The death penalty.

[Infidelitas]

Do you think its okay, or not okay? Give us your thoughts and reasonings.

[embers]

I believe the death penalty is morally wrong.

[Azunite]

It's wrong. It's against human rights, it is against humanity itself.

[Fushigi]

i personally believe that we cant kill a person because he is a sinner... or what ever... just my opinion.

[Blake1994]

I believe the death penalty is morally wrong.

Oh, and its not morally wrong for some low life thug to go and murder an innocent person?

It's wrong. It's against human rights, it is against humanity itself.

Its all against human rights and humanity to kill someone just for the sake of killing someone.

i personally believe that we cant kill a person because he is a sinner... or what ever... just my opinion.

I ppersonally believe that the death penalty works, it is necessary and it deters others from committing crimes. There are some people who do not deserve to live. I believe that obviously there are some crimes that people get executed for that do not deserve the death penalty. But all in all, I believe in and I have confidence in the judicial system and capital punisment when applied legally and correctly.

[embers]

Oh, and its not morally wrong for some low life thug to go and murder an innocent person?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Murdering a murderer does no good.

Its all against human rights and humanity to kill someone just for the sake of killing someone.

You just generalised all murderers, stripped their motives down to 'just for the sake of it'. I'm not defending murderers, but I certainly am reminding you that many, if not most, murderers have a motive or reason beyond the sake of it.

I personally believe that the death penalty works, it is necessary and it deters others from committing crimes.

Lots of people would rather die than serve a life sentence.

There are some people who do not deserve to live.

Who are you to judge who deserves to live and who doesn't? You are, after all, a Christian? You should know, as well as most of us, that you're not the true judge of anyone's right to live, and nor is any other normal person.

[Magus]

I believe the death penalty is morally wrong.
Morality is subjective. It is different from society to society and from time to time. It is subject to change, and it is very malleable.

I believe that the death penalty should be given to those who deserve the death penalty.

[Fushigi]

yea i kinda agree with u blake and sachal... here in my country we dont support death penalty well we used to but the CBCP (catholic bishops conference of the philippines) didn't agree with this.. and i can see the result why we have too much crime in here .. because even our government officials(some) are considered as criminals here... And i admire the kind of law/government the singapore has.. because the people there are very disciplined... because they knew that when u do something wrong there will be a corresponding penalty.. but here in our country we SUCKED!! because some of the government officials are corrupt!! that's why our country is suffering in poverty... well not only the government officials but the whole nation as well.. its kinda embarrassing to say this but its true... so if i were to choose i would like to implement the death penalty in our country.. but im pretty sure that the CBCP Will take actions to disregard the plans in implementing this law...

[Blake1994]

Well here in Texas, murderers get what they deserve. The death penalty works and iis necessary.

If someone doesn't want the death penalty, they should not commit the crime and murder an innocent person in the first place.

Why should my tax Dollars go towards keeping some filthy murdering animal alive for the rest of their life when their victim's family has to suffer with the loss of their loved one for the rest of their lives?

[Fushigi]

Well here in Texas, murderers get what they deserve. The death penalty works and iis necessary.

If someone doesn't want the death penalty, they should not commit the crime and murder an innocent person in the first place.

Why should my tax Dollars go towards keeping some filthy murdering animal alive for the rest of their life when their victim's family has to suffer with the loss of their loved one for the rest of their lives?


yep i agree with u... an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth... i hope we can still implement death penalty here so that those criminals will think first before doing anything inhumane... but still the catholic church will not support this... even the RH bill here in our country they dont support it... because of the CBCP...

[Infidelitas]

Well here in Texas, murderers get what they deserve. The death penalty works and iis necessary.

If someone doesn't want the death penalty, they should not commit the crime and murder an innocent person in the first place.

Why should my tax Dollars go towards keeping some filthy murdering animal alive for the rest of their life when their victim's family has to suffer with the loss of their loved one for the rest of their lives?

So your saying that we should end their lives. If we do that, than they win. They dont get punished enough that way. They dont have to live with what they have done. A life sentence is better punishment than the death penalty, becaus they have to live in hell for the rest of their lives

[Kaius]

It has its pros and its cons to me but I'm leaning towards the cons personally. I see the death penalty as a way out of punishment, sure to some people theres no punishment worse than death but to others they may not see it like that. It depends I guess. I don't believe the death penalty should be used personally, i believe they should live with it until the day they die. But with prisons these days a life sentence is only 5/10/15/20 years for "Good behavior". However you want to look at it, theres always going to be pros and cons to it.

[Perseus]

Well here in Texas, murderers get what they deserve. The death penalty works and iis necessary.

If someone doesn't want the death penalty, they should not commit the crime and murder an innocent person in the first place.

Why should my tax Dollars go towards keeping some filthy murdering animal alive for the rest of their life when their victim's family has to suffer with the loss of their loved one for the rest of their lives?

The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. We have the death penalty and our murder rates are high than countries without it.


I personally believe that the death penalty should only be used when the murderer has committed three or more murders and there's unsurmountable evidence that the person did it. It has been proven. A person who has killed multiple usually shows no remorse and doesn't want to be helped. That's what should go on in jails. Help and rehabilitation.

[Jess]

I'm mixed on this. people that really really deserve it should die (like committing a lot of murders), but we have to be absolutely certain that person is guilty and NOT mentally ill.

:/

[Iceman]

Well being that we can not torture or put to hard work the inmates, it's a good alternative. But only, only, if the person is for sure guilty. I say put them to work more often, but this would be against The Constitution and so on.

[Rainstorm]

I'd rather them have a life sentence and be forced to work somehow so that we dont pay for them.

[Blake1994]

The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. We have the death penalty and our murder rates are high than countries without it.


I personally believe that the death penalty should only be used when the murderer has committed three or more murders and there's unsurmountable evidence that the person did it. It has been proven. A person who has killed multiple usually shows no remorse and doesn't want to be helped. That's what should go on in jails. Help and rehabilitation.

I disagree. I do see it as a deterrent. One murder is enough, why should 3 people have to die before the murderer is punished?

You also cannot rehabiltate serial killers or other criminals such as rapists and paedophiles. Once a has the taste of blood on his hands, he keeps on murdering. The same with rapists and paedophiles.

It never stops.

[Azunite]

I believe that the death penalty should be given to those who deserve the death penalty.

And what should one do in order to get executed, according to your opinion Faris?

It is God who gives life and it must also be God to take away life. Nobody has right to kill someone because that person killed someone. Lifetime prison with the worst conditions is enough.

[Magus]

And what should one do in order to get executed, according to your opinion Faris?
The destructive construct of a person that gets him or her the penalty.
It is God who gives life and it must also be God to take away life. Nobody has right to kill someone because that person killed someone. Lifetime prison with the worst conditions is enough.You believe in God? You are a Muslim? Then don't you know how many verses there are in the Quran that straight away orders us who to execute and how to execute?

[Jean Poutine]

criminal reinsertion in society, especially for violent crimes, is total bullcrap. i've always been in favor of the lex talionis.

who knows, someone accused of murder might return to be a good little law-abiding citizen after 25 years in jail. i prefer to cut to the chase and just kill the murderer - it removes the element of risk inherent to letting felons free.

[Death]

The death penalty is among the worst abomination this world has seen. Not only is it blatently hypocritical to kill murderers, but they do not suffer for their crimes (people may be more tempted to commit murder because they know they are going to be given an easy way out) and you will end up killing innocent people. You can release and compensate a prisoner; not a corpse.

[User Deleted]

People don't deserve to die unless they do something huge. And our court systems are not perfect, we cant be 100% sure if it was who we are pressing the charges against.

[Death]

People don't deserve to die unless they do something huge.

At which point they would deserve worse anyway.

[Perseus]

I disagree. I do see it as a deterrent. One murder is enough, why should 3 people have to die before the murderer is punished?

You also cannot rehabiltate serial killers or other criminals such as rapists and paedophiles. Once a has the taste of blood on his hands, he keeps on murdering. The same with rapists and paedophiles.

It never stops.

I didn't know you were a murderer, rapist, and a pedophile. So how would you know if they can't be helped or not? One murderer is not enough to decipher if they enjoy killing or not. They need to be rehabilitated. Just putting them in a jail cell for twenty odd years just make them madder, and you do realize the death penalty isn't automatic and most of the time the inmates appeal it?

[Blake1994]

I didn't know you were a murderer, rapist, and a pedophile. So how would you know if they can't be helped or not? One murderer is not enough to decipher if they enjoy killing or not. They need to be rehabilitated. Just putting them in a jail cell for twenty odd years just make them madder, and you do realize the death penalty isn't automatic and most of the time the inmates appeal it?

Yeah I don't find your first sentence funny at all, whether it was sarcasm or not.

They do not reform. For example, look at the Steven Stayner case, or the Green River Killer.

I feel disgusted that people like that share the same air as me.

These animals deserve to be executed, plain and simple.

Being kept alive is too fucking good for them.

[Death]

These animals deserve to be executed, plain and simple.

Being kept alive is too fucking good for them.

I've already said this, but what if you get the wrong guy? Are you really prepared to end up killing innocent people (as in they are falsy accused and this is later found out) when they could have been released and compensated had they have been released? Besides, if you kill these people, they do not suffer. Murders may see the consequences of their actions as an easy way out. Not good.

[Perseus]

They do not reform. For example, look at the Steven Stayner case, or the Green River Killer.

I feel disgusted that people like that share the same air as me.

These animals deserve to be executed, plain and simple.

Being kept alive is too fucking good for them.
Herp derp, that's more than one murder (and the other guy was a kidnapping victim; what does that have to do with anything?). Serial killers and a person who commits one murder aren't the same thing. They should be rehabilitated.

[Jess]

@Blake

what if the murderer was mentally ill? I don't agree with killing him or her then.

[SometimesThere]

I'm always going from side to side on this particular question.

In extreme circumstances I'm inclined to think that maybe criminals should be killed. If the criminal murdered many people and showed no remorse whatsoever, it might be better for them to be killed. What would be the point in keeping the criminal in prison for how many years (and costing the taxpayer money) when there is little hope of the criminal ever feeling guilty for his crime?

Although, I would be worried that an innocent person could get caught up in the middle of this. That would be why I'd propose that the death penalty only be used in extreme circumstances and be deeply considered before being carried out.

EDIT: I've read that a lot of serial murderers cannot be rehabilitated. It's near impossible for anyone to try.

Still, I'm not entirely convinced that criminals should be killed. It's just that I read a lot recently about serial murderers and for some of them I can't help but think that it might be better if they got the death penalty.

[Iceman]

Just to throrw this out there:

Whenever someone is killed, it gets them out of prison and saves people money. And it gets someone that killed someone out of this world. Now this is where many people stop thinking about it and side with it.

Well I think it should be used but only in certain cases. First the person has to be 100 percent guilty of the crime. Second if they have life in prison, why waste money on them? But I do believe we should find other uses for many. There are so many things that we could use them for, while they are incarcerated.

Oh and if you don't think innocent people should be killed, don't join the armed forces.

[Death]

Just to throrw this out there:

Whenever someone is killed, it gets them out of prison and saves people money. And it gets someone that killed someone out of this world. Now this is where many people stop thinking about it and side with it. Well I think it should be used but only in certain cases.

I still think that's a selfish reason to support capital punishment.

First the person has to be 100 percent guilty of the crime.

Can you be 100% sure?

Second if they have life in prison, why waste money on them?

You needn't waste much, just enough to keep them alive, barely. I don't value their lives, but they need to be punished, and killing them doesn't punish them. Killing murders is, in fact, hypocritical.

But I do believe we should find other uses for many. There are so many things that we could use them for, while they are incarcerated.

Agreed.

Oh and if you don't think innocent people should be killed, don't join the armed forces.

In war, innocent people may well be shooting at you, so that's a bit different since it's self-defence. But I'm not planning to be part of the armed forces, so this doesn't apply to me.

[Azunite]

You believe in God? You are a Muslim? Then don't you know how many verses there are in the Quran that straight away orders us who to execute and how to execute?


It is a shame that a Holy Book contradicts with itself but we can't simply say "I have the right to kill you because you too killed people."

Killing one won't change the world, and the State won't gain anything by feeding one less prisoner.

[Amnesiac]

Life in prison without parole is a much more harsh option for the murderers who receive the death penalty under current U.S. law. Honestly, if they had the opportunity, most of them would probably commit suicide. Why do you think so many shootings end with the perpetrator killing themselves?

How do you pay for this, you ask? We end the War on Drugs and stop putting innocent Americans in prison for nothing.

[Jean Poutine]

I've already said this, but what if you get the wrong guy? Are you really prepared to end up killing innocent people (as in they are falsy accused and this is later found out) when they could have been released and compensated had they have been released? Besides, if you kill these people, they do not suffer. Murders may see the consequences of their actions as an easy way out. Not good.

you don't seem to be aware of the huge number of appeal opportunities in many different courts of law in the united states. why do you think death row inmates wait decades before being executed?

the possibility of executing an innocent is very close to nil. i'm willing to take the chance to get douchebags out of the streets.

[Death]

you don't seem to be aware of the huge number of appeal opportunities in many different courts of law in the united states. why do you think death row inmates wait decades before being executed?

the possibility of executing an innocent is very close to nil. i'm willing to take the chance to get douchebags out of the streets.

I am aware, but it's still a stupid law either way, and stupid laws should be abolished.

[Blake1994]

Herp derp, that's more than one murder (and the other guy was a kidnapping victim; what does that have to do with anything?). Serial killers and a person who commits one murder aren't the same thing. They should be rehabilitated.

I referred to the Steven Stayner case because the dude who did it was a serial paedophile. He deserved the death penalty in my opinion. What he did was worse than murder I think. Its a shame that the US doesn't execute child rapists like some countries. Well, scratch that, Louisiana does. Anyway I disagree, a serial killer and a person who commits one murder are the same thing, they still killed people. You cannot, I repeat cannot, rehabilitate these kind of people.

@Blake

what if the murderer was mentally ill? I don't agree with killing him or her then.

Well they certainly seemed to be mentally stable enough to kill someone. I don't see how being mentally ill makes a difference. You do the crime, you pay the price.

The death penalty works. I agree with Uchimata, I'm more than willing to take an extremely remote risk that an innocent person is executed. That is extremely rare. We need the death penalty to deter crime. It works. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. That's my personal opinion.

[Perseus]

I referred to the Steven Stayner case because the dude who did it was a serial paedophile. He deserved the death penalty in my opinion. What he did was worse than murder I think. Its a shame that the US doesn't execute child rapists like some countries. Well, scratch that, Louisiana does. Anyway I disagree, a serial killer and a person who commits one murder are the same thing, they still killed people. You cannot, I repeat cannot, rehabilitate these kind of people. Last time I checked, child rapists don't kill children; if they did, than they'd be murderers. Also, what makes you say people can't be rehabilitated? Yes, they can.




The death penalty works. I agree with Uchimata, I'm more than willing to take an extremely remote risk that an innocent person is executed. That is extremely rare. We need the death penalty to deter crime. It works. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. That's my personal opinion.

That's fucking asinine. You're risking the life of an innocent person just so you can kill people that have killed people? That's disgusting.

[embers]

Well they certainly seemed to be mentally stable enough to kill someone. I don't see how being mentally ill makes a difference. You do the crime, you pay the price.

That just reeks of absolute stupidity.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. That's my personal opinion.

Ooh, Bible quotes. Would you believe in the rest of Leviticus then? Homosexuals should be put to death, and it is a sin to wear clothes of more than one fabric?

[Azunite]

You'd punish someone with lifetime prison. You'd free someone by a death sentence.

You people keep talking about "If someone kills someone, then we should also kill that person because his guilt is beyond humanity" then you people should apply punishment instead off easily killing someone.

As I said : Killing won't change anything. And a one full cell is always better than an empty one in case of a punishment

[slappy]

Oh, and its not morally wrong for some low life thug to go and murder an innocent person?



Its all against human rights and humanity to kill someone just for the sake of killing someone.



I ppersonally believe that the death penalty works, it is necessary and it deters others from committing crimes. There are some people who do not deserve to live. I believe that obviously there are some crimes that people get executed for that do not deserve the death penalty. But all in all, I believe in and I have confidence in the judicial system and capital punisment when applied legally and correctly.

Did you know it costs more money to pout someone to death than it dose to keep them in prison for the rest of there lives?

A lot of those people in for life want to be killed, there miserable. So the ultimate punishment is not death, it's living in prison. Than they have time to think about why thare in there. It is torturous to them, to the point where they want to be pout to death.



[QUOTE=embers;1261548]That just reeks of absolute stupidity.



Ooh, Bible quotes. Would you believe in the rest of Leviticus then? Homosexuals should be put to death, and it is a sin to wear clothes of more than one fabric?[/QUOTE


I believe that is a Ghandi quote
I could be wrong tho

[Blake1994]

@Persius:

Child rapists may not kill their victims, physically, but they kill them mentally and on the inside, sometimes driving the kids to suicide later on in life in some cases. I disagree with you, these people cannot be rehabilitated.

Some people do not deserve to live if they commit a heinous crime like taking another person's life.

I strongly believe in the death penalty. It works.

[Perseus]

@Perseus:

Child rapists may not kill their victims, physically, but they kill them mentally and on the inside, sometimes driving the kids to suicide later on in life in some cases. I disagree with you, these people cannot be rehabilitated.
I remember you saying "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life." Now you want people who haven't killed to be put to death? That's ridiculous. This isn't a fascist or communist country.

Some people do not deserve to live if they commit a heinous crime like taking another person's life. Though I agree with you, one murder still doesn't deserve this.

I strongly believe in the death penalty. It works.
Like I said, no, it doesn't. It doesn't deter anyone.

[embers]

I strongly believe in the death penalty. It works.

How many times have you repeated that statement? How about you give us something beyond 'it works it works it works!', preferably some statistics?

[Blake1994]

I remember you saying "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life." Now you want people who haven't killed to be put to death? That's ridiculous. This isn't a fascist or communist country.

Though I agree with you, one murder still doesn't deserve this.


Like I said, no, it doesn't. It doesn't deter anyone.

You obviously misread, I said they kill them on the inside, like mentally. It was a figure of speech.


I'm inclined to disagree with you man, I believe it does deter, especially here in Texas.

Or you all could maybe back up your claim that it doesn't deter and also how child rapists can be rehabilitated. I find those claims to be a bunch of bullshit as well.

Please do no double post---Socko

[embers]

Or you all could maybe back up your claim that it doesn't deter and also how child rapists can be rehabilitated. I find those claims to be a bunch of bullshit as well.

You're the one who said it does - we merely disagreed with you AND stated why we think it doesn't deter. You've yet to show us how it does.

[slappy]

I say let child rapists get violated up the rear. Better than pouting them to death.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Or you all could maybe back up your claim that it doesn't deter and also how child rapists can be rehabilitated. I find those claims to be a bunch of bullshit as well.

http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html

Here is some information on the rehabilitation of sex offenders. Not all of them re-offend and some actually can be reformed.

[Blake1994]

You're the one who said it does - we merely disagreed with you AND stated why we think it doesn't deter. You've yet to show us how it does.

Google it. I'm not stopping you from doing some research for yourself.

I say let child rapists get violated up the rear. Better than pouting them to death.

Actually, that might not be a bad idea. Let the bastards get a taste of their own medicine.

[Bougainvillea]

I disagree with you, these people cannot be rehabilitated.

Not true. My father was killed by a man, who I have spoken to regularly because I'm the only one who visits him, and he is very much rehabilitated. He is a good person, who did something wrong.

Not everyone who murders is a sick animal with no emotion.

[slappy]

Google it. I'm not stopping you from doing some research for yourself.



Actually, that might not be a bad idea. Let the bastards get a taste of their own medicine.

Yea, just lock em up for the rest of there lives
No need to kill them

[Bougainvillea]

Google it. I'm not stopping you from doing some research for yourself.

You make the claim, you do the research.

[embers]

You make the claim, you do the research.

This. If you don't back your argument up with evidence, I'm not going to go looking for it just because you insist it exists.

[slappy]

You make the claim, you do the research.

This. If you don't back your argument up with evidence, I'm not going to go looking for it just because you insist it exists.

Hear is something from a website
Mind you, I am not taking sides on this argument of rehab.


"There are statistics showing that only 35 percent of inmates do not make their way back to prison upon their release. This leaves us with a large percentage of released criminals who do commit crimes and end up being repeat offenders. This poses a major difficulty to society as well as a strain. The government has to fork out huge sums to keep tabs on these possible repeat offenders as well as maintaining the prison systems. Needless to say, the possibility of releasing prisoners who might be repeat offenders is a threat to social safety"


"However, the scenario does have a light at the end of the tunnel. There seems to be a good reason why some former inmates do not return to jail: it appears that their time in incarceration was spent productively, changing some vital aspect of their personality."


"Education is one of the ways in which this positive change was affected. Education works in two levels to successfully rehabilitate the criminal. On a macro level, society as a whole is being educated to promote the importance of keeping the laws as well as ensuring that there is less discrimination against former criminals. This ensures that there propensity for ex-convicts to return to a life of crime is less, as they are able to secure jobs after their release. Education is also being offered within the prison to allow the prisoners to upgrade and stay relevant to the changing society outside the prison walls."

[embers]

Hear is something from a website
Mind you, I am not taking sides on this argument of rehab.


"There are statistics showing that only 35 percent of inmates do not make their way back to prison upon their release. This leaves us with a large percentage of released criminals who do commit crimes and end up being repeat offenders. This poses a major difficulty to society as well as a strain. The government has to fork out huge sums to keep tabs on these possible repeat offenders as well as maintaining the prison systems. Needless to say, the possibility of releasing prisoners who might be repeat offenders is a threat to social safety"


"However, the scenario does have a light at the end of the tunnel. There seems to be a good reason why some former inmates do not return to jail: it appears that their time in incarceration was spent productively, changing some vital aspect of their personality."


"Education is one of the ways in which this positive change was affected. Education works in two levels to successfully rehabilitate the criminal. On a macro level, society as a whole is being educated to promote the importance of keeping the laws as well as ensuring that there is less discrimination against former criminals. This ensures that there propensity for ex-convicts to return to a life of crime is less, as they are able to secure jobs after their release. Education is also being offered within the prison to allow the prisoners to upgrade and stay relevant to the changing society outside the prison walls."

What website have you gotten this information from?

[slappy]

What website have you gotten this information from?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Criminal-Rehabilitation---Working-Towards-A-Better-Life-For-Inmates-And-Their-Families&id=455250

Don't critisize on the website, I did what he said, I typed it in on google and clicked I'm feeling lucky.

[embers]

http://ezinearticles.com/?Criminal-Rehabilitation---Working-Towards-A-Better-Life-For-Inmates-And-Their-Families&id=455250

Don't critisize on the website, I did what he said, I typed it in on google and clicked I'm feeling lucky.

Yes well, if those are the types of sources he gets his information from then I have no reason to debate further.

[slappy]

Yes well, if those are the types of sources he gets his information from then I have no reason to debate further.

Now now, don't be mean
He has an opinion

[Blake1994]

Just ask any person on the street I'm sure they will be more than willing to debate this further. Everytime I give an opinion in these threads lately someone like Embers or someone else treats me like a pariah for not thinking the way they do. My beliefs are my beliefs, as i are my opinions, and I stand by them.

[slappy]

Just ask any person on the street I'm sure they will be more than willing to debate this further. Everytime I give an opinion in these threads lately someone like Embers or someone else treats me like a pariah for not thinking the way they do. My beliefs are my beliefs, as i are my opinions, and I stand by them.

We can PM about it if u want
But we are going off topic right now
So, PM me

[Bougainvillea]

Just ask any person on the street I'm sure they will be more than willing to debate this further. Everytime I give an opinion in these threads lately someone like Embers or someone else treats me like a pariah for not thinking the way they do. My beliefs are my beliefs, as i are my opinions, and I stand by them.

If you don't want to explain why you hold such opinions, or any evidence behind all the claims you make then stay out of the debate forum.

When you reply with "Look it up yourself" or "Ask anyone", it invalidates your arguement. And no one will take you seriously. They'll just keep responding to you like they have in the, what, three other threads you've been doing the same thing in?

[Infidelitas]

I thing registered sex offenders and kiddy fiddlers should get castrated, then thrown in prison until we can guarantee that they have reformed. If they have been castrated, that should be plenty of punishment.

[Zephyr]

I'm on the fence with this issue.

I think it needs to be looked at case by case.

Is it beyond doubt that they did it?
Why did they kill?
How many murders have they committed over what stretch of time?
What sort of mental state were they in?
Can they be rehabilitated?

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind, yes. But when you get down to it, you can't set one-size-fits-all regulations with the death penalty, you have to look at the details. If it was some sort of mass vengeance killing where it's beyond doubt that they did it, and this person can't be rehabilitated, maybe it's best that they arn't put back on the streets, and depending on cost, execute.

Before anyone argues one way of the other about cost, there's controversy as to what's more expensive, life in prison or execution. There's no answer one way or the other. It depends case by case, if you look here (http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000).

I believe it can be a punishment in severe cases, yes, but don't simply throw everybody on the chopping block either, look at all of the details and make an informed decision.

[slappy]

I'm on the fence with this issue.

I think it needs to be looked at case by case.

Is it beyond doubt that they did it?
Why did they kill?
How many murders have they committed over what stretch of time?
What sort of mental state were they in?
Can they be rehabilitated?

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind, yes. But when you get down to it, you can't set one-size-fits-all regulations with the death penalty, you have to look at the details. If it was some sort of mass vengeance killing where it's beyond doubt that they did it, and this person can't be rehabilitated, maybe it's best that they arn't put back on the streets, and depending on cost, execute.

Before anyone argues one way of the other about cost, there's controversy as to what's more expensive, life in prison or execution. There's no answer one way or the other. It depends case by case, if you look here (http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000).

I believe it can be a punishment in severe cases, yes, but don't simply throw everybody on the chopping block either, look at all of the details and make an informed decision.




I agree
I just don't think we should be killing people.

We should keep people locked up for the rest of there lives if there is no hope for rehab if they commit a serious crime. Like murder.

[somethingrandom]

Oh, and its not morally wrong for some low life thug to go and murder an innocent person?

Well, isn't it wrong to risk killing an innocent person? The reality is that there have been people who were killed or almost killed who were innocent

Steven Truscott was sentenced to the death penalty for the murder of Lynne Harper. (Click here to read more) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Truscott) Not only was he in the seventh grade when he was sentenced to death, but he was completely innocent. Without a doubt, he can't be the only person sentenced to the death penalty who is, or was, innocent.

I ppersonally believe that the death penalty works, it is necessary and it deters others from committing crimes. There are some people who do not deserve to live. I believe that obviously there are some crimes that people get executed for that do not deserve the death penalty. But all in all, I believe in and I have confidence in the judicial system and capital punisment when applied legally and correctly.

This is tough to prove. The United States has one murder per 18,000 people. No first-world country has a murder rate anywhere NEAR those levels. The next-highest rates (for the first world) are in Liechtenstein, a country with roughly 30,000 people, Israel, engaged in their ongoing terrorism, and South Korea, with a rate that's less than half as high. In contrast, Japan, the only other developed country with the death penalty has a rate of 1 murder per 100,000.

But this can also be attributed to gun control. Generally, more guns means more murders (USA, Scandinavia, etc.), except in places with more guns than people (El Paso, Texas is a good example. So is Switzerland).

The death penalty is among the worst abomination this world has seen. Not only is it blatently hypocritical to kill murderers, but they do not suffer for their crimes (people may be more tempted to commit murder because they know they are going to be given an easy way out) and you will end up killing innocent people. You can release and compensate a prisoner; not a corpse.

Well no, I'd personally prefer not to release some prisoners. Rapists, Pedophiles, Nutcases, etc.....

[slappy]

Well, isn't it wrong to risk killing an innocent person? The reality is that there have been people who were killed or almost killed who were innocent

Steven Truscott was sentenced to the death penalty for the murder of Lynne Harper. (Click here to read more) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Truscott) Not only was he in the seventh grade when he was sentenced to death, but he was completely innocent. Without a doubt, he can't be the only person sentenced to the death penalty who is, or was, innocent.



This is tough to prove. The United States has one murder per 18,000 people. No first-world country has a murder rate anywhere NEAR those levels. The next-highest rates (for the first world) are in Liechtenstein, a country with roughly 30,000 people, Israel, engaged in their ongoing terrorism, and South Korea, with a rate that's less than half as high. In contrast, Japan, the only other developed country with the death penalty has a rate of 1 murder per 100,000.

But this can also be attributed to gun control. Generally, more guns means more murders (USA, Scandinavia, etc.), except in places with more guns than people (El Paso, Texas is a good example. So is Switzerland).



Well no, I'd personally prefer not to release some prisoners. Rapists, Pedophiles, Nutcases, etc.....



Yea, we should keep people who did really bad things in prison.

[Death]

@Persius:

Child rapists may not kill their victims, physically, but they kill them mentally and on the inside, sometimes driving the kids to suicide later on in life in some cases. I disagree with you, these people cannot be rehabilitated.

Some people do not deserve to live if they commit a heinous crime like taking another person's life.

I strongly believe in the death penalty. It works.

Hey, Blake, are you actually going to adress my points and the points of others you've ignored or what? And as for all murderers being unable to be reformed, this is as far from the truth as you can get. Ever herad of crime of passion or manslaughter?

[slappy]

Hey, Blake, are you actually going to adress my points and the points of others you've ignored or what? And as for all murderers being unable to be reformed, this is as far from the truth as you can get. Ever herad of crime of passion or manslaughter?

Hey, be nice. Don't be a dick

[Death]

Hey, be nice. Don't be a dick

I'm not being a dick, I'm being sincere. I want him to stop ignoring what people say. And as for nice, where were you when Blake was about as nice as, say, Steve Harvey?

[slappy]

I'm not being a dick, I'm being sincere. I want him to stop ignoring what people say. And as for nice, you do realise what Blake's like, right?

Yea, I know what he is like
He has an opinion, don't beat him up over it. Sure, he may like the death penalty, but everyone in here is attacking him and he dosnt have time to respond to everyone's insults. Give the kid a break.

[Death]

Yea, I know what he is like
He has an opinion, don't beat him up over it. Sure, he may like the death penalty, but everyone in here is attacking him and he dosnt gave time to respond to everyone's insults. Give the kid a break.

I only asked him to adress my opinions. Considering the PM he sent me (which I will not quote again out of respect for him), I see nothing wrong with what I asked. Also bear in mind that he brought this upon himself.

[slappy]

I only asked him to adress my opinions. Considering the PM he sent me (which I will not quote again out of respect for him), I see nothing wrong with what I asked. Also bear in mind that he brought this upon himself.

It sure doesn't sound like you guys are respecting him.
You guys are just attacking him.

[Death]

It sure doesn't sound like you guys are respecting him.
You guys are just attacking him.

But we are both contributing to the thread and adressing him. Blake is doing neither. Okay, so he may have made the odd argument here, but you should have seen him on the Religion forum. Besides, we are showing him basic respect simply by not ignoring him. And if you really have an issue with what certain people have said, could you pehaps quote them? I'd be intersted in hearing it.

[slappy]

But we are both contributing to the thread and adressing him. Blake is doing neither. Okay, so he may have made the odd argument here, but you should have seen him on the Religion forum. Besides, we are showing him basic respect simply by not ignoring him. And if you really have an issue with what certain people have said, could you pehaps quote them? I'd be intersted in hearing it.

I'm not saying you guys are doing stuff like that
What I am saying is,you guys are saying this stuff whale he isn't even here

[Death]

I'm not saying you guys are doing stuff like that
What I am saying is,you guys are saying this stuff whale he isn't even here

Like what?

I don't know about you, but I think we've shown more respect to him than he ever has done to us.

[slappy]

But we are both contributing to the thread and adressing him. Blake is doing neither. Okay, so he may have made the odd argument here, but you should have seen him on the Religion forum. Besides, we are showing him basic respect simply by not ignoring him. And if you really have an issue with what certain people have said, could you pehaps quote them? I'd be intersted in hearing it.

All I herd from the realign thread was you attacking him just for saying he was a catholic

[Death]

All I herd from the realign thread was you attacking him just for saying he was a catholic

Funny, I've read it a few times and I don't remember that at all. And if you are referring to me, I wsa annoyed, not by his religion, but by his lack of given reasoning. I've said this before, but I've already had problems with Blake before the religion argument started. How else could I have accurately predicted with near-certainty that he wasn't going to give reasoning? And at least I didn't post saying that the other wasn't worth paying attention to despite making no contributions to the thread whatsoever.

[slappy]

Funny, I've read it a few times and I don't remember that at all. And if you are referring to me, I wsa annoyed, not by his religion, but by his lack of given reasoning. I've said this before, but I've already had problems with Blake before the religion argument started. How else could I have accurately predicted with near-certainty that he wasn't going to give reasoning? And at least I didn't post saying that the other wasn't worth paying attention to despite making no contributions to the thread whatsoever.

And your reasoning (which you probably won't give)...

*Facepalm*, you're in a fucking debate forum (RotW - "a place to debate"), for goodness sake. Unless you have reasoning, you shouldn't post here. I'm sick of telling you people.

[QUOTE=Death;1258016]


This is what you said

I said I didn't believe in god
Why didn't you talk to me like that?

[Death]

This is what you said

I said I didn't believe in god
Why didn't you talk to me like that?

I'll tell you the same thing I told the other person who asked me this (and what I just told you):

I've already had arguments with Blake before that happened, stuff you wouldn't know about, mostly PMs.

Suffice to say that I did not start this. Also, how come I've had friendlier arguments with religionists before? How come I've even given rep to them? I can already think of two off the top of my head: Marcie and Gaul. I know there have been others, but I can't remember them right now. Do you think me some kind of bigot who favours atheists over religionists?

[slappy]

[QUOTE=bord;1262236]

I'll tell you the same thing I told the other person who asked me this (and what I just told you):

I've already had arguments with Blake before that happened, stuff you wouldn't know about, mostly PMs. Suffice to say that I did not start this. Also, how come I've had friendlier arguments with religionists before? How come I've even given rep to them? I can already think of two off the top of my head: Marcie and Gaul. I know there have been others, but I can't remember them right now.

Well if this is an on going thing
Than don't argue with him on here just PM him
Because what it looks like is you are just attacking him with no reason, and I can't just stand by and see people attacking others like that

[Death]

Well if this is an on going thing
Than don't argue with him on here just PM him
Because what it looks like is you are just attacking him with no reason, and I can't just stand by and see people attacking others like that

Aside from the odd post which could have been better written, I really don't think he's being attacked here, we're only responding to him giving him our opinions. Honestly, he has been the worse out of all of us. At least we haven't resorted to insulting him on a personal level like he has with us.

[Infidelitas]

IF MY THREAD GETS LOCKED FROM YOUR ARGUEMENTS, I WONT BE HAPPY!!!
Please get it back on track

[slappy]

Aside from the odd post which could have been better written, I really don't think he's being attacked here, we're only responding to him giving him our opinions. Honestly, he has been the worse out of all of us. At least we haven't resorted to insulting him on a personal level like he has with us.

What did he say that was insulting
If top you don't wanna say in here just PM me

[Death]

What did he say that was insulting
If top you don't wanna say in here just PM me

Done.

And back on topic, I oppose the death penalty because killing murderers is hypocrticial. You think murder is wrong, so you're going to do the same to them?

[slappy]

Done.

And back on topic, I oppose the death penalty because killing murderers is hypocrticial. You think murder is wrong, so you're going to do the same to them?

Yea, like I said before
People who do that bad of things should be locked away for the rest of there lives.

[Death]

Yea, like I said before
People who do that bad of things should be locked away for the rest of there lives.

Agreed completely. That way they actually suffer, and can be released and compensated if later found innocent.

[Azunite]

IF MY THREAD GETS LOCKED FROM YOUR ARGUEMENTS, I WONT BE HAPPY!!!


Slow down champion

[embers]

Agreed completely. That way they actually suffer, and can be released and compensated if later found innocent.

This, basically. The life sentence is waaaaay too short.

Edit, and:

Just ask any person on the street I'm sure they will be more than willing to debate this further. Everytime I give an opinion in these threads lately someone like Embers or someone else treats me like a pariah for not thinking the way they do. My beliefs are my beliefs, as i are my opinions, and I stand by them.

I'm not telling you to change your beliefs, nor am I attacking you for not thinking the way I do. I'm simply asking you to back up your argument with evidence - you entered this debate thread quoting me and others who said capital punishment is wrong and refuted our arguments. I was simply asking you to debate further.

[Genghis Khan]

It's a sad fact that the death penalty is even considered to be the best punishment for people who even have committed crimes that are atrocious beyond belief. Other than the argument of morality and it being morally incorrect to kill the one who kills, and you (as a human being) cannot choose who can live or die, there is no pain involved. Simply hanging someone for murder or rape will be barely a few seconds of pain (not that this is the biggest concern, but as death pointed out earlier, this is why the death penalty is a failed excuse for a punishment).

However, some arguably tactical and intelligent leaders may whole heartedly disagree with me.

http://operatorchan.org/cp/src/cp7223_ahmadinejad.jpg

[slappy]

Now, I have herd a quote footing around in this debate. It is
"an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a death for a death"
That is not how the quote goes. The quote is
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just leaves everyone blind and toothless"
That seems kinda contradictory so some peoples thoughts on this topic, I say this because that quote means fighting is useless, everyone gets hurt.

[embers]

Now, I have herd a quote footing around in this debate. It is
"an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a death for a death"
That is not how the quote goes. The quote is
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just leaves everyone blind and toothless"
That seems kinda contradictory so some peoples thoughts on this topic, I say this because that quote means fighting is useless, everyone gets hurt.

No. The quote is originally from the book of Leviticus (?) in the Bible, and it goes something along the lines of 'an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life', which pretty much means in this case that every murderer should be murdered, and that revenge should be proportionate. And loads of people adopted the stance.

In his campaign, Gandhi opposed the ideal by saying 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. That's as far as I know, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[slappy]

No. The quote is originally from the book of Leviticus (?) in the Bible, and it goes something along the lines of 'an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life', which pretty much means in this case that every murderer should be murdered, and that revenge should be proportionate. And loads of people adopted the stance.

In his campaign, Gandhi opposed the ideal by saying 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. That's as far as I know, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Oh, I was thinking of the Ghandi quote, but I see what you are saying.
But I guess I got it completely wrong. LOL

[Jean Poutine]

Agreed completely. That way they actually suffer, and can be released and compensated if later found innocent.

you think being locked in for life is a punishment? i've visited high security jails. it's no club med, but it's far from torture.

i'm all for the death penalty, but with a fun new twist : hard labor while you wait in death row. so what if it's "inhuman" or "unethical"? killing people is already "inhuman" and "unethical", we might as well get some free labor out of our local monsters.

as for being hypocritical, well, that's the nature of mankind. being hypocritical doesn't make it wrong. it makes it hypocritical.

And as for all murderers being unable to be reformed, this is as far from the truth as you can get. Ever herad of crime of passion or manslaughter?

death penalty is never asked in cases of manslaughter, so that's a moot point.

[Triceratops]

Fuck yes. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is one of my main mottos.

Please, someone tell me how it's "morally unjustified" to put a pedophile, who brutally rapes, tortures and then kills children, to death.

[Death]

you think being locked in for life is a punishment?

Depends on its conditions. But is sure does beat being dead in terms of severity. So yes, I would rather lock them away. Why else do some prisoners commit suicide if death is worse?

i've visited high security jails. it's no club med, but it's far from torture.

It's still worse than feeling nothing from being dead.

i'm all for the death penalty, but with a fun new twist : hard labor while you wait in death row. so what if it's "inhuman" or "unethical"? killing people is already "inhuman" and "unethical", we might as well get some free labor out of our local monsters.

By becoming the monster? Just because we have people who have a complete disregard of human life, it doesn't mean we should sink down to their level.

as for being hypocritical, well, that's the nature of mankind. being hypocritical doesn't make it wrong. it makes it hypocritical.

Wouldn't you rather rise above that? The above is a pretty negative outlook in my opinion.

death penalty is never asked in cases of manslaughter, so that's a moot point.

The world's a big place.

[Jean Poutine]

Depends on its conditions. But is sure does beat being dead in terms of severity. So yes, I would rather lock them away.

not really. when you're in life imprisonment you have a lot of the amenities you can have outdoors. as i said, it's no club med, but being dead beats being cared for until the culprit dies. besides, let's not kid ourselves, the way things are, death row is about same thing as life imprisonment, with how long all the appeals take. the only difference is the means of death.

Why else do some prisoners commit suicide if death is worse?

well, first, some prisoners also kill themselves in death row.

second, there are a host of reasons why. maybe some people tire of being brutally raped in the shower every day? i don't think having their liberty taken away is the main reason that push lifers to suicide. if i feel assed enough i'll find a paper, but i'm rarely bothered.

nevertheless, if life imprisonment leads to suicide, it's exactly the same thing as the death penalty. locked up for some time then dead.

It's still worse than feeling nothing from being dead.

there are studies implying that lethal injection is, in some case, not exactly the painless respite we think it is.

hell, here's a recap by the bbc : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/executions/

By becoming the monster? Just because we have people who have a complete disregard of human life, it doesn't mean we should sink down to their level.

usefulness in death. i think this concept was explored by brave new world. hmmm...is that as monstrous as people think? think about it. some guy takes out a productive member of society, and instead of doing something about it, we take out another one by either locking them up or killing them.

before we punish them, they should at least give back some of what we lost in productivity and man hours. my biggest gripe on the death penalty is that we lose two instead of one...hard labor fixes that.

Wouldn't you rather rise above that? The above is a pretty negative outlook in my opinion.

well, i am a pretty negative person.

The world's a big place.

even in sharia law, manslaughter (as opposed to murder) is punishable by payment of blood money only. i'd be surprised if any country serving the death sentence didn't also recognize some form of diminished responsibility.

[Death]

not really. when you're in life imprisonment you have a lot of the amenities you can have outdoors. as i said, it's no club med, but being dead beats being cared for until the culprit dies. besides, let's not kid ourselves, the way things are, death row is about same thing as life imprisonment, with how long all the appeals take. the only difference is the means of death.

You think locking someone away and murdering them is equal? Not a chance.

well, first, some prisoners also kill themselves in death row.

Lulwhat? What's this supposed to mean? The prisoner in death row's going to die anyway, right? That doesn't mean that they are both unpreferable and that one is worse than the other.

second, there are a host of reasons why. maybe some people tire of being brutally raped in the shower every day? i don't think having their liberty taken away is the main reason that push lifers to suicide.

Thankyou, you've just proven my point. Prison with its conditions is worse than death. Therefore, we should lock people away to give them a greater punishment.

nevertheless, if life imprisonment leads to suicide, it's exactly the same thing as the death penalty. locked up for some time then dead.

You're blatently ignoring the facts that prisoners suffer first in the instance of prison, they will always die at the end of their life anyway, and that a prisoner can be released and compensated if later found to be innocent. Try doing that to a corpse.

there are studies implying that lethal injection is, in some case, not exactly the painless respite we think it is.

So? They still die pretty soon afterward. I'd rather have that than have virtually all my freedoms removed for the rest of my life. The above doesn't do anything for your case.

sefulness in death. i think this concept was explored by brave new world. hmmm...is that as monstrous as people think? think about it.

Are murderers monstrous? Mass murderers? If so, then killing them is no different since it is hypocritical.

some guy takes out a productive member of society, and instead of doing something about it, we take out another one by either locking them up or killing them.

I've already explained above (and in other posts) countless times why there's more to it than that.

before we punish them, they should at least give back some of what we lost in productivity and man hours. my biggest gripe on the death penalty is that we lose two instead of one...hard labor fixes that.

Hard labour actually isn't a bad idea. That would be an excellent substitute for the death penalty, and maybe even prison, so long as the prisoners don't get the oppourtunity to escape. I don't see this being easy and something that can be done with all prisoners though.

well, i am a pretty negative person.

Why be negative when you can be positive?

even in sharia law, manslaughter (as opposed to murder) is punishable by payment of blood money only. i'd be surprised if any country serving the death sentence didn't also recognize some form of diminished responsibility.

Yeah, but sharia law is nothing but primitive, sadistic nonsense anyway.

[Jean Poutine]

You think locking someone away and murdering them is equal? Not a chance.

oh yes, yes it is. i'd rather be locked away than dead.

free room and board and entertainment for the rest of my life? and i don't even have to work! i'd just study all day long. absolutely perfect.

Lulwhat? What's this supposed to mean? The prisoner in death row's going to die anyway, right? That doesn't mean that they are both unpreferable and that one is worse than the other.

>why do people kill themselves on life sentences if death is a worse punishment?
>>people also kill themselves on death row.
>>>ergo, saying people kill themselves while on life sentences does not deduct anything from capital punishment's severity.

Thankyou, you've just proven my point. Prison with its conditions is worse than death. Therefore, we should lock people away to give them a greater punishment.

...conditions that are also found while murderers wait 25 years in death row. see above.

You're blatently ignoring the facts that prisoners suffer first in the instance of prison, they will always die at the end of their life anyway, and that a prisoner can be released and compensated if later found to be innocent. Try doing that to a corpse.

i'm ignoring it because your point is stupid. death row wait times are over 20 years in the US. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row)

imagine for a second you've been locked up 25 years in prison before you are found innocent. you are released and compensated. how would you feel in a world that is quite unlike the one you quit? how would you feel with 25 years of your life lost?

former inmates already have much higher suicide rates than the general population (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836121/). a person released in an almost completely changed, chaotic world might as well be dead.

So? They still die pretty soon afterward. I'd rather have that than have virtually all my freedoms removed for the rest of my life. The above doesn't do anything for your case.

i'd rather die in my sleep than live 35 minutes of terror because the short-acting barbiturate wore off while my respiratory system is completely paralyzed.

in prison, you've got free room and board along with entertainment. you are overestimating the severity of the jailing system. i've seen child molesters on life terms with computers, along with access to internet, in their cells.

Are murderers monstrous? Mass murderers? If so, then killing them is no different since it is hypocritical.

we can argue all night long about this, but why do you think that life imprisonment, when you think it's actually worse than death, is less monstrous?

I've already explained above (and in other posts) countless times why there's more to it than that.


nope, there's nothing more than that, not from an utilitarian standpoint. whether or not you choose to include bleeding heart philosophies in your appreciation of capital punishment is your prerogative. i think you are complicating life overmuch.

is capital punishment absolutely perfect? no, it's not. we execute a killer instead of having them replace the manhours society lost by the loss of a productive individual (then killing them). it costs tons of money because of additional legal procedures and the ridiculous fees lawyer charges. it's not even a very good deterrent if we take into account murder rates in the US and other capital punishment countries. saying "it works" like the other dude was doing is wrong from many standpoints.

there are two things capital punishment is good for. 1) bargaining, and 2) eliminating recidivists.

bargaining using capital punishment uses the primitive fear of death inherent to all humans. it's not a big leap of logic to assume, even if it is hardly something easy to prove, that many of your "lifers" probably would've received lesser sentences or even been never caught at all without capital punishment.

i don't really believe in rehabilitation, but i also don't believe in capital punishment for first offenses. you can jail a recidivist for life, and risk them killing other inmates, or you can kill him, negating that risk. which is the lesser evil?


Hard labour actually isn't a bad idea. That would be an excellent substitute for the death penalty, and maybe even prison, so long as the prisoners don't get the oppourtunity to escape. I don't see this being easy and something that can be done with all prisoners though.

i love the idea of hard labor more and more, especially when i drive into potholes.

Why be negative when you can be positive?

both are equally wrong.

Yeah, but sharia law is nothing but primitive, sadistic nonsense anyway.

you do know there are multiple interpretations of shari'a law, and that moderate interpretations are much different from what you see on TV, right?

while i wouldn't go so far as to proscribe cutting the hands of thieves, there are some elements of shari'a law that i think western countries would do well to adopt. zakat, for example.

[Death]

oh yes, yes it is. i'd rather be locked away than dead.

What if the conditions in prison were downright awful?

free room and board and entertainment for the rest of my life? and i don't even have to work! i'd just study all day long. absolutely perfect.

What kind of shitty life is that? But prison, in my opinion, needs to be worse than this. And if it is, it should be the better punishment.

>why do people kill themselves on life sentences if death is a worse punishment?
>>people also kill themselves on death row.
>>>ergo, saying people kill themselves while on life sentences does not deduct anything from capital punishment's severity.

Is death severe? You can't feel punished after you're dead.

i'm ignoring it because your point is stupid.

If you are going to start calling my points stupid simply because you don't agree with them, then I'll stop inhibiting myself: Your views are primitive, counter-productive, and down-right fucking monstrous. Are you okay with me saying this?

imagine for a second you've been locked up 25 years in prison before you are found innocent. you are released and compensated. how would you feel in a world that is quite unlike the one you quit? how would you feel with 25 years of your life lost?

This would indeed be bad, but not as bad as staying couped up in there the rest of the time. As I said, death is the easy way out for murderers. There's a reason why many shootouts result in the suicide of the shooter. It's because prison is worse than death. It is also more humane and not hypocritical. At least you can release someone from prison, unlike death.

in prison, you've got free room and board along with entertainment. you are overestimating the severity of the jailing system. i've seen child molesters on life terms with computers, along with access to internet, in their cells.

As I've said, what if you removed said luxuries and made prison one living hell? Or do what you suggested earlier and force them into permanent labour.

we can argue all night long about this, but why do you think that life imprisonment, when you think it's actually worse than death, is less monstrous?

Because you are not sinking down to the level of the murderers and there is no risk of killing innocent people. And as I said, innocent people who are imprisoned can be released with enough compensation for them to live a good (enough) life with what they have left. It's the least you can do. And what about their families? They would rather have them back.

is capital punishment absolutely perfect? no, it's not. we execute a killer instead of having them replace the manhours society lost by the loss of a productive individual (then killing them).

If you kill a murderer, how can you claim to be any better than they are?

it costs tons of money because of additional legal procedures and the ridiculous fees lawyer charges.

I think we should spend less on the prisoners. But lawyers will always be required either way.

it's not even a very good deterrent if we take into account murder rates in the US and other capital punishment countries. saying "it works" like the other dude was doing is wrong from many standpoints.

What murder rates? I heard that they were no different.

bargaining using capital punishment uses the primitive fear of death inherent to all humans.

I don't know about you, but I also think they would fear being couped up for the rest of their life without their freedoms.

i don't really believe in rehabilitation, but i also don't believe in capital punishment for first offenses. you can jail a recidivist for life, and risk them killing other inmates, or you can kill him, negating that risk. which is the lesser evil?

The lesser evil is putting murderers in seperate cells and never letting them out of there. That way, they get a shitty life and cannot kill anyone else.

[Jean Poutine]

What if the conditions in prison were downright awful?

they aren't.

What kind of shitty life is that? But prison, in my opinion, needs to be worse than this. And if it is, it should be the better punishment.

but it isn't.

Is death severe? You can't feel punished after you're dead.

i'm not exactly a theist, but i don't like getting in bets i have a chance of losing, so i'll just say "that remains to be seen".

If you are going to start calling my points stupid simply because you don't agree with them, then I'll stop inhibiting myself: Your views are primitive, counter-productive, and down-right fucking monstrous. Are you okay with me saying this?

there is a mis-attributed quote to voltaire that floats around that i agree with, so yes, i'm okay with it.

that being said, i don't get how exactly you can support perpetual solitary confinement and call the death penalty primitive and monstrous.

This would indeed be bad, but not as bad as staying couped up in there the rest of the time. As I said, death is the easy way out for murderers. There's a reason why many shootouts result in the suicide of the shooter. It's because prison is worse than death. It is also more humane and not hypocritical. At least you can release someone from prison, unlike death.

i would rather argue that they suicide because they view their revenge mission on whatever class of people they choose to massacre, done.

that's the great thing about strawmen, they always go both ways!

As I've said, what if you removed said luxuries and made prison one living hell? Or do what you suggested earlier and force them into permanent labour.

again, but it isn't. as long as jailing conditions are what they are then i will support the death penalty. death is worse than being pampered for the rest of your life.

Because you are not sinking down to the level of the murderers and there is no risk of killing innocent people. And as I said, innocent people who are imprisoned can be released with enough compensation for them to live a good (enough) life with what they have left. It's the least you can do. And what about their families? They would rather have them back.

now, sinking down to the level of a murderer would be to execute innocent people for no reason. i like to think i'm one step above the common murderer.

i have already told you that suicide rates are much higher when criminals are released from prison. this is because one comes to actually adapt being jailed, and this is why jailing is less terrible than we imagine, no matter the hardships inside. torture works because it's unpleasant and unpredictable, thus limiting any capacity of adaptation. jail is just unpleasant.

imagine when your entire life has been regimented by outsiders for over 25 years, you are told when to eat, sleep, piss, play. would you be able to come back to a normal life?

in my case, no. i'd rather shoot myself.

If you kill a murderer, how can you claim to be any better than they are?

by doing a hard thing that nevertheless must be done. i don't want some dirt bag having fun with my tax money.

and that i, at least, didn't murder an innocent.

I think we should spend less on the prisoners. But lawyers will always be required either way.

yes, i think so too. and i hope i will always be required. i wouldn't like being off a job.

What murder rates? I heard that they were no different.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0301.pdf
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/101026/dq101026a-eng.htm

compare. if you want to have more fun then i'm going to suggest you do something you've probably being told never to do and visit wikipedia.

I don't know about you, but I also think they would fear being couped up for the rest of their life without their freedoms.

seems to be no better a deterrent as death penalty, in any case.

The lesser evil is putting murderers in seperate cells and never letting them out of there. That way, they get a shitty life and cannot kill anyone else.

but how is that less monstrous than outright killing them?

[Belton21]

Done.

And back on topic, I oppose the death penalty because killing murderers is hypocrticial. You think murder is wrong, so you're going to do the same to them?

they should kill their ass' because think of all the money the state or country spends feeding them..all ther doin is throwing money in a fire..they shouldnt spend money on a fuck up.....

[Death]

they aren't.
...
but it isn't.

It would appear you misunderstand "what if". If the changes I suggested were to be made, then prison would be the obvious choice.

i'm not exactly a theist, but i don't like getting in bets i have a chance of losing, so i'll just say "that remains to be seen".

That sounds pretty theistic to me. I don't even think an agnostic would have said that in response to what I said.

there is a mis-attributed quote to voltaire that floats around that i agree with, so yes, i'm okay with it.

that being said, i don't get how exactly you can support perpetual solitary confinement and call the death penalty primitive and monstrous.

Are murderers monstrous? If they are, then so is killing them.

i would rather argue that they suicide because they view their revenge mission on whatever class of people they choose to massacre, done.

That's because you don't want to face the fact that they would prefer death. But come on, it's obvious that they do it because they don't want to be imprisoned.

again, but it isn't. as long as jailing conditions are what they are then i will support the death penalty. death is worse than being pampered for the rest of your life.

But why should the pampering even matter? The point is they cannot commit any more crimes. Societal protection should be your number one priority. Although the death penalty does cover this, it gives the chance of killing innocents that imprisonment does not.

now, sinking down to the level of a murderer would be to execute innocent people for no reason. i like to think i'm one step above the common murderer.

You cannot be above a murderer if you commit the same crime as them. Honestly, I find it a bit hypocritical. Rising above a murderer is by punishing them without playing their own game.

i have already told you that suicide rates are much higher when criminals are released from prison. this is because one comes to actually adapt being jailed, and this is why jailing is less terrible than we imagine, no matter the hardships inside. torture works because it's unpleasant and unpredictable, thus limiting any capacity of adaptation. jail is just unpleasant.

So which is worse for someone? Death or jail?

imagine when your entire life has been regimented by outsiders for over 25 years, you are told when to eat, sleep, piss, play. would you be able to come back to a normal life?

I'd be overjoyed to have my normal life back.

by doing a hard thing that nevertheless must be done. i don't want some dirt bag having fun with my tax money.

and that i, at least, didn't murder an innocent.

But you could have done if they are later found to be innocent.

they should kill their ass' because think of all the money the state or country spends feeding them..all ther doin is throwing money in a fire..they shouldnt spend money on a fuck up.....

I've already explained why the above is bullshit. Suffice to say that you don't need to spend much money and in doing so you can make prison conditions bad.

[FainAgain]

I think the death penalty is just fine. As of now it is not east to get the death penalty. Unanimous jury decision.

[Death]

I think the death penalty is just fine. As of now it is not east to get the death penalty. Unanimous jury decision.

I find it so funny how a bible-quoting fanatic like you is okay with legalised murder despite "though shalt now kill" being in the decalogue.

[slappy]

I think the death penalty is just fine. As of now it is not east to get the death penalty. Unanimous jury decision.

Remember though shalt now kill
Why should we be killing them?

[beren]

It's interesting to see the different kinds of people who speak here. On the one hand, there are the "pro life", people who think that one killing is enough, who still think there is some good in every man, who think that killing is wrong, people who oppose violence. On the other hand, we have people who need violence, who need blood, who need to kill. Enough killings!
In fact, you, people who defend the death penalty, are a way closer to murderers than the people who oppose it. You use one of the human race's most primitive instincts to judge someone: vengeance. We think justice is beyond vengeance. It's normal to want the death of a murderer, it's a natural human feeling. But Justice is beyond any man.

As the great Victor Hugo said: "Look, examine, reflect. You hold capital punishment up as an example. Why? Because of what it teaches. And just what is it that you wish to teach by means of this example? That thou shalt not kill. And how do you teach that "thou shalt not kill"? By killing.

I have examined the death penalty under each of its two aspects: as a direct action, and as an indirect one. What does it come down to? Nothing but something horrible and useless, nothing but a way of shedding blood that is called a crime when an individual commits it, but is (sadly) called "justice" when society brings it about. Make no mistake, you lawmakers and judges, in the eyes of God as in those of conscience, what is a crime when individuals do it is no less an offense when society commits the deed."

Every day we are getting closer to universal abolition. The dark hours of human's justice are coming to an end, whether you want it or not. (just look at the numbers)

[georgiamay]

Personally, I'm completely against the death penalty.

I think we have no right to decide whether a person deserves to die or not, and I know you could say, "But murderers don't have the right either!" No, they don't have the right, but that doesn't automatically give us the right to decide whether they live or die.

I also think that one wrongfully convicted person is far too many, and if they receive the death penalty, then that's ridiculous.

Also, where would the line be drawn? Would there be a sentencing hearing to decide whether a convict is going to be sentenced to death? If so, then what if that judge had some sort of bias? And I think giving one person the position of power to decide whether to execute a person or not is disgraceful.

[tpzy94]

I believe the death penalty is morally wrong.

agreed id make them suffer like the victims family is suffering

[FainAgain]

Remember though shalt now kill
Why should we be killing them?

I find it so funny how a bible-quoting fanatic like you is okay with legalised murder despite "though shalt now kill" being in the decalogue.

Actually in Exodus 21:12-13

12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate.

so thank you very much

[Belton21]

I find it so funny how a bible-quoting fanatic like you is okay with legalised murder despite "though shalt now kill" being in the decalogue.

Acutually it says here in Numbers 35:16 (And if he smite him with an instrument of iron,so that he die,he is a murderer:the murderer shall surely be put to death.) Numbers 35:17 (And if he smite him with a throwing stone,wherewith he may die,and he die,he is a murderer:he shall surely be put to to death.) Numbers 35:17 ( Or if he smite him with a hand weapon of wood,wherewith he may die,and he die,he is a murderer:the murderer shall surely be put to death.) Numbers 35:22,23 (If he thrust him suddenly without enmity,or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,23 Or with any stone,that a man may die,seeing him not,and cast it upon him,that he die,and was not his enemy,neither sought his harm...)

[embers]

Actually in Exodus 21:12-13

12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate.

so thank you very much

Right, so let's start throwing quotes around - quotes which, I believe, are from the Old Testament, which is a bunch of incoherent murderous scribblings by a bunch of shitfaced tribesmen. Seriously, if you just pull quotes out like that to justify yourselves then I'm gonna tell you that you deserve to die because you've probably thought/spoken badly of your parents at least once, which was punishable by stoning in the Old Testament!

[RoseyCadaver]

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Mohandas Gandhi.

[FainAgain]

Right, so let's start throwing quotes around - quotes which, I believe, are from the Old Testament, which is a bunch of incoherent murderous scribblings by a bunch of shitfaced tribesmen. Seriously, if you just pull quotes out like that to justify yourselves then I'm gonna tell you that you deserve to die because you've probably thought/spoken badly of your parents at least once, which was punishable by stoning in the Old Testament!

Indeed they are. They are from the hebrew code, and convey god's original intention for man.

[Continuum]

Indeed they are. They are from the hebrew code, and convey god's original intention for man.

Well, He was inscribed in the Old Testament as a merciless, draconic tyrant who leveled entire cities and paved the way for his "sons" by letting them murder, pillage and rape all they want original inhabitants of the "Promised land", just because they were there. Here's the original manuscript from Deuteronomy.

“Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you”

He allowed the incessant declarations of war in the other Books of the Old Testament. He led various acts of genocide and suffering to the other non-Jews. He flooded the whole world just because He didn't saw enough good people in his world. Is this really what He wants us to be? I fail to see any "Good" intention in His senseless acts of destruction.

Also, I agree with the punishment of death, as long as it's reasonable and legitimate. I do not want to go any further.

[Jean Poutine]

It's interesting to see the different kinds of people who speak here. On the one hand, there are the "pro life", people who think that one killing is enough, who still think there is some good in every man, who think that killing is wrong, people who oppose violence. On the other hand, we have people who need violence, who need blood, who need to kill. Enough killings!
In fact, you, people who defend the death penalty, are a way closer to murderers than the people who oppose it. You use one of the human race's most primitive instincts to judge someone: vengeance. We think justice is beyond vengeance. It's normal to want the death of a murderer, it's a natural human feeling. But Justice is beyond any man.

As the great Victor Hugo said: "Look, examine, reflect. You hold capital punishment up as an example. Why? Because of what it teaches. And just what is it that you wish to teach by means of this example? That thou shalt not kill. And how do you teach that "thou shalt not kill"? By killing.

I have examined the death penalty under each of its two aspects: as a direct action, and as an indirect one. What does it come down to? Nothing but something horrible and useless, nothing but a way of shedding blood that is called a crime when an individual commits it, but is (sadly) called "justice" when society brings it about. Make no mistake, you lawmakers and judges, in the eyes of God as in those of conscience, what is a crime when individuals do it is no less an offense when society commits the deed."

Every day we are getting closer to universal abolition. The dark hours of human's justice are coming to an end, whether you want it or not. (just look at the numbers)

enter variously coherent pseudo-philosophical ramblings (the hugo quote being the most coherent part).

proportional punishment is justice well-served. oh, and two more words : plea bargain.

sounds nice calling people murderers and killers, that relish on their basic instinct. unfortunately, taking the moral high ground is hardly an argument.

and for the love of pete, don't bring the bible into this morass. there's enough ambiguity with the death penalty without referring to a book of dubious authorship and historical value that could very well be the near east's version of the iliad for all we know.

[Belton21]

Right, so let's start throwing quotes around - quotes which, I believe, are from the Old Testament, which is a bunch of incoherent murderous scribblings by a bunch of shitfaced tribesmen. Seriously, if you just pull quotes out like that to justify yourselves then I'm gonna tell you that you deserve to die because you've probably thought/spoken badly of your parents at least once, which was punishable by stoning in the Old Testament!

What I said was the word of god unto moses..so no it wasn't a bunch of shi** faced tribesmen

[beren]

enter variously coherent pseudo-philosophical ramblings (the hugo quote being the most coherent part).

proportional punishment is justice well-served. oh, and two more words : plea bargain.

sounds nice calling people murderers and killers, that relish on their basic instinct. unfortunately, taking the moral high ground is hardly an argument.

It's true the "moral high ground" is slightly too high for the death penalty. So here are some arguments.

- - The death penalty has no incidence on the criminality rates.
Need dome proofs?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

- You still believe in deterrence? Just know that the murderers who kill, who rape, are by a criminal passion when they commit those atrocities: they don't fear death, they're FASCINATED by death. Moreover, is the fear of death stopped the passions, there would be no great sportsman, nor great soldier.
Need some proofs?

"Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996, concluded: "Research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis...

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, revised edition, 1996, p. 238, paragraph 328)3"

- All the world's great democracies have abolished the death penalty (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand...). Top 3 countries that use death penalty, in number of people killed? China, Iran. And the United States. Find what's wrong here.

- It's far more expensive for the tax payers to execute an inmate than to keep him/her in jail for the rest of their lives.
Need some proofs?

" California Cost Studies:

The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually."

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (June 30, 2008)"California Cost Studies:

Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008)"

- 41% of death row inmates are black, while they only represented 12.9% of the American population in 2010. Weird, isn't it? (unless you think black people are more violent than others, which would be completely crazy.)


Need some more arguments? No problem, just ask. Oh, and one more thing: the main difference between you and me, between abolitionists and supporters of the death penalty, is that you don't see moral as an argument, we do.

[Jean Poutine]

It's true the "moral high ground" is slightly too high for the death penalty. So here are some arguments.

- - The death penalty has no incidence on the criminality rates.
Need dome proofs?

- [COLOR="Red"]You still believe in deterrence? Just know that the murderers who kill, who rape, are by a criminal passion when they commit those atrocities: they don't fear death, they're FASCINATED by death. Moreover, is the fear of death stopped the passions, there would be no great sportsman, nor great soldier.
Need some proofs?


no, i don't. i already said capital punishment was a poor deterrent, which is irrelevant as it is not its strength.

its strength is in plea bargaining. i already said that too.

- [COLOR="SandyBrown"]All the world's great democracies have abolished the death penalty (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand...). Top 3 countries that use death penalty, in number of people killed? China, Iran. And the United States. Find what's wrong here.

sure, i'll tell you what's wrong - not considering the united states, the foremost power of the last two centuries, a "great democracy".

you were almost there but you fell flat on your face halfway through.

- It's far more expensive for the tax payers to execute an inmate than to keep him/her in jail for the rest of their lives.
Need some proofs?

no, i don't. the price of capital punishment is such because of all the lawyering up inmates are required to do while in death row. i already said that. can you read?

limiting the number of appeals would 1) speed up the process and 2) drive down costs. a quote by frank zimring :

"What we are paying for at such great cost is essentially our own ambivalence about capital punishment. We try to maintain the apparatus of state killing and another apparatus that almost guarantees that it won't happen. The public pays for both sides."

[COLOR="Yellow"]41% of death row inmates are black, while they only represented 12.9% of the American population in 2010. Weird, isn't it? (unless you think black people are more violent than others, which would be completely crazy.)

>a leading theory of criminology : crimes rates are tied in with socioeconomic standing. - see merton (1957) and cohen (1955).

>>black people are of a lesser socioeconomic standing than the average and are more likely to live in impoverished neighborhoods.

>>>black people are more likely to turn to crime.

= yawn.

Need some more arguments? No problem, just ask. Oh, and one more thing: the main difference between you and me, between abolitionists and supporters of the death penalty, is that you don't see moral as an argument, we do.

build better strawmen next time.

[beren]

So for you:
-capital punishment is a poor deterrent, but we should use it
-the US are not a great democracy (it surely won't become one if people think that way)
-we shouldn't give people who are possibly innocent the chance to go in appeal for it is too expensive. ("The public pay for both sides": you say we should only pay for one, I say we shouldn't pay for any, for both of them are linked.)
-black people are more likely to turn to crime, so instead of trying to help the people who grow up in poor neighborhood, you think we should let them endure the consequences of a society we created and kill them?

No, I can't read what you write, I just can't. It's such a pessimistic view of the world, of the future. People like you make us move backward instead of looking forward. You look at what's wrong and make no proposal to make it better. I have one. Abolish the death penalty. It's not much, but believe me, when the human race will understand that killing to show that killing is wrong is totally illogical, that it doesn't work, that's it's barbaric and that it's expensive, at that moment we'll go forward.
One more thing: you're so aggressive! I was speaking to people who support the death penalty, not to you. Which you obviously didn't understand. What I didn't understand was to see someone like you, who seem totally logical, defending such a deeply illogical thing that is the death penalty.
The aim of this forum is to talk, to "grow together", not to make irrelevant and unkind personal remarks.
Anyway, I hope you'll still be alive when the death penalty will only be a dark memory of our justice. I think you will. Voices greater than yours and mine are rising every day to make our world a more descent place, where no human justice can surpass life.

We have two different conception of justice, that's all. At the end, who will win, as it's all about winning or losing.

[sports fan1]

if god says that no one should kill, what gives the United States, a jury, or even the highest judge a right to sentence a man to his death?

[Bougainvillea]

if god says that no one should kill, what gives the United States, a jury, or even the highest judge a right to sentence a man to his death?
I don't know what gives the people the idea that others can't be judged by our fellow man. We have every right to judge someone, and sentence them to death based on how they affect our lives, and the things they have done.

You can't just do something bad, and expect no one to judge you because "God" will. Religious views should never hold any valid arguement in the court of law.

[Sith Lord 13]

if god says that no one should kill, what gives the United States, a jury, or even the highest judge a right to sentence a man to his death?

Because the actual translation is closer to Thou shalt not commit murder.
That is, don't just go around killing people. The bible actually instructs you to kill people when they commit certain offenses.

[red_dragon]

Yes, the death penalty is right. If you take a life why should you not have to pay for your crime by losing your life? It’s also a great deterrent, showing what is done to those who commit the crimes. I wish Canada would bring back hanging for Murder, Rape and Treason. That would solve the overcrowded prison system.

[Jean Poutine]

So for you:
-capital punishment is a poor deterrent, but we should use it

because it is NOT its strength, nor why we should use it in the first place.

-the US are not a great democracy (it surely won't become one if people think that way)

seriously guy, are you absolutely certain you know how to read?

YOU didn't list the US in your "list" of great democracies. i called you on it. and now i'm the bad guy?

-we shouldn't give people who are possibly innocent the chance to go in appeal for it is too expensive. ("The public pay for both sides": you say we should only pay for one, I say we shouldn't pay for any, for both of them are linked.)

the court system offers ample opportunity to prove innocence. it's not like forensics did not make a huge leap forward from the 1950s. false guilty verdicts are exceedingly rare now.

you should be more worried about idiotic jurors who declare obviously guilty defendants, not guilty because of not enough forensics evidence (see csi effect).

-black people are more likely to turn to crime, so instead of trying to help the people who grow up in poor neighborhood, you think we should let them endure the consequences of a society we created and kill them?

now where exactly did i say that? you're a big fan of putting words into people's mouths, it seems. either way, this is irrelevant to the debate at hand.

No, I can't read what you write, I just can't. It's such a pessimistic view of the world, of the future. People like you make us move backward instead of looking forward. You look at what's wrong and make no proposal to make it better. I have one. Abolish the death penalty. It's not much, but believe me, when the human race will understand that killing to show that killing is wrong is totally illogical, that it doesn't work, that's it's barbaric and that it's expensive, at that moment we'll go forward.

you abolitionists make me laugh. all you're doing is parading around going "haha we're better people than you", and then you have the gall of calling retentionists backwards, primitive people when all you do is play moral dick-measuring contests.

let's see

>illogical : i heard proportional punishment is a thing defying logic.
>>it doesn't work : i'm pretty sure people die as intended
>>>it's barbaric : that's such a favorite. it's barbaric to kill people but not to stick them in a dingy cell for the rest of their life.
>>>>it's expensive : it needn't be.

One more thing: you're so aggressive! I was speaking to people who support the death penalty, not to you. Which you obviously didn't understand. What I didn't understand was to see someone like you, who seem totally logical, defending such a deeply illogical thing that is the death penalty.

being aggressive or not aggressive concerns me alone.

you launched a message on a public space on a public forum. you were speaking to the public. as a member of the public, i answered.

internet isn't as easy as it looks.

The aim of this forum is to talk, to "grow together", not to make irrelevant and unkind personal remarks.

i'm pretty sure calling retentionists barbaric and backwards contributes to this goal.

wait...

Anyway, I hope you'll still be alive when the death penalty will only be a dark memory of our justice. I think you will. Voices greater than yours and mine are rising every day to make our world a more descent place, where no human justice can surpass life.

people are still getting executed for homosexual acts in certain parts of the world. the death penalty will perhaps be gone when my grand-grand children have children of their own. maybe.

besides, in that great canadian democracy of mine :

http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/actualites-en-societe/281709/62-des-canadiens-diraient-oui-a-la-peine-de-mort

It’s also a great deterrent, showing what is done to those who commit the crimes.

stop saying it's a great deterrent. it's not a great deterrent. it was proven the deterrent effect at large was negligible.

but then, neither is jail for life.

[Death]

Yes, the death penalty is right. If you take a life why should you not have to pay for your crime by losing your life?

Why the fuck do you think? Next time, try asking sensible questions.

It’s also a great deterrent,

Yeah sure, let's give murderers the consolation that they don't have to worry about killing themselves or spending the rest of their life locked away because they know they have an easy and legalised way out. Honestly, what a load of fucking bullshit.

showing what is done to those who commit the crimes. I wish Canada would bring back hanging for Murder, Rape and Treason. That would solve the overcrowded prison system.

You think murder is wrong, so you respond by doing exactly that to the murderers? You are no different to them. Therefore, your views are hypocritical.

[beren]

seriously guy, are you absolutely certain you know how to read?

YOU didn't list the US in your "list" of great democracies. i called you on it. and now i'm the bad guy?

You didn't understand what I meant. The US are a great democracy. But on the death penalty issue, they stand among the worst regimes in the world. That's why I asked you if you didn't see anything wrong in that list.



the court system offers ample opportunity to prove innocence. it's not like forensics did not make a huge leap forward from the 1950s. false guilty verdicts are exceedingly rare now.

Rare, but not impossible.


now where exactly did i say that? you're a big fan of putting words into people's mouths, it seems. either way, this is irrelevant to the debate at hand.

You know it's true that the proportion of black people in death rows is abnormal. You told me why. Instead of making statements of bad situations, you should make suggestions to resolve them. I have one. Abolish.


>illogical : i heard proportional punishment is a thing defying logic.
>>it doesn't work : i'm pretty sure people die as intended
>>>it's barbaric : that's such a favorite. it's barbaric to kill people but not to stick them in a dingy cell for the rest of their life.

Yes, all the solutions we have are horrible. As human beings, I think we have to choose the solution that doesn't kill.
Are you telling me you are for death penalty because life in prison is too barbaric? Well, that's hypocritical!

>>>>it's expensive : it needn't be.

Sure, we could put them in a gutter and kill the with a bullet in the head. That would certainly be cheaper. Killing someone is already horrible. You wanna make it cheaper? Well, that would be barbaric. The only way to make it cheaper and less barbaric is to abolish death penalty.


you launched a message on a public space on a public forum. you were speaking to the public. as a member of the public, i answered.

Then tell the public what you think about what I said, not me.

[georgiamay]

the court system offers ample opportunity to prove innocence. it's not like forensics did not make a huge leap forward from the 1950s. false guilty verdicts are exceedingly rare now.

Just because it's rare doesn't mean it won't ever happen. One wrongfully executed is way too many.


I've said it before but I'll say it again: We have no right to decide who lives and who dies. You may say that the murderers lost their rights when they committed the crime, but that doesn't automatically give us the right to decide if they deserve to live or not.

[Jean Poutine]

You didn't understand what I meant. The US are a great democracy. But on the death penalty issue, they stand among the worst regimes in the world. That's why I asked you if you didn't see anything wrong in that list.

point taken. but even in other democracies support for death penalty is high. the article i mentioned talks about canada and the UK, both at over 60% support.

it was my assumption that you could read french. am i wrong?

Rare, but not impossible.

there is absolutely no way that somebody would be charged with capital punishment if the proof against them was not clear beyond a single speck of shadow of a doubt. therefore the point is moot.

if an innocent is condemned to death, it is more a fault of the judicial system than a fault of capital punishment itself. direct your energies towards the jury system or whatever else you think is the cause.

You know it's true that the proportion of black people in death rows is abnormal. You told me why. Instead of making statements of bad situations, you should make suggestions to resolve them. I have one. Abolish.

yes, i am sure abolishing capital punishment would improve the socioeconomic standing of black people everywhere.

why do i have the feeling that the two are not connected?

Yes, all the solutions we have are horrible. As human beings, I think we have to choose the solution that doesn't kill.
Are you telling me you are for death penalty because life in prison is too barbaric? Well, that's hypocritical!

i am for death penalty because i believe in proportional punishment to a degree. i am just pointing out that being against killing murderers doesn't put you guys on the moral high ground immediately.

i'm not saying that there aren't any downsides to capital punishment, because there is. it's not a perfect solution. i personally don't believe in the death sentence for first offenders. i would like to believe that the human race has inherent virtues and that an intrinsically good person can fight his way out of crime. but it's better to lose a hardened criminal than to lose a reformable inmate or even a prison employee.

Sure, we could put them in a gutter and kill the with a bullet in the head. That would certainly be cheaper. Killing someone is already horrible. You wanna make it cheaper? Well, that would be barbaric. The only way to make it cheaper and less barbaric is to abolish death penalty.

but the only way to make sure murderers don't kill anymore is by killing them.

we already go to pains to make sure criminals don't suffer. screw this. thousands of good people die of incurable diseases each year, while suffering incredibly even though we pump tons of morphine in their body.

bring back hanging. if i had my way they'd be hanged from chair height, none of those specially designed gallows to snap the neck. but i suppose that's "cruel and unusual punishment".

Then tell the public what you think about what I said, not me.

you are a member of said public starting at your first post.

Just because it's rare doesn't mean it won't ever happen. One wrongfully executed is way too many.

I've said it before but I'll say it again: We have no right to decide who lives and who dies. You may say that the murderers lost their rights when they committed the crime, but that doesn't automatically give us the right to decide if they deserve to live or not.

see above.

the great thing about our system is that even scum keep their basic rights.

but we do have a right to decide between life and death. doctors do it all the time. deciding the fate of somebody separates us from beasts.

[slappy]

Actually in Exodus 21:12-13

12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate.

so thank you very much

Haha
Contradictory much?

[beren]

point taken. but even in other democracies support for death penalty is high. the article i mentioned talks about canada and the UK, both at over 60% support.

it was my assumption that you could read french. am i wrong?

No, I actually do. But I knew that poll. It's approximately the same in France. The day before the repeal of the death penalty in France, about 70% of the French people supported it. But the "congresspeople" decided to abolish it by 394 votes against 113. Those people knew the death penalty very well. The people who are asked if they support the death penalty in those polls usually say yes or no at the moment, not really knowing what it exactly is. (which is totally normal, it's a very complex issue, and, in a country where it's abolished, it's almost not an issue anymore.)



there is absolutely no way that somebody would be charged with capital punishment if the proof against them was not clear beyond a single speck of shadow of a doubt. therefore the point is moot.

if an innocent is condemned to death, it is more a fault of the judicial system than a fault of capital punishment itself. direct your energies towards the jury system or whatever else you think is the cause.

It already happen; for example, in 2004, Cameron Willingham was executed even though some specialists claimed he was innovcent. Justice is human, and human make mistakes. If a person is killed, the mistake can not be cancelled. If they're in prison, it can.



yes, i am sure abolishing capital punishment would improve the socioeconomic standing of black people everywhere.

why do i have the feeling that the two are not connected?

It would certainly not "improve their socioeconomic standing everywhere", but at least the section of the Bill of Rights that says "all men are created equal" would be "more respected". (we all know that depending on the place where someone is born, their ethnicity, their religion, equality isn't respected; but we have to narrow the deep gap there is between the ideal solution and the world as it is today.)


it's not a perfect solution. i personally don't believe in the death sentence for first offenders. i would like to believe that the human race has inherent virtues and that an intrinsically good person can fight his way out of crime.

I do. It's true that abolishing the death penalty for first offenders would be a good solution while waiting for the definitive abolition.
Another quote by Hugo: "Chaque homme dans sa nuit s'en va vers sa lumière." (sorry, not easy to translate...)



but the only way to make sure murderers don't kill anymore is by killing them.

Or put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Oh no, they could kill other inmates. Wait, you're for the death penalty, so I think it's not a problem for you. They could also attack prison employees. That's why we should spend some of the money saved by the abolition in creating more secured detention center. That way those people won't be able to escape, nor to kill.

No comment on the last part, you probably know what I think about it.

[Blake1994]

Why the fuck do you think? Next time, try asking sensible questions.



Yeah sure, let's give murderers the consolation that they don't have to worry about killing themselves or spending the rest of their life locked away because they know they have an easy and legalised way out. Honestly, what a load of fucking bullshit.



You think murder is wrong, so you respond by doing exactly that to the murderers? You are no different to them. Therefore, your views are hypocritical.

Ahh and I see Death is still trying to force people to agree with his warped views that somehow giving some ruthless murderous sick bastard life is apparently a better solution than the death penalty which they fucking deserve. I agree with Red_Dragon, that's another reason we need the death penalty, to relieve prison overcrowding. The death penalty works and it is necessary.

[beren]

I agree with Red_Dragon, that's another reason we need the death penalty, to relieve prison overcrowding. The death penalty works and it is necessary.

"On December 31, 2009, state and federal correctional authorities had jurisdiction over 1,613,740 prisoners, an increase of 3,981 prisoners from yearend 2008 (figure 1).1"
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p09.pdf

Knowing that, you should know it's not by killing the 3000 death row inmates that we're gonna relieve prison overcrowding.
(At the end, we would still have 981 more prisoners in 2009).

[embers]

Ahh and I see Death is still trying to force people to agree with his warped views that somehow giving some ruthless murderous sick bastard life is apparently a better solution than the death penalty which they fucking deserve. I agree with Red_Dragon, that's another reason we need the death penalty, to relieve prison overcrowding. The death penalty works and it is necessary.

Making petty attacks on members because their views differ from yours is not a good way to debate. Grow up.

[Jean Poutine]

No, I actually do. But I knew that poll. It's approximately the same in France. The day before the repeal of the death penalty in France, about 70% of the French people supported it. But the "congresspeople" decided to abolish it by 394 votes against 113. Those people knew the death penalty very well. The people who are asked if they support the death penalty in those polls usually say yes or no at the moment, not really knowing what it exactly is. (which is totally normal, it's a very complex issue, and, in a country where it's abolished, it's almost not an issue anymore.)

i don't think people are as ill-informed as you think. the poll was in 2010, 50 years after the capital punishment ban.

i think it's a sign that people are tired to see murderers and other scum getting away with diddly squat. the main reason i got into law school is because i want to serve justice.

It already happen; for example, in 2004, Cameron Willingham was executed even though some specialists claimed he was innovcent. Justice is human, and human make mistakes. If a person is killed, the mistake can not be cancelled. If they're in prison, it can.

that's "some" specialists. "some" biologists also think sasquatches are real, and "some" people believe in ufos, aliens and the whole shebang.

the problem with that reasoning is that i'm willing to bet that someone who's out of jail after some time might feel that death is better than being released in a world they now know little about.

as i said, suicide rates are higher the first months after liberation. this is because an inmate actually adapts to prison. life imprisonment isn't the ordeal we think it is. after a while, one ends up used to the regimented lifestyle inmates lead - being told when to sleep, eat, piss, shower, play, and so on.

if you want to get rid of capital punishment, fine. just replace our little club med jails with something more punitive. as long as there is no viable alternative to life imprisonment, i will be for capital punishment.

It would certainly not "improve their socioeconomic standing everywhere", but at least the section of the Bill of Rights that says "all men are created equal" would be "more respected". (we all know that depending on the place where someone is born, their ethnicity, their religion, equality isn't respected; but we have to narrow the deep gap there is between the ideal solution and the world as it is today.)

that we can agree on.

I do. It's true that abolishing the death penalty for first offenders would be a good solution while waiting for the definitive abolition.
Another quote by Hugo: "Chaque homme dans sa nuit s'en va vers sa lumière." (sorry, not easy to translate...)

i am also a french native speaker. there is no need to translate.

i believe in second chances. but not third or fourth ones. the repeat of a major offense indicates clearly that the person can not/does not want to reform. i would do away with all the pomp and hang them.


Or put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Oh no, they could kill other inmates. Wait, you're for the death penalty, so I think it's not a problem for you. They could also attack prison employees. That's why we should spend some of the money saved by the abolition in creating more secured detention center. That way those people won't be able to escape, nor to kill.

not all inmates are created equal. some of them do want to reform and lead a correct life from then on. the loss of such a prisoner would be almost as hard as a blow to society as losing an honest person.

as i said, life imprisonment probably would end up more expensive than capital punishment were i to reform it, so no savings would be made there. the in-between solution we have is not perfect, but it's better than letting scum run free.

[Death]

Ahh and I see Death is still trying to force people to agree with his warped views

And you claim to be better? Here you are still being the same vindictive cunt as always whilst claiming that the problem is me? Seriously dude, if you think I'm bad, why are you proving that you are?

How very catholic of you.

that somehow giving some ruthless murderous sick bastard life is apparently a better solution than the death penalty which they fucking deserve.

You obviously know nothing about the reasoning I gave. And here you are over-generalising again. You're a catholic, right? Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill."? Or are you 'conviniently' ignoring that part since it goes against your murdererous intentions? And yes, killing murderers who cannot defend themselves is murder. It is therefore hypocritical. And murderers deserve more than the death penalty. Killing them does not make them suffer.

Another awful gap in your logic is that you are saying that innocent people who could later have found to be innocent "fucking deserve" the death penalty. It's so funny how you ignore this point because it goes against your own views.

I agree with Red_Dragon, that's another reason we need the death penalty, to relieve prison overcrowding. The death penalty works and it is necessary.

And look, apart from the redundant 'argument' about overcrowding which shouldn't be a problem anyway, you haven't given a single reason why the death penalty is necessary, just that it is. Now why doesn't this suprise me?

Because you have 3 red rep bars?

[Azunite]

And look, apart from the redundant 'argument' about overcrowding which shouldn't be a problem anyway, you haven't given a single reason why the death penalty is necessary, just that it is. Now why doesn't this suprise me?

Because you have 3 red rep bars?


Ahem, ownage.

And I am sick of this overcrowding thing. It is just being animals to kill people in order to clear up space!
The government's collapse won't collapse and prisons won't fall if they give several more cups of food to prisoners.

[Death]

Ahem, ownage.

Forgive my modesty, but owning him isn't exactly hard. ;)

And I am sick of this overcrowding thing. It is just being animals to kill people in order to clear up space!
The government's collapse won't collapse and prisons won't fall if they give several more cups of food to prisoners.

I agree completely. I mean seriously, you want to punish criminals right? And prison does exactly that. It also allows those later found innocent to be released and compensated. Although I personally think that prisoners should get less privalages. That way, people will not commit crimes just to get into prison.

[beren]

i don't think people are as ill-informed as you think. the poll was in 2010, 50 years after the capital punishment ban.

i think it's a sign that people are tired to see murderers and other scum getting away with diddly squat.

People in the US are also in majority favorable to the death penalty. We know death penalty doesn't reduce criminality. I think that's the proof it doesn't work: they're still tired of seeing those murderers in the streets and think we should kill them. Again and again. The death penalty is a vicious circle. It doesn't work but it kills the problem. I think we shouldn't kill the problem, we should try to see why there was one.
Abolitionist country have made the first step (the abolition) but most of them have stopped half way, because of bad organization. (bad prisons, etc...)

The ideal solution would be the abolition and then a deep work on criminality, to find the causes of murders. That way we'll learn from the problem and make a real prevention work.
Politics don't get to do that for political reasons. That's the problem. But it's solvable.


the problem with that reasoning is that i'm willing to bet that someone who's out of jail after some time might feel that death is better than being released in a world they now know little about.

as i said, suicide rates are higher the first months after liberation. this is because an inmate actually adapts to prison. life imprisonment isn't the ordeal we think it is. after a while, one ends up used to the regimented lifestyle inmates lead - being told when to sleep, eat, piss, shower, play, and so on.

if you want to get rid of capital punishment, fine. just replace our little club med jails with something more punitive. as long as there is no viable alternative to life imprisonment, i will be for capital punishment.

Life imprisonment without parole? That way, if you think inmates adapt to their prison lifestyle, then there should be no risk for them to kill themselves.
yYou said you visited some "club med" prisons. It's not the same thing to visit it for a class between to busy days than knowing you will spend the rest of your life in there. It's hard for any man. No more rights, no more liberty, no more privacy. In fact it's like being dead, while being alive.



i believe in second chances. but not third or fourth ones. the repeat of a major offense indicates clearly that the person can not/does not want to reform. i would do away with all the pomp and hang them.

Life in prison without parole? (unless of course, if the person is found innocent some years later, which isn't considered as parole). If we're almost sure they did what they possibly did, then they won't have second or third chance.




not all inmates are created equal. some of them do want to reform and lead a correct life from then on. the loss of such a prisoner would be almost as hard as a blow to society as losing an honest person.

So some inmates deserve to live? What's the difference between an inmate who deserves to live and one who doesn't?

as i said, life imprisonment probably would end up more expensive than capital punishment were i to reform it, so no savings would be made there.

According to the studies it wouldn't. But that would be the economists' part.

[Jean Poutine]

The ideal solution would be the abolition and then a deep work on criminality, to find the causes of murders. That way we'll learn from the problem and make a real prevention work.
Politics don't get to do that for political reasons. That's the problem. But it's solvable.

murders happen since the dawn of time. it's not a problem you can fix or even prevent. there'll always be some psycho with a few screws loose who decides all of a sudden to go on a killing spree.

Life imprisonment without parole? That way, if you think inmates adapt to their prison lifestyle, then there should be no risk for them to kill themselves.
yYou said you visited some "club med" prisons. It's not the same thing to visit it for a class between to busy days than knowing you will spend the rest of your life in there. It's hard for any man. No more rights, no more liberty, no more privacy. In fact it's like being dead, while being alive.


i've visited so-called "jails" in canada and i've seen pedos with computers and TV with cable with their cell.

and inmates barbequeing shit outside.

wasn't even low-security. that's the kind of thing i'd expect from a halfway house.

looking at my lifestyle, i might as well just call my house a jail!

Life in prison without parole? (unless of course, if the person is found innocent some years later, which isn't considered as parole). If we're almost sure they did what they possibly did, then they won't have second or third chance.

the society is not repaid the man-hours the inmate ruined by killing/abusing/whatever another person.

i could go for life in prison without parole including hard labor. have our scum pave our roads, brick our buildings and mix our cement. people always speak of "repaying debts to society". i want their sweat or their blood, either bodily fluid works for me.

So some inmates deserve to live? What's the difference between an inmate who deserves to live and one who doesn't?

reformation potential. the problem with jail is that it allows scum to off lesser scum on the way to becoming not scum. but perpetual solitary confinement is "cruel and unjust punishment".

[Spock]

i think it is fine because if they did something that they deserve the death penalty then they shouldn't deserve to live in prison

[slappy]

Ahh and I see Death is still trying to force people to agree with his warped views that somehow giving some ruthless murderous sick bastard life is apparently a better solution than the death penalty which they fucking deserve. I agree with Red_Dragon, that's another reason we need the death penalty, to relieve prison overcrowding. The death penalty works and it is necessary.

Would you rather kill someone or have them be miserable for the rest of there lives rotting in a small ass prison cell getting raped up the ass every night by a man named lafonda and being forced to marry him.
I think I want the second thing.

[somethingrandom]

Ahh and I see Death is still trying to force people to agree with his warped views that somehow giving some ruthless murderous sick bastard life is apparently a better solution than the death penalty which they fucking deserve. I agree with Red_Dragon, that's another reason we need the death penalty, to relieve prison overcrowding. The death penalty works and it is necessary.

How about putting it this way. Would you rather have pedophiles and murders go to a hell that may or may not exist (there's absolutely no proof for either belief), or one of the various hells across the United States?

[Blake1994]

They took someone else's life. Therefore they don't deserve to live, while their victim's families suffer. That's reasoning enough. Why should my tax Dollars keep scum like that alive?

[slappy]

They took someone else's life. Therefore they don't deserve to live, while their victim's families suffer. That's reasoning enough. Why should my tax Dollars keep scum like that alive?

Think of the ass raping.
Think of the suffering they would have to go through.
Just keep them there forever

Also, it takes a lot less money to keep someone locked up than to pout them on death row.
The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.

[Death]

They took someone else's life. Therefore they don't deserve to live, while their victim's families suffer. That's reasoning enough. Why should my tax Dollars keep scum like that alive?

Hey, bud, are you actually going to adress me or what? I'm sick and tired of hearing you continuing to spew the very nonsense that I've just refuted. What part of the following are you incapable of comprehending?

1. Killing murderers gives them an easy way out.
2. If you give prisons bad conditions they will be worse than feeling nothing.
3. You cannot claim to be better than a murderer if you do the same to them.
4. It is against the better teachings of your religion.
5. You cannot release and compensate a death penalty victim when later found innocent.
6. Your views stink of hypocrisy for reasons already given.

[beren]

murders happen since the dawn of time. it's not a problem you can fix or even prevent. there'll always be some psycho with a few screws loose who decides all of a sudden to go on a killing spree.

When you say psycho, you mean a mentally ill person? In 2010 in Texas, Teresa Lewis was executed. She had an estimated IQ of 72. Can we kill those people, who, most of the time, don't even know why they're doing it? It's a terrible proof of failure of our society. We couldn't help those mentally ill people, so we kill them after they did what we didn't prevent them from doing.
Let's help those people before they commit murder, instead of killing them after.

i've visited so-called "jails" in canada and i've seen pedos with computers and TV with cable with their cell.

Did you speak to them?
You know, I think most of them will be haunted for the rest of their lives by what they did. And believe me, a TV isn't going to make them forget. For the ones who don't care about what they did, then I think we should try to understand why they don't show normal human feelings.

Have you already seen an execution?


i could go for life in prison without parole including hard labor. have our scum pave our roads, brick our buildings and mix our cement. people always speak of "repaying debts to society". i want their sweat or their blood, either bodily fluid works for me.

Well, no offense, but who are you to want something from them?
And once more, you say they have debts toward society after killing someone. And that we should kill those men and women because they're murderers. What if the person they killed was another murderer? Would we make a difference? I don't think so...
We have nothing to want from them. It shouldn't be about personal revenge, but about justice.



reformation potential. the problem with jail is that it allows scum to off lesser scum on the way to becoming not scum. but perpetual solitary confinement is "cruel and unjust punishment".

There is a fundamental difference between us there. You think if a murderer kills another murderer, he would become "not scum", a better person. I think killing is horrible and should be considered intolerable both ways.

They took someone else's life. Therefore they don't deserve to live, while their victim's families suffer. That's reasoning enough. Why should my tax Dollars keep scum like that alive?

Do you think about the families of the people sentenced to death? They didn't do anything wrong. And we make them suffer. The death penalty won't bring back the victim, and the executed person's family will suffer. At the end, the death penalty makes much more suffering people than anything else.

Please do not double post---Socko

[Jean Poutine]

[COLOR="White"]When you say psycho, you mean a mentally ill person? In 2010 in Texas, Teresa Lewis was executed. She had an estimated IQ of 72. Can we kill those people, who, most of the time, don't even know why they're doing it? It's a terrible proof of failure of our society. We couldn't help those mentally ill people, so we kill them after they did what we didn't prevent them from doing.
Let's help those people before they commit murder, instead of killing them after.

well, first, that was in virginia.

and second, that woman had sex with two men and paid them in order to kill her husband and son for insurance money. even her defense lawyer acknowledged that she wasn't "mentally retarded", just very close to it.

nevertheless, i think the two men should've been the ones executed. just intern the woman.

Did you speak to them?
You know, I think most of them will be haunted for the rest of their lives by what they did. And believe me, a TV isn't going to make them forget. For the ones who don't care about what they did, then I think we should try to understand why they don't show normal human feelings.

Have you already seen an execution?

no, and depends.

haunted? haunted how? a lot of inmates have zero remorse (that's part of the diagnosis for sociopathy). a lot of them are completely irredeemable.

i'm willing to concede a chance for them to prove that they aren't a complete waste of body parts. that's more than most would grant them.

Well, no offense, but who are you to want something from them?
And once more, you say they have debts toward society after killing someone. And that we should kill those men and women because they're murderers. What if the person they killed was another murderer? Would we make a difference? I don't think so...
We have nothing to want from them. It shouldn't be about personal revenge, but about justice.


what? seriously? this isn't about me. this is about society and the loss incurred by losing a member thereof. how is it justice if society isn't refunded a part of what she lost? it's only fair. they owe us.

murderers hurt society as a whole. they have to pay. at the very least they have to replace the productive member of our society that they killed or incapacitated.

hard labor is a fitting replacement to the death penalty. until then, no dice. as i said, either blood or sweat works.

There is a fundamental difference between us there. You think if a murderer kills another murderer, he would become "not scum", a better person. I think killing is horrible and should be considered intolerable both ways.

once again, you misread me. i said that the killing of a reformable inmate is almost as big of a blow to society as losing a free, productive person. the killer should be hanged either way.

the legal killing of irredeemable scum is fair game.

[Death]

what? seriously? this isn't about me. this is about society and the loss incurred by losing a member thereof. how is it justice if society isn't refunded a part of what she lost? it's only fair. they owe us.

Owe us what? Their lives? And this helps how? Owe us free labour maybe, but killing them doesn't help anybody. And don't say it's societal protection, since they don't need to be dead to be pacified.

murderers hurt society as a whole.

And that's why you shouldn't kill them, because you become them by doing so. You'd see the obvious loophole in your argument if you weren't so blinded by your seemingly-dogmatic principles.

they have to pay. at the very least they have to replace the productive member of our society that they killed or incapacitated.

hard labor is a fitting replacement to the death penalty. until then, no dice. as i said, either blood or sweat works.

Hard labour is a good idea. And that way they can be released and compensated when later found inncoent. So why don't we stick with that?

the legal killing of irredeemable scum is fair game.

Oh the hypocrisy in this quote.

[beren]

well, first, that was in virginia.

and second, that woman had sex with two men and paid them in order to kill her husband and son for insurance money. even her defense lawyer acknowledged that she wasn't "mentally retarded", just very close to it.

nevertheless, i think the two men should've been the ones executed. just intern the woman.

Well, you answered the example but not the idea. In the US, 44 people were killed while mentally ill in the last 30 years. That's another atrocity death penalty can do. Killing retarded people. That's unacceptable, I hope we'll agree on that.



a lot of inmates have zero remorse (that's part of the diagnosis for sociopathy). a lot of them are completely irredeemable.

How would you know that?


once again, you misread me. i said that the killing of a reformable inmate is almost as big of a blow to society as losing a free, productive person. the killer should be hanged either way.

the legal killing of irredeemable scum is fair game.

Sorry, I'm not totally fluent in English yet.

I guess we won't agree on the death penalty issue. But at the end, our opinions won't matter. The ones that will really have an impact are the ones of the people who don't know the death penalty issue. We're both going to fight to make them become abolitionists or pro-death penalty, I guess. And they will choose. But I think the fate of death penalty is already written. 16 abolitionists countries in 1977, 92 in 2008.
But we won't stop fighting, will we?!

[Austin1]

yes, theirs terrible people out there and they need to be stopped with a heavy penelty.

[Death]

yes, theirs terrible people out there and they need to be stopped with a heavy penelty.

I would like to refer you to the shitload of posts I've already made explaining exactly how flawed that 'idea' is.

[deadpie]

They took someone else's life. Therefore they don't deserve to live, while their victim's families suffer. That's reasoning enough. Why should my tax Dollars keep scum like that alive?

Implying you have to kill someone to be put on death row
Implying the family of the person that's on death row isn't suffering either
Implying death row isn't as expensive
Implying everyone that's been executed on death row wasn't innocent

Taken from antideathpenalty (http://www.antideathpenalty.org/) - "$2 million per person vs. $500,000 (4x as much!). Free counsel for defense, for appeals, maximum security on a separate death row wing."

Taken from deathpenalty.org (http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42) - "The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases."

There's tons of people that have been executed later being found out to have never committed the crime in the first place. Do you know how fucking sick that is?

Did you know lying under oath and drug trafficking can lead to death penalty too?

How about this story on Earl Washington here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Washington).

[bleedoutlove]

I'd rather see a murderer / rapist / child abuser have life in prison than get death - the easy way out.

[Drew7]

seems fair if they are 100% sure they got the right person. 99% not good enough.

[HOLEinyoursoul]

People are people. Whether they have killed people or whatever, does not make them different. We're all dark. Hell, we're killing to stop killing. That doesn't make sense. Death will happen either way.

[Jean Poutine]

Owe us what? Their lives? And this helps how? Owe us free labour maybe, but killing them doesn't help anybody. And don't say it's societal protection, since they don't need to be dead to be pacified.

let's see :

-you can't make prison a horrible experience because that's "cruel and unusual punishment".
-you can't make them do hard labor because that's "cruel and unusual punishment".
-you can't make life imprisonment 100% safe for society because doing so would entail applying measures that are, you guessed it, "cruel and unusual punishment".

however :

-you can drive down the cost of the death penalty by eliminating some of the lawyering up death row inmates can do.
-you can eliminate a risk permanently by getting rid of said risk.
-you can use the death penalty for plea bargaining to catch a criminal one couldn't have caught otherwise or even catch other people.

seems pretty clear cut to me.

And that's why you shouldn't kill them, because you become them by doing so. You'd see the obvious loophole in your argument if you weren't so blinded by your seemingly-dogmatic principles.

that's what i mean. you abolitionists just wave your moral penises everywhere trying to coerce everyone into comparing to see who has the biggest one.

and what do i care about pseudo-philosophically becoming a murderer for killing a murderer? the loophole in YOUR argument is that it matters. the entire american legal system, including the judge, lawyers, jury, experts, along with the whole police force and doctors, are now all murderers for having a hand in the death of some dude who raped and killed a teenager.

boohoohoo. big deal, so what? the obvious element there is that there is a huge difference between a legal murder perpetuated by society against grave offenses of the law and killing innocents. an obvious element that you're gleefully ignoring in your quest to "prove" that we're all monsters, because you're mixing the APPLICATION of capital punishment with capital punishment ITSELF.

and how exactly does killing a non-productive member of society...hurt society, anyway?

now don't go around saying "killing somebody costs more lol"...because it needn't. there's a difference between the concept of death penalty itself and how it is applied, as i said.

Hard labour is a good idea. And that way they can be released and compensated when later found inncoent. So why don't we stick with that?

"cruel and unusual punishment"

Oh the hypocrisy in this quote.

"il n'y a pas de société possible, si elle n'est pas fondée sur l'hypocrisie" - maurice donnay

i'm all for giving you the chance to express your ad hominems, but you have to realise that they are still not arguments. either way, i'm done. compare sizes with someone else.

[Death]

let's see :

-you can't make prison a horrible experience because that's "cruel and unusual punishment".
-you can't make them do hard labor because that's "cruel and unusual punishment".
-you can't make life imprisonment 100% safe for society because doing so would entail applying measures that are, you guessed it, "cruel and unusual punishment".

And you know what? I don't give a fucking shit. I don't remember saying that it should be "cruel and unusual punishment" in the first place, so using this against me is pretty fucking pointless. As far as I'm concerned, hard labour and bad prison conditions is fine in my books. They're also a fuckload better than showing your hypocrisy and disregard for innocents by murdering who you assume to be murderers.


-you can use the death penalty for plea bargaining to catch a criminal one couldn't have caught otherwise or even catch other people.

You can also do that with the threat of being stuck in a shithole all your life.

seems pretty clear cut to me.

And the delusion that the world is flat seems pretty clear to the fucktards who believe it.

that's what i mean. you abolitionists just wave your moral penises everywhere trying to coerce everyone into comparing to see who has the biggest one.

Being moral is obviously a good thing though. You know, by definition? Duh.

and what do i care about pseudo-philosophically becoming a murderer for killing a murderer?

Because you would then be obliged to kill them for murder. If you didn't, then your punishment would be inconsistant. Talk about a stupid question.

the loophole in YOUR argument is that it matters.

And that's a problem? Of course this fucking matters.

the entire american legal system, including the judge, lawyers, jury, experts, along with the whole police force and doctors, are now all murderers for having a hand in the death of some dude who raped and killed a teenager.

boohoohoo. big deal, so what?

How can you claim to be better than them? I keep asking you but you keep dodging the question. You also haven't answered the question about how you can be okay with the murder of innocent people who were convicted guilty but the truth was found out later. How can you release and compensate a corpse? You can't.

and how exactly does killing a non-productive member of society...hurt society, anyway?

Just because they killed someone, it doesn't mean they can't become unproductive. Hard labour is the answer to that. And going round killing those who could easily later found to be innocent is hardly productive. Even moer evidence of hypocrisy in the monstrous idea of the death penalty.

now don't go around saying "killing somebody costs more lol"...because it needn't. there's a difference between the concept of death penalty itself and how it is applied, as i said.

Oh I get it. You are saying the death penalty is better because there's less cost involved. So that's it then? Money is more valuable than potentially-innocent lives, lost labour, and liberty? What a disgusting thought.

i'm all for giving you the chance to express your ad hominems, but you have to realise that they are still not arguments. either way, i'm done. compare sizes with someone else.

What's the matter? Not able to refute me? That is a very childish and immature quote. Your ignorance humours me.

[Azunite]

Uchimata, you are continuing this thread only because you don't want to accept the loss of the debate. Face it.

[Death]

Uchimata, you are continuing this thread only because you don't want to accept the loss of the debate. Face it.

Exactly what I think he should do. I think he should swallow his pride and start adressing the points of mine he's ignored.

[Donkey]

Perhaps the entire argument can be summarised in just a sentence.

We kill people who kill people to show others that killing is wrong.

[Azunite]

Perhaps the entire argument can be summarised in just a sentence.

We kill people who kill people to show others that killing is wrong.

Then they would hunt you down to show people that government is doing bad stuff by killing people.

[nobodyimportant23]

The reason I believe it isnt fair, is because I think it is more torture for somebody to live isolated in a prison all their life

[UnknownError]

Calm down fuck sake.

[Jess]

^

and if they deeply regret it? if they are mentally ill?

[Noooooooooo]

(I havent read the replies so Im probably repeating someone.)

I think Britain should have the death penalty. Weirdly my class did a debate on this today.
If someone kills someone else, they should also be killed. I think its fair justice.

Why so? Death is not justice at all.

Prison sounds better than death.
Why? Because living in a prison all life is a bigger torment than death.




and if they deeply regret it? if they are mentally ill?

In my country there was a killer which suffered from scitsophrenia.
The cops got all the prove to lock him but they decided not to, because the killer was mentally ill.
The lucky bastard, lol.

[Death]

(I havent read the replies so Im probably repeating someone.)

I think Britain should have the death penalty. Weirdly my class did a debate on this today.
If someone kills someone else, they should also be killed. I think its fair justice.

If you want to know why this is bullshit, then read the posts I've made previously in this thread. Aside from that, I'm not going to dignify this with a response because I've already beaten down that idea an I'm not wasting any more breath going over the same obvious shit over and over. So yeah, I think you should read the replies.

[Azunite]

I think my friend Death here explained why it should be illegal well. You guys should read his previous posts, and come up with something new and could beat what Death said, not just repeat the same "It should be legal because if someone kills he should also be killed it is very fair", an eye for eye makes the world blind after all

[Marky]

Well here in Texas, murderers get what they deserve. The death penalty works and iis necessary.

If someone doesn't want the death penalty, they should not commit the crime and murder an innocent person in the first place.

Why should my tax Dollars go towards keeping some filthy murdering animal alive for the rest of their life when their victim's family has to suffer with the loss of their loved one for the rest of their lives?

I live in texas so you cant say all of texas because here in El Paso the deathpenalty is RARELY given out at the most. so you cannot automatically take a whole state down with your onepoint perspective


Second your tax dollars dont go too supporting them for the rest of their lives they go to YOUR education YOUR mainenence repairs on streets and homes and such and THE state

Third; people dont go around killing "INOCCENT" people. they have a reason and most of the reasons is because that person is not innoccent and has somethin they did like possibleey kill one of the murderers family members

[Marky]

I disagree. I do see it as a deterrent. One murder is enough, why should 3 people have to die before the murderer is punished?

You also cannot rehabiltate serial killers or other criminals such as rapists and paedophiles. Once a has the taste of blood on his hands, he keeps on murdering. The same with rapists and paedophiles.

It never stops.

This isnt true either. People can change and change always come along. People realize their mistakes and change them thats how societies have come too be today, and its like saying as soon as YOUsteal something from a family dollar on accident your gonna steal something from every single store you go too after that and every gas station and every markt. see how tht works?

[beag_amhain]

i think it depends on the case
for murder in the first degree yes
for rape yes
for sexual/physical abuse of children yes
for murder in the second degree no
for manslaughter no

their just my opinions

[dany]

i think that it depends on the crime.

[Azunite]

i think it depends on the case
for murder in the first degree yes
for rape yes
for sexual/physical abuse of children yes
for murder in the second degree no
for manslaughter no

their just my opinions

Whoa whoa wait a second...

For murder you said yes
For slaughter you said no...

So it means that in your opinion killing a man is worse than killing 5 men?

[Death]

i think it depends on the case
for murder in the first degree yes
for rape yes
for sexual/physical abuse of children yes
for murder in the second degree no
for manslaughter no

their just my opinions

The last bit is true, because the first bits are bullshit. But again, I'm not going to tell you why your views are monstrous and counter-productive because I've alreay beaten down the pathetic idea of capital punishment. I would therefore suggest adressing me on my previous points (last page if I recall correctly) if you want to continue this otherwise-pointless 'discussion'. You know I am pretty tired of repeating myself because people don't bother reading the thread.

[Immortal Love]

I believe the Death Penalty is absolutly fair. Taxpayers are just paying to keep them alive if no one pulls the plug. Rapists, Murders, Drug Lords, ect, all the horrid ones don't deserve to live. Put them down, and clean society. But say a amature Burgaler, don't kill him. He didn't kill, or harm anyone ( If he did, critically, by all means, string em' up) Our Country's Prisons are getting fuller and fuller, and more and more taxpayers are paying for them to live. Why should they? If someone killed my Family, I don't care if I get sent to Jail, I will hurt and beat the Son of a Darnit who did it. He or she should not be taking up space, and being a hazard to everyone else.

[embers]

I believe the Death Penalty is absolutly fair. Taxpayers are just paying to keep them alive if no one pulls the plug. Rapists, Murders, Drug Lords, ect, all the horrid ones don't deserve to live. Put them down, and clean society. But say a amature Burgaler, don't kill him. He didn't kill, or harm anyone ( If he did, critically, by all means, string em' up) Our Country's Prisons are getting fuller and fuller, and more and more taxpayers are paying for them to live. Why should they?

Because all murderers and rapists have the same evil mindset. Because, you know, every murderer is some psychopathic relentless nut. /sarcasm

Honestly, if you ever end up murdering somebody, I'd like to see you still support the death penalty because you know, you'd turn from someone who's worth something into a piece of living scum that deserves a hanging. Because in your mindset and those of people who think the same as you do, thats just how it works, eh?

[Azunite]

I believe the Death Penalty is absolutly fair. Taxpayers are just paying to keep them alive if no one pulls the plug. Rapists, Murders, Drug Lords, ect, all the horrid ones don't deserve to live. Put them down, and clean society. But say a amature Burgaler, don't kill him. He didn't kill, or harm anyone ( If he did, critically, by all means, string em' up) Our Country's Prisons are getting fuller and fuller, and more and more taxpayers are paying for them to live. Why should they? If someone killed my Family, I don't care if I get sent to Jail, I will hurt and beat the Son of a Darnit who did it. He or she should not be taking up space, and being a hazard to everyone else.



So in your opinion, if someone gets raped, that person should also be raped by someone?

[Death]

I believe the Death Penalty is absolutly fair. Taxpayers are just paying to keep them alive if no one pulls the plug. Rapists, Murders, Drug Lords, ect, all the horrid ones don't deserve to live. Put them down, and clean society. But say a amature Burgaler, don't kill him. He didn't kill, or harm anyone ( If he did, critically, by all means, string em' up) Our Country's Prisons are getting fuller and fuller, and more and more taxpayers are paying for them to live. Why should they? If someone killed my Family, I don't care if I get sent to Jail, I will hurt and beat the Son of a Darnit who did it. He or she should not be taking up space, and being a hazard to everyone else.

I am going to refer you to the previous posts I've made to people whose intelectual and moral level are similar to yours:

The last bit is true, because the first bits are bullshit. But again, I'm not going to tell you why your views are monstrous and counter-productive because I've alreay beaten down the pathetic idea of capital punishment. I would therefore suggest adressing me on my previous points (last page if I recall correctly) if you want to continue this otherwise-pointless 'discussion'. You know I am pretty tired of repeating myself because people don't bother reading the thread.

If you want to know why this is bullshit, then read the posts I've made previously in this thread. Aside from that, I'm not going to dignify this with a response because I've already beaten down that idea an I'm not wasting any more breath going over the same obvious shit over and over. So yeah, I think you should read the replies.

If you want to know the exact arguments are made against the death penalty, read through the previous page and then please adress the points I've made (especially given that you haven't made any valid ones). Otherwise, the only people winning this thread are those against legalised, hypocritical murder. Good day.

[Dimitri]

I am all for hanning them by their thumbs and little toes from the ceilings in the dungon, Harry Potter was always so suggestive to me.

[Death]

I am all for hanning them by their thumbs and little toes from the ceilings in the dungon, Harry Potter was always so suggestive to me.

So long as you don't kill them.

[Magus]

I am all for hanning them by their thumbs and little toes from the ceilings in the dungon, Harry Potter was always so suggestive to me.That's not merciful at all. It's not civil to torture anyone, in anyway.

Yes, even small water dropping on your head is considered a huge torture. You will not just physically damage the person in hand, but mentally as well.

I cannot believe you are suggestion torture of over death penalty, when you people at the same time claim to be highly civilised that lacks primitive brutality.

[Death]

That's not merciful at all. It's not civil to torture anyone, in anyway.

Yes, even small water dropping on your head is considered a huge torture. You will not just physically damage the person in hand, but mentally as well.

I cannot believe you are suggestion torture of over death penalty, when you people at the same time claim to be highly civilised that lacks primitive brutality.

That's why I say stick to imprisonment (without the excessive luxuries like TVs and playstations) and forced labour. At least that way if you want to release and compensated when they are later fouund innocent, they are both alive and not nearly as scarred as they would be otherwise.

[embers]

So long as you don't kill them.

Does that mean you support torture then?

[Death]

Does that mean you support torture then?

Not really. As I said in a previous post, I would prefer imprisonment without excessive luxuries or forced labour - something that isn't goign to scar someone and can allow them to be released and compensated if they are later found innocent.

[Azunite]

That's not merciful at all. It's not civil to torture anyone, in anyway.

Yes, even small water dropping on your head is considered a huge torture. You will not just physically damage the person in hand, but mentally as well.

I cannot believe you are suggestion torture of over death penalty, when you people at the same time claim to be highly civilised that lacks primitive brutality.

*takes a scimitar* Come on Faris let's show these bastards how we do things in East!

[Dimitri]

That's why I say stick to imprisonment (without the excessive luxuries like TVs and playstations) and forced labour. At least that way if you want to release and compensated when they are later fouund innocent, they are both alive and not nearly as scarred as they would be otherwise.
I agree, my dad is the Sheriff where I live and I have seen what death row is like and I actually htink it isn't that bad, it is actually nicer than some of my friends with the family they live with.

[beag_amhain]

manslaughter is the the killing of a human being which was not premeditated but accidental and can be proven that the person convicted did not plan it, it can be the result of an arguement, sports accident, playground accident etc
once it can be proven it was not planned it is labelled manslaughter

[Bimmerhead]

Let these numbers speak for themselves.
Number of correctional facilities,1500
Cost to run the prisons and jails in all 50 states and the federal prison system in 1999: $49 billion
Average cost to incarcerate a prisoner for a year, $20,142
Prison expenditure per prisoner per day in Minnesota, 1996: $103.63
Now these are figures if we were to spend this money sending every inner city kid in the US to private school.
Average tuition per year per student:$8,549
So that leaves 11,593 bucks left over PER YEAR PER STUDENT to put in a college fund for the same students. Honestly if vicious murderers and rapists must die to give underprivileged kids a great education so they dont one day end up in prison themselves wasting taxpayer money, well its worth it to me.

[Death]

Let these numbers speak for themselves.
Number of correctional facilities,1500
Cost to run the prisons and jails in all 50 states and the federal prison system in 1999: $49 billion
Average cost to incarcerate a prisoner for a year, $20,142
Prison expenditure per prisoner per day in Minnesota, 1996: $103.63
Now these are figures if we were to spend this money sending every inner city kid in the US to private school.
Average tuition per year per student:$8,549
So that leaves 11,593 bucks left over PER YEAR PER STUDENT to put in a college fund for the same students.

Is there a point to this babble are or you just posting any old shit for the sake of it?

Honestly if vicious murderers and rapists must die to give underprivileged kids a great education so they dont one day end up in prison themselves wasting taxpayer money, well its worth it to me.

Either adress the fuckload of points I've made telling you exactly how immoral and stupid your idea are or don't bother posting. I've already beaten down the death penalty countless fucking times.

And for those of you not intelligent enough to look back to read said quotes, here are a few:

Hey, bud, are you actually going to adress me or what? I'm sick and tired of hearing you continuing to spew the very nonsense that I've just refuted. What part of the following are you incapable of comprehending?

1. Killing murderers gives them an easy way out.
2. If you give prisons bad conditions they will be worse than feeling nothing.
3. You cannot claim to be better than a murderer if you do the same to them.
4. It is against the better teachings of your religion.
5. You cannot release and compensate a death penalty victim when later found innocent.
6. Your views stink of hypocrisy for reasons already given.


what? seriously? this isn't about me. this is about society and the loss incurred by losing a member thereof. how is it justice if society isn't refunded a part of what she lost? it's only fair. they owe us.

Owe us what? Their lives? And this helps how? Owe us free labour maybe, but killing them doesn't help anybody. And don't say it's societal protection, since they don't need to be dead to be pacified.

murderers hurt society as a whole.

And that's why you shouldn't kill them, because you become them by doing so. You'd see the obvious loophole in your argument if you weren't so blinded by your seemingly-dogmatic principles.

they have to pay. at the very least they have to replace the productive member of our society that they killed or incapacitated.

hard labor is a fitting replacement to the death penalty. until then, no dice. as i said, either blood or sweat works.

Hard labour is a good idea. And that way they can be released and compensated when later found inncoent. So why don't we stick with that?

the legal killing of irredeemable scum is fair game.

Oh the hypocrisy in this quote.

let's see :

-you can't make prison a horrible experience because that's "cruel and unusual punishment".
-you can't make them do hard labor because that's "cruel and unusual punishment".
-you can't make life imprisonment 100% safe for society because doing so would entail applying measures that are, you guessed it, "cruel and unusual punishment".

And you know what? I don't give a fucking shit. I don't remember saying that it should be "cruel and unusual punishment" in the first place, so using this against me is pretty fucking pointless. As far as I'm concerned, hard labour and bad prison conditions is fine in my books. They're also a fuckload better than showing your hypocrisy and disregard for innocents by murdering who you assume to be murderers.


-you can use the death penalty for plea bargaining to catch a criminal one couldn't have caught otherwise or even catch other people.

You can also do that with the threat of being stuck in a shithole all your life.

seems pretty clear cut to me.

And the delusion that the world is flat seems pretty clear to the fucktards who believe it.

that's what i mean. you abolitionists just wave your moral penises everywhere trying to coerce everyone into comparing to see who has the biggest one.

Being moral is obviously a good thing though. You know, by definition? Duh.

and what do i care about pseudo-philosophically becoming a murderer for killing a murderer?

Because you would then be obliged to kill them for murder. If you didn't, then your punishment would be inconsistant. Talk about a stupid question.

the loophole in YOUR argument is that it matters.

And that's a problem? Of course this fucking matters.

the entire american legal system, including the judge, lawyers, jury, experts, along with the whole police force and doctors, are now all murderers for having a hand in the death of some dude who raped and killed a teenager.

boohoohoo. big deal, so what?

How can you claim to be better than them? I keep asking you but you keep dodging the question. You also haven't answered the question about how you can be okay with the murder of innocent people who were convicted guilty but the truth was found out later. How can you release and compensate a corpse? You can't.

and how exactly does killing a non-productive member of society...hurt society, anyway?

Just because they killed someone, it doesn't mean they can't become unproductive. Hard labour is the answer to that. And going round killing those who could easily later found to be innocent is hardly productive. Even moer evidence of hypocrisy in the monstrous idea of the death penalty.

now don't go around saying "killing somebody costs more lol"...because it needn't. there's a difference between the concept of death penalty itself and how it is applied, as i said.

Oh I get it. You are saying the death penalty is better because there's less cost involved. So that's it then? Money is more valuable than potentially-innocent lives, lost labour, and liberty? What a disgusting thought.

i'm all for giving you the chance to express your ad hominems, but you have to realise that they are still not arguments. either way, i'm done. compare sizes with someone else.

What's the matter? Not able to refute me? That is a very childish and immature quote. Your ignorance humours me.

There are my arguments against the death penalty. Now would anyone like to adress me on this?

[Amnesiac]

Let these numbers speak for themselves.
Number of correctional facilities,1500
Cost to run the prisons and jails in all 50 states and the federal prison system in 1999: $49 billion
Average cost to incarcerate a prisoner for a year, $20,142
Prison expenditure per prisoner per day in Minnesota, 1996: $103.63
Now these are figures if we were to spend this money sending every inner city kid in the US to private school.
Average tuition per year per student:$8,549
So that leaves 11,593 bucks left over PER YEAR PER STUDENT to put in a college fund for the same students. Honestly if vicious murderers and rapists must die to give underprivileged kids a great education so they dont one day end up in prison themselves wasting taxpayer money, well its worth it to me.

The reason the prison system is so expensive is because of the United States' ridiculous and inhuman drug policy.

You do know that, in the end, the death penalty is more expensive (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/599) than life in prison, right?

[phish]

I think the prison's job is to keep the public safe, if it can do that it should do that. The death penalty doesn't change that. The only place I agree with it is prison gangs that are calling hits and killing people from within prison, if you can't contain them that's your only option. Or people who request it. It shouldn't cost much money, we should make money off of prisoners.

[TuRdz]

Capital Punishment is a must. Might have a positive effect on crime rates...

[Death]

Capital Punishment is a must. Might have a positive effect on crime rates...

*Facepalm*, are you blind?

In fact, are you also stupid? Because death is so much worse than permanent imprisonment, especially for terrorists looking to be martyrs for their cause. Next time, could you pehaps justify yourself like I did three posts above yours?

[TuRdz]

*Facepalm*, are you blind?

In fact, are you also stupid? Because death is so much worse than permanent imprisonment, especially for terrorists looking to be martyrs for their cause. Next time, could you pehaps justify yourself like I did three posts above yours?

Wow. All I can say is "wow". I post a vague opinion and receive an attack from a user who calls himself "Death". Look, I explained myself thoroughly on the thread "Executing the mentally ill". Go look at it, then come back here and tell me I'm a dim-witted yokel again.

It should be brought back. There are humane ways of carrying out the procedure. One example is Hydrogen Asphyxiation, where subject won't feel any pain as they die. They should only be up for the death sentence if they've, taken the life of several victims, serial rape, etc.

Perhaps after serving a life sentence imprisonment, followed by a repeat offence should the death penalty be implemented. Murderers, rapists, etc have to pay for their injustices inflicted on others. They can't just go to prison for 25 years, then come out with more motivation to kill. What if they have kids? Their children will think it's acceptable to be in prison for committing a felony. Then they'll end up being the same way.

I say, just get rid of them. You may say it's against human rights, but so is the initial crime. An eye for an eye as they say. Look, I may not be perfect, but you could at least accept my opinion for what it is and nothing more, instead of verbally assaulting me and lowering my reputation. I'm not trying to offend anyone (although I obviously have), I'm just trying to express my thoughts. I'll be certain next time to "justify" myself to avoid another confrontation...

[Death]

Wow. All I can say is "wow".

You obviously missed the bit where I posted the shitload of reasons against the death penalty.

Lol..? I post a vague opinion and receive an attack from a user who calls himself "Death".

But it's not just that. It's a compilation of everything you've said in this thread and the other that makes it very difficult for anyone to take you seriously.

Lol..? Look, I explained myself thoroughly on the thread "Executing the mentally ill". Go look at it, then come back here and tell me I'm a dim-witted yokel again.

All you did was fantasise about slowly killing people. Pretty sick really. Oh, and I don't remember insulting your intelligence.

It should be brought back. There are humane ways of carrying out the procedure.

Are there humane ways of raping people?

One example is Hydrogen Asphyxiation, where subject won't feel any pain as they die. They should only be up for the death sentence if they've, taken the life of several victims, serial rape, etc.

I don't give a shit about pain. I've already posted everything I have against the death penalty, so why don't you adress that instead?

I say, just get rid of them. You may say it's against human rights, but so is the initial crime.

So you want to be a hypocrite then? Like Donkey said earlier, you wish to kill people who kill to show people that killing is wrong?

An eye for an eye as they say.

How many innocents must be executed who could have been released an compensated before you realise how monstrous this is?

[boom17]

I believe that if an aggressor is sentenced to life, they should be able to choose:

A. Take the death penalty right then and there.
or
B. Endure the life sentence in prison.

basically, if the aggressor wants to end their life then they can, otherwise prison for the rest of their life.

Otherwise I don't agree with the death penalty.

[TuRdz]

1. You obviously missed the bit where I posted the shitload of reasons against the death penalty.



2. But it's not just that. It's a compilation of everything you've said in this thread and the other that makes it very difficult for anyone to take you seriously.



3. All you did was fantasise about slowly killing people. Pretty sick really. Oh, and I don't remember insulting your intelligence.



4. Are there humane ways of raping people?



5. I don't give a shit about pain. I've already posted everything I have against the death penalty, so why don't you adress that instead?



6. So you want to be a hypocrite then? Like Donkey said earlier, you wish to kill people who kill to show people that killing is wrong?



7. How many innocents must be executed who could have been released an compensated before you realise how monstrous this is?

1. Believe or not, I actually read it.

2. All I said on this post was "Capital Punishment is a must. Might have a positive effect on crime rates..." Then you came along and said "*Facepalm*, are you blind? In fact, are you also stupid?" and in my defence; "justified" myself.

3. You obviously read the wrong post. I did write more than one post. Oh and..."...are you blind? In fact, are you also stupid?" there's your answer.

4. No, but they have a choice whether to commit the crime. If they don't, they won't be punished, it's as simple as that. Also, one rape charge won't fetch them the death sentence. I said only when severe/multiple felonies are committed should the death penalty be implemented. Are you sure you're reading these properly? I hope so.

5. Well honestly, I have better things to do. If this were an English assignment I would put a bit of explanation into my thoughts. It's just a forum, I'll probably never see you in my life. I find it is pointless to give an well thought out argument to a person on the other side of the world (anonymously) who I don't have to prove anything to. Also I'd like to invest my time in more important things. Such as attending orphan auctions and climbing trees.

6. That's what the Romans, Egyptians and every other successful society did. So why don't we? It will make people know that justice means business and is dealt accordingly. I know you may say it's out of our control to decide whether or not someone lives, but does that not also apply to the murderer?

7. I'm pretty certain that major criminals committing mass murders, robbery, are confirmed to be the culprit before they're captured. They're shown on the news, in the papers, "MOST WANTED" flyers, etc. They usually don't keep a low profile. They know what they're doing is wrong and they like to leave "signatures". They have that "catch me if you can" mind set.

Oh and I've noticed you have a very sophisticated vocabulary for a 16 y/o and like to call me a "troll". You also like to refer back to your big explanation which was "three posts above my first one". I received a negrep with this message, "Read the post three above yours. Suffice to say, troll harder." Seems highly suspicious to me...Troll harder... *blank face*

[Death]

1. Believe or not, I actually read it.

But you didn't comprehend any of it otherwise you wouldn't be posting this.

2. All I said on this post was "Capital Punishment is a must. Might have a positive effect on crime rates..."

And a pretty stupid thing to say too. What do you think a terrorist looking to be a martyr for his cause will prefer? Lifetime imprisonment or the one thing he's looking for, death?

3. You obviously read the wrong post. I did write more than one post. Oh and..."...are you blind? In fact, are you also stupid?" there's your answer.

And you are obviously a troll. I know exactly what I did and am doing.

4. No, but they have a choice whether to commit the crime. If they don't, they won't be punished, it's as simple as that.

Point? In fact, if you kill a murderer, then surely you're commiting the same crime as them?

Also, one rape charge won't fetch them the death sentence. I said only when severe/multiple felonies are committed should the death penalty b implemented. Are you sure you're reading these properly? I hope so.

Of course I am you idiot. The problem I have is the fact that you're killing somebody who could be later found innocent, which has happened before. The fact that you have a complete disregard for human life even when that life could be good is not my problem, but yours. And it's a big one.

5. Well, I have better things to do. If this were an English assignment I would put a bit of explanation into my thoughts. It's just a forum, I'll probably never see you in my life.

I don't know if you bothered to read the forum's description of stickies, but this is also a debate forum. So yeah, you are going to need to come up with better 'arguments' than you are now.

I find it's pointless to give an argument to a person on the other side of the world (anonymously) as I'd like to invest my time in more important things. Such as attended orphan auctions and climbing trees.

*facepalm* Then what the fuck are you doing on this thread?

6. That's what the Romans, Egyptians and every other successful society did.

Successful at being inhumane, most certainly.

So why don't we?

Because we shouldn't base our morality on what a few bad people in the past believed? Ugh.

It will make people know that justice means business and is dealt accordingly. I know you may say it's out of our control to decide whether or not someone lives, but does that not also apply to the murderer?

7. I'm pretty certain that major criminals committing mass murders, robbery, are confirmed to be the culprit before they're captured. They're shown on the news, in the papers, flyers, etc. They usually don't keep a low profile. They know what they're doing is wrong and they like to leave "signatures". They have that "catch me if you can" mind set.

Yet they don't suffer one they're dead. Better yet, why don't you use them as forced labour? At least that way you actually get something out of them.

Oh and I've noticed you have a very sophisticated vocabulary for a 16 y/o and like to call me a "troll".

I sincerely hope you're not being sarcastic as I am among the most intelligent in my school. You don't get into all the top sets in a private school whilst being one of the very few people to not only be entered for the higher maths challenge, but also come out with a silver despite competetion from other schools. So I'd think before you post, thankyou very much.

You also like to refer back to your big explanation which was "three posts above my first one". I received a negrep with this message, "Read the post three above yours. Suffice to say, troll harder." Seems highly suspicious to me...Troll harder... *blank face*

And now you're resorting to personal attacks? I don't even use the word "troll" that often. The fact that you're now trying to assume I negrepped you even though the kind of bullshit you post could well incite many people to refer to you as a "troll" probably proves that you are one. Suffice to say, I get the impression that your ability to persuade people in a debate has been overcome by mine and you now have to resort to cheap shots like what you're doing now. Troll or not, you're pitiful.

[TuRdz]

Death: And a pretty stupid thing to say too. What do you think a terrorist looking to be a martyr for his cause will prefer? Lifetime imprisonment or the one thing he's looking for, death?

TuRdz: Have you ever considered that there are, in fact, other criminals besides terrorists? Can you give me some more examples of criminals who'd want to be put to sleep rather than serve 25 years of luxuries and carefree living in what is call a "prison"? Perhaps a more suitable punishment can be dealt to them.
___________________________

Death: And you are obviously a troll. I know exactly what I did and am doing.

TuRdz: Well pardon me, your highness.
___________________________

Death: Point? In fact, if you kill a murderer, then surely you're commiting the same crime as them?

TuRdz: Yes, but you're missing the point. They must pay for what they've done. Giving them forced hard labour will give them more motivation to re-offend when they're released.
___________________________

Death: Of course I am you idiot. The problem I have is the fact that you're killing somebody who could be later found innocent, which has happened before. The fact that you have a complete disregard for human life even when that life could be good is not my problem, but yours. And it's a big one.

TuRdz: So it's a big problem to get back at the person who may perhaps have killed many people close to you? It's natural to feel that. We are human and that's the way we are wired. To resist natural urges makes you a higher class and more intelligent than others, which I find is completely stupid.
___________________________

Death: I don't know if you bothered to read the forum's description of stickies, but this is also a debate forum. So yeah, you are going to need to come up with better 'arguments' than you are now.

TuRdz: A debate that is getting out of hand, wouldn't you say. Look at the poll. You're out numbered. You seem to have a very short fuse for someone who thinks it's okay to not have capital punishment.
___________________________

Death: *facepalm* Then what the fuck are you doing on this thread?

TuRdz: I thought I might give my thoughts on the topic, I never expected to be dragged into this argument by any means.
___________________________

Death: Successful at being inhumane, most certainly.

TuRdz: Successful at being the first to invent law and justice. I don't know what they are teaching in Pastafarian school.
___________________________

Death: Because we shouldn't base our morality on what a few bad people in the past believed? Ugh.

TuRdz: Those "bad people" have shaped the society we live in today. And they just wanted order in their society.
___________________________

Death: Yet they don't suffer one they're dead. Better yet, why don't you use them as forced labour? At least that way you actually get something out of them.

TuRdz: That'll give them motivation to re-offend once they're released. Quite simple really.
___________________________

Deaths: I sincerely hope you're not being sarcastic as I am among the most intelligent in my school. You don't get into all the top sets in a private school whilst being one of the very few people to not only be entered for the higher maths challenge, but also come out with a silver despite competetion from other schools. So I'd think before you post, thankyou very much.

TuRdz: No, I was not being sarcastic. It was an indirect compliment which you've obviously taken the wrong end of the stick. And congratulations, but this is not a maths forum, it's a debating forum as you said before...I really don't care about your commendations etc. And you don't have to try and impress people with awards to gain their opinions. You sound like a spoilt brat who thinks he's too good for everyone (here^).
___________________________

Death: And now you're resorting to personal attacks? I don't even use the word "troll" that often. The fact that you're now trying to assume I negrepped you even though the kind of bullshit you post could well incite many people to refer to you as a "troll" probably proves that you are one. Suffice to say, I get the impression that your ability to persuade people in a debate has been overcome by mine and you now have to resort to cheap shots like what you're doing now. Troll or not, you're pitiful.

TuRdz: Personal attacks? And you call me a hypocrite? Do you recall saying these:
-"*Facepalm*, are you blind?"
-"In fact, are you also stupid?"
-"you are obviously a troll"
-"Of course I am you idiot"
-"Troll or not, you're pitiful."
So it's acceptable for someone who goes to a private school to make immature remarks about another person? I'm only trying to protect my reputation. I don't want others to judge me on my rep just because it was voted down by a stuck up, cocky, delusional school boy. Good show mate.

P.S. If you're going to quote me again, make sure you address "all" of my words. Not just the ones you actually have an argument against. You're manipulating my words and putting them in different contexts which makes my arguments sound timid. I'm just going to claim victories for the quotes you did not address. I thought a private schooled person could do better than that. And you say I deal cheap shots. Hah, you are the pathetic one. :yes:

[Death]

TuRdz: Have you ever considered that there are, in fact, other criminals besides terrorists? Can you give me some more examples of criminals who'd want to be put to sleep rather than serve 25 years of luxuries and carefree living in what is call a "prison"? Perhaps a more suitable punishment can be dealt to them.

Herp derp. I'm so stupid that I think everyone's a terroist. Oh grow the fuck up. Prison life needs to be worse. Believe me, there will be some horrible prisons out there. Criminals like who you mentioned deserve to be cooped up there all their life.

TuRdz: Well pardon me, your highness.

Fuck you.



TuRdz: Yes, but you're missing the point. They must pay for what they've done. Giving them forced hard labour will give them more motivation to re-offend when they're released.

LOL, I never said they should be released.

TuRdz: So it's a big problem to get back at the person who may perhaps have killed many people close to you?

But you're not, because corpses don't suffer. And don't be stupid, you don't know it was that person. How many innocent people later found to be so have been executed? You are ignoring blatent loopholes in your argument here. Or pehaps not, since they're not real arguments.

It's natural to feel that. We are human and that's the way we are wired. To resist natural urges makes you a higher class and more intelligent than others, which I find is completely stupid.

Is that jealousy I hear?

TuRdz: A debate that is getting out of hand, wouldn't you say.

I wonder why that was. You're the one who started making personal attacks and trying to tell VT I negrepped you when I didn't.

Look at the poll. You're out numbered. You seem to have a very short fuse for someone who thinks it's okay to not have capital punishment.

And you think you're not a troll? Are numbers the best you can come up with to support what you think is an argument? I can't believe I'm dignifying this with a repsonse.

TuRdz: I thought I might give my thoughts on the topic, I never expected to be dragged into this argument by any means.

Then that's your problem, since that's the point of debate. Look it up.

TuRdz: Those "bad people" have shaped the society we live in today. And they just wanted order in their society.

What a negative outlook on life you have there. You can always rise above our ancestors. But you simply have a disregard for human life.

TuRdz: No, I was not being sarcastic. It was an indirect compliment which you've obviously taken the wrong end of the stick.

Assuming that I assumed you were being sarcastic. I was only making a guess. Still, I find it unlikely that you're telling the truth right now since you were picking at my vocabulary for usign words like "troll" and "suffice".

P.S. If you're going to quote me again, make sure you address "all" of my words. Not just the ones you actually have an argument against.

Funny, I could have sworn that you didn't have a single argument to use against me. Because all you're doing is trying to attack me on a personal level in every way possible. You think you're so clever do you? Then why don't you actually try refuting me rather than attacking me? Your hypocrisy is so blatent and yet you can't see it. It's really, really sad.

You're manipulating my words and putting them in different contexts which makes my arguments sound timid. I'm just going to claim victories for the quotes you did not address. I thought a private schooled person could do better than that. And you say I deal cheap shots. Hah, you are the pathetic one. :yes:

Oh the hypocrisy in this post. The fact that you have tried to pass of your personal attacks as indirect compliments fucking humours me. Why exactly are you doing this? Is it because you know my arguments are far better than yours so you just have to try to get back at me for being the intellectual superior? How you can claim to be better than me whilst calling me pathetic I don't know.

[huginnmuninn]

i dont believe in the death penalty but i do believe that some prisons have too many luxuries and that many (if not all) of those luxuries should be removed

[Unique Physique]

I 100% support the death penalty for vicious murderers, rapists and paedophiles who have acted on their urges and raped a child - especially if they did it more than once. Their guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, though, such as through DNA, witnesses and of course a guilty plea. They should have the right to appeals of course if new evidence arises.

The reason I support this, is because none of these sickos can seriously be rehabilitated into society, you're seriously deluded IMO if you think they are. I am aware that it's actually more costly to execute someone than imprison them for life, but their execution removes 100% of their chance to reoffend. Whereas, in prison, they can possibly escape.. or they can harm prison staff or other inmates. If/when they get released.. they're unemployable, especially if they're older. Who wants to hire an ex-con who was inside of murder/rape/etc? Seriously, any employer will look at their criminal record and throw up. Then they'll live off the state and cost the taxpayer even more money, or worse, go back into crime; possibly even commit another heinous crime.