Why is capital punishment/the death penalty a controversial topic?

I think it's clear why it's controversial. It's super emotive because we're talking about heinous crimes AND killing people. It's also about as serious a consequence as we can get - death.

Reply 5

Original post by Spkrblst

I could refer you to that quote from the bible "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"...

That's odd, considering that the Bible is in favour of the death penalty for the most part...

Reply 6

Original post by tazarooni89

That's odd, considering that the Bible is in favour of the death penalty for the most part...

That is because the Bible was written at a time when the death penalty was deemed to be a moral punishment. In the democratic west we have developed beyond that now and no longer believe that capital and corporal punishments are a moral activity. Of course, there are still plenty of people in the world who still live in ancient and mediaeval times, not having advanced beyond superstitious beliefs, but fortunately they do not control our laws.

Reply 7

Original post by Good bloke

That is because the Bible was written at a time when the death penalty was deemed to be a moral punishment.

That's exactly why I find it odd to quote the Bible in order to make a point against capital punishment.

In the democratic west we have developed beyond that now and no longer believe that capital and corporal punishments are a moral activity.

Do you not consider a country like the USA, which in recent times has been using both capital punishment and corporal punishment, to be part of the "democratic West"?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 8

Original post by tazarooni89

Do you not consider a country like the USA, which in recent times has been using both capital punishment and corporal punishment, to be part of the "democratic West"?

I do. I should have said "civilised democratic west". The USA is infected by superstition, I'm afraid, having been populated by people getting away from the civilising effects of the Enlightenment in Europe, and not yet having escaped the corrosive effects of Abraham and his seed.

Reply 9

Original post by Good bloke

I do. I should have said "civilised democratic west". The USA is infected by superstition, I'm afraid, having been populated by people getting away from the civilising effects of the Enlightenment in Europe, and not yet having escaped the corrosive effects of Abraham and his seed.

I must say this is highly reminiscent of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Reply 10

Original post by tazarooni89

I must say this is highly reminiscent of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

You think a country so riven by superstition to the extent that even its lawmakers are strongly influenced by such backward beliefs is fully civilised. I don't. I don't see how Scotsmen come into it. Europe, secular in fact, if not in name, is far more advanced than much of the USA in this respect, which is secular in name but not in nature.

Obviously, countries where laws are driven significantly by backward superstitious beliefs are the least civilised. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the most obvious examples, where adherence to mediaeval superstitions dominates life to the extent common humanity is submerged under dogmatic cruelty.

Reply 11

999tigger

Original post by isabellap98

Hi, I'm currently writing an essay on the death penalty and was trying to think of ideas for why is capital punishment aka the death penalty such a controversial topic in society? Could this could be between governments or personal views of countries/states that do or do not use the death penalty?

Because people have different ideas about whether its a suitable form of punishment and whether it works.

Governments dont tend to argue with other governments about their use of the death penalty unless the system looks corrupt i.e using prisoners for organs or just killing political prisoners in unfair trials.

I think its more controversial between individuals.

Reply 12

Original post by Good bloke

You think a country so riven by superstition to the extent that even its lawmakers are strongly influenced by such backward beliefs is fully civilised. I don't. I don't see how Scotsmen come into it. Europe, secular in fact, if not in name, is far more advanced than much of the USA in this respect, which is secular in name but not in nature.

Obviously, countries where laws are driven significantly by backward superstitious beliefs are the least civilised. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the most obvious examples, where adherence to mediaeval superstitions dominates life to the extent common humanity is submerged under dogmatic cruelty.

Well, this is how the "no true scotsman" fallacy works:

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.

The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Just replace "Scotsman" with "Western Democracy", "true" with "civilised", and "sugar on porridge" with any belief or practice you disagree with, and you've just made exactly the same argument.

Reply 13

Original post by tazarooni89

you've just made exactly the same argument.

No I haven't. I've said something far more significant. I've said that the USA is not fully civilised, like the more secular European countries, because of the prevalence and influence of religious beliefs there. But you wouldn't want to confront that so you try to deflect the discussion to claim that I committed a fallacy (which I didn't - I highlighted a clear, substantial and valid distinction).

Reply 14

Original post by Good bloke

No I haven't. I've said something far more significant. I've said that the USA is not fully civilised, like the more secular European countries, because of the prevalence and influence of religious beliefs there. But you wouldn't want to confront that so you try to deflect the discussion to claim that I committed a fallacy (which I didn't - I highlighted a clear, substantial and valid distinction).

This means absolutely nothing! It's an entirely tautological statement.

You're just using the word "civilised" as a synonym for "not religious", and "backwards" as a synonym for "religious" (or any other concept that you disagree with), without first establishing that this is true in any objective sense.

This makes it no different in any way from just saying "Religious countries are more religious than countries which aren't".

The only fact conveyed by your post is that you happen to disagree with religion. But I knew that already.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 15

Original post by tazarooni89

You're just using the word "civilised" as a synonym for "not religious", and "backwards" as a synonym for "religious" (or any other concept that you disagree with).

No. I'm using 'civilised' to indicate a country that no longer bases its laws largely on ancient superstitious beliefs, having reflected on morality in the twenty-first century and 'backwards' to describe a situation where the people of a country continue to behave irrationally to the extent they lynch people or destroy their property when they express different beliefs or don't show sufficient 'respect' for their superstitions.

Reply 16

Original post by Good bloke

No. I'm using 'civilised' to indicate a country that no longer bases its laws largely on ancient superstitious beliefs

That's exactly the same as what I just said.
'You're just using the word "civilised" as a synonym for "not religious".

Until you can replace your concepts of being "civilised", "backwards", "superstitious" and "irrational" with something a little more objective and factually substantiated, your point will continue to remain meaningless besides having told us that you disagree with religion.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 17

FloralHybrid

21

Original post by tazarooni89

That's odd, considering that the Bible is in favour of the death penalty for the most part...

Well, it’s, controversial.

A running theme throughout Christianity is forgiveness. Killing someone for their crime is hardly forgiving them. So there’s arguments in the bible for, and against the death penalty.

Reply 18

QE2