CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The state of Connecticut has already decided they will no longer use the death penalty. Therefore, it would be cruel and unusual to use the death penalty on inmates who were sentenced before this ban was in place.
Nope, you couldn't. I don't think I've ever seen you make an argument that was more than a single snide question or remark. You basically just proved my point.
I love it. Once again, proving my point. If you compare our argument histories, you'll see that I usually contribute insight to a debate with more than just a singular, useless comment.
What? That makes absolutely no sense, what so ever, as a standard for "civilized". There are many "First World", "Western" countries that I would not choose to live in that I am sure you would say are civilized, and there are quite a few "Third World" or "Developing", "Non-Western" nations that I would choose to live in. That says absolutely nothing as to whether or not they are civilized.
First, the countries on the list fall into those categories.
Second, I would rather like living in India, personally.
Third, I have no defended once you complete and utter moron. I have pointed out that people like you hurt the campaign to rid ourselves of such a barbaric practice by using ridiculous, baseless, and illogical arguments that undermine the legitimate ones.
Yes, personal attacks. I feel more strongly about the Death Penalty than almost anyone on this website, as my debate history has proven. Then people like you come along with your arguments that hold no legal or constitutional weight and shitty attitude and undermine everything.
But of course if someone is pointing out that your arguments do not hold weight, they must be "resisting", right?
Currently living in America and I have no issue living here. Wouldn't mind living in Japan. China too if it had a better government. Wouldn't mind living in the Middle-east once the civil unrest/terrorism settles down.
The death penalty does not fit the legal standard of cruelty, and considering it has existed for the entirety of U.S. history, it is not in any way unusual. There is a reason that every attempt to rid ourselves of this barbaric practice through the federal courts has failed: because it is constitutional. That being said, it being constitutional obvious does not make it justifiable or moral. The reasons for outlawing the Death Penalty are extra-Constitutional (referring to the Constitution of the United States, not state constitutions), and the methods for outlawing it must be as well.
Edit: Oh, and the majority of humanity lives in countries where the Death Penalty is still permitted, so to call them "uncivilized" is incredibly arrogant.
Again, the majority of humanity lives in countries that have it legalized. India, Pakistan, Thailand, China, Bangladesh, and right there you have a majority of humanity.
To refer to the majority of humans as "uncivilized" is absurd, if not downright racist.
While I am an incredibly strong and vocal opponent of the Death Penalty, I find the legal arguments used by the court to be questionable at best.
The standard of "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" is not one that is generally effective when combating the Death Penalty, as one can perform it without a "cruel" method, and, statistically and historically speaking, it is far from unusual. While I agree with the court that "this state's death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.", said argument does not hold significant legal weight. It is a very good reason for the legislature and the voters to oppose and rid us of said practice, but it seems questionable to me for a court to be using this justification.
That being said, the State Supreme Court was wise to clarify that this was done on state grounds, not federal grounds, as all attempts to appeal to the federal Cruel and Unusual Punishment standard have failed.
It was my impression that lawmakers already banned the death penalty for new cases and the state Supreme Court was deciding that people currently on death row would be unconstitutionally executed. If that was the case, would you consider that unusual punishment?
Really? Let's say a month after the state declares that they will no longer perform the death penalty they go through with killing someone. My immediate reaction would be "That's weird"
Like I said, I would find the situation itself to certainly be weird, there's no doubt about that. But the method of punishment itself would hardly be. That said, there's hardly a legal standard as of now regarding how long a punishment has to go unused before it becomes "unusual" (within a legal context), at least to my knowledge.
Your unused punishment argument is slightly misplaced here. It isn't about the timeframe it is about the state already banning it. The state has already decided that they won't use the punishment. Any continued use of the punishment would be unusual.
even being tossed into a black hole will take a finite amount of time.
.
disposing of the inconveniently violent or "evil" will do nothing to mitigate whatever act they committed, and only serves to release them to the unknown.
.
better to keep them among the living so we can definitely know what they are going thru.
Cut the attitude and remember that I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. I put cruel in parentheses because I was referring to the legal standard of cruelty, not your or my concept of cruelty.
We know of these interesting things called sedatives and anesthetics. I know, crazy stuff, right? So not only is there no intentional infliction of pain, but short of some incredibly botched methods that need to be outlawed (well, on top of the Death Penalty itself), there isn't any unintentional pain.
And your attitude is ridiculous. It contributes nothing to the discussion and just comes across as petulant and contrary to any constructive conversation.
Pain is a matter of nerve responses. If we know that sedatives and anesthetics can block pain reception, then we known it blocks the pain associated with dying. We also know that individuals can die faster than their bodies can process it, which would indeed be painless.
clearly you are not (yet) well acquainted with pain in all it various manifestations.
Clearly I am not interested in a philosophical conversation on what constitutes non-physiological pain.
and even if you were the worlds expert on pain, you would still have no way of knowing if it 'hurts' to die.
.
no way at all.
Except we have means of monitoring the brain to determine when pain signals are sent by the nerves, and therefore are able to determine if it hurts to die, which is entirely irrelevant to what I previously said.
You really seem to forget that I am opposed to the death penalty, by the way.
An EEG measures brain activity and nerve responses. Anything beyond that is philosophical nonsense that I already said I have no desire discussing, as I from the start was referring to physiological pain.
If someone committed a crime that terrible to get the death penalty they deserve it. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO COMMITTED MAJOR CRIMES! THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT GIVEN TO THOSE WHO COMMIT MEDIUM OR PETTY CRIMES!
Anyway we give the death penalty to those you torture, rape, kill, many many times in their life. While my argument seems petty to some liberals (You know you are) I believe that the death penalty should still exist.
Continuing:
I am a deep web explorer. I do it privately and tell others how bad our world really is and if you were to go there you would fine millions that deserve the death penalty. I once accidentally stumbled upon a web cam of a man taking out a woman's eye because the viewer payed her $500 dollars... Your telling me the death penalty is cruel... Then what do you call that...
And what if the evidence was wrong, and the person executed was ultimately innocent? Do you truly believe that the justice system is infallible? Are the lives of innocent people really worth less than the desire for "revenge"?
Additionally, the death penalty is given out disproportionately to African Americans, and even more disproportionately to the lower class. This is not some even-handed sentence.
While my argument seems petty to some liberals (You know you are assholes
Of course they are going to seem petty when you are calling people who disagree with you assholes. You also sound immature.
I'm 13 BTW... And it is not in revenge, the man (or woman) does not deserve to live. We only give the death penalty to those who are do multiple crimes (multiple homocides etc) How do we get multiple people linked to one person and it be wrong.
Your age is not an excuse for you to refer to people of a different ideology as assholes in any way, shape, or form. Additionally, claiming that they "do not deserve to live" is not a call you deserve to make (or me, for that matter).
I recommend you read up on the issue before making those claims, because you were incorrect on that matter.
Lastly, one can be wrongfully convicted of multiple times. There have been plenty of people who were executed despite their trials failing the "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" standard, and there have been people who were executed who were exonerated after the fact. Do their lives not matter?
That doesn't make sense. If someone is given the death penalty, there is no chance for them to be proven guilty if they actually are. If someone is given life in prison in a maximum security facility, there is, and there is essentially no chance of escape.
Convenient. So you have no evidence that backs you up, and you are going to (without any actual basis) claim that the statistics that disagree with you are shit.
Why don't you prove how the statistics on Maximum Security Prisons and their escapes are shit.
So let me think here... Done. you think evidence is needed at all times and no faith is involved in anything. Same with statistics, statistics are done using every escape. At anytime there could be a large change of escapes. Thus making statistics irrelevant.
I don't believe you finished your comment, but I will address what you have said.
Evidence is needed to back up claims. If you are going to try to dispute a claim, faith is essentially worthless. I have provided you with evidence that demonstrated that you are wrong, so responding with saying you have "faith" that you are right is essentially saying you are not looking to debate.
Lastly, statistics are not "done with every escape". The statistics I provided you with included the escapes. Did you even bother to look at the link I sent you?
Because the number of people who have escaped from maximum security is effectively zero, while the number of innocent people currently on death row is around 4%, which is not insignificant.
I'm going to put this very simple because I don't want people to misinterpret me. I disagree with taking a human life. It hurts to hear about anyone dying. If I we're a soldier I don't know if I could take the shot. But if this person takes a human life why should he/she get to keep his/hers. I think that people need to realize how the rape/murder victim families feel after words. What you are doing is giving that person who killed a moms little girl or raped 1 month old baby a comfortable life in prison where they have TV and visits.
I assure you, murderers are not going to prisons where they get "TV" have any kind of visits you would like, or live a "comfortable" life. Additionally, if you disagree with taking a human life, why then do you advocate taking a human life as revenge for someone taking a human life?
