moral choice - and on that basis I'm a pro. I just admit that it has to be an ethical reason rather than a logical or empirical one because none of the logical or empirical arguments on either side WORK! |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 14, 2008 16:43:57 GMT -6
On that analogy an executioner or a soldier would be a murderer. They're not murderers because what they do is lawful. Let's add that in most lifeforms it's the survival of the species that is more important than the survival of the individual. It's also clear that cancer cells, suicide and similar factual anomalies show that there is no validity to your claim that the death penalty can be demonstrated to be rational. Sorry, you're not making sense here. That we try to extinguish cancer cells only proves my point, and suicides are part of the human condition. They're not an anomaly. Even as such, they do not threaten the survival of the species the way murderers do. Ultimately it's a moral choice - and on that basis I'm a pro. Unfortunately that's the problem. American culture is profoundly amoral. I just admit that it has to be an ethical reason rather than a logical or empirical one because none of the logical or empirical arguments on either side WORK! I believe it's up to the pros to make them work, since the antis have the momentum. Welcome to the board, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Apr 15, 2008 5:57:49 GMT -6
Guys, a great debate by both but the point remains and Jo, i agree with some of your comments not all (democracy) dont you just love it. So your support for the DP is based on your emotional side (not feminine) by any chance, come on son, let it out. Come out and be free. You comment that it works, the DP that is. BIG FAT WRONG. It certainly isnt a deterent given the states murder rate last year so thats a false argument for a start and i think an illogical one given the facts. I agree that we as a species have been killing each other since before recorded time but i can bet you your bottom dollar most of the killing was based on trible disputes and arguments about woman and my god is bigger and better then your god. But the DP being around since before religion is again wrong. Capital punishment if you want to call it that was punished back then because of the religious laws that various civilisations preyed too be it the god of love, the sun god, the wind god the god of flowers and who ever else these peoples decided should be a god at that time. Personally i think it was called sacrifice. Execution is wrong in a civilised society, you can disagree with that as i do with the pros same old same old outdated argument that it works as a deterent. Like i said. if we spent more time working on the causes of crime and societies ills then there would be no need for the DP in the first place. Are you a creationist by any chance. im asking because of your comment about the before religion remark? |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 15, 2008 7:36:00 GMT -6
You comment that it works, the DP that is. BIG FAT WRONG. So far not a single executed person has disputed the efficacy of capital punishment. The facts declare quite emphatically that the death penalty does work. It certainly isnt a deterent given the states murder rate The deterrence argument is satisfied if it takes a million executions to save a single innocent life. Even if that weren't the case, the existence of people who cannot be prevented from murdering argues for the expungment of such people. The death penalty is the perfect instrument for such expungment. I agree that we as a species have been killing each other since before recorded time but i can bet you your bottom dollar most of the killing was based on trible disputes and arguments about woman and my god is bigger and better then your god. Irrelevant. But the DP being around since before religion is again wrong. Nope. It's correct. Any social group will protect itself from an internal threat to its existence. Humans have been dispatching their murderers long before recorded history, let alone religion. Execution is wrong in a civilised society I am not concerned with the civility of those who don't murder, but with the savagery of those who do. if we spent more time working on the causes of crime There are no causes of crime. There are only criminals who know the law, and refuse to abide by it. Murder is not a social problem. It is a moral problem. Society's "ills" don't cause crime. Society's "ills" are caused by crime. A creationist? Me? You know, even for a Brit you're pretty obtuse. |
|
Greatly apreciated. U guys are Godly 
