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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Democracy is a way of achieving the objective, it should not be the objective.
The "objective" being whatever a nation believe it should be steering towards, many politicians have some sort of fantastical utopia and focus all their policies to achieving that utopia.
However, what this debate is suggesting is that modern (western) politics is too focused on aiming that nations have a perfectly functional, democractic system. But does this lead to other goals which are more important being diminished? Is democracy actually that grand? Is pure democracy even practical?
I hope you'll all be able to consider these questions and partake in this debate fully.
democratic candidate must have some qualification to be seated on the seat and lead the country...if he is donkey why the people elect him..??? If the realize he's donkey why dont they throw him away and a common man with basic qualification and who can judge what is in favor of his citizen must be the priorty of the candidate...
I agree that it should be a way of acheiving goals.
But at the same time, here i m making a question. Is this true that democracy is what the majority among the nation suggests? What if the majority among a nation are insane people, and they agree and vote to nominate a donkey as a ruler, does the democracy demands in such a case to elect a donkey as a ruler? Just a question.
Hmm, so if Democracy institutes slavery, that's fine with you then?
Really, getting back to the point, the only real objective for a society is to implement majority will? Is there any other objective that might detract from that one?
Then your point seems somewhat irrelevant. You made the statement that people deserve what they vote for. I pointed out that this isn't accurate because the results of those votes also impact those who voted against said position/policy. Hence, the only reasonable answer to this question is to agree. Democracy is not an objective.
Democracy could be for the benefit or welfare of human beings, if that's what the people want. But the majority of the people don't always want the right thing.
That is exactly human nature. They dont necessarily have the sense of choosing right for them. This is why majority of people dont always want the right thing. So why such a system then? A political and management system should be always benefitting its people, a system which contains rules and regulations and things which are not affected by wrong or stupid decisions of the people. What say?
A pure democracy is a very ugly thing. The USA most closely resembles it...
In a pure democracy if the masses want you to die, then you die. There need be no justification other than that it is desirable by the majority. Its a society where there is only protection for the minorities that have happen to be popular during that era.
Pure democracy would essentially be mob rule. The people would have to vote on every action taken. I live in the U.S. and vote whenever I can, which is not that often, how does this resemble pure democracy?
There are a number of instances that stem from the fact that your judges are elected. If you're a paedophile, or someone else equally as unpopular, and someone murders you then that person is probably going to get a community sentence.
Another example would be the way you torture suspected terrorists. If you're not a voter, you have no rights.
Both these things would never happen in the UK or Spain (the only two countries I can speak with some authority on)
Not typically. The jury would have had to decide that the person wasn't deserving of anything more, but the judge could set certain parameters and he usually does if the person is clearly guilty of a crime.
You made it sound as if it is always the case with people murdering pedophiles. It doesn't even happen the majority of the time. There is a reason why the narrator said "ONLY five years probation". What it probably came down to, was that the jury was empathetic towards the father.
But why would the judge set certain parameters? Its seems a stupid thing to do if he wants to get re-elected.
The point is that in countries that don't aspire to be pure democracies, our legal systems simply wouldn't allow for a murderer to get a community sentence.
I edited my argument and added a couple sentences to the end while you were typing yours. I hate when that happens lol.
Anyways, when there are things like a video tape, does it not make sense to set certain parameters... especially if the person is guilty of a more cold-blooded murder than the one in the video you showed me? By parameters, I mean it could be between 1st degree or 2nd degree murder or something else depending on the crime, but this isn't usually the case because there typically aren't videos of the crime when it occured.
The father was sentenced to five years probation for shooting the man who abducted and sexually assaulted his son. While murder isn't something people should get away with, it's easy to feel somewhat empathetic with the father. If I was on the jury, I too would support a lighter sentence. What do you think he deserved? Life?
It isn't about feeling. Its about having consistent rational rules of law. This is what prevents mob rule. The question is: should anyone that kills someone be given a community sentence? The answer to me is that there should never be any factors that could mitigate the murder so significantly as to render a community sentence appropriate.
I think it is fair that he receives a life sentence. Other than appealing to my emotions there is no reason why not. Its sad but its commensurate with the act he decided to commit. A legal system cannot say 'it is only a little bit wrong to kill certain people'. I guess there would be mitigation because of the stress he was under and an element of what one might call provocation. A life sentence with a minimum tariff of 12 years would seem appropriate to me.
I think it is fair that he receives a life sentence.
This is why we have a jury. Everyone has different opinions.
A legal system cannot say 'it is only a little bit wrong to kill certain people'.
But this isn't an everyday occurrence. That happened in 1983 and I can't really think of anything similar to that, that had the same outcome.
No offense, but I've noticed that you base a lot of your opinion of America on stereotypes and rare occurrences. It's a truly unnecessarily biased view on something you don't fully understand. I would assume that you know more about British topics, where as I know more about American topics. I know I'm getting a little off topic here, but it's starting to get pretty incredible the amount of anti-American bullshit that's spreading amongst people in Europe, Britain especially. Brits seem to have to find something wrong with everything. It's like there's a negativity epidemic over there. Americans, at least from my experience, don't look at other Western countries as a problem... only different. What works for you guys, may not work for us... and vice-versa. We're accustomed to a different system but keep in mind that it is not drastically different... and if any countries are more similar to each other, it's probably Britain and America.
This is why we have a jury. Everyone has different opinions.
My point is that law should not be based on opinion to this extent. It cannot be that the same act (unlawful intentional killing) sometimes warrants a community order and sometimes the death penalty depending on the judges view of the surrounding circumstances.
(On a side note: the in UK a jury never decides the sentence).
But this isn't an everyday occurrence.
Yes but we live in common law systems. Every case sets a precedent. It means that if a case with the same circumstances happens again then a community order is an option. It also means that similar cases, that are not exactly the same, should receive a similar sentence. It means that the USA legal system can allow for unpopular people to be killed without there be any real punishment. Such a decision made by a judge or jury would not be unlawful. Going back to the original point: this is why, amongst other reasons, the USA is much closer to a pure democracy and mob rule than many other countries.
My point is that law should not be based on opinion to this extent.
Law will always be based on the opinion of at least someone. I think that the father's actions don't compare to that of a cold-blooded killer, therefore he shouldn't have been charged equally. Maybe, at the core, the act was still the same... but he still has the right to a fair trial. I'm assuming that you would have supported the abductor not being sentenced to life? Those are they type of people we need off the streets, not a father who took lethal action against a pedophile who kidnapped his child. Hell, as messed up as it sounds, he did take out one more prisoner we would have had to pay for lol.
On a side note: the in UK a jury never decides the sentence
So nobody really has the right to a fair trial? If you commit the crime you do the time, no questions asked? lol
It means that the USA legal system can allow for unpopular people to be killed without there be any real punishment.
Well, he was originally charged with second degree murder, which was then lowered to manslaughter. The judge decided that the father showed no threat of ever committing another similar crime, so he let him off with five years probation and about 300 hours of community service. This was big news at the time, because a lot of people believed that he should have been charged a little more severely... but the father hasn't murdered anyone since, so technically... the judge was right.
I think that the father's actions don't compare to that of a cold-blooded killer,
I don't know what you mean by cold-blooded. Many of the most serious murders are done with 'hot blood' - fuelled by emotion. Sexually motivated or sadistic murders being a good example.
So nobody really has the right to a fair trial? If you commit the crime you do the time, no questions asked? lol
The judge decides the sentence. Defence and prosecution both have the opportunity to present case law to establish what sentence would be appropriate in the case while referring to guidelines given by the crown prosecution service (part of the government).
This was big news at the time, because a lot of people believed that he should have been charged a little more severely... but the father hasn't murdered anyone since, so technically... the judge was right.
The purpose of sentencing isn't merely to prevent that individual from offending in the future. Murders have a very low reconviction rate in comparison to other offenders. Its also as reparation for a wrong doing and to dissuades others from committing a similar act.
I don't know what you mean by cold-blooded. Many of the most serious murders are done with 'hot blood' - fuelled by emotion. Sexually motivated or sadistic murders being a good example.
By cold-blooded, I mean that he wasn't your typical murderer/serial killer type. His son was kidnapped and molested, so he wanted revenge. Most parents could empathize with that... but most parents probably wouldn't have gone as far as he did.
The judge decides the sentence. Defence and prosecution both have the opportunity to present case law to establish what sentence would be appropriate in the case while referring to guidelines given by the crown prosecution service (part of the government).
Oh... that isn't far off from our system.
The purpose of sentencing isn't merely to prevent that individual from offending in the future.
Yeah, but he didn't go unpunished. Personally, I wouldn't object to him being imprisoned for a few years... but I wouldn't agree with a life sentence.
Well I've studied law in the UK so I'll answer it from that prospective:
Murder - if someone unlawfully takes the life of another with intention to kill or cause very serious bodily harm, then they must be sentenced to life imprisonment.
Suspected terrorists - if there is evidence of an actual offence then you hold them in custody until trial. If there isn't enough evidence there is a period of time you can hold them for while evidence is gathered. I believe the maximum is now 90 days, but I'm not sure.
Thats awesome for suspected terrorists law if it is implemented in its full form. I mean, if the suspected terrorists are not tortured in secret cells hidden from the human rights NGOs. lol.
An ideal society is where all get what they want. In democracy, if 50.1% of people vote for John as the president, the country gets John as a president although almost half of the people want Mary instead. Difficult to achieve but society wants a result where all are happy. (Try not to have elections ^^)
I agree to the statement that democracy is a way of achieving the objective, but then what is the objective? Is it establishing an perfectly egalitarian society- that would lead to socialism. I fail to see the objective to which a democratic measures should lead to. But if we effort to establish a democratic system, we can shift the powers from a central authority to the people and that does look like the objective of democracy.
If we reason that democracy leads to corruption or people end up choosing wrong candidates, lets look at the alternatives- an all powerful organisation who will elect others, but isn't that autocracy or dictatorial regime? God forbid if that happens then all we can do is hope that the supreme authority whoever he or she is, is a just person.
I see democracy as means to a transparent and just society where people have the freedom and power to accept or reject something. But there is no such perfect society, hence, the more democratic we are, the nearer we are to perfection. Hence democracy can be considered a means and a better and transparent democracy the objective.
