Republican Primary Debates

Originally posted by psmith81992
Dadudemon, you've genuniely had logical arguments here almost all of the time but you lost me when you tried to equate my unwillingness to rehab first degree/capital murders with a barbarian burning witches. Seriously one of the dumbest things I've heard on here.

What's really funny is that many of the people who're claiming it's "barbaric" to kill cold-blooded murderers think that it's perfectly acceptable to kill unborn babies. LOL. I guess evil murderers>innocent unborn babies in their eyes. LOL.

Star, I've warned you over your bad language before. I am putting it on your record if you do it again and after that, it is a ban. Changing a couple of letters to form the same sound still counts as bad language.

A life for a life isn't Justice, its revenge, fortunately the civilised world has moved on from this idea.

Originally posted by Knife
A life for a life isn't Justice, its revenge, fortunately the civilised world has moved on from this idea.

A life for a life isn't revenge, it's justice, and fortunately the civilized world still uses capital punishment while the uncivilized world lives in a deluded "taking a life is always wrong" mindset.

Maybe as a clarification, psmith, do you mean that everyone convicted of first-degree murder should receive the death penalty, or that only some of them, in particularly severe cases should?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe as a clarification, psmith, do you mean that everyone convicted of first-degree murder should receive the death penalty, or that only some of them, in particularly severe cases should?

First Degree Murder: Definition. In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

As defined in the US. The problem with your question is that any case of first degree murder is considered "severe", hence the punishment. And I'm guessing your question is assuming all of the evidence has shown that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The discussion really seems to be more about rehabilitation, though. I am not interested in rehabilitating any murderers. That's just my opinion and many will not agree with that. I don't understand dadudemon's argument about rehabilitation either so I'm asking for clarification and to cease dumb emotional outbursts that make no sense.

If this is considered too "right wing", know that I'm also against the 3 strikes rule a lot of states have regarding non violent crimes.

That really doesn't answer my question though.

Do you think the death penalty should be applied in every case that someone is convicted of first degree murder?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That really doesn't answer my question though.

Do you think the death penalty should be applied in every case that someone is convicted of first degree murder?

Eh you're forcing me to give you a black and white answer with that question. But fine, for first degree murder as was defined, I do. I take it you don't? Why?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Eh you're forcing me to give you a black and white answer with that question. But fine, for first degree murder as was defined, I do. I take it you don't? Why?

Well, I think that's where the confusion comes in, because you say you agree with the death penalty as it is in the US, but in the US not everyone convicted of first degree murder receives the death penalty. It seems like your stance is more pro death penalty than the status quo in the US (and in all US states). Which is fine to have, again, I just think that's where some confusion came from (the other part of the confusion came from dadudemon saying he disagreed with supporting death penalty, but then writing about how he agreed in some cases).

I am altogether against the death penalty. Fundamentally I don't think the government should have the right to kill its citizens. Further I do believe in rehabilitation in most cases. And I think that having a just legal process for the death penalty is actually more expensive than life without parole.

Well, I think that's where the confusion comes in, because you say you agree with the death penalty as it is in the US, but in the US not everyone convicted of first degree murder receives the death penalty. It seems like your stance is more pro death penalty than the status quo in the US (and in all US states). Which is fine to have, again, I just think that's where some confusion came from (the other part of the confusion came from dadudemon saying he disagreed with the death penalty, but then writing about how he agreed).

I am altogether against the death penalty. Fundamentally I don't think the government should have the right to kill its citizens. Further I do believe in rehabilitation in most cases. And I think that having a just legal process for the death penalty is actually more expensive than life without parole.

Originally posted by psmith81992
As defined in the US. The problem with your question is that any case of first degree murder is considered "severe", hence the punishment. And I'm guessing your question is assuming all of the evidence has shown that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The discussion really seems to be more about rehabilitation, though. I am not interested in rehabilitating any murderers. That's just my opinion and many will not agree with that. I don't understand dadudemon's argument about rehabilitation either so I'm asking for clarification and to cease dumb emotional outbursts that make no sense.

If this is considered too "right wing", know that I'm also against the 3 strikes rule a lot of states have regarding non violent crimes.

So what if it's considered "too right wing"? That's much better than being "too left wing", that's for certain. The overwhelming majority of the time the right wing IS right as far as morals (and pretty much everything else) are concerned. 👆

Too right wing might be if I supported the last statement I made regarding the 3 strikes rule and nonviolent crimes.

Why are you against 3 strikes law? Just curious.

Edit:Nevermind. I see that you specified non-violent crimes.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Well, to clarify the majority of the US states support the death penalty (31 states vs. 19) and in terms of polling, you'd get more people supporting it than opposing it. But yes, I support the death penalty for first degree murder. I used to support it for treason but I've since modified that to life in prison at some black site.

See that's one of the few rights I would give the government. I call that justice as opposed to me doing the killing which would just be revenge. And I agree with you about the financial repercussions of the death penalty phase but it's because it needs an overhaul. Putting someone on death row for 20+ years is idiotic.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm sorry but I can see valid points except for putting in an express lane for the death penalty. The appeals process is our checks and balances against wrongfully executing someone. To try and get that cut down or out would be a massive step backwards.

The appeals process is way too long, mired by unnecessary red tape. They're not spending 10-30 years trying to make sure the person is guilty. Let me ask you another question. Would you support the death penalty in the case of unequivocal guilt?

Originally posted by psmith81992
The appeals process is way too long, mired by unnecessary red tape. They're not spending 10-30 years trying to make sure the person is guilty. Let me ask you another question. Would you support the death penalty in the case of unequivocal guilt?

As for unequivocal guilt. That does not exist yet. There have been too many cases where an innocent person was executed already. Or some innocent person has been set free due to new evidence yes even 10 to 30 years after a case.

Let me ask you an equally loaded question. Do you want other human beings to die?

Honestly I don't support the death penalty. Life in prison is often times a worse punishment. Life in prison is cheaper for the state. Plus you may still get some use out of the prisoner. Plus how we treat our convicts I feel is one measuring stick on how we've progressed as a civilization.

As for unequivocal guilt. That does not exist yet. There have been too many cases where an innocent person was executed already. Or some innocent person has been set free due to new evidence yes even 10 to 30 years after a case.

Let me ask you an equally loaded question. Do you want other human beings to die?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Otherwise, I would argue that there's been more wrongful deaths for innocent victims going to prison and getting shanked.

I think that's actually a very valid argument. The state of the prison system is abysmal and things like shankings could be minimized through policy changes and investment.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I want other humans beings who deserve death, to die.

👆

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that's actually a very valid argument. The state of the prison system is abysmal and things like shankings could be minimized through policy changes and investment.

But then I ask you, if policy changes can be made to the prison system, can't we do the same to the death row process?