NationStates Jolt Archive

What does everyone think of the death penalty?

I support the death penalty.

Some people don't like debate.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6607747&posted=1#post6607747

It's expensive, has no deterrance value (and may actually lead to an increase in the crimes it is designed to reduce) and dehumanizes the society as a whole. Nuff said.

why would anyone kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

:headbang:

damn it wall why won't you answer me?

Here's my stance:

Everyone has an undeniable right to life. When one human being murders another, then the murderer has forfeit their right to life. Therefore, the death penalty is acceptable in cases of murder.


My theory, as well, is that the death penalty should be whatever the means that were used my the murderer on their victim. (Ex. If the murderer shot their victim, then the murderer should be shot to death as well...). That way, execution's would be cheap (what murderer is going to spend million's to kill one person!), and effective...it would also be a detterant for tortorous murders!

I disagree with the death penalty. How is flipping the switch that sends an electric current through someone's body that you don't even know not murder?
I also think there are plenty people that deserve the death penalty, but no one has the right to end another person's life.

No.

People who do these things aren't right in the head. This could be construed as a form of mental illness.

We don't execute people who are ill, we try to cure them. If this means rehabilitation in prison for the rest of thier lives, then so be it.

Everyone has an undeniable right to life. When one human being murders another, then the murderer has forfeit their right to life.

And if someone executes someone, how does this make them better? They're ending someone else's life too. And who do you suggest should torture the torturer to death?

The reason it costs so much is because of all the appeals, not the actual penalty. So even a pre-mediatated murder, the murderer is mentally ill?

Here's my stance:

Everyone has an undeniable right to life. When one human being murders another, then the murderer has forfeit their right to life. Therefore, the death penalty is acceptable in cases of murder.


My theory, as well, is that the death penalty should be whatever the means that were used my the murderer on their victim. (Ex. If the murderer shot their victim, then the murderer should be shot to death as well...). That way, execution's would be cheap (what murderer is going to spend million's to kill one person!), and effective...it would also be a detterant for tortorous murders!

Interesting idea. Though it seems wrong for torturous crimes. I think that Carbon Monoxide (I think that is what it is) should be used to deliver a peaceful death.

Here's my stance:

Everyone has an undeniable right to life. When one human being murders another, then the murderer has forfeit their right to life. Therefore, the death penalty is acceptable in cases of murder.


My theory, as well, is that the death penalty should be whatever the means that were used my the murderer on their victim. (Ex. If the murderer shot their victim, then the murderer should be shot to death as well...). That way, execution's would be cheap (what murderer is going to spend million's to kill one person!), and effective...it would also be a detterant for tortorous murders!
Bingo. You hit it on the head.
Most of the anti death penalty crowd don't realize that sometimes in order to save life, you have to destroy life.

Of course they're mentally ill even if they have a reason, its been proved that sane humans don't want to kill each other even in extreem conditions such as war therefore i feel that most sensible option is to try and rehabilitate these people even if it costs more

And if someone executes someone, how does this make them better? They're ending someone else's life too. And who do you suggest should torture the torturer to death?


I didn't say it makes them better...They are just doing their job.

And who suggested that the murderer torture their victims to death?

I strongly favor the death penalty. In my mind, if you take someone else's life for any reason other than your own life being in jeopardy, you forfeit your own right to live.

Under certain circumstances, I also favor executing minors. This would be under instances when it's been determined they 1) knew right from wrong and weren't "under the spell" of any adult and 2) if they knew what they were doing when the committed the crime. In my mind, Lee Boyd Malvo deserved the death penalty for his role in the sniper attacks in the Washington D.C. area.

Bingo. You hit it on the head.
Most of the anti death penalty crowd don't realize that sometimes in order to save life, you have to destroy life.
You know, it would be just as good for life if you locked them away for the rest of their lives, basically having the same effect as when you kill them.

I didn't say it makes them better...They are just doing their job.

And who suggested that the murderer torture their victims to death?
You implied it by saying:

My theory, as well, is that the death penalty should be whatever the means that were used my the murderer on their victim.
If someone commits a viciously cruel murder, who is supposed to viciously and cruely execute them?

You can't forfeit a right. By suggesting that rights can be removed on a whim of the courts, you turn them in to nothing more than privileges. That in turn removes any intrinsic value from rights.

The death penalty, in my view, isn't about justice or about protecting society. It's about an eye for an eye. And revenge is simply pointless.

Just how I feel.

Ahh, but you forget Laerod, there are appeals for parole, which then can lead to freedom...and if all murderers are as Lance Cahill suggests, mentaly ill, then they might just murder again.

Although, how do you feel about using prisoners as free labor. Because I wouldn't feel bad at all letting murderers do free labor in jail. Then they could be a help to society.

And letting them sit in jail is no good either. It is a use of government resources that could be better spent on a lot of things (education, welfare, or better yet, the law enforcement!)

1. It's a lot cheaper than housing someone for life. Especially when the "expressway system" is instituted for cases with multiple witnesses or video proof.
2. It's effective and eliminates the chance of a repeat offender.

Ahh, but you forget Laerod, there are appeals for parole, which then can lead to freedom...and if all murderers are as Lance Cahill suggests, mentaly ill, then they might just murder again.

Although, how do you feel about using prisoners as free labor. Because I wouldn't feel bad at all letting murderers do free labor in jail. Then they could be a help to society.

And letting them sit in jail is no good either. It is a use of government resources that could be better spent on a lot of things (education, welfare, or better yet, the law enforcement!)
Free labor is a good idea.

Also, I have a question to everyone. Are we talking US death penalty or death penalty in general?

[QUOTE=Sydenia]You can't forfeit a right. By suggesting that rights can be removed on a whim of the courts, you turn them in to nothing more than privileges. That in turn removes any intrinsic value from rights.QUOTE]


Ahh...but who gave the right to the murderer to take a life in the first place?

Ahh...but who gave the right to the murderer to take a life in the first place?

Nobody. Just like nobody gives anyone the right to steal, assault, or commit any other crime. It's not a given right for them to do so, simply something they choose to do. That doesn't negate their rights as a human being however (at least in theory, it isn't supposed to).

Ahh...but who gave the right to the murderer to take a life in the first place?
If the murderer had a right to take life, it wouldn't be a crime then, would it? The entire point is that the murderer is being punished for doing something wrong, so there's no need for justice to lower itself to his or her level.

Being from the US myself, my view of the death penalty will be distorted...so my comments are influenced by the death penalty...but the death penalty is universal...

Now, the Chinese death penalty on the other hand...that's one efficient machine!!! Although, my knowledge on the actuall workings of the Chinese death penalty are limited, so I cannot form an opinion on that particular system.

If the murderer had a right to take life, it wouldn't be a crime then, would it? The entire point is that the murderer is being punished for doing something wrong, so there's no need for justice to lower itself to his or her level.

Nobody. Just like nobody gives anyone the right to steal, assault, or commit any other crime. It's not a given right for them to do so, simply something they choose to do. That doesn't negate their rights as a human being however (at least in theory, it isn't supposed to).


Exactly. Nobody gave the murderer the right, therefore, they have violated someone elses right, and therefore, are no longer fit to keep their own.

Bingo. You hit it on the head.
Most of the anti death penalty crowd don't realize that sometimes in order to save life, you have to destroy life.

Not in the case of state sanctioned murder you don't. Death is death and killing is killing. Don't try and dress it up or rationalize it as anything other than what it is.

And it doesn't even work. There isn't a shred of evidence anywhere that shows the death penalty is any sort of deterrance for criminal activity. So it's purely for vengence, not justice, not protection, just plain and simple revenge.

I think that Carbon Monoxide (I think that is what it is) should be used to deliver a peaceful death.

Actually, the most peaceful would be the replacement of air in the gas chamber with pure mitrogen gas. The body can sense CO and CO2 levels, and that causes some distress when they are too high. Oddly, the body is fairly poor at determining oxygen content in the air, so an atmosphere of pure nitrogen would be unnoticed, and simply cause unconciousness followed by death.
As to the topic, however, I do have one question for all of the anti-death penalty types... If the death penalty is not a deterrent, what is the recidivism rate among convicted murderers who have had said sentence carried out? Isn't it a lot lower than that of convicted murderers who have not been executed?

A problem I have with the US death penalty, also being a citizen, is that too many innocents get sent to death row because of flaws in the American judicial system. This makes the death penalty totally immoral, since there's not enough being done to guarantee that only murderers are executed. (And guaranteeing that only murderers will be executed is impossible)

Exactly. Nobody gave the murderer the right, therefore, they have violated someone elses right, and therefore, are no longer fit to keep their own.

That's your opinion, and I'll respect that. He violated someone's rights, no question, and should be punished for it. That punishment must stay within his rights however, or we are as guilty as he is. The negating of a right is always wrong.

In my mind, at least.

--Edit--

As to the topic, however, I do have one question for all of the anti-death penalty types... If the death penalty is not a deterrent, what is the recidivism rate among convicted murderers who have had said sentence carried out? Isn't it a lot lower than that of convicted murderers who have not been executed?

It may prevent the same person from committing more than one murder, but it doesn't prevent new murders. We will never have a lack of new people killing other people, no matter how quickly you kill them. And the efficiency of a method of preventing crime is never more important than it's morality.

Exactly. Nobody gave the murderer the right, therefore, they have violated someone elses right, and therefore, are no longer fit to keep their own.
What gives someone else the right to take it from them then?

Ahh, but you forget Laerod, there are appeals for parole, which then can lead to freedom...and if all murderers are as Lance Cahill suggests, mentaly ill, then they might just murder again.
Ah but you forget the phrase "no chance of parole" and since he said "for life" I'd assume he meant for life- not just a life sentence. This is also what I believe. Lock them up forever, no chance of ever getting out, and that way, if you find out the jury is wrong, you can still give the person some chance of a normal life.

Although, how do you feel about using prisoners as free labor. Because I wouldn't feel bad at all letting murderers do free labor in jail. Then they could be a help to society. I'm all for this...

And letting them sit in jail is no good either. It is a use of government resources that could be better spent on a lot of things (education, welfare, or better yet, the law enforcement!)
Actually, for one, let all people in the jails for victimless crimes out and abolish all laws against those crimes- this will greatly decrease the govt. resources being used to deter and punish criminals (in the US at least). Second, make everyone pay for their stay in prison. You mentioned "free labor" above, but it isn't really free, since, as you just pointed out, we're spending tremendous money on them. They won't necessarily have to do enough work to actually pay their way through prison, but it'll be a start. If they can't (physically) do hard labor, give them something easy to do. If they'd rather starve than work, then let them.

Oh, and very important...they're not allowed to pay for things in prison with money they have outside of prison- just so a rich person faces the same punishment as a poor person...

I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in this, but, you know...point them out...see how many I care about. (someone commiting suicide for example, I don't- but people being proven innocent I do)

It's expensive, has no deterrance value (and may actually lead to an increase in the crimes it is designed to reduce) and dehumanizes the society as a whole. Nuff said.

You can buy a high quality bullet for $1. How is that expensive?

Here's my stance:

Everyone has an undeniable right to life. When one human being murders another, then the murderer has forfeit their right to life. Therefore, the death penalty is acceptable in cases of murder.


My theory, as well, is that the death penalty should be whatever the means that were used my the murderer on their victim. (Ex. If the murderer shot their victim, then the murderer should be shot to death as well...). That way, execution's would be cheap (what murderer is going to spend million's to kill one person!), and effective...it would also be a detterant for tortorous murders!

I think you make a good point. I agree wholeheartedly.

And if someone executes someone, how does this make them better? They're ending someone else's life too. And who do you suggest should torture the torturer to death?
:rolleyes:

Bingo. You hit it on the head.
Most of the anti death penalty crowd don't realize that sometimes in order to save life, you have to destroy life.

That is the exact reason I believe in stem cell research.

:rolleyes:
What are you trying to say there?

You can buy a high quality bullet for $1. How is that expensive?

How is that any different than what the criminal did?

Death penalty cases cost money and, even then, there's no guarantee that the system will work and a guilty man will go to the chair and an innocent many won't.

You know, it would be just as good for life if you locked them away for the rest of their lives, basically having the same effect as when you kill them.

but then the prisons get crowded

You implied it by saying:


If someone commits a viciously cruel murder, who is supposed to viciously and cruely execute them?

Invent a robot to do it.

but then the prisons get crowded

Oh, well then, I guess when the social service agencies get crowded we can start euthenizing children or when the population gets too old and are crowding the health system, we can whack anyone over 60.

Overcrowding is a poor excuse for murder.

but then the prisons get crowded
That sounds as though we should only execute murderers when prisons are at capacity, and not because it's morally necessary.

Invent a robot to do it.
Then the person that invents the robot would be responsible for mass murder in my eyes.

Actually, for one, let all people in the jails for victimless crimes out and abolish all laws against those crimes- this will greatly decrease the govt. resources being used to deter and punish criminals (in the US at least). Second, make everyone pay for their stay in prison. You mentioned "free labor" above, but it isn't really free, since, as you just pointed out, we're spending tremendous money on them. They won't necessarily have to do enough work to actually pay their way through prison, but it'll be a start. If they can't (physically) do hard labor, give them something easy to do. If they'd rather starve than work, then let them.

Oh, and very important...they're not allowed to pay for things in prison with money they have outside of prison- just so a rich person faces the same punishment as a poor person...

I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in this, but, you know...point them out...see how many I care about. (someone commiting suicide for example, I don't- but people being proven innocent I do)


Of course there are flaws. There is no escape from them. I would even say there are flaws in my argument for the death penalty!

However, I agree with everything you said! Example: Why are drug dealers in jail? Really...why are drugs even illegal...there would be so many problems solved if drugs were legalized!

And one thing to add...no cable TV for prisoners... as well as free healthcare (that's right...FREE!), no high quality meals, no soft beds, no luxury period. I know free and innocent people who live worse than criminals!

However, I agree with everything you said! Example: Why are drug dealers in jail? Really...why are drugs even illegal...there would be so many problems solved if drugs were legalized!

It doesn't apply to all drugs, but many cause people to become delusional or violent. LSD is a prime example. And the delusions can occur up to a year after you use it, which makes it quite disturbing indeed.

Oh, well then, I guess when the social service agencies get crowded we can start euthenizing children or when the population gets too old and are crowding the health system, we can whack anyone over 60.

Overcrowding is a poor excuse for murder.


The difference is the "Guilty Factor"...those children and old folks are innocent (at least for the sake of argument)...they have done nothing wrong...therefore...with overcrowding, their only punishment is the unavailability of resources. It's sad, but unaviodable. (God, I almost feel inhuman saying that...)

It doesn't apply to all drugs, but many cause people to become delusional or violent. LSD is a prime example. And the delusions can occur up to a year after you use it, which makes it quite disturbing indeed.


True. The stipulation that I neglected to add to my "Make Drug's Legal" idea, is that the user must accept full reposibility for acions taken during the drugs effect...including delusions from LSD a year later! It's like safe sex. If you take precautions (like get drunk, but give your car keys to a friend) then you can enjoy drugs safely. If you don't take precautions, then you are reponsible (like if a kid pop's out nine months later after not using precautions...you are responsible to the kid whether you like it or not!)


Anyway...it's been lovely debating. You all have wonderful ideas, whether they coincide with mine or not, and it's great to hear all viewpoints. I must, however, oblige my stomach and eat some lunch. Perhaps a round of debate another time!

Then the person that invents the robot would be responsible for mass murder in my eyes.

Have robots make the robot. :headbang:

Have robots make the robot. :headbang:
And then someone has to invent that robot, or the robot that invents that robot.

I am pro-death penalty as I believe that the death penalty is a just means of punishment for the severest of crimes when there is no doubt as to the guilt of the 'suspect'. But my country doesn't have it anyway.

if drugs were legalized, guns were banned, and the death penalty was abolished, WE'D BE JUST LIKE CANADA AND BRITAIN! Who the **** wants that now?

if drugs were legalized, guns were banned, and the death penalty was abolished, WE'D BE JUST LIKE CANADA AND BRITAIN! Who the **** wants that now?

Hey, I happen to live in the UK! LOL!

if drugs were legalized, guns were banned, and the death penalty was abolished, WE'D BE JUST LIKE CANADA AND BRITAIN! Who the **** wants that now?
I wouldn't mind the US being more like that.

I wouldn't mind the US being more like that.
I dunno about you, but I wouldnt want to be a citizen of a nation who's leaders are forced to kiss ass in order to make their country look big and strong.

*cough* I'll go now

I dunno about you, but I wouldnt want to be a citizen of a nation who's leaders are forced to kiss ass in order to make their country look big and strong.

*cough* I'll go now
I wouldn't either, but then again I don't think banning guns and abolishing the death penalty will make the US kiss ass in order to look big and strong, will it?

I support the death penalty always

The death penalty is terrorism. It is the use of fear to make others do what you want. This is pretty much true of government in general, though, anyway.

The death penalty is terrorism. It is the use of fear to make others do what you want. This is pretty much true of government in general, though, anyway.


If you're going to say that, then I'm going to say that Christianity is terrorism.



The sad thing is, both statements are true!

And then someone has to invent that robot, or the robot that invents that robot.
didn't you watch I, Robot?

What does everyone think of the death penalty?

I say "Rock On!.

Kylara

What does everyone think of the death penalty?

It is barbaric and immoral. The US is one of the few industrialized country to maintain the death penalty.

Bingo. You hit it on the head.
Most of the anti death penalty crowd don't realize that sometimes in order to save life, you have to destroy life.
Actually that is a false statement. It has been shown to be true that States that support the death penalty, actually have a higher murder rate.

Oh, well then, I guess when the social service agencies get crowded we can start euthenizing children or when the population gets too old and are crowding the health system, we can whack anyone over 60.

Overcrowding is a poor excuse for murder.


No. No its not. The planet is allready feeling the effects of 6 billion people.
If we lock away all criminals were just wasting resources and space.
We cannot afford to do that.
Im sure we dont need to go as far as mass culls of children or the elder, but why not have the 2 chilren per family law put into effect? Or even 1 child.
There are less drastic ways to curb the population, but there are no less drastic ways to curb murder.

Actually that is a false statement. It has been shown to be true that States that support the death penalty, actually have a higher murder rate.

Is that with or without factoring in the people the government kills?

Anyway, Letila, using your logic, ALL punishment by the govenrment is terroism. It is used to deter criminals and instill fear of retribution. But hey, when was the US government ever RIGHT about anything, anyway?

Note: "Rock on!"

Ok, basically, from what i've read, there's two sides to this issue:

1. Is it ethical?

2. Is is economical?

To start with the second one, because on the face of it, it's simpler: the way the laws are written in the books right now, it's actually more expensive to execute someone than to give them life imprisonment. Not to mention some prisons rank with 5 star hotels...yeah, I think prisons should be somewhat more austere than a Kansas motel 8.

But perhaps more importantly, is it ethical. Vindexelia (forgive mispelling) says everyone has the right to life. There are two types of rights, if you follow the thought of the French Enlightenists: civil and human; basically, the rights you enjoy in a society, and the rights you have as an individual. Voting is a civil right, not a human right. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are human rights, not civil rights. (there is a difference between freedom and democracy, but we can talk about that some other time.) Civil rights pertain to the State, human rights pertain to the individual. A murderer, when he commits a crime against an individual, in doing so acts against not only the individual, but also society and the State as a whole. the State is the guardian of our civil rights, and in a way, the granter of our civil rights. But the State does not grant us our human rights. Those are intrinsic to us, as some one else noted before; no one gave them to us, no one can take them away from us (except for God, in whatever way you believe in him). A murderer doesn't take away someone's right to live; they violate it. Basically, to shorten this premise, a murderer forsakes his civil rights, but not his human rights. Therefore, appropriate measure should be taken to protect society from the murderer, but capital punishment is not a legitimate form.

kudos?

if drugs were legalized, guns were banned, and the death penalty was abolished, WE'D BE JUST LIKE CANADA AND BRITAIN! Who the **** wants that now?


Well actually Mr. Dumbass, err...Colodia...Canada has not legalized drugs or banned guns. In fact, we have just as many guns as the States. And while yes, we have banned the death penalty, thats just because our government is stupid. I hope to change that someday. But since I can't vote, I might have to get high and do it with a gun, and I could! Since neither are banned and quite easily accessed.

Anyway, Letila, using your logic, ALL punishment by the govenrment is terroism. It is used to deter criminals and instill fear of retribution. But hey, when was the US government ever RIGHT about anything, anyway?

That's the case, actually. Pretty much all violence besides self-defense is indistinguishable from terrorism or murder. The government just uses the term "terrorism" as a label for violence it doesn't commit.

The ones who are anti-capital punishment don't realize that sometimes you have to destroy life to save it.


Very interesting sentence. Appealing because it involves a paradox. Bring life out of death. Funny, the first people to come up with this was Socrates, the Athenian philosopher, who didn't believe in suicide, who didn't believe in democracy, but yet was executed by the Athenian democracy "for impiety towards the gods and corrupting the youth."

however, he said this in reference to the afterlife, not to this life. He meant that this life is a shadow of the life to come, and the problem is that some people put all their hopes in this life, and forget about death, the one thing guaranteed in this life.

What i find disturbing is the manipulation of Socrates words. What makes one person better than another has to die so they can live 5 years more? What gives one person more rights to live than another? If life is a right, sacred, then everyone's is.

Last thing I want to share, I read someone's motto the other day, very inspiring: "No one dies a virgin. Life screws us all."

It bugs me that innocents lose their life via death penalty. And of course something about the government being able to do so bugs me, they could do pretty much as they like via such a thing as this. I also oppose it on moral grounds not because I am catholic but protestant but I do just the same

however, he said this in reference to the afterlife, not to this life. He meant that this life is a shadow of the life to come, and the problem is that some people put all their hopes in this life, and forget about death, the one thing guaranteed in this life.

But what about those who argue that there is no afterlife. This argument doesn't hold up against them.

I'm pro death penalty where the case warrants it.

Frankly, based on my own admittedly limited knowledge of the US penal system, being executed is a lot more humane than, say, life in prison.

There are less drastic ways to curb the population, but there are no less drastic ways to curb murder.

But that's just the thing. It doesn't curb murder. It doesn't act as a deterrant at all. All it does is turn the state and the constituents into murderers themselves and pervert the idea of justice by turning the authorities into the exact thing they are supposed to be punishing.

But that's just the thing. It doesn't curb murder. It doesn't act as a deterrant at all. All it does is turn the state and the constituents into murderers themselves and pervert the idea of justice by turning the authorities into the exact thing they are supposed to be punishing.

It is 100% effective in deterring a murderer from murdering again. No other method is. How many "repeat offenders" are there, do you think? How many defense attourneys? A lot, that's how many.

It is 100% effective in deterring a murderer from murdering again. No other method is. How many "repeat offenders" are there, do you think? How many defense attourneys? A lot, that's how many.

It doesn't stop murders in general. In fact, it seems to do just the opposite and increase violent crime in states where it's legalized. At best, it's a bad piecemeal band-aid solution for a systemic problem.

why would anyone kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

:headbang:

damn it wall why won't you answer me?

I agree. It's called 'sinking to their level', I think.

It is 100% effective in deterring a murderer from murdering again. No other method is. How many "repeat offenders" are there, do you think? How many defense attourneys? A lot, that's how many.


Why don't we kill anyone who commits a crime. Like 'lets kill thieves, because it's a 100% effective way of stopping them from nicking car stereos'.

Well actually Mr. Dumbass, err...Colodia...Canada has not legalized drugs or banned guns. In fact, we have just as many guns as the States. And while yes, we have banned the death penalty, thats just because our government is stupid. I hope to change that someday. But since I can't vote, I might have to get high and do it with a gun, and I could! Since neither are banned and quite easily accessed.
Well you could always move to the US where they have everything you want?

Why don't we kill anyone who commits a crime. Like 'lets kill thieves, because it's a 100% effective way of stopping them from nicking car stereos'.

I like how you downplay the crimes people ARE executed for, like murder and rape, by comparing them to 'nicking car stereos.' Way to go, champ.

You missed the part where I said if the case warrants it. Murder warrants it. Nicking car stereos does not.

It doesn't stop murders in general. In fact, it seems to do just the opposite and increase violent crime in states where it's legalized. At best, it's a bad piecemeal band-aid solution for a systemic problem.

Well i never championed the death penalty for it's deterrance value. Frankly, crime is always going to be a huge problem for us, because the American culture is corrupt and decadent.

It's still a better solution than lifelong imprisonment. And a MUCH better one than putting them in prison for 5, 10 or 20 years, and having them come out 10 times worse. Or in any case, they don't come out with "I served time in prison therefore I won't be bad and MURDER you, please huge me" cards.

Not in the case of state sanctioned murder you don't. Death is death and killing is killing. Don't try and dress it up or rationalize it as anything other than what it is.

And it doesn't even work. There isn't a shred of evidence anywhere that shows the death penalty is any sort of deterrance for criminal activity. So it's purely for vengence, not justice, not protection, just plain and simple revenge.
You mean you reject all the evidence that proves it.

If you're going to say that, then I'm going to say that Christianity is terrorism.



The sad thing is, both statements are true!

There are two definitions of the word fear. One of them is actually a synonym for respect. That is the definition the bible uses when it says you should fear the lord your god, not to turn this into a religious debate...

I like how you downplay the crimes people ARE executed for, like murder and rape, by comparing them to 'nicking car stereos.' Way to go, champ.

You missed the part where I said if the case warrants it. Murder warrants it. Nicking car stereos does not.

My car stereo is worth more than their lives.

until there's a system that ensures that every single person who is convicted is definitely guilty, then there's no argument in my eyes: the state must not execute people.

In full support of the death penalty

Nations which have banned the death penalty are more civilized and morally advanced than those which have not.

Nations with no death penalty have lower per-capita murder rates than those with it.

Nations which have banned the death penalty are more civilized and morally advanced than those which have not.
People who claim to be more “civilized” are just patting themselves on the back.

“Beware, beware of the pat on the back,
it just might hold you back.”

From Smiling Faces by Undisputed Truth

:fluffle: See they're eating each other and struggling to get away.

:D ;) :) :cool: :) ;) :D

until there's a system that ensures that every single person who is convicted is definitely guilty, then there's no argument in my eyes: the state must not execute people.
Please, please come up with something better than an over weighted disapproval of a single aspect of a something which has many many aspects. I hate it when people come to a decision based solely on one aspects of a whole plethora of pros and cons.

Nations which have banned the death penalty are more civilized and morally advanced than those which have not.

Nations with no death penalty have lower per-capita murder rates than those with it.
Your first statement is pure opinion and thys cannot be validated. As for the second, Singapore has the death penalty and a very low murder rate. Columbia does not have the death penalty and they have one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Actually, not having the death penalty is very uncivilized.

Treating barbarians who reject civilization better than they deserve is only aiding in the destruction of civilization.

I'm pro death penalty where the case warrants it.

Frankly, based on my own admittedly limited knowledge of the US penal system, being executed is a lot more humane than, say, life in prison.

I'd have to agree with that. I know I would rather get the chair than be locked in a room with some guy named Bubba.

heres how we fix jail problems

1)screw the appeal process, every prisoner gets a limit of appeals based on crime. petty - 15, drug - 10, major - 5. once you run out, you get the sentence
2) screw the long ass wait on death row, once you are convicted without question and are sentenced to death, you get killed
3) three strikes law is bullcrap, get rid of it
4) convert all life sentences without chance of parole to death row
5) eleiminate the electric chair and lethal injection, too many problems with attempts at cruel and unusual. switch all to execution by firing squad, or at least death by gunshot

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind :fluffle:

If someone killed mutiply times they should be given the death penalty. Whats the point of putting someone in jail their whole life so WE CAN PAY TAXES FOR THEM. Think about it, we pay so they can eat and stuf because they did something wrong. Why should everyone else have to pay for his mistake?

You mean you reject all the evidence that proves it.

What evidence? What study? What numbers? Don't tell me I've rejected evidence when there is none to present.

i support the death penalty. when a man kills a man in cold blood, there is no excuse for that. what is strange is that some people still get probation. i even think rape should get the death penalty.

i support the death penalty. when a man kills a man in cold blood, there is no excuse for that. what is strange is that some people still get probation. i even think rape should get the death penalty.

Totally agree