Should the death penalty be legal?

CYDdharta

If current methods of execution "constitute cruel and unusual punishment", do you believe we should go back to methods such as death by hanging, guillotine, or firing squad; the methods that were permissible when the Eighth Amendment was ratified? 

YeshuaBought

@CYDdharta God desitrs mercy, not sacrifice. Jesus suffered the death penalty, so He might have something to say about it. I understand that justice is a right for victims alive and dead, but did you consider my words? 

CYDdharta

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@CYDdharta God desitrs mercy, not sacrifice. Jesus suffered the death penalty, so He might have something to say about it. I understand that justice is a right for victims alive and dead, but did you consider my words? 

No, I dismissed most of your words out-of-hand.  I'm not Christian.

YeshuaBought

@CYDdharta So you are trolling? So killing to show that killing is wrong makes sense to you?

CYDdharta

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@CYDdharta So you are trolling? So killing to show that killing is wrong makes sense to you?

Were you trolling when you posted this thread?  Killing killers has always made sense to me, just as it did the godly men who founded this great nation.

YeshuaBought

@CYDdharta Blocked for trolling. This is a debate site, not a troll forum.

CYDdharta

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@CYDdharta Blocked for trolling. This is a debate site, not a troll forum.

Fine, then let's debate.  Go back to my first question, if current methods of execution "constitute cruel and unusual punishment", do you believe we should go back to methods such as death by hanging, guillotine, or firing squad; the methods that were permissible when the Eighth Amendment was ratified? 

Zombieguy1987

CYDdharta said:

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@CYDdharta Blocked for trolling. This is a debate site, not a troll forum.

Fine, then let's debate.  Go back to my first question, if current methods of execution "constitute cruel and unusual punishment", do you believe we should go back to methods such as death by hanging, guillotine, or firing squad; the methods that were permissible when the Eighth Amendment was ratified? 

She's not going to take your argument seriously...

She never does.

Andrej

In certain aspects, I see fairly reasonable points for both sides. If I am paraphrasing correctly (correct me if I have read wrong) is that those believing it is illegal think that such is immoral to fight evil with evil, whereas those supporting such being legal claim that such is more effective than simply jailing and that it is only fair for killers.

Cost-wise, it may be better for the death penalty to be legal as keeping someone jailed for life (as an example) is only bringing costs up to house a person that generally has done inhumane acts to society. It is a fair point that the Christian bible does not support murder or killing, but it is peculiar that there are certain exceptions to that throughout history.

I am open to someone convincing me otherwise on this, but apparently the crusades did not bother to follow the guidelines of their own religion? Proportionate to today's population, acts of murder and killing within the many crusades numbered to about 6 million. This is equivalent to the total deaths of Jews in Nazi genocides (The Better Angels of Our Nature, p.140). Can proponents for the death penalty being illegal explain how the mass murder of those of another religion be just, whereas death for heinous criminals is somehow unholy?

This is not to suggest they were the medieval equivalent of Nazis as I have read, but it is peculiar how such was justified in any manner when the death penalty is called to be absolutely immoral in every circumstance. I do hope for an unbiased explanation for this, if I happen to be mistaken.

Thank you.

YeshuaBought

@Zombieguy1987 I don't take people seriously who threaten to shoot me over political differences. He or she threatened to shoot me in another post.

Andrej

@Zombieguy1987

Yeshua bears a fair point. Threats are something to be frowned upon in debate, and simply should not occur. Period.

Violence is not something normal in a place for discussion on issues. Not really in most democracies, anyhow.

YeshuaBought

@Andrej Thank you sir or maam. I respect you for that.

Andrej

@YeshuaLovesYou

I take it quite humbly, but appreciate the warm words. Civility should only be inherent in a legitimate debate, and one who does not display is simply writing out of emotion, if anything.

YeshuaBought

@Andrej I agree, and people should be honest too.

CYDdharta

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@Zombieguy1987 I don't take people seriously who threaten to shoot me over political differences. He or she threatened to shoot me in another post.

You should correct this post.  God doesn't like liars. 

Andrej

@CYDdharta

Oh, did he hurt your feelings? I see no cause for a lad to lie, yet if ye can prove it that bring it forth. Your god surely wouldn't approve of sudden accusations, no? 

Your figure should not be an excuse to post claims without legitimate evidence but your word.

CYDdharta

Andrej said:

@CYDdharta

Oh, did he hurt your feelings? I see no cause for a lad to lie, yet if ye can prove it that bring it forth. Your god surely wouldn't approve of sudden accusations, no? 

Your figure should not be an excuse to post claims without legitimate evidence but your word.

No, I just don't like liars.  Since (s)he's lying about being threatened, I thought I'd point that out.  And you're right, (s)he had no reason to lie, but (s)he did nonetheless. 

Do you want to be fair?  How about asking him/her to prove this "threat" first.  After all, his/her statements should not be an excuse to post claims without legitimate evidence but his/her word.

Andrej

@CYDdharta

Aye, and presumably (s)he has it if they are not lying. There is no dispute to that. Yet there is no less assumption of responsibility for either side really. Lie or not, there should not be such a climate in the first place where these accusations are being made.

Andrej

Legally, he would have the benefit of doubt unless proven guilty, but this is presumably no court.

CYDdharta

Andrej said:

Legally, he would have the benefit of doubt unless proven guilty, but this is presumably no court.

Legally, I would have the same benefit of the doubt.  What's your point?

Andrej

@CYDdharta

Aye, then we are at a standstill. Then neither is obligated to say but a word, so it seems. 

What is your point, if I may counter?

CYDdharta

If i were to say @Andrej does unspeakable things to bottles of Hunts® ketchup, you believe I deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@Zombieguy1987 I don't take people seriously who threaten to shoot me over political differences. He or she threatened to shoot me in another post.

@CYDdharta wasn't threatening you...

You're overracting...

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaLovesYou said:

I say no. I believe even the worst of the worst have the right to live. God desires mercy, not sacrifice, according to Hosea 6:6. Jesus often said blessed are the merciful. I feel qualified to speak on this because I was almost murdered. If my attacker had succeeded, would his death bring me back? The answer is no. Jesus also said to return not evil for evil. Killing people is evil. Killing someone to prove that killing is wrong? Yeah, run with that. Also, current execution methods constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which is forbidden by the Constitution. I want to know what you think.

You cannot use religous text as a reason to say the death penalty is bad...

Because, the bible was made 2,000 years ago...

a.k.a a long time ago

Alec

Why I support the DP (for murder and high treason):

https://www.debateart.com/debates/460

AlexOland

Depends on what you value. 

YeshuaBought

@Alec you don't have the right to kill. Killing is wrong, and since you have ignored the text of my debate, I will ignore yours. If you kill a murderer, you ARE a murder and a hypocrite too.

YeshuaBought

@Zombieguy1987 You don't have the right to my free speech.

YeshuaBought

@Zombieguy1987 Yes he was on another thread, you . He threatened to shoot me. KMA.

CYDdharta

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@Zombieguy1987 Yes he was on another thread, you . He threatened to shoot me. KMA.

LOL, the tries to call someone a .  This is rich.

YeshuaBought

@CYDdharta Hello. You threatened to shoot me on a gun control debate. You then lied and said I threatened you, when that is NOT the case. I hate violence, and would never threaten you and yours. Violence is against my Christian faith. My God who is called Yeshua or Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, and to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I take that as seriously as i take my own LIFE, and also: According to Romans 13:8, Love does no harm to my neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law. I love you, but I don't trust you, and since I am here to debate, not have drama, you have been blocked. Don't bother, because I can't see you. I am not trying to get banned over some right wing gun nut.

CYDdharta

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@CYDdharta Hello. You threatened to shoot me on a gun control debate. You then lied and said I threatened you, when that is NOT the case. I hate violence, and would never threaten you and yours. Violence is against my Christian faith. My God who is called Yeshua or Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, and to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I take that as seriously as i take my own LIFE, and also: According to Romans 13:8, Love does no harm to my neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law. I love you, but I don't trust you, and since I am here to debate, not have drama, you have been blocked. Don't bother, because I can't see you. I am not trying to get banned over some right wing gun nut.

Hi.  You threatened to break into my house and do untold things to me and/or my wife.  (See how this works?)  If you really cared about being a good Christian, you'd stop lying about this and about me.

YeshuaBought

@CYDdharta I can't see you, because I blocked you. The First Amendment free speech clause does not apply to death threats or libel. I never threatened you and yours, nor do I have the desire to. I am simply saying my factual right to live outweighs your ALLEGED right to shoot me. I have done nothing wrong, and if it was not you, it was somone with an identical profile. If you threaten to shoot me again, I am reporting you to the authorities. Have a nice day!

CYDdharta

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@CYDdharta I can't see you, because I blocked you. The First Amendment free speech clause does not apply to death threats or libel. I never threatened you and yours, nor do I have the desire to. I am simply saying my factual right to live outweighs your ALLEGED right to shoot me. I have done nothing wrong, and if it was not you, it was somone with an identical profile. If you threaten to shoot me again, I am reporting you to the authorities. Have a nice day!

Fine by me, everybody else can see my reply.  As I stated previously, your right to live has certain limitations, and that if you tried to break into my house, you'd be exceeding that right.  If you took that as a personal threat, it can only mean you were planning to break into my home.  That being the case, it wasn't just a threat, as you'll find out after you break in.

YeshuaBought

I have the right to live. You DON"T have the right to shoot me.

CYDdharta

YeshuaLovesYou said:

I have the right to live. You DON"T have the right to shoot me.

I do if you break into my home.

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaLovesYou said:

I have the right to live. You DON"T have the right to shoot me.

You have no gone off topic about this... 

again...

wow...

I'm shocked

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@CYDdharta I can't see you, because I blocked you. The First Amendment free speech clause does not apply to death threats or libel. I never threatened you and yours, nor do I have the desire to. I am simply saying my factual right to live outweighs your ALLEGED right to shoot me. I have done nothing wrong, and if it was not you, it was somone with an identical profile. If you threaten to shoot me again, I am reporting you to the authorities. Have a nice day!

@CYDdharta never threaten you...

Your right to live doesn't outweigh if you are a threat to someone...

I don't see how you don't understand that...

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaLovesYou said:

@Zombieguy1987 Yes he was on another thread, you . He threatened to shoot me. KMA.

Care to give me a link to the comment?

YeshuaBought

You have both been reported for cyber abuse and for death threats. I have also told the police where to look if anything happens to me. You DON"T have the right to make threats or take a life. C U Next Tuesday.

Zombieguy1987

YeshuaLovesYou said:

You have both been reported for cyber abuse and for death threats. I have also told the police where to look if anything happens to me. You DON"T have the right to make threats or take a life. C U Next Tuesday.

Alec

@YeshuaBought "Alec you don't have the right to kill. Killing is wrong" There are different types of killing. There is manslaughter, there is homicide, there is murder, there is execution. Not all killing is equal. Otherwise, all meat eaters would be murderers. "since you have ignored the text of my debate, I will ignore yours." I mentioned your basic argument in the link. What if I told you that the death penalty for murder actually reduces the homicide rate? "If you kill a murderer, you ARE a murder and a hypocrite too." If I murder an innocent person, then I am a murderer. If I execute a murderer, then I am an executioner. Also, if you want to accuse CYDdharta of making a death threat, this is a serious matter and you need proof for your claim to be legitimate.

BarackJamesCastro24

I think the death penalty shouldn't be legal. The government says that killing is wrong and the punishment for killers/murderer is the death penalty,so basically the government/the people in charge can't teach the population that killing is wrong by killing....that's contradictory.

BarackJamesCastro24

I think the death penalty shouldn't be legal. The government says that killing is wrong and the punishment for killers/murderer is the death penalty,so basically the government/the people in charge can't teach the population that killing is wrong by killing....that's contradictory.