NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/08/08/bodies.found/index.html

Have been thinking about all the Europeans on here bitching abotu our death penalty, and then I was thinking about these four guys who murdered 6 people over an XBox here in Florida.....and all I gotta say is thank god I live in a land where these wastes of air are gonna get what they truly deserve.

Bah, the sheriff has no decision on if it’s going to be a death penalty case or not. They probably shouldn't have even added that. WTF was CNN thinking when they put that little bit in? Oh yeah, money. One of the first rules of journalism is that blood sells. And probably now that they published that there will be an outcry and lots of pressure to not have it become a death penalty case. And of course they'll probably fold.

lol

it will cost you more to kill them than throw them in a cell

lol

it will cost you more to kill them than throw them in a cell
so?


the same results are achieved, just at a faster and more reasonable pace.

so?


the same results are achieved, just at a faster and more reasonable pace.

One of the common defences of the death penalty is the theory that incarceration is too expensive. I believe they meant to address that.

lol

it will cost you more to kill them than throw them in a cell


That's because everyone goes all out of their way to make it simply putting them to sleep. Just line them up in a firing squad, bang bang bang, dead. It costs so much to kill these days because people want to make it look all nice and clean. Just shoot and be done with it.

That's because everyone goes all out of their way to make it simply putting them to sleep. Just line them up in a firing squad, bang bang bang, dead. It costs so much to kill these days because people want to make it look all nice and clean. Just shoot and be done with it.

The idea, as I understand it at least, isn't to make it look clean. It's to kill the person in what is deemed a humane way. There's an entire sub-argument about killing being humane, but that's not really the point here.

I've never understod this, the USA goes around the world claiming to be the bastion of human rights and democracy, and yet in its own country it engages in state sponsored murder.
Crazy if you ask me.

One of the common defences of the death penalty is the theory that incarceration is too expensive. I believe they meant to address that.
I usually like to argue that they won’t be using natural resources anymore such as food, water, space, air and all that fun stuff. It would also be nice to turn the executed into nice beneficial mulch.

I've never understod this, the USA goes around the world claiming to be the bastion of human rights and democracy, and yet in its own country it engages in state sponsored murder.
Crazy if you ask me.
Please explain why you refer to it as murder.

That's because everyone goes all out of their way to make it simply putting them to sleep. Just line them up in a firing squad, bang bang bang, dead. It costs so much to kill these days because people want to make it look all nice and clean. Just shoot and be done with it.
The most humane way to kill people is definitely not clean and it‘s even cheaper than shooting them. However I would hate to be the guy that has to clean up the mess.

Please explain why you refer to it as murder.
I know of no other way to describe it; it's simply the government endorsing murder.
You charge somebody with murder because this is not allowed, and then respond by murdering them? It's hypocritical and makes as much of a mockery of human life as the criminal did in the first place.

Bah, the sheriff has no decision on if it’s going to be a death penalty case or not. They probably shouldn't have even added that. WTF was CNN thinking when they put that little bit in? Oh yeah, money. One of the first rules of journalism is that blood sells. And probably now that they published that there will be an outcry and lots of pressure to not have it become a death penalty case. And of course they'll probably fold.

Not saying he does, but in a case liek this, these guys are gonna fry (or be injected).

I've never understod this, the USA goes around the world claiming to be the bastion of human rights and democracy, and yet in its own country it engages in state sponsored murder.
Crazy if you ask me.

Because you can do things to sacrifice your rights. You murder 6 people, you no longer have the right to live.

I know of no other way to describe it; it's simply the government endorsing murder.
You charge somebody with murder because this is not allowed, and then respond by murdering them? It's hypocritical and makes as much of a mockery of human life as the criminal did in the first place.
So then clearly taxation by the government dosen't make sense, because extortion is a crime, but hey the government does it anyway.

I know of no other way to describe it; it's simply the government endorsing murder.
You charge somebody with murder because this is not allowed, and then respond by murdering them? It's hypocritical and makes as much of a mockery of human life as the criminal did in the first place.
No we respond by killing them, not murdering them. There's a big difference.

No we respond by killing them, not murdering them. There's a big difference.

Verb: murder
1. Kill intentionally and with premeditation

Though the legal meaning of murder is to kill in a fashion banned by law, the literal term of murder is just a synonym for killing.

Verb: murder
1. Kill intentionally and with premeditation

Though the legal meaning of murder is to kill in a fashion banned by law, the literal term of murder is just a synonym for killing.
No two words in the English language mean the exact same thing. Murder is any unlawful act of killing. Which is a very specific definition. Killing on the other hand is a very loose definition. It can encompass many aspect of dying.

No two words in the English language mean the exact same thing. Murder is any unlawful act of killing. Which is a very specific definition. Killing on the other hand is a very loose definition. It can encompass many aspect of dying.

[sigh]

I didn't say killing and murder were the same thing. I said, and I quote:

the literal term of murder is just a synonym for killing

Not that that should have any impact on the situation at all.

I gave the definition for murder, and as you can see by reading it, murder is defined (in the non-legal sense) as intentional and premeditated killing.

Is the death penalty premeditated?
Is the death penalty intentional?
Is the death penalty killing?

Then by the (non-legal definition), the death penalty is murder.

Then by the (non-legal definition), the death penalty is murder.

Hey, let's argue meaningless semantics.

I gave the definition for murder, and as you can see by reading it, murder is defined (in the non-legal sense) as intentional and premeditated killing.

Is the death penalty premeditated?
Is the death penalty intentional?
Is the death penalty killing?

Then by the (non-legal definition), the death penalty is murder.
Well your dictionary says something different than what mine says.
So anyways explain to me why in legal applications a "non-legal" definition should be accepted?

Hey, let's argue meaningless semantics.

So language is meaningless? I'd like to point out there was language long before there was even a United States or its laws, and that the law took the legal term for killing from the preexisting language. I'm merely defining murder. You don't have to agree with it; but claiming a law overrides the meaning of the word, even though the law came after the word and is based on the word, is illogical.

Well your dictionary says something different than what mine says.
So anyways explain to me why in legal applications a "non-legal" definition should be accepted?

You sound surprised that different dictionaries have different definitions. You didn't really expect every dictionary to just copy the others, did you? Different sources, different editors, different cultures, different results.

Moreover. I'm not suggesting the death penalty is illegal. I'm suggesting the death penalty is murder. You chose to deny this fact, and I'm pointing out your mistake. Law had no place in this argument. Murder is intentional and premeditated killing. Naming a crime after the word won't change the original meaning of the word.

Please explain why you refer to it as murder.

if you plan to kill somebody and actually follow through with it while not currently engaged in self defense or defense of a third party, you have committed murder. doesn't matter if it is the state or anybody else doing the killing.

Moreover. I'm not suggesting the death penalty is illegal. I'm suggesting the death penalty is murder. You chose to deny this fact, and I'm pointing out your mistake. Law had no place in this argument. Murder is intentional and premeditated killing. Naming a crime after the word won't change the original meaning of the word.
I chose to deny it because it’s not a fact. You said so yourself.

You sound surprised that different dictionaries have different definitions. You didn't really expect every dictionary to just copy the others, did you? Different sources, different editors, different cultures, different results.

Law has every right to be in this argument for the simple reason that this is a legal issue. There has to be some grounds to go by for the law to decide what is and what isn't murder. And exactly what do you think was the original meaning of the word murder and what sources do you have to prove it?

One of the common defences of the death penalty is the theory that incarceration is too expensive. I believe they meant to address that.

So you kill people because they are too expensive to keep, wow, really civilised America.

The government has a monopoly on things, one of them is force. Even if the death penalty can be defined as murder under some definitions, you have to ask yourself is this a bad thing, after all the government has a monopoly on many things that would be illegal for a normal person to do yet it isn't bad, for example the police being able to assault someone if need be, forcibly taking someone from their home, and enforcement of tax laws.

an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind

I chose to deny it because it’s not a fact. You said so yourself.

Care to quote where I said that?

Law has every right to be in this argument for the simple reason that this is a legal issue. There has to be some grounds to go by for the law to decide what is and what isn't murder. And exactly what do you think was the original meaning of the word murder and what sources do you have to prove it?

What in Lord's name are you babbling about? I am not arguing the legality of the death penalty.

No we respond by killing them, not murdering them.

You claimed the death penalty was not murder, because the law says it isn't. What you fail to realize is that murder was a word before it was used in law. Adding a meaning to a word does not negate the original meaning. One is a legal meaning, the other is a literal meaning.

As for where murder comes from, perhaps you need to take a course in Latin. You'd realize that much of the English language is stolen from other languages. Neco is the term for murder in Latin, and loosely means "to slaughter/slay/kill" (not an expert on Latin, so that's a loose translation).

But honestly... please tell me you don't believe the word murder existed before the United States existed? I don't want to believe I'm hearing that argument.

Care to quote where I said that?
Umm, I already have.

What in Lord's name are you babbling about? I am not arguing the legality of the death penalty.You said that law has no place in the argument and I was explaining why it does.

As for where murder comes from, perhaps you need to take a course in Latin. You'd realize that much of the English language is stolen from other languages. Neco is the term for murder in Latin, and loosely means "to slaughter/slay/kill" (not an expert on Latin, so that's a loose translation).You do realize that there are languages that are older than Latin don't you.

But honestly... please tell me you don't believe the word murder existed before the United States existed? I don't want to believe I'm hearing that argument.What on this earth makes you think that I was? Perhaps you own a jump to conclusions mat. :rolleyes:

an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind
that is irrelevant, it's a mere saying that is applicable to a broad range of events.

Umm, I already have.

I looked back, and fail to see what you're talking about. You'll have to either quote it again (a pain, but I'm sure you'll live) or drop the subject.

You said that law has no place in the argument and I was explaining why it does.

Yes, but your explanation was faulty. This isn't a debate over legality of the death penalty. This is a debate over the meaning of "murder", and if the death penalty falls under murder. It does, under the literal interpretation.

You do realize that there are languages that are older than Latin don't you.

And surely you realize the heavy influences of Latin on English, and not just English; but that's another discussion altogether.

What on this earth makes you think that I was? Perhaps you own a jump to conclusion mat. :rolleyes:

The fact that you continue to attempt to bring US law in to the discussion of what "murder" is. US law does not define murder. The word existed before the United States, and will exist long after. The only thing the US law you repeatedly reference does is add an extra meaning to the word.

Thank God we have the Death Penalty in the USA

Yes, lucky that no innocent person has ever been wrongly convicted and executed.

Ah, who cares if a few innocent people die, so long as the victims families get to live out their revenge fantasies and the public in general have their bloodlust and moral outrage sated, eh?

Main Entry: mur•der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Old English morthor; partly from Old French murdre, of Germanic origin
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation); especially : such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape)


If the death penalty is legal it cant exactly be murder (by even its original non united states definition)

Main Entry: mur•der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Old English morthor; partly from Old French murdre, of Germanic origin
: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation); especially : such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape)


If the death penalty is legal it cant exactly be murder (by even its original non united states definition)

That would be true, if murder today meant what it did then. But it doesn't. The meaning of words change over time. In current day, it means to kill with premeditation and intent. If we were having the death penalty debate when the word was first created, then yes, that would end the discussion.

All I meant to say was that murder was not created for the purpose of US law, therefore US law (and the legality of the death penalty) has no impact on the current meaning of the word.

that is irrelevant, it's a mere saying that is applicable to a broad range of events.


such as the death penalty

I'm mostly opposed to the death penalty, but this case is brutal enough to justify it. The motive seemed so flimsy, it seems to borderline random. Yet the murders were so brutal, that the individual corpses couldn't even be identified with dental records. Disgusting.

From every definition of the word I can find it includes a reference to Unlawful killing

The post was I made was not the current definition rather the origin definition

As far as I have been able to find that IS the definition … and has been for long enough that I cant find a recording of anything different (if so please share)

Actually, the sheriff not only suggested that this should be a death penalty case, but that it should be an expedited death penalty case.

I'm opposed to the death penalty as well, but I can understand perfectly why people think these criminals deserve it, assuming they're guilty and that the crime scene is as horrific as it sounds.

From every definition of the word I can find it includes a reference to Unlawful killing

Yes, words have multiple meanings. I acknowledged as much when saying that the US law added a meaning the murder, but did not displace the current meaning.

The post was I made was not the current definition rather the origin definition

Yes. And the original meaning is outdated. The meaning of the word has shifted over time to encompass any premeditated and intentional killing. That is what we have in current day. Having more then one meaning to a word does not negate any meanings that are different.

As far as I have been able to find that IS the definition … and has been for long enough that I cant find a recording of anything different (if so please share)

You're looking at the noun of murder, for one thing. I quoted the verb of murder. Moreover, you couldn't have looked very hard for the meaning that doesn't mention the legal side of murder:

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?ww=2&w=murder

That took me... 2 minutes, by my count.

I looked back, and fail to see what you're talking about. You'll have to either quote it again (a pain, but I'm sure you'll live) or drop the subject.

Sigh, one last time, just for you. But then I'm through.

You sound surprised that different dictionaries have different definitions. You didn't really expect every dictionary to just copy the others, did you? Different sources, different editors, different cultures, different results.

It can't be a fact because nobody can seem to agree with how to define it. Either that or they over simplify the definitions just to save space. Leaving the world in utter confusion and total chaos. Mwahahahahahaha.

Sigh, one last time, just for you. But then I'm through.

It can't be a fact because nobody can seem to agree with how to define it. Either that or they over simplify the definitions just to save space. Leaving the world in utter confusion and total chaos. Mwahahahahahaha.

You must realize you're spouting complete garbage by now, right? I stated that different cultures view murder differently. In fact, different cultures view everything differently. Every aspect of "reality" is not real or fact. It is solely ones perception of what they encounter.

Different dictionaries are made in different parts of the world, by different people, from different sources (again, with different geological positions). This does not negate any meaning of a dictionary, it merely serves to show that the definitions depend on the observer, which can be said of anything - including your death penalty, ironically.

v. mur•dered, mur•der•ing, mur•ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.


Again this definition even being verb still mentions unlawful (though that was dictionary.com) still not the original definition

And I was looking for original definition but obviously wordweb online Must have the original definition :-P


I not FOR the death penalty but calling it murder is just not true … not by any standard I found (just as many out there that mention unlawful as those that don’t)

v. mur•dered, mur•der•ing, mur•ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.


Again this definition even being verb still mentions unlawful (though that was dictionary.com) still not the original definition

And I was looking for original definition but obviously wordweb online Must have the original definition :-P


I not FOR the death penalty but calling it murder is just not true … not by any standard I found (just as many out there that mention unlawful as those that don’t)

Last time sport. Listen very, very carefully.

- The original meaning is not always the only meaning.
- The original meaning can become outdated, or change.
- When multiple meanings are existent for a word, it is subjective to context how they are applied.

You have noted that there is a meaning for unlawful killing. I have not denied this, not once. There is in fact a meaning of murder that means unlawful killing. However murder also means, and I quote your post:

To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

People fail to realize that while the legal meaning applies to the death penalty, that doesn't mean alternate meanings don't apply as well - including those that state murder as killing intentionally and in a premeditated fashion. The definitions are not mutually exclusive.

The entire point of original meaning was brought up for one reason, which has been missed and twisted thereafter: the United States law does not define murder. It adds a definition to an existing word, which as of this current time, means to kill with intent and premeditation.

Had no word for murder existed before US law, the US law would have defined the word, and been the exclusive meaning of the word. It did not however.

I can break these ideas down no further for you. If you still fail to understand, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I am at a loss for words to communicate my point more clearly or simply.

If the death penalty is legal it cant exactly be murder (by even its original non united states definition)

that only works if you are willing to claim that killings commited under government sanctioned pogroms aren't murder.

I'm no expert, but this case seems so extreme and senseless, I would assume that the offender will be making an insanity plea...

Sorry, didn't read the story properly, I thought it was an individual, not a group

Saddam didn't murder anyone, he has the legal right according to death penalty people to gas the kurds... interesting logic.

I'm against the death penalty.

So language is meaningless? I'd like to point out there was language long before there was even a United States or its laws, and that the law took the legal term for killing from the preexisting language. I'm merely defining murder. You don't have to agree with it; but claiming a law overrides the meaning of the word, even though the law came after the word and is based on the word, is illogical.

Look up semantics and get back to me.

Saddam didn't murder anyone, he has the legal right according to death penalty people to gas the kurds... interesting logic.

I'm against the death penalty.
there is a difference between mass murder and the death penalty


we don't gather up a bunch of people and gas em

there is a difference between mass murder and the death penalty


we don't gather up a bunch of people and gas em

No, but Texas has done some studies...

No, but Texas has done some studies...
:rolleyes:

Texas isn't what we call....our best examples of Americans. Nor the best examples of how to treat the death penalty.

:rolleyes:

Texas isn't what we call....our best examples of Americans. Nor the best examples of how to treat the death penalty.
Hey!

Hey!
hey there!


*pretends he has no clue that he just ticked someone off*

(gets ready to go Texan on all their asses)

(gets ready to go Texan on all their asses)
*is Californian, half-Hispanic*


C'mon...bring it on...there's nothing Texans can dish out that we haven't overcome before :)

an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind

"Revenge is often the best deterant"

I don't think California can withstand the massive pickup-truck onslaught from Texas. Think of a Warthog with five hicks with shotguns in the backseat instead of one machine gun.

"Revenge is often the best deterant"

"In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior."

The death penalty is a clear example of government violence. If you kill over an x-box, you need psychological treatment, not execution. I don't think you value life enough to care about being executed if you kill that readily.

That's because everyone goes all out of their way to make it simply putting them to sleep. Just line them up in a firing squad, bang bang bang, dead. It costs so much to kill these days because people want to make it look all nice and clean. Just shoot and be done with it.

People who serve on firing squads have a vert high rate of depression, suicide and mental illness. (Higher then in people who serve in other execution squads.)

Why should people have to suffer so the state can commit murder?

lol

it will cost you more to kill them than throw them in a cell

Justice is not up to the lowest bidder.

The death penalty, as practiced in the United States, has been proven to have serious flaws in its application. To date, more than 100 people have been released from death row after it turned out (Whoops!) that they were actually (as opposed to legally, or technically) innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to die. This may not be enough to oppose the death penalty, but it is enough to be very careful in its application.

I do oppose the death penalty, however, because I fail to see what positive social aim it furthers. Some say deterrence, but empirical studies have failed to show that the death penalty has any measurable deterrent effect. Some say that certain people simply deserve to die for their crimes. I agree, but I don't trust anyone (myself included) with the responsibility of judging which criminals do or do not deserve death.

I also believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a far better substitute. First, it is reversible in case of error. Second, it performs every bit as well as execution in terms of protecting society from the criminal.

For these reasons, I do not thank God that the United States retains the death penalty. In fact, I'm ashamed. I believe that one day elementary school children in the United States will read about the end of the death penalty with the same astonishment that they now read about the end of slavery: "What took them so long?"

personaly I have known a young woman who was stabbed to death over her purse. her killer got the death penalty sentence and i felt good. I didnt want to see a dollar of my tax money go towards keeping that bastard alive or in good health. I wanted him dead and so did the judge and jury for what he did. the lowest form of human scum. my governor at the time was a liberal and he got the liberal state senate to ban the death penalty before the guy could get it. He was resentenced to life in prison. He was released on good behavior after 6 years ( which is rather typical) . I picture my friend being stabbed to death, what it must have felt like, how awful and unimaginably bad it was for her, and how the guy who did it, only six years later, was walking the streets once again. and that's justice? thats good? hes been "reformed". give me a break. my family and hers is so sad and so disapointed in the lack of the death penalty verdict being carried out. use all the reasons and excuse making in the world, it changes nothing. the death penalty is justified for the most terrible of crimes. will it help society fix itself further? no. will it deter people? maybe. does it bring justice to the victem? yes.

So then clearly taxation by the government dosen't make sense, because extortion is a crime, but hey the government does it anyway.

The reason for taxation (and more importantly the reason for government in the first place) is protection of the individual, or the masses. And where we currently use multi-colored paper for our most precious national commodity, taxes are necessary to ensure protection and accomodation for public needs (ie schooling, health care, etc.) Unfortunately the state of the matter is that protection has been made such an issue by schizophrenic lawmakers and accomodation for public needs wanes more and more by the day. Civil liberties, not to mention rights are thrown out of the window in the favor of increased national (and international) policing. It's kind of a sad reflection on the state of people when somebody has to tell you that it's a no-no to kill someone though. Between laziness, apathy, and greed, common sense and decency have become taboo. Why don't we all grow up a little, then you won't have ignorant bastards killing over videogame machines. The more laws are necessary, the less the people have a sense of right and wrong. There is no such thing as justice in a system that has crime.

The reason for taxation (and more importantly the reason for government in the first place) is protection of the individual, or the masses. And where we currently use multi-colored paper for our most precious national commodity, taxes are necessary to ensure protection and accomodation for public needs (ie schooling, health care, etc.) Unfortunately the state of the matter is that protection has been made such an issue by schizophrenic lawmakers and accomodation for public needs wanes more and more by the day. Civil liberties, not to mention rights are thrown out of the window in the favor of increased national (and international) policing. It's kind of a sad reflection on the state of people when somebody has to tell you that it's a no-no to kill someone though. Between laziness, apathy, and greed, common sense and decency have become taboo. Why don't we all grow up a little, then you won't have ignorant bastards killing over videogame machines. The more laws are necessary, the less the people have a sense of right and wrong. There is no such thing as justice in a system that has crime.


source how "accomidation of public need wans by the day". I find quite the reverse true. which civil rights guarenteed by the constitution have been thrown out? explain which examples of common sense have become taboo? and does your logic state that the less laws there are the more people will behave? and please....be specific.

The reason for taxation (and more importantly the reason for government in the first place) is protection of the individual, or the masses. And where we currently use multi-colored paper for our most precious national commodity, taxes are necessary to ensure protection and accomodation for public needs (ie schooling, health care, etc.) Unfortunately the state of the matter is that protection has been made such an issue by schizophrenic lawmakers and accomodation for public needs wanes more and more by the day. Civil liberties, not to mention rights are thrown out of the window in the favor of increased national (and international) policing. It's kind of a sad reflection on the state of people when somebody has to tell you that it's a no-no to kill someone though. Between laziness, apathy, and greed, common sense and decency have become taboo. Why don't we all grow up a little, then you won't have ignorant bastards killing over videogame machines. The more laws are necessary, the less the people have a sense of right and wrong. There is no such thing as justice in a system that has crime.

That.

Font.

Hurts.

If someone killed a family member of mine, damn straight I want want him killed! I would want to do it myself! But, having said that, it does not make it just.

When someone cuts me off on the road, my base instinct is to ram into the back of their car, drag them out the window and pound on them. It's the same gut instinct and emotion at work, albeit not on anywhere near the same level.

With all due respect to anyone who has lost someone to a violent crime, just because someone feels a need for retribution or revenge, it does not make executing the perpetrator just.

Also (and again, no disrespect to anyone here, this is a general comment only), people who use the argument "why should my tax money be used to feed and keep him in prison" - isn't this valuing cash above a human life? If so, how is that different from someone shooting someone dead to steal their wallet?

My stance is this: perpetrators of heinous crimes deserve life imprisonment, not the death penalty. That way, if it ever comes to light that the person is innocent, they can be released. But if not, then they have had all of their personal freedom removed, as well as their ability to reoffend against the general public.

you have heard my story and know my opinion will not change but I can understand and respect yours also. Thank you for restoring my faith in the oppostion after that last ( really dumb and weird fonted) post above.

source how "accomidation of public need wans by the day". I find quite the reverse true. which civil rights guarenteed by the constitution have been thrown out? explain which examples of common sense have become taboo? and does your logic state that the less laws there are the more people will behave? and please....be specific.

I'm not saying that if we took all laws out of existence right now that there would be no crime. Everyone would be so used to laws that crime would be huge jumps in crime rates. What I am saying is that it's sad that we've all had to progressed to a point where every facet of day to day life is legislated, either allowed or not allowed (of course it's not that simple, yet the statement serves its purpose.) The civil rights infringed upon are some of the most important. Habeas Corpus, Due Process and such can all now be completely thrown out of the window if it's in the interest of "National Security" National security is indeed important, yet to keep an ever watchful eye on everyone just to draw out the extreme few is unnecessary, not to mention an invasion of privacy. I've rented "bowling for columbine" does that mean that I'm going to go on an anti-governmental rampage? No. But under the patriot act, the government could go through my rental records (that's right) without a warrant to find hmm.. Michael Moore documentary, eh? We'd better keep an eye on this one. It's rediculous. I forget where it was, but somewhere in the midwest, a couple of teenagers sent a letter to the president, disagreeing with some of his policies. Not threatening, rather disagreeing. Much to their suprise, they were later arrested for the letter because it was thought that disagreeing with the president constituted a threat to national security. Millions of people disagree with the president, it wouldn't matter what president, there would be millions of people who would just hate him. That doesn't mean that there's going to be millions of gun-toting Americans ready to take him out. All that it means is that they disagree with his policies and/or actions. The difference about this current president is that he wants to make sure that those who openly and publicly disagree with him are kept under an ever watchful eye. A man was arrested because he had a meth-lab. Understandable, it's clearly against the law.. What's not understandable is that under the patriot act, he was charged with "operation of a chemical weapon facility". Another individual was arrested for owning a pipe bomb, once again, understandable, but under the patriot act, he was charged with "possession of weapons of mass destruction." Do you see where I'm going with this, we take it way too far, and unless the patriot act, and subsequent acts in the same vein as the patriot act are thrown down with the utter contempt that they deserve, civil rights will continue to decrease and a totalitarian government will be formed. What is patriotism? Nationalism. Whether you agree with the point I'm about to make in a moment or not, that part is true. It's a one word definition that can pretty well encompass the term. What is the most well-known case of ultra-nationalism in somewhat recent history. Nazi Germany. They were extreme nationalists. I'm not saying that we're on our way to mandating a "superior race", but that doesn't mean that it could end up going too far.

"isn't this valuing cash above a human life? If so, how is that different from someone shooting someone dead to steal their wallet?"

no it is not being able to justify that money going towards that purpose. Shooting someone dead to steal from them is a wanton criminal act which has no redeeming value. taking a muderer off the face of the earth is somewhat different in my opinion. you have a different one. I find it hard to understand the equity though, between killing someone to get their money and refusing to spend money on a person who has done such a thing to keep them alive.

If you care to read the american constitution carefuly not a single civil liberty or right has been taken away.

I'm not saying that if we took all laws out of existence right now that there would be no crime. Everyone would be so used to laws that crime would be huge jumps in crime rates. What I am saying is that it's sad that we've all had to progressed to a point where every facet of day to day life is legislated, either allowed or not allowed (of course it's not that simple, yet the statement serves its purpose.) The civil rights infringed upon are some of the most important. Habeas Corpus, Due Process and such can all now be completely thrown out of the window if it's in the interest of "National Security" National security is indeed important, yet to keep an ever watchful eye on everyone just to draw out the extreme few is unnecessary, not to mention an invasion of privacy. I've rented "bowling for columbine" does that mean that I'm going to go on an anti-governmental rampage? No. But under the patriot act, the government could go through my rental records (that's right) without a warrant to find hmm.. Michael Moore documentary, eh? We'd better keep an eye on this one. It's rediculous. I forget where it was, but somewhere in the midwest, a couple of teenagers sent a letter to the president, disagreeing with some of his policies. Not threatening, rather disagreeing. Much to their suprise, they were later arrested for the letter because it was thought that disagreeing with the president constituted a threat to national security. Millions of people disagree with the president, it wouldn't matter what president, there would be millions of people who would just hate him. That doesn't mean that there's going to be millions of gun-toting Americans ready to take him out. All that it means is that they disagree with his policies and/or actions. The difference about this current president is that he wants to make sure that those who openly and publicly disagree with him are kept under an ever watchful eye. A man was arrested because he had a meth-lab. Understandable, it's clearly against the law.. What's not understandable is that under the patriot act, he was charged with "operation of a chemical weapon facility". Another individual was arrested for owning a pipe bomb, once again, understandable, but under the patriot act, he was charged with "possession of weapons of mass destruction." Do you see where I'm going with this, we take it way too far, and unless the patriot act, and subsequent acts in the same vein as the patriot act are thrown down with the utter contempt that they deserve, civil rights will continue to decrease and a totalitarian government will be formed. What is patriotism? Nationalism. Whether you agree with the point I'm about to make in a moment or not, that part is true. It's a one word definition that can pretty well encompass the term. What is the most well-known case of ultra-nationalism in somewhat recent history. Nazi Germany. They were extreme nationalists. I'm not saying that we're on our way to mandating a "superior race", but that doesn't mean that it could end up going too far.

topic: death penalty/ what you said- nothing regarding the topic
i would love to further discuss the wonderful rant above in some detail one thing at a time but this thread is about the death penalty.

If you care to read the american constitution carefuly not a single civil liberty or right has been taken away.

Not on a permanent basis, but it's easier and easier to suspend certain ones. Need an example? I'll give you two. Habeas Corpus, and Due Process. I mentioned both of these before, but you didn't seem to read all the way through.

And the rant was me expounding on my first post at the request of an individual.

i have to go. have fun.

I believe we should reinstate Alcatraz except open all the cells, send only muderers there, and let them kill each other off. There wouldn't be enough smart ones in the bunch to get any of them off the island, and if there are, introduce big, hungry sharks to the area.

I believe we should reinstate Alcatraz except open all the cells, send only muderers there, and let them kill each other off. There wouldn't be enough smart ones in the bunch to get any of them off the island, and if there are, introduce big, hungry sharks to the area.

Might as well televise it, too. If you can't make money off of human suffering, then really, what is the point?

"Revenge is often the best deterant"

Yet in European countries and Canada, where there is no death penalty (obviously, because it's barbaric), the murder rate is many times less that in the USA.

In my opnion death penalty is a good thing. It should be however only carried in the cases were the suspect is clearly insane. It should also be the last option and carried only out when it's 100% sure that suspect is guilty.
Clearly insane serial killers won't do anything good to society, it's better that they are executed. Putting them in asulym for lifetime works out too, but i think in the end it's cheaper to execute them. It might even better for them to be executed, as they might suffer from many things and lost their will to life.

The Death Penalty is an increadibly stupid thing.

If someone murders a member of your family or someone close to you, the first thing you are going to want to do is get revenge. It's human nature. Well, of course you can't just go and kill them, so this is declared 'Justice.' The other reason for the Death Penalty is that the person is no longer deemed suitable to live in society. It is because of these reasons that you just kill them off.

I can identify with both of these reasons. But I don't think that killing someone off is the right way to go about this.

Why, instead of killing someone, don't you put them into extensive therapy to make them able to live in society?

There are those who can't be cured. Serial killers are obviously totally insane. I don't think they could ever live in the society. No matter how much therapy they recieve. Like i said the death penalty should be last option. In my opnion it's not wrong to use it in the cases were the patient couldn't be cured and is clearly dangerous to society. Ofcourse before they are sentenced to death we should try to cure them.

Execution methods available in the US:

Hanging
Firing Squad
Electric Chair
Lethal Injection
Gas Chamber

I'm sure there is probably some other horrific method of depriving someone of life.

I think it should be on a case by case basis. But the death penalty is definitly justified in certain cases.

If there are doubts as to whether or not the person is guilty, life imprisonment(although I find would it be really hard to convict the wrong person with all the possible ways out, I think it would be more common for the guilty to escape then for the innocent to be convicted) is the most sensible option. If they are proven innocent at a later date, great, let them go, hope they don't bomb a courthouse or something.

In the case cited in the first post, they should be killed, no questions asked. If they can be proven guilty without a shred of doubt, life imprisonment is a waste of time. Killing someone proves that you are human trash. Garbage wont hurt anyone by sitting in a landfill, but if you can eliminate it more cleanly, why not? In cases like that one, we should look at the phrase 'What goes around comes around'.

Re-habilitation is a silly thing...... If they are innocent, they didn't need it in the first place. If they are guilty they should have learned it before then. And why take even the slightest chance of a repeat offense so terrible?

Gambling with possible guilty lives=Bad
Gambling with guilty lives=Unneeded
Gambling with innocent lives=Worse than bad

Also I'd like to point out: Execution methods available in the US:

Hanging
Firing Squad
Electric Chair
Lethal Injection
Gas Chamber

I'm sure there is probably some other horrific method of depriving someone of life.
Besides the fact that death is horrific in general, you shouldn't complain about quick and relatively traumaless forms of it. Those all beat being stoned to death. Or slowly dying in a hospital from a stab wound.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/08/08/bodies.found/index.html

Have been thinking about all the Europeans on here bitching abotu our death penalty, and then I was thinking about these four guys who murdered 6 people over an XBox here in Florida.....and all I gotta say is thank god I live in a land where these wastes of air are gonna get what they truly deserve.


Yah, right.

Maybe after ten years of appeals, and more appeals, and then a waiting peroid.
Meanwhile these people cost the american taxpayers over 30,000 dollars a year to house, and feed.

I will never understand how people can look at the recent history of the cases in where the death penalty has been used in the US and still believe it justified.

Then again I can't believe that British courts will now accept "evidence" obtained through the torture of prisoners by us soldiers...

Couple of links for those of you who like that sort of thing...

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-usa/index

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=550499

I think it should be on a case by case basis. But the death penalty is definitly justified in certain cases.

If there are doubts as to whether or not the person is guilty, life imprisonment(although I find would it be really hard to convict the wrong person with all the possible ways out, I think it would be more common for the guilty to escape then for the innocent to be convicted) is the most sensible option. If they are proven innocent at a later date, great, let them go, hope they don't bomb a courthouse or something.

In the case cited in the first post, they should be killed, no questions asked. If they can be proven guilty without a shred of doubt, life imprisonment is a waste of time. Killing someone proves that you are human trash. Garbage wont hurt anyone by sitting in a landfill, but if you can eliminate it more cleanly, why not? In cases like that one, we should look at the phrase 'What goes around comes around'.

Re-habilitation is a silly thing...... If they are innocent, they didn't need it in the first place. If they are guilty they should have learned it before then. And why take even the slightest chance of a repeat offense so terrible?

Gambling with possible guilty lives=Bad
Gambling with guilty lives=Unneeded
Gambling with innocent lives=Worse than bad

Also I'd like to point out:
Besides the fact that death is horrific in general, you shouldn't complain about quick and relatively traumaless forms of it. Those all beat being stoned to death. Or slowly dying in a hospital from a stab wound.

There have been several people on the Illinois Death Row that had been pardoned by Govenor Ryan before he left office due to the fact that several of them were not guilty of the crimes committed, and to ensure that no other mistakes he pardoned them all for life imprisonment.

Edit: I believe Life Imprisonment has the potential to be a very good thing compared to Death. At least whilst in prison they can be productive non-members of society by producing some sort of product (at a substantially reduced rate of pay of course)

have a look

http://www.prisoners.com/prison$.html

get rid of prisons and just execute!!!!

Killing someone out or revenge is barbaric. It means you're as sick as the murderer. After all, you don't know if the murderer was not acting out of revenge himself.

Because you can do things to sacrifice your rights. You murder 6 people, you no longer have the right to live.
And this arbitrary definition of 'rights' comes from where exactly? Is 5 OK? If you kill 100 should you be killed in a really painful way? Or brought back to life and killed again?

Who are you to deny the 'right to life'?

If there are doubts as to whether or not the person is guilty
.... then they shouldn't be found.. now what's the phrase you use... er... "guilty beyond all resonable doubt"?
No-one should be found guilty if there's doubt, "innocent until proven guilty" etc...

Mistakes get made. Evidence gets tampered with. Even the new "marvel" of DNA evidence isn't foolproof - just loook at how many cases of evidence tampering have some to light. Senior members of plice forces and the FBI have resigned over some of these instances, so don't kid yourself that it doesn't happen.

Sure, the large majority of inmates on death-row are guilty, but then think about that "odd-man-out" that may just have been there at the wrong place at the wrong time. What if it was your brother, father, or even you? You try to convince everyone that you are innocent, but no one will listen. Some "good intentioned" detective believes that you are the guilty party, and fudges a DNA sample taken from the crime scene. Next thing you know, you are in a cell waiting to be taken into a room and "humanely" executed by having poison injected into your veins.

If you honestly believe that no innocent person has ever died at the hands of a state sanctioned executioner, your are seriously fooling yourself. Not even one innocent life is worth saving some tax dollars (by executing murderers instead of imprisoning them) or satisfying friends, relatives or the communities' sense of revenge.

Whats the alternative? Life imprisonment. No, not a few years, then appeals, then freedom. I mean life - until the day they die. Only if new evidence comes to light that shows them innocent should mean early release. And maximum security prison shouldn't have any luxuries - only the bare essentials of life. They should spend every day of their life in a dreary, small cell - no TV, no radio, no books, no newspapers, no visitors. And their days should be spend labouring, to help pay for their living costs.

Since this happened right in my back yard, and the ringleader is a habitual offender, he deserves to forfeit his life. Killing 6 people over a damn video game system is inhuman. Like a feral dog, these idiots should be put down....quickly.

I have discussed this to great length many times and people fail to look at some very simple facts.

First:

The Death Penalty, contrarry to popular belief, is by far more expensive in the long run than life in prison. Even high security prison and for 90 or so years. Why do you ask? Appeals.

"A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison."

Source:http://archive.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html#incarceration

Interestingly, many people are more afraid of life in prison. To draw on an example, the gentleman who's jury starred in "Behind the Jury" on ABC, wanted the death penalty as opposed to life in prison. I think it is the greater punishment myself. I do not fear death, but I do fear long term humiliation and suffering in a cold dank jail cell.

Also, it has been brought up earlier that our system makes mistakes. For example, over 400 people have been convicted of capital crimes, and were in fact innocent of those crimes totally. For example:

"Since 1900, in this country, there have been on the average more than four cases each year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder. Scores of these individuals were sentenced to death. In many cases, a reprieve or commutation arrived just hours, or even minutes, before the scheduled execution."

Source:http://archive.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html#irreversible

And so, I find three very compelling reasons why the death penalty should not be used as a choice, not as a moral necessity.

the Marquis de Lafayette said, "I shall ask for the abolition of the punishment of death until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me."

So, if you want to continue this arguement, please let me know. I have yet to see anyone beat any of these three points.

-R. S. of UC

And this arbitrary definition of 'rights' comes from where exactly? Is 5 OK? If you kill 100 should you be killed in a really painful way? Or brought back to life and killed again?

Who are you to deny the 'right to life'?

who are you to say they have a right to life?

Ah yes....the ACLU....a good source for material. The same group that defends men who think having sex with young boys is "normal." See their opinions on NAMBLA.

However, I think these morons do deserve to die....a slow painful death at that.

Ah yes....the ACLU....a good source for material. The same group that defends men who think having sex with young boys is "normal." See their opinions on NAMBLA.

However, I think these morons do deserve to die....a slow painful death at that.

The ACLU also defended Rush Limbaugh and Ken Lay. God forbid people in this country should have access to legal representation.

who are you to say they have a right to life?

Well, in the States, anyway, there's a really popular document called the Declaration of Independence, that seems to feel that all men have a right to life.

who are you to say they have a right to life?
I didn't.

Well, in the States, anyway, there's a really popular document called the Declaration of Independence, that seems to feel that all men have a right to life.

yeah and its the states that has the death penalty....
does it not say you also have the right to freedom/liberty. I KNOW LET'S GET RID OF PRISONS!!!!!

I didn't.

I know, but you asked what right does someone have to take.

That is always the question. But really for such terrible crimes, what right do they have to keep it

yeah and its the states that has the death penalty....
does it not say you also have the right to freedom/liberty. I KNOW LET'S GET RID OF PRISONS!!!!!

Okay.

I know, but you asked what right does someone have to take.

That is always the question. But really for such terrible crimes, what right do they have to keep it
I was specifically targeting Grebonia for determining when someone abrogates 'the right to life' in absurdly black and white terms.

Capital punishment is state-sanctioned killing (by definition not murdering: it's state-sanctioned). Now, the state is there to represent its citizenry. When it takes a life, it takes it in the name of every one of its voting citizens and arguably every citizen irrespective of voting rights. The blood is on all our hands; we are all complicit in the death of this individual. That's quite a responsibility, quite a burden.