NationStates Jolt Archive

Im all for it, and personally I believe the guilloteen is the quickest, cheapest and most humane way to administer it.


Its a cut above the rest. :)

Im all for it, and personally I believe the guilloteen is the quickest, cheapest and most humane way to administer it.


Its a cut above the rest. :)

Nice pun.

I generally disagree with punishments altogether, but I turn a blind eye to it. I know we pretty much need it. As for humane ways to die, the guilloteen is the very last way I'd choose to die. I don't consider it humane to let someone's brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body. It's painful, terrifying, and needlessly gruesome. The same goes for hanging.

There is no humane capital punishment.
The death penalty is barbaric. It should only take place in history books.

Nice pun.

I generally disagree with punishments altogether, but I turn a blind eye to it. I know we pretty much need it. As for humane ways to die, the guilloteen is the very last way I'd choose to die. I don't consider it humane to let someone's brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body. It's painful, terrifying, and needlessly gruesome. The same goes for hanging.

'brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body' .... just enough time for those extremist Muslims to realise that they are going to a place other than heaven!

There is no humane capital punishment.
The death penalty is barbaric. It should only take place in history books.

But there are humane ways to die.

'brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body' .... just enough time for those extremist Muslims to realise that they are going to a place other than heaven!

Don't forget the French terrorists of the 18th century! Ah, reign of terror, someone named you so well...









It was the 18th century, right?

But there are humane ways to die.
yes.
I define the humanity as civilized. But some of it is barbaric, so my assertion that death penalty was not humane is not correct. It's not civilized. That's a more correct assertion

I don't think anything gives one person the right to take the life of another, no matter what. There are always alternatives. After all you're not even really punishing the person who is killed, or attempting too right them, you're just getting some lynch mob 'justice' and a sense of perverse self satisfaction. And what about if you get it wrong? Don't you deserve to die for the murder of an 'innocent'? I'm sure the victims family will think so.

yes.
I define the humanity as civilized. But some of it is barbaric, so my assertion that death penalty was not humane is not correct. It's not civilized. That's a more correct assertion

righty-o. I'll postpone your humiliating demise... for now.

=Arcadian Mists]
I don't consider it humane to let someone's brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body.

They should put a basketball net underneath then, then we'd know what a slam dunk felt like lol


The same goes for hanging.

Yeah I dont like hanging either, in olde England 2 or 3 guys would jump on your legs to make it quick, they were your friends.

They should put a basketball net underneath then, then we'd know what a slam dunk felt like lol Saying that over the internet is easy. I think most pro-death penalty people don't really realize what they are saying.
I suggest you take your knife and kill the man by cutting his throat and watch him die in the eyes.

=Psylos]Saying that over the internet is easy. I think most pro-death penalty people don't really realize what they are saying.

Its just black humour.

I suggest you take your knife and kill the man by cutting his throat and watch him die in the eyes.

Done that have you.

Its just black humour.
Done that have you.lol.

Just to clear up any misconceptions, when I said done that have you, I was asking if he had done that, I wasnt stating that I had done it and enquiring if he had done the same, thanks.

I don't think anything gives one person the right to take the life of another, no matter what. There are always alternatives. After all you're not even really punishing the person who is killed, or attempting too right them, you're just getting some lynch mob 'justice' and a sense of perverse self satisfaction. And what about if you get it wrong? Don't you deserve to die for the murder of an 'innocent'? I'm sure the victims family will think so.


So, if justice is not meant to serve the victims families, then who is it made to serve?

The people?

Would you say its fair to make the people pay to keep a person who rapes, or kills...or both.....in a home, and three square meals a day?

At what point, if we choose to be animals, do we deserve to be treated like animals?

Im all for it, and personally I believe the guilloteen is the quickest, cheapest and most humane way to administer it.


Its a cut above the rest. :)

I haven’t yet decided whither I am pro- or anti- death penalty, I'm still listening to the arguments.

Don't know what a guilloteen is; could it be a deceitful teenager? (guilor-teen).

I think though that the guillotine would be the preferred method. It is quick, simple and effective, and is a sufficient spectacle to get the message across to others.

At what point, if we choose to be animals, do we deserve to be treated like animals?
Now thats just an unfair insult to animals, who never behave as sadistically as these er people.

Yes your right about the victims, there never seems to be as much sympathy for them as there is for their killers when it comes to capital punishment, I say give them the same justice they meted out to the innocent.

Now thats just an unfair insult to animals, who never behave as sadistically as these er people.

What about weasels? They're pretty sadistic. Put yourself in a box with a starving one and try to make friends with it. :D :eek: :D

What about weasels? They're pretty sadistic. Put yourself in a box with a starving one and try to make friends with it. :D :eek: :D

No way, I assume thats like some kind of ferret?
My cousin chucked a full grown one in my sleeping bag one morning and it bit me on the balls lol

No way, I assume thats like some kind of ferret?
My cousin chucked a full grown one in my sleeping bag one morning and it bit me on the balls lol

AHHH!!!!! You poor guy!

Weasels are even more ferocious than ferrets though.
If my trivia serves me well, I think they're the only mammal that will kill its enemy at the expense of its own life. They're nature's terrorists!

I'm starting a new foundation: PAWW*

People against wild weasels

AHHH!!!!! I'm starting a new foundation: PAWW*

People against wild weasels

Count me in then, these creatures should be hunted fox style, as should alot of other feral creatures.
Theres talk of starting safaris here in Australia to get rid of all the imported animals that have gone feral and way out of control everywhere, long overdue.

Wow this thread has gone off-topic.
But hey: "legally" killing someone costs more than keeping them in the system indefinitely.
There have been hundreds of cases when people hae been proven innocent after being executed.
And if "justice" is defined as "mob vengeance," then I want no part of it.

Vengeance and a victim's sense of satisfaction should have no place in a justice system. My own philosophical beliefs about all humans having value simply by living and feeling aside, there's always the possibility of new techniques for proving guilt or innocence. Quite a few innocent people have been on death row, and some have also been executed. Call me crazy, but I'd rather we all pay to keep a few murderers living in a cell than we all pay to kill an innocent person... though one wonders about how much people honestly value human life when cost enters a debate about killing the convicted as often as morality.

But there are humane ways to die.
of old age, of cancer, of a disease....

The government under no circumstances has the right to take the lives of one of its citizens. We shouldn't sink to the levels that criminals do.

The government under no circumstances has the right to take the lives of one of its citizens. We shouldn't sink to the levels that criminals do.
YEAH! They should stop stealing!

'brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body' .... just enough time for those extremist Muslims to realise that they are going to a place other than heaven!
Or to rejoice because they think they're going to heaven.

There is no humane capital punishment.
The death penalty is barbaric. It should only take place in history books.

So we should just let murderers sit in the corner and think about what they've done? I saw we make them useful members of society, there aint nothing a good lobotomy and some duct tape wont fix :D

So we should just let murderers sit in the corner and think about what they've done? I saw we make them useful members of society, there aint nothing a good lobotomy and some duct tape wont fix :D
lol
I hate to bring up a very old argument, but ...alright, I quite enjoy doing it:
Whatever a person may have done to "deserve" death, who is to say that it's ok for the executioner to murder that person?

also, death really is not the worst punishment I can imagine for any crime. it's more like an easy way out nowadays, isn't it?

lol
I hate to bring up a very old argument, but ...alright, I quite enjoy doing it:
Whatever a person may have done to "deserve" death, who is to say that it's ok for the executioner to murder that person?

also, death really is not the worst punishment I can imagine for any crime. it's more like an easy way out nowadays, isn't it?
Oh, I agree. For one, I think they should be deported to Syria or somewhere with a terrible human rights record and put in jail there! That would set 'em straight or drive them to commit suicide...

Oh, I agree. For one, I think they should be deported to Syria or somewhere with a terrible human rights record and put in jail there! That would set 'em straight or drive them to commit suicide...
hey, or we could just export them all to australia. ;D

hey, or we could just export them all to australia. ;D

Ugh. We don't want your filth. :p

Ugh. We don't want your filth. :p
;) true, you already have British filth!

;) true, you already have British filth!

Hehe.

*is proudly not of British extraction :D

wouldn't that be cool? just send all of our problems to ...say. .. australia... no, make it some african desert, australia is way too cool to fill up with bad people... then they'd get to surf and watch cangaroos all day. that wouldn't be fair, would it? hey, I'd turn criminal if you'd send me to australia for it ;)

then they'd get to surf and watch cangaroos all day.

Not quite....lol.

hey, I'm from pretty close to the other side of the world, that's all I know about australia ;)

Hehe. Just bear in mind that most of our population live in the very modern cities, and not all of us get an idyllic country bludger (slacker, sorry, aussie slang) lifestyle :)

yeah, I did happen to hear that you have a few areas where several people settled. like... what was the name... sydney? :D

Ha. I live in Melbourne, a bit more to the south, actually. You know...we hosted the 1956 olympics...and the next commonwealth games...and um, thats about it. Oh, we had a bridge that fell down once.

haha, sounds like an awesome city to live in.
...but then I shouldn't say anything... I live in a small city and spent the entire morning looking for extra-long straws. No! No one has ever heard of such a thing... I guess no one here ever had sangria ;)
wow. what a relevant post in a thread on capital punishment ;)

Hehe, yeah, I think we've taken it over. *throws thread back on topic*

ooh, yay, I'm a member now :D
I say let's punish all non-members ;)
jk

I'm strongly against death penalty. Actually to the point that I got a UN proposal to ban the death penalty to quorum here, which unfortunately got defeated by 3000 votes or so.

It is barbaric and humans will never have the means to be 100% sure in all cases, that a death penalty is justified. There is proof that capital punishment is being handed to black people more often than to white people in the US alone and also that the death penalty is more costly than lifetime imprisonment simply because death penalty cases have to go through a load of reviews and multiple trials to eventually be final. This is meant as a safeguard that really only the guilty people are sentenced to death, which still is not 100% sure. There have been innocent executions and there will continue to be innocent executions, which is 100% unacceptable´, thus why the death penalty is 100% unacceptable for me.

Here's a list of countries that have already abolished the death penalty:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT500042001

Note htat the USA are one of the few western countries who still use the death penalty - unfairly and biased aswell I might add. Note also that the death penalty is more often than not, used as a political tool - often times to silence dissent.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/news.do

Read some of these news and you'll see how unfair the use of the death penalty is. Keeping it, is a bad and unneccessary example by the US. Not to mention that child executions are still done in many countries which use the death penalty. This is an atrocity but apparently as long as bloodlust is mixed with a false sense of justice, nations that drop to the level of criminals and take the lives of their citizens, can continue doing so.

I like the "life in solitary" instead of the "death penalty". I would certainly be more discouraged from commiting a crime if I knew I would be locked in a room for the rest of my life vs simply being put to sleep and having my heart stopped.

I like the "life in solitary" instead of the "death penalty". I would certainly be more discouraged from commiting a crime if I knew I would be locked in a room for the rest of my life vs simply being put to sleep and having my heart stopped.

It cost the system a lot to keep you alive and fed in confinement than it does to kill you and do away with it. Well, in Britain it does... but our criminal convicts basically get a holiday home for free in prison. Some prisons even have SkyTV for the convicts......... ridiculous.
And if you're thinking of a retirement home, why not just kill someone you don't like and go to 'prison' for it? Hey they won't even take all your possessions to pay for it; they'll just take it from the rest of the tax-paying population.

It cost the system a lot to keep you alive and fed in confinement than it does to kill you and do away with it. Well, in Britain it does... but our criminal convicts basically get a holiday home for free in prison. Some prisons even have SkyTV for the convicts......... ridiculous.
And if you're thinking of a retirement home, why not just kill someone you don't like and go to 'prison' for it? Hey they won't even take all your possessions to pay for it; they'll just take it from the rest of the tax-paying population.


In the USA, currently, I believe putting someone to death costs more.

I dont understand the second half of your post. I was stating that a lifetime in prison seems more unpleasant to me than being painlessly put to death. It appears that you think I am saying life in prison is pleasant. I do not think that.

In the USA, currently, I believe putting someone to death costs more.

I dont understand the second half of your post. I was stating that a lifetime in prison seems more unpleasant to me than being painlessly put to death. It appears that you think I am saying life in prison is pleasant. I do not think that.

Putting someone to death costs more in the USA? I think they need to look at their methods. :D

The second part of my post was about prison life in Britain. It's very lenient towards the prisoner... it's a big problem.

Putting someone to death costs more in the USA? I think they need to look at their methods. :D

The second part of my post was about prison life in Britain. It's very lenient towards the prisoner... it's a big problem.

Just don't forget that rape and other forms of physical abuse are rife in all prison systems...

Just don't forget that rape and other forms of physical abuse are rife in all prison systems...

Yeah and usually carried out by the more reputed and deadly criminals. So the worst of them are having a good time at the holiday camp.

;) true, you already have British filth!

Excuse me?
Are you a racist?

There is no humane capital punishment.
The death penalty is barbaric. It should only take place in history books.
Sure there is.

The most humane death dealing devise out there is a bit messy but it ensures that death is instantaneous. It's design is similar to that of the guillotine. It's name, the Gallagher.

But the death penalty is too merciful to criminals so I think that there should be a change up in what are considered capitol offenses. The most extreme cases should have the convict fester away somewhere for life. Meanwhile some of the more moderate crimes, such as rape, grand theft, pedophilia, and basically any crime that that can destroy the livelihood of somebody else should all be considered capitol crimes.

Sure there is.

The most humane death dealing devise out there is a bit messy but it ensures that death is instantaneous. It's design is similar to that of the guillotine. It's name, the Gallagher.

But the death penalty is too merciful to criminals so I think that there should be a change up in what are considered capitol offenses. The most extreme cases should have the convict fester away somewhere for life. Meanwhile some of the more moderate crimes, such as rape, grand theft, pedophilia, and basically any crime that that can destroy the livelihood of somebody else should all be considered capitol crimes.

I dont think its a good reflection of societys mercy to let somone even as low as a child molester or rapist rot in a hole for 50 years, plus it costs money feeding them and watching them etc just gulloteen them and chuck them in a ditch.

Last night James Reid was executed by the State here in Virginia. I went to a candlelight vigil to pray. Not only is murder wrong, but Virginia used a very painful method of lethal injection. The government even barred veteranarians from using the same method to put down animals.
http://www.vadp.org/

It is shocking how DNA tests can be refused to clear up doubts about guilt of people sentenced to death. It is most despicable to abuse a position to hinder the process of finding evidence against a judgement after the trial. This is also why I absolutely detest the death penalty.

I dont think its a good reflection of societys mercy to let somone even as low as a child molester or rapist rot in a hole for 50 years, plus it costs money feeding them and watching them etc just gulloteen them and chuck them in a ditch.
So I take it you don't want to give them the benefits of the Gallagher

Last night James Reid was executed by the State here in Virginia. I went to a candlelight vigil to pray. Not only is murder wrong, but Virginia used a very painful method of lethal injection. The government even barred veteranarians from using the same method to put down animals.
http://www.vadp.org/

Yes, but when do animals kill someone except in self defence? If you ask me, the death penalty should be even more painfull, gory, and available for the public to watch. Seeing someone get thrown into a giant meat grinder for murder might make you think twice before killing someone. Rapists shouldn't be executed, though, they should be "cut off." (I loved that NS issue, BTW) As for showing mercy, they don't deserve it. The murderers didn't show their victims any mercy, did they? We should be expanding the death penalty. (must be from my year in Texas) The only problem with that is the fact that the US has a corrupt legal system, where inocent people can be convicted.

Although, we would never need to worry about any of that if everyone was able to carry any kind of weapon, hidden or not. But I will leave the gun discussion out of this. :p

I believe 110% that the death penalty is wrong, for a few reasons.

Firstly, the possibility of accidentally executing an innocent person is totally unacceptable to me. It makes me feel physically sick that a government could kill an innocent person for a crime that they did not do.

Secondly, even if there was no chance of getting it wrong, I would still be against the death penalty. This is because even though the convict may DESERVE to die in an absolutely gruesome way, I believe that the government do not have the right to take away his or her life. Human life is, in my mind, the most precious and sacred thing we have. For a government to say "We are important enough to make decisions on whether we should kill this person or not," absolutely disgusts me. They don't have the RIGHT to murder their own citizens.

Thirdly, I think that the death penalty is just barbaric. Whoever was talking about "mob justice" was absolutely correct. The death penalty is just a way of exacting revenge, which is wrong. Revenge should not be the main reason for punishment.

I accept that the murderer took away an innocent life... but that still doesn't give anyone else the right to take away theirs. Two wrongs, in this case, don't make a right. If I took your dog, does that give your cousin the right to take mine, even though I was wrong to take yours? No. You'd just end up with two lost dogs, to continue the analogy.

I believe 110% that the death penalty is wrong, for a few reasons.

Firstly, the possibility of accidentally executing an innocent person is totally unacceptable to me. It makes me feel physically sick that a government could kill an innocent person for a crime that they did not do.

Secondly, even if there was no chance of getting it wrong, I would still be against the death penalty. This is because even though the convict may DESERVE to die in an absolutely gruesome way, I believe that the government do not have the right to take away his or her life. Human life is, in my mind, the most precious and sacred thing we have. For a government to say "We are important enough to make decisions on whether we should kill this person or not," absolutely disgusts me. They don't have the RIGHT to murder their own citizens.

Thirdly, I think that the death penalty is just barbaric. Whoever was talking about "mob justice" was absolutely correct. The death penalty is just a way of exacting revenge, which is wrong. Revenge should not be the main reason for punishment.

I accept that the murderer took away an innocent life... but that still doesn't give anyone else the right to take away theirs. Two wrongs, in this case, don't make a right. If I took your dog, does that give your cousin the right to take mine, even though I was wrong to take yours? No. You'd just end up with two lost dogs, to continue the analogy.

I agree with not wanting to execute inocent people. Although, the government does not decide, a jury does.

However I feel that if a person killed someone else, they have given up any rights they have, including life. Also, if the government took a harder stance on homocide, then, maybe, there would be fewer murders. I don't know about you, but a little inhumane treatment on some murderers is well worth having less murders.

As for showing mercy, they don't deserve it. The murderers didn't show their victims any mercy, did they? We should be expanding the death penalty. (must be from my year in Texas) The only problem with that is the fact that the US has a corrupt legal system, where inocent people can be convicted.

Although, we would never need to worry about any of that if everyone was able to carry any kind of weapon, hidden or not. But I will leave the gun discussion out of this. :p
How would everyone having a gun fix our criminal justice system?
Anyway, even if just one innocent person is executed, that's too many. Plus, the Bible says that mercy should always be shown, because God will have mercy on us. But let there be no mercy for the prosecutors.

I read somewhere that that a .357 Magnum is so powerful that if shot point blank at your heart, it would basically liquidify it.
Now why don't they do this instead of electrocution, gassing or lethal injection? Surely it's more humane as you'd have a split second of pain, and maybe a couple of seconds of awareness as the blood in your brain drains away. But that's it. None of this squirming and kicking for several minutes, or desperately holding your breath or anything.
I know which one I opt for if I had to make a choice.
Then again I always thought the best answer to that cliche line:
"5 million ways to die. Choose one."
Would be "f**ked to death by 23 yr-old lesbian twin models at age of 102".

I read somewhere that that a .357 Magnum is so powerful that if shot point blank at your heart, it would basically liquidify it.
Now why don't they do this instead of electrocution, gassing or lethal injection? Surely it's more humane as you'd have a split second of pain, and maybe a couple of seconds of awareness as the blood in your brain drains away. But that's it. None of this squirming and kicking for several minutes, or desperately holding your breath or anything.
I know which one I opt for if I had to make a choice.
Then again I always thought the best answer to that cliche line:
"5 million ways to die. Choose one."
Would be "f**ked to death by 23 yr-old lesbian twin models at age of 102".
i don't get why they don't use use an OD of heroine. street expense would be like 1/100th the cost of the drugs they use today, and it is a painless death by definition; you are, effectively, ODing on painkillers, so it can't be painful.

I agree with not wanting to execute inocent people. Although, the government does not decide, a jury does.

However I feel that if a person killed someone else, they have given up any rights they have, including life. Also, if the government took a harder stance on homocide, then, maybe, there would be fewer murders. I don't know about you, but a little inhumane treatment on some murderers is well worth having less murders.
The jury does however represent the government in a way... the jury represent the laws of the government.

I disagree that by committing a murder, a person gives up on any rights they have. (Is that sentence even grammatically correct? It made more sense in my head, lol!) I think that ALL people have some basic rights, regardless of age, skin colour, marital status AND whether or not they are an offender in the eyes of the law. That's ALL people. No matter what they have or have not done, they are still a human person and IMHO they still have some basic human rights. And one of those basic human rights is the right to life.

The death penalty needs to be more cruel and horrible than just a needle. Lethal injection is weak they need like old english tortures to kill murders and rapists.

The death penalty needs to be more cruel and horrible than just a needle. Lethal injection is weak they need like old english tortures to kill murders and rapists.
You are mentally sick. You should see a doctor and have your brain examined for any anomalies, which obviously exist. You lack inhibitions and are a dangerous individual. You should be put in a sanitarium until you are not insane anymore.

No matter what they have or have not done, they are still a human person and IMHO they still have some basic human rights. And one of those basic human rights is the right to life.

How about they get the same rights and choice they gave to their victims.

I accept that the murderer took away an innocent life... but that still doesn't give anyone else the right to take away theirs.

Not even the relatives of the victim, you dont seem too concerned about how they might feel, if anything it should be up to the relatives of the victim what happens to the murderer, one Sharia law I do support, the murderer is either according to the familys wishes, forgiven and let go, made to pay a lot of money, or executed.

If the victim has no family, a ward of the state for example, then execute the murderer immediately and throw the body to the crows.

Not even the relatives of the victim, you dont seem too concerned about how they might feel, if anything it should be up to the relatives of the victim what happens to the murderer, one Sharia law I do support, the murderer is either according to the familys wishes, forgiven and let go, made to pay a lot of money, or executed.

Justice is not about what anyone feels.

Justice is not about what anyone feels.

Well it should be.

I personally support capital punishment and other more brutal forms of justice. Child molesters, rapists, armed robbers, large scale theives, severe arsonists etc. should be put in a block and publicly beaten until they die. Murderers should simply be killed. I know this makes me as bad as them. But when people know that they will be brutally murdered if they commit a serious crime they won't commit serious crimes. Perhaps there will still be the occasional small theft but severe incidents would be greatly reduced.

The death penalty needs to be more cruel and horrible than just a needle. Lethal injection is weak they need like old english tortures to kill murders and rapists.

I agree. We could throw the psycopath murderers into a giant meat-grinder. hehe. That would set them strait. :D

**waits for someone to pick up on the irony**

Anyways, Jamesbondmcm, you asked about how guns will fix the the whole problem. You have activated my gun theory. Lol. If everyone was carrying a gun, then you could just shoot the person who is trying to kill you, instead of expecting the government to protect you. (government protect? haha, like that happens. . .) So, you carry a gun, 1st, a murderer will be discouraged from comming after you, 2nd, if he/she does, just shoot them. Problem solved. No trials, no government executions, no wasted time/money. (granted, this may not seem favorable to everyone, but it sounds good to me :p )

I personally support capital punishment and other more brutal forms of justice. Child molesters, rapists, armed robbers, large scale theives, severe arsonists etc. should be put in a block and publicly beaten until they die. Murderers should simply be killed. I know this makes me as bad as them. But when people know that they will be brutally murdered if they commit a serious crime they won't commit serious crimes. Perhaps there will still be the occasional small theft but severe incidents would be greatly reduced.

Yes, personally Id like to see death by lion bought back, the cage would be set up in the local mall or shopping centre, a public announcement made five minutes before hand so the bleeding hearts can run off, then the hungry lions would be led in, the murderer/rapist/molester/arsonist (s) would be dropped through a hole in the roof of the cage, good stuff.

I agree. We could throw the psycopath murderers into a giant meat-grinder. hehe. That would set them strait. :D

**waits for someone to pick up on the irony**

Anyways, Jamesbondmcm, you asked about how guns will fix the the whole problem. You have activated my gun theory. Lol. If everyone was carrying a gun, then you could just shoot the person who is trying to kill you, instead of expecting the government to protect you. (government protect? haha, like that happens. . .) So, you carry a gun, 1st, a murderer will be discouraged from comming after you, 2nd, if he/she does, just shoot them. Problem solved. No trials, no government executions, no wasted time/money. (granted, this may not seem favorable to everyone, but it sounds good to me :p )

No thats not good, thats the wild west.
And the facing off quickest draw High noon stuff wins is a load of crap, most guys got shot in the back by cowards, staggering out through the saloon doors drunk!
Read that either way too.

The death penalty needs to be more cruel and horrible than just a needle. Lethal injection is weak they need like old english tortures to kill murders and rapists.
Disemboweled,alive.
I agree totally.
Totally.
Make them scream.
I just had a cousin(I will get personal) convicted and awaiting sentence on child molestation charges.
He was my favorite cousin growing up, my older cousin growing up.
I have little to know memory of my childhood time atthat age, though.
You get the idea.
He was charged for abusing two step children and one blood child.
FORCED ORAL SEX
PENETRATION
EXPRESS THREATS OF VIOLENCE
This children woke up everyday in his house, looked him in his eyes everyday, kissed his cheek and said I love you everyday.
He was their father, their one true protector in the world.
Imagine your own father betraying you like that, using sex as a tool for humiliation, and violence against you for sex.
For years.
He bears no remorse.
He argues he had done nothing wrong(my father went to his house to pray with him before he was taken into custody).
I am a Father of four, I would suffer any fate other then see harm come to my children.
I have stepped in front of speeding cars, I have chased down loose dogs, big dogs, butterflys sin your stomach I hope I dont get killed or loose a limb dogs.
If it harmed my child and I was there it harmed me first, and worst.
He(my cousin) has defied the fundamental basics of nature itself, he sacrificed his humanity and his right to be treated as such.
You can not rehabilitate someone like that, and you shouldnt try.
Death, is Justice, suffering recieved for the suffering delivered.
God does not stand with me on this opinion of mine, and I will have ask to be forgiven, but I without a doubt know that some people must be put down like sick animals, they must.

Justice is not about what anyone feels.
I agree with you. Justice shouldn't be about mob feelings running high. It should be meted out fairly and with a cool head, unswayed by emotion. Emotions shouldn't have any place in a court of law.

And yes, I have thought about the families of the victims. And I don't see how murdering the murderer can in any way make up for their loss. Justice doesn't have to be served by "an eye for an eye".

he sacrificed his humanity and his right to be treated as such.
You can not rehabilitate someone like that, and you shouldnt try.
Death, is Justice, suffering recieved for the suffering delivered.
God does not stand with me on this opinion of mine, and I will have ask to be forgiven, but I without a doubt know that some people must be put down like sick animals, they must.

Agreed, the evil gets worse when people believe a man like this is worth the time and money rehabilitating, he was never a man, he was nothing but scum to begin with and thats all he ever will be.
Scum.

Disemboweled,alive.
I agree totally.
Totally.
Make them scream.
I just had a cousin(I will get personal) convicted and awaiting sentence on child molestation charges.
He was my favorite cousin growing up, my older cousin growing up.
I have little to know memory of my childhood time atthat age, though.
You get the idea.
He was charged for abusing two step children and one blood child.
FORCED ORAL SEX
PENETRATION
EXPRESS THREATS OF VIOLENCE
This children woke up everyday in his house, looked him in his eyes everyday, kissed his cheek and said I love you everyday.
He was their father, their one true protector in the world.
Imagine your own father betraying you like that, using sex as a tool for humiliation, and violence against you for sex.
For years.
He bears no remorse.
He argues he had done nothing wrong(my father went to his house to pray with him before he was taken into custody).
I am a Father of four, I would suffer any fate other then see harm come to my children.
I have stepped in front of speeding cars, I have chased down loose dogs, big dogs, butterflys sin your stomach I hope I dont get killed or loose a limb dogs.
If it harmed my child and I was there it harmed me first, and worst.
He(my cousin) has defied the fundamental basics of nature itself, he sacrificed his humanity and his right to be treated as such.
You can not rehabilitate someone like that, and you shouldnt try.
Death, is Justice, suffering recieved for the suffering delivered.
God does not stand with me on this opinion of mine, and I will have ask to be forgiven, but I without a doubt know that some people must be put down like sick animals, they must.

I disagree with you. You have no right to judge when someone deserves death. You are blind and a simpleton.

Agreed, the evil gets worse when people believe a man like this is worth the time and money rehabilitating, he was never a man, he was nothing but scum to begin with and thats all he ever will be.
Scum.
You are wrong. All humans are born as human. Every human has basic human rights which nobody can revoke. Your hatred and bloodlust is scary.

All opposers to the death penalty, please vote on the proposal 'ban of Death Penalty'

I am against it; it is too similar to the vindictive nature of "an eye for an eye" (or in this case a life for a life)

You are wrong. All humans are born as human. Every human has basic human rights which nobody can revoke. Your hatred and bloodlust is scary.
i think the problem is that we are seeing people argue from emotion. i support the death penalty, but it has nothing to do with how the victim's families feel or how mad the criminal makes me, or even how much the criminal scares me.

i agree all humans are born equal, and that there is such a thing as basic human rights which we should try to apply to all human beings. however, i believe that part of the right to life is the caveat that if you revoke another person's right to life you cede your own right to life. so, in my view, we aren't revoking a murderer's rights when we put him to death; indeed, we would be failing to uphold those rights if we permitted him to live. by ending the life of someone who has chosen to unjustly take the life of another human being we are carrying out the full human rights afforded to the murderer.

of course, i don't support the death penalty in our current system, due to the errors in the legal process which lead to wrongful convictions. i only support the death penalty when the guilt of the accused can be 100% proved...and, as we all know, that's not very often these days.

I only support the death penalty when the guilt of the accused can be 100% proved...and, as we all know, that's not very often these days.

Why do you think that is?
All these guys on death row shouldnt really be there right,their just innocent and misunderstood, and never meant to kill anyone did they?

Why do you think that is?
All these guys on death row shouldnt really be there right,their just innocent and misunderstood, and never meant to kill anyone did they?
i don't believe i said that, no. don't let me stop your rant, though ;).

=Gigatron]You are wrong. All humans are born as human.

In form.. yeeeeesss.

Every human has basic human rights which nobody can revoke.

Except the murderers, they have no problem with it, or you it seems with them.

Your hatred and bloodlust is scary.

Your prioritys on Justice are a lot scarier.

i don't believe i said that, no. don't let me stop your rant, though ;).

Your dodging the question. ;)

Why do you think that is?
All these guys on death row shouldnt really be there right,their just innocent and misunderstood, and never meant to kill anyone did they?

Not everyone on death row is guilty. Statistics prove that.
If you want to kill people, take justice into your own hands, knowing the risks of killing innocent people, go ahead murderer.

I don't think anything gives one person the right to take the life of another, no matter what. There are always alternatives. After all you're not even really punishing the person who is killed, or attempting too right them, you're just getting some lynch mob 'justice' and a sense of perverse self satisfaction. And what about if you get it wrong? Don't you deserve to die for the murder of an 'innocent'? I'm sure the victims family will think so.

Well, you can't really see it that way. In that way you can't imprison them 'caus no one has the right to enslave and imprison another human being.

The fact is that our human rights - life, freedom and property that is - comes from the fact that we need them, we demand them as rationel human beings, to survive.

However, if another human being proves himself to harm other human beings, there is no reason at all to let him have freedom.

I am against death penalty based on the fact that innocent human beings might get accused and convicted.

Your dodging the question. ;)
what, you mean the leading, inflamatory, obviously inflated question? lol

i'll answer anyhow:

i believe most of the people on death row right now were rightfully convicted, and i believe most of them were put there for offenses that deserve a death sentence. however, i also believe there are a minority who were wrongfully convicted. the problem is that i have no way of knowing for sure which convicts are which, and i do not believe it is just to kill a prisoner unless his guilt is absolutely certain. i would rather stomach the continued existence of those who are truly guilty than risk executing an innocent man.

=Urcules]Not everyone on death row is guilty. Statistics prove that.

Well they shouldnt be there then, and if its a frame up then the people who framed the guy should take his place or if post mortem go there anyway.
Most guys on Death row are guilty as anyway, but I agree there would be some innocent ones.


If you want to kill people, take justice into your own hands, knowing the risks of killing innocent people, go ahead murderer.

Enough of the bleeding heart crap, like I said if hes/shes innocent then they shouldnt be there.
You want to abolish death row, what if one of these guys does the rehab and all that and gets out, is a model citizen for twenty years and then just says one day in a fit of boredom I just gotta kill someone!!
And does.
Would you consider yourself a murderer for helping this guy get out and in the end follow his natural and perverted instincts and take an innocent life or lifes.

In form.. yeeeeesss.



Except the murderers, they have no problem with it, or you it seems with them.



Your prioritys on Justice are a lot scarier.
My priority is that the death penalty is wrong. That you are sensationalist and want to see guts spilled, heads rolling, brains splattered, intestines pulled out, ribcages ripped open, eyes smashed, feet and hands chopped off, limbs ripped off, blood drained, decapitation, electrocution etc etc, is your mental fault, not mine. You are mentally ill without compassion. Your emotions are crippled to the degree that you can only express hatred and fake feelings for those who are affected by the loss of relatives. You completely forget the loss the murderer's family may feel, the circumstances which can lead to murder or other capital crimes. Rarely is a crime explained in the black & white fashion you try to do it. Mostly murder occurs in a state of extreme emotional stress - the murderers dont think before they act - they just do it in a frenzy which they have no control over. Premeditated murder happens rather rarely.

what, you mean the leading, inflamatory, obviously inflated question? lol

i'll answer anyhow:

i believe most of the people on death row right now were rightfully convicted, and i believe most of them were put there for offenses that deserve a death sentence. however, i also believe there are a minority who were wrongfully convicted. the problem is that i have no way of knowing for sure which convicts are which, and i do not believe it is just to kill a prisoner unless his guilt is absolutely certain. i would rather stomach the continued existence of those who are truly guilty than risk executing an innocent man.

If their truly guilty of murder, or some other vileness then off with their heads.

If theres doupt then release them back into prison.

Well they shouldnt be there then, and if its a frame up then the people who framed the guy should take his place or if post mortem go there anyway.
Most guys on Death row are guilty as anyway, but I agree there would be some innocent ones.




Enough of the bleeding heart crap, like I said if hes/shes innocent then they shouldnt be there.
You want to abolish death row, what if one of these guys does the rehab and all that and gets out, is a model citizen for twenty years and then just says one day in a fit of boredom I just gotta kill someone!!
And does.
Would you consider yourself a murderer for helping this guy get out and in the end follow his natural and perverted instincts and take an innocent life or lifes.
Humans killing other humans are not natural instincts. Perverted it is maybe, but not natural. Humans are a social "animal", except in rare cases, our species does not kill each other.

If their truly guilty of murder, or some other vileness then off with their heads.

If theres doupt then release them back into prison.
like i said, IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY i would support executing them. however, our legal system CANNOT SUFFICIENTLY PROVE THAT.

jeez kid, remedial reading courses may be in your future.

=Gigatron]My priority is that the death penalty is wrong. That you are sensationalist and want to see guts spilled, heads rolling, brains splattered, intestines pulled out, ribcages ripped open, eyes smashed, feet and hands chopped off, limbs ripped off, blood drained, decapitation,

What a vivid imagination you have.

is your mental fault, not mine. You are mentally ill without compassion.

I have compassion for the people who matter, the victims, their relatives and friends, wheres your own for them?

Your emotions are crippled to the degree that you can only express hatred and fake feelings for those who are affected by the loss of relatives.


I dont think I've faked an emotion in my life once, sorry.

You completely forget the loss the murderer's family may feel,

Of course they have my sympathy as well


the circumstances which can lead to murder or other capital crimes. Rarely is a crime explained in the black & white fashion you try to do it. Mostly murder occurs in a state of extreme emotional stress - the murderers dont think before they act - they just do it in a frenzy which they have no control over.

Still murder.

Premeditated murder happens rather rarely.

It does actually, drive by shootings, bombs, stabbings, strangulations, poison, you have to get out more my friend.

I think this question is completely impossible to answer without quantified discussions.
Exactly how are you describing Capital Punishment? With some of the things going on in the U.S Army Prison for the [suspected] terrorists many would think that being equal to Capital Punishment.
Maybe that's a bit to an emotional argument, I'll list some other factors.

Obviously we have to discuss a crime before we can discuss the punishment
Before we can discuss the punishment we have to discuss the evidence.
After we've discussed the evidence we have to look for mental influences.
After that we'd have to discuss the chances of rehabilitation or repeat instances.
Importantly, political decision *have* to be made. It makes no sense to give soembody Capital Punishment when your just handing out a death warrant to thousands through retaliating terrorism!

If after all that there is still an air of agreement in the discussion, kill the scumbag anyway you know how! I mean, those are some pretty complex and inclusive tests, if they've passes all those then to hell with humanitarian slaughter!
:sniper:

Yours,
Marin

=Gigatron]Humans killing other humans are not natural instincts.

They are unfortunately.


Perverted it is maybe, but not natural. Humans are a social "animal", except in rare cases, our species does not kill each other.

Rare cases like what? WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Rwanda, twin towers, hiroshima, Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, Idi Amen, terrorists?

What a vivid imagination you have.



I have compassion for the people who matter, the victims, their relatives and friends, wheres your own for them?

My compassion is for all who lose relatives. Be it due to murder or due to death penalty. I do not support either, but feel sorrow that humans kill other humans, which results in even more killing. I think that execution is not the right way to do it, especially due to the fact that human-based justice systems are bound to make mistakes. Especially the US justice system is wide open to racist discrimination or outside influence of the jury and thus I wonder why you are so adamant in keeping this barbaric form of punishment. It is final and irrevocable. Nobody can bring back the wrongly executed people, which makes using the death penalty absurd and sick. It may work for public apeacement, for satisfying sensationalist urges to see some gory horror from time to time, but it can never serve to bring justice.

like i said, IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY i would support executing them. however, our legal system CANNOT SUFFICIENTLY PROVE THAT.


Well then change the stupid legal system, its stacked for lawyers to make as much money as possible anyway.

They are unfortunately.




Rare cases like what? WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Rwanda, twin towers, hiroshima, Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, Idi Amen, terrorists?
Humans killing humans are not natural instincts. Keep telling yourself that, it shows just how little you know about our own species.

Wars are rare cases. Terrorist attacks are rare cases. In the overwhelming majority of history, mankind is peaceful and coexists without murder and senseless killing.

Well then change the stupid legal system, its stacked for lawyers to make as much money as possible anyway.
um, okay, i'll get right on that for you.

My compassion is for all who lose relatives. Be it due to murder or due to death penalty. I do not support either, but feel sorrow that humans kill other humans, which results in even more killing. I think that execution is not the right way to do it, especially due to the fact that human-based justice systems are bound to make mistakes. Especially the US justice system is wide open to racist discrimination or outside influence of the jury and thus I wonder why you are so adamant in keeping this barbaric form of punishment. It is final and irrevocable. Nobody can bring back the wrongly executed people, which makes using the death penalty absurd and sick. It may work for public apeacement, for satisfying sensationalist urges to see some gory horror from time to time, but it can never serve to bring justice.

I see where your coming from, but most guys on death row are guilty as hell.
If innocent guys go down and its proven then the guy who made the mistake can go down as well, and if he gets framed then who ever frames him gets caught can go down as well, and sooner or later all the corruption in the legal system will get weeded out.

um, okay, i'll get right on that for you.

You can start by never accepting a bribe, Im not saying you would.

=Gigatron]Humans killing humans are not natural instincts. Keep telling yourself that, it shows just how little you know about our own species.

It is sorry, deep down were all capable of it, shows how little you know.

Wars are rare cases. Terrorist attacks are rare cases. In the overwhelming majority of history, mankind is peaceful and coexists without murder and senseless killing.

Yes but those little periods of time as you call them where men go ballistic on each other, have a more profound affect on mankinds peaceful history and life than anything else.

I see where your coming from, but most guys on death row are guilty as hell.
If innocent guys go down and its proven then the guy who made the mistake can go down as well, and if he gets framed then who ever frames him gets caught can go down as well, and sooner or later all the corruption in the legal system will get weeded out.
Unfortunately it does not work like that. Judges hold considerable power in any legal system. Juries hold considerable power aswell. They can decide over life or death of a prisoner. Mistakes are human nature, since we are not machines and steered by emotions. With justice systems being made up of humans, sentencing someone to death in most cases holds the risk of being a wrong decision. It is difficult to clearly and 100% prove that someone did something, and as long as this does not work for all cases, capital punishment can be inflicted on the innocent.

It is sorry, deep down were all capable of it, shows how little you know.



Yes but those little periods of time as you call them where men go ballistic on each other, have a more profound affect on mankinds peaceful history and life than anything else.
You are wrong. And here's your proof:

http://www.fact-index.com/k/ki/killology.html

Killology is a term invented by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman ret. in his book On Killing. It is the study of humans killing humans.

Grossman's theory, based on military statistics, is that most of the population deeply resists killing another human. Prior to the twentieth century, most soldiers were only going through the motions of firing their weapons at the enemy. For example, Grossman claims that only about 25 per cent of the soldiers at the Battle of Gettysburg actually fired their weapons at enemy soldiers, while the rest reloaded weapons. He cites the number of loaded weapons recovered from the battlefield.

Modern military training overrides this instinct, by:

* instilling rote reflexes
* training to view the enemy as non-human
* dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group
* displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e. the commanding officer and the military hierarchy. (See the Milgram experiment)

By the time of the Gulf War, says Grossman, 90 per cent of American soldiers would fire their weapons at other people.

The act of killing is psychologically traumatic for the killer, even more so than constant danger or witnessing the death of others.

Grossman further argues that violence in television, movies and video games contributes to real-life violence by a similar process of training and desensitization.

Any child molester, rapist, murder, big theif, and traitor should die the most horrible death that could be thought out.

I think that we are clouding the issue. The fact is, if you kill someone, we kill you back. There is no other suitable punishment. I'm sure many people don't like the "eye for an eye" ideals, but I do. "An eye for an eye" was the basis in which many early civilizations made their laws. And most of those civilizations lasted longer than we have/will.
How about this, we kill them the same way they killed their victem. And if it's a rape-stabbing, then I'm sure we can think of something. lol.

In Olde England the village elders (or woteva) would make their punshments fit the crime. For example, if a man was found to have stolen a barrel of fish, then he was made to sit in the barrel of fish in the centre of the village for an alloted period of time. cool huh? They should do that now.
Or maybe we should find a way of making the perpertrator relive their victims last moments? That way, they don't die, but maybe learn the horror of what they've done?!
(I still like the barrel of fish one the best though lol! :)

PS. Why is this pea shooting loogies?
:gundge:

I disagree with you. You have no right to judge when someone deserves death. You are blind and a simpleton.
You disagree with me, therefore that makes me a simpleton?
You cling to an ideology, blindly grasping at some philosophical position while removing the Human factor.
You are no more entitled to life then how you attempt to infringe on anothers.
I have every Right to judge when someone deserves to die.
I do not suffer from the idea of some Academic Moral imperative which has no bearing on reality.
You have no Right to presume to instruct me on who I may or may not judge, because you have no right to dictate the morality of others since you have demostrated a lack of strength to enforce your convictions.
I say I have Judged him, he deserves to die, and I would without hesitation kill him myself if the state had set him free, That is my moral obligation to my family to which he had delivered harm. I hold loyalty to some abstract ethical concepts of keyboard cowboys who presume to have understandings of issues completely removed from their lives, you assert your uninformed opinion anonymously online as if you bear some wisdom through your lack of experience that the rest of us who have actual life experience with an issue do not have.
I am not even amused at your opinion,
I am disgusted that you even presume to have one.
And yes your quick move to sympathize with a child molestor raises other serious question about your character.

Humans killing humans are not natural instincts. Keep telling yourself that, it shows just how little you know about our own species.

Wars are rare cases. Terrorist attacks are rare cases. In the overwhelming majority of history, mankind is peaceful and coexists without murder and senseless killing.
In the recorded history of man name ten years when there was no war.
IN the recorded history of man name one recorded year of no murder on a continent inhabited by humans.
You are the simpleton.
History does not support your statement just because you wish it did.

You disagree with me, therefore that makes me a simpleton?
You cling to an ideology, blindly grasping at some philosophical position while removing the Human factor.
You are no more entitled to life then how you attempt to infringe on anothers.
I have every Right to judge when someone deserves to die.
I do not suffer from the idea of some Academic Moral imperative which has no bearing on reality.
You have no Right to presume to instruct me on who I may or may not judge, because you have no right to dictate the morality of others since you have demostrated a lack of strength to enforce your convictions.
I say I have Judged him, he deserves to die, and I would without hesitation kill him myself if the state had set him free, That is my moral obligation to my family to which he had delivered harm. I hold loyalty to some abstract ethical concepts of keyboard cowboys who presume to have understandings of issues completely removed from their lives, you assert your uninformed opinion anonymously online as if you bear some wisdom through your lack of experience that the rest of us who have actual life experience with an issue do not have.
I am not even amused at your opinion,
I am disgusted that you even presume to have one.
And yes your quick move to sympathize with a child molestor raises other serious question about your character.
You raise strawmen to argue against. I do not sympathize with criminals. However, I do not support the barbaric practice of demanding executions. Play a game if you wish, Doom 3 or something, if you must see people die - in horrible ways I might add. Manhunt is another game that might satisfy your sick urge to see people die. I am glad that I do not have experience with the death penalty. Germany is one of the many nations that have abolished the death penalty long time ago. It is actually a requirement to abolish the DP if a country wants to join the EU. At least in this regard, the US are uncivilized.

In the recorded history of man name ten years when there was no war.
IN the recorded history of man name one recorded year of no murder on a continent inhabited by humans.
You are the simpleton.
History does not support your statement just because you wish it did.
You mistake the events happening all over the planet for deeds of all of mankind. There are a lot of nations that do not wage wars. But all nations have their "problem citizens" that commit crimes. Not everyone has the luck to grow up in a benefitial environment and become a useful contributor to society. Most wars are not happening because of humans hating other humans. Rather there are political motivations behind them, and wars are the last measures to settle conflicts between people. This is not usually backed by the civilian population because war always causes suffering. It is the leaders who send nations into wars, not the large majority of the population.

You raise strawmen to argue against. I do not sympathize with criminals. However, I do not support the barbaric practice of demanding executions. Play a game if you wish, Doom 3 or something, if you must see people die - in horrible ways I might add. Manhunt is another game that might satisfy your sick urge to see people die. I am glad that I do not have experience with the death penalty. Germany is one of the many nations that have abolished the death penalty long time ago. It is actually a requirement to abolish the DP if a country wants to join the EU. At least in this regard, the US are uncivilized.

I think you are oversimplifying something here. A persons belief in a practical application of capitol punishment rarely if ever stems from a "sick urge to see people die". It's usually an attempt to bring sanity to what seems a completely insane crime. The serial killer for example. Ted Bundy, Jeffry Dahlmer, Gacy... they all defy comprehension.
The killing of true innocents. David Westerfield in San Diego, who kidnapped and killed that 7 year old girl. They defy comprehension.

Most of these criminals, while sane, seem to lack the comprehension of what is right and wrong. They would be willing, if released, to commit their crimes again and again. There is only 2 ways to deal with criminals like that... a life of solitary confinement, or death. I've actually heard pretty persuasive arguments that death is the more humane punishment between the 2.

=Gigatron] Prior to the twentieth century, most soldiers were only going through the motions of firing their weapons at the enemy. For example, Grossman claims that only about 25 per cent of the soldiers at the Battle of Gettysburg actually fired their weapons at enemy soldiers, while the rest reloaded weapons. He cites the number of loaded weapons recovered from the battlefield.


One battle doesnt do it for me sorry,were talking about war through out the ages, and the prime objective was to kill as many as the enemy as possible.
Also in the battle of the Somme, 60,000 men mowed down by mostly machine gun fire and artillary from both sides died in one day!

They sure didnt miss did they.


The act of killing is psychologically traumatic for the killer, even more so than constant danger or witnessing the death of others.

Ohh poor killer.
What about the guy getting killed!
The only time you seem to have any sympathy is if its for the execution of some filthy rapist or murderer,

One battle doesnt do it for me sorry,were talking about war through out the ages, and the prime objective was to kill as many as the enemy as possible.
Also in the battle of the Somme, 60,000 men mowed down by mostly machine gun fire and artillary from both sides died in one day!

They sure didnt miss did they.




Ohh poor killer.
What about the guy getting killed!
The only time you seem to have any sympathy is if its for the execution of some filthy rapist or murderer,
Wars - as stated - trick the human sense of compassion towards other humans, by diverting responsibility for the killings.

I have sympathy for the victim, for the family of the victim as for the family of the murderer, who can in the US be executed. I have no sympathy for the killer himself, but my sense of justice does not include murdering other people for the crimes they do, and be they the most sick thing in the world. I do not want to take responsibility for possibly judging another human wrongly to death.

I do not want to take responsibility for possibly judging another human wrongly to death.

You dont have too, anyway killing a murderer/rapist/molester/arsonist is OK, hes/shes not an innocent person, there is nothing wrong with executing them.

You dont have too, anyway killing a murderer/rapist/molester/arsonist is OK, hes/shes not an innocent person, there is nothing wrong with executing them.
Well.. for you there is nothing wrong with it. You are used to this practice and expect nothing else. As such, I'd say you are desensitized to death and murdering, be it for a supposedly justified cause or not. Fact is that the death penalty does not work as deterrent, is more expensive than life imprisonment, is final and can be inflicted on the innocent. Reason enough for me to not support it.

Im all for it, and personally I believe the guilloteen is the quickest, cheapest and most humane way to administer it.


Its a cut above the rest. :)


I concur.

Well.. for you there is nothing wrong with it. You are used to this practice and expect nothing else. As such, I'd say you are desensitized to death and murdering, be it for a supposedly justified cause or not. Fact is that the death penalty does not work as deterrent, is more expensive than life imprisonment, is final and can be inflicted on the innocent. Reason enough for me to not support it.

It works great, too many silly legalitys now hold up the process but.
Plus making the actual penalty painless and humane would encourage murderers more, where as if they knew they were going to die messy they mighten be so keen.
The Romans had some good ones for murderers, one the Tarpien Rock, a 30 metre high cliff in the city of Rome where people when they assembled at the Forum to see justice done or spice up the day, would see murderers flung not pushed or asked to jump, flung.
Onto the needle sharp rocks way below.

Ahhh Rome.

It works great, too many silly legalitys now hold up the process but.
Plus making the actual penalty painless and humane would encourage murderers more, where as if they knew they were going to die messy they mighten be so keen.
The Romans had some good ones for murderers, one the Tarpien Rock, a 30 metre high cliff in the city of Rome where people could assemble at the Forum and see murderers flung not pushed or asked to jump, flung.
Onto the needle sharp rocks way below.

Ahhh Rome.
... and you think murderers or rapists are sick... I am wondering how you can even exist in society with such violent tendencies.

... and you think murderers or rapists are sick... I am wondering how you can even exist in society with such violent tendencies.

In this one as any other quite easily

Capital Punishment, eh, why kill them, they might change their ways.
I saw once on the history channel a guy killed a police officer in Texas a long time ago, and he was sentenced to life in prison. 20 years later he truely has changed and regrets doing such a thing (although he claims it's an accident, not sure about that). The parole board was gonna free him, but the family of the victim petitioned againist it, and he was kept in jail for another 20 years.

Justice is to make sure the accused never does such things again, not to satisfly the victims families. I understand the pain, but it's just overeactiment. Unfortunately you can't satisfy both the victim and the accused family(the guy in the story above had a family waiting for him..), however whatever you do is not gonna bring the murdered back.

Capital Punishment, eh, why kill them, they might change their ways.
I saw once on the history channel a guy killed a police officer in Texas a long time ago, and he was sentenced to life in prison. 20 years later he truely has changed and regrets doing such a thing (although he claims it's an accident, not sure about that). The parole board was gonna free him, but the family of the victim petitioned againist it, and he was kept in jail for another 20 years.

Justice is to make sure the accused never does such things again, not to satisfly the victims families. I understand the pain, but it's just overeactiment. Unfortunately you can't satisfy both the victim and the accused family(the guy in the story above had a family waiting for him..), however whatever you do is not gonna bring the murdered back.

Yeah OK Jerry.

Is permanent.

Jim2004

Someone might have already said this, but in the United States, Capital Punishment actually costs more :eek: than life impisonment. I guess with appeals and all, it adds up. I used to support it, since its supposed to be a deterrant (but i dont have any statistics, so im not really sure). Now, of course, i oppose it, since its cheaper and means you can still pardon someone falsely accused of a crime.

how do you think we keep prision costs down. capital punishment is needed for some of the worst crimes however by imprisioning a person you get the chance to study them and hopefully determine what makes a persons do what they do and thus lessen the amount of capital crimes in the future

quite frankly i dont believe that capital punishment costs more than life imprisonment. how much the government spends on court services shouldnt be factored into the cost, there are just as many appeals and reappeals whether a person is facing life in prison or deathrow. its basically food, clothes, room etc. for anywhere from 20 to 60 years VS a syringe of sedation and a syringe of poison/10,000 volts of electricity.

In the British Virgin Islands, Capital Punishment--- The Death Penalty, fits the crime, you are killed the same way you killed, if you strangled someone, someone will strangle you. If you shoot someone on the head, someone will
shoot you on the head, I you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death, if you gassed someone, someone will gas you.

They have one of the lowest crime rates around.

There is no humane capital punishment.
The death penalty is barbaric. It should only take place in history books.

I completely agree, but back it up with something besides your own simple opinion.

Capital Punishment, eh, why kill them, they might change their ways.
I saw once on the history channel a guy killed a police officer in Texas a long time ago, and he was sentenced to life in prison. 20 years later he truely has changed and regrets doing such a thing (although he claims it's an accident, not sure about that). The parole board was gonna free him, but the family of the victim petitioned againist it, and he was kept in jail for another 20 years.

Justice is to make sure the accused never does such things again, not to satisfly the victims families. I understand the pain, but it's just overeactiment. Unfortunately you can't satisfy both the victim and the accused family(the guy in the story above had a family waiting for him..), however whatever you do is not gonna bring the murdered back.

Sounds like the entire issue could have been solved through something called forgiveness. That's something that pro-capital punishers are sorely lacking though

Nice pun.

I generally disagree with punishments altogether, but I turn a blind eye to it. I know we pretty much need it. As for humane ways to die, the guilloteen is the very last way I'd choose to die. I don't consider it humane to let someone's brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body. It's painful, terrifying, and needlessly gruesome. The same goes for hanging.

Na, its not really painfull, when your head gets detached from your body, your brain drugs itself with all the drugs and hormones it has left, so, you wont feel anything...

but I must say I'm against the death penalty, that's not because I don't want those scumbags to be wiped out, but its for the cops, because I think a criminal who has to expect capital punishment is more likely to try and kill the cop who caught him than a criminal who can expect to live and see another day...

Na, its not really painfull, when your head gets detached from your body, your brain drugs itself with all the drugs and hormones it has left, so, you wont feel anything...


Fine, I'll take your word for it. But it's still pretty damn terrifying. If you're going to kill a fellow human, you can at least make it easier to go through. I mean, why not just throw them from the roof of a tall building? It's painless. You'll die before your brain gets any feedback whatsoever. So why not? Because their final moments are cruel and inhumane. There's no point in punishing someone more in addition to killing them.

Na, its not really painfull, when your head gets detached from your body, your brain drugs itself with all the drugs and hormones it has left, so, you wont feel anything.

Correct, the guillotine is a very humane way to kill someone. Painless* and if done properly (blindfolded) there's no psychological trauma during the few seconds it takes for your brain to shutdown.

*The shock that your body experiences from having your head taken off (guillotine style) would cause you to feel nothing for 3-5 minutes (if you lived that long).

Correct, the guillotine is a very humane way to kill someone. Painless* and if done properly (blindfolded) there's no psychological trauma during the few seconds it takes for your brain to shutdown.

*The shock that your body experiences from having your head taken off (guillotine style) would cause you to feel nothing for 3-5 minutes (if you lived that long).

Again, I won't argue with the pain factor. But I find it very hard to believe that a blindfolded man kneeling beneith a guillotine won't be terrified out of his mind. And even if there's no pain or trauma, you still have awareness for your last seconds of life that your head is seperated from your body. I forgot the guy's name, but someone who was against beheading said that he's blink as many times as possible before he expired. I think he made it 16 blinks. Imagine lying in a bloody basket for that period of time. I still fail to see how that's humane.

The last person executed in my country was later found to be not guilty. That made those that did the act murderers and the judge and jury that brought the decision accessories to the fact. Given that humans are not infalible or often impartial, I'm not sure any person or group of people should have the power to impose it. At least with a prison sentence there is a chance of correcting an error should it be made.

Well it should be.

No, definitely not.

Disemboweled,alive.
I agree totally.
Totally.
Make them scream.
I just had a cousin(I will get personal) convicted and awaiting sentence on child molestation charges.
He was my favorite cousin growing up, my older cousin growing up.
I have little to know memory of my childhood time atthat age, though.
You get the idea.
He was charged for abusing two step children and one blood child.
FORCED ORAL SEX
PENETRATION
EXPRESS THREATS OF VIOLENCE
This children woke up everyday in his house, looked him in his eyes everyday, kissed his cheek and said I love you everyday.
He was their father, their one true protector in the world.
Imagine your own father betraying you like that, using sex as a tool for humiliation, and violence against you for sex.
For years.
He bears no remorse.
He argues he had done nothing wrong(my father went to his house to pray with him before he was taken into custody).
I am a Father of four, I would suffer any fate other then see harm come to my children.
I have stepped in front of speeding cars, I have chased down loose dogs, big dogs, butterflys sin your stomach I hope I dont get killed or loose a limb dogs.
If it harmed my child and I was there it harmed me first, and worst.
He(my cousin) has defied the fundamental basics of nature itself, he sacrificed his humanity and his right to be treated as such.
You can not rehabilitate someone like that, and you shouldnt try.
Death, is Justice, suffering recieved for the suffering delivered.
God does not stand with me on this opinion of mine, and I will have ask to be forgiven, but I without a doubt know that some people must be put down like sick animals, they must.

Ah, I'm part pro and part contra about this, you know nearly everyone of those people is mentally and physikaly sick, to feel sexual atraction to a child is just not natural, that means that some part of their brain chemistry or psyche has to be broken. I don't think they can do anything against that without help from another person (most likely a psychiatrist). As long as I know there are enough drugs and other ways to supress those "desires" (be it permanebtely or not). I personaly think those guys should be put into some of those prison labor camp at least there they would serve some pupose...

[QUOTE=Alexs Gulch]Well, you can't really see it that way. In that way you can't imprison them 'caus no one has the right to enslave and imprison another human being.
[QUOTE]

hm, interesting, the only point one could state here is, imprisonment does not have to be permanentely, AND if you really imprison someone who is innocent, you can still release him and at least try to compensate (is that the right word?)...

the capital pun is just one armor for the gobern, and nowdays the gobern is only ruled by money, that makes our live have a price, and be able to "buy" the death of anybody, dont think that would be fair, because the rich would rule litterally.

what if your neighbor hated you and had tones and tones of money? he would just have to talk to your gobernor and you would read the next newspaper, cause your be on it (death pages)

I have every Right to judge when someone deserves to die.


Who are you, god?

In the British Virgin Islands, Capital Punishment--- The Death Penalty, fits the crime, you are killed the same way you killed, if you strangled someone, someone will strangle you. If you shoot someone on the head, someone will
shoot you on the head, I you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death, if you gassed someone, someone will gas you.

They have one of the lowest crime rates around.

There you go.

Who are you, god?
Everybody will die. Everybody deserves to die. Some sooner than others.

I used to support the death penalty ,not because as a deterrent,that only works for the executed person;they will never kill again!;but i believe that we as a people demand revenge for murder. The eye for an eye old biblical injunction runs deep in our blood does it not? I still hold to that. The reason i changed my view is because the justice system is imperfect,just look at the amount of innocent people each year who are released each year because of exposed flaws in canada and the u s .Prejudicial judges, incompetent and or overworked lawyers,status seeking d. a. s,media induced pressures on the police, all play a role in jailing the wrong people for crimes they did not commit. This is all done to ease our anxiety about a criminal on the street. I , for one do not want to sacrifice an innocent person to ease my fear. L.G.

Everybody will die. Everybody deserves to die. Some sooner than others.
Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

- Gandalf

Everybody will die. Everybody deserves to die. Some sooner than others.

They only die because thats what nature intends, deserving has nothing to do with it, although there are quite a few people who we would have been better off for the world and humanitys sake never to have existed at all.

I'm against it. I think it would be better to make prisoners rot in jail and think about their crimes for the rest of their lives.

It's not up to us to decide who should/should not die.

Everybody will die. Everybody deserves to die. Some sooner than others.

That does not give him the right to jugde whom ever he wants, wether if he "deserves" to die or not!

Ha. I live in Melbourne, a bit more to the south, actually. You know...we hosted the 1956 olympics...and the next commonwealth games...and um, thats about it. Oh, we had a bridge that fell down once.

You MISSED the MOST IMPORTANT bit!!!

Neighbours was set in Melbourne, right?

Last night James Reid was executed by the State here in Virginia. I went to a candlelight vigil to pray. Not only is murder wrong, but Virginia used a very painful method of lethal injection. The government even barred veteranarians from using the same method to put down animals.
http://www.vadp.org/

Is that the guy who said it was a 'cruel and unusual punishment' because years of drug-addiction had ruined his veins?

Lethal injection isn't supposed to be a painful method... one of the three chemicals used actually anaesthetises the 'candidate', one paralyses them, and the third is the toxin, right?

So, the pain the person feels is the pain of injection, followed by loss of consciousness, and death. Doesn't sound too barbaric.

Is that the guy who said it was a 'cruel and unusual punishment' because years of drug-addiction had ruined his veins?

Lethal injection isn't supposed to be a painful method... one of the three chemicals used actually anaesthetises the 'candidate', one paralyses them, and the third is the toxin, right?

So, the pain the person feels is the pain of injection, followed by loss of consciousness, and death. Doesn't sound too barbaric.

Hmm.. That's what I thought as well. Maybe Virginia substitutes the painkillers with acme-brand itching-and-burning cream.

You are wrong. All humans are born as human. Every human has basic human rights which nobody can revoke. Your hatred and bloodlust is scary.

Actually, you are wrong.

Humans are born with no rights.

A human only has the rights that they can assert for themselves, or that their family can assert, or that their community can assert, or that their country can assert.

You believe that you have a fundamental 'right' to life? In the wild, outside your community, what does that 'Right' earn you, when confronted by predators?

You believe you have a right to own property? How would that 'right' bear up if you lived in a collectivised society - a TRUE communism?

The 'rights' we talk about are those accorded by our communities and governments... the 'right' to free speech, the 'right' to representation, the 'right' to worship. We are not 'born' with these rights, we earn them, or someone earns them for us.


But, anyway, By your argument, the Murderer makes a liar of you... because he chooses to revoke (what you call) the basic 'right' to live for another individual.

So - even if your model were based on facts rather than feeling, the Murderer in your society disproves your theory.

Is that the guy who said it was a 'cruel and unusual punishment' because years of drug-addiction had ruined his veins?

Lethal injection isn't supposed to be a painful method... one of the three chemicals used actually anaesthetises the 'candidate', one paralyses them, and the third is the toxin, right?

So, the pain the person feels is the pain of injection, followed by loss of consciousness, and death. Doesn't sound too barbaric.

Yep, normally it shouldn't be painfull, unfortunately in most states there is no prescribed order for the injections, AND I even heard that most of the executioners don't even know what injection is for paralysis, sleep or death, so if ya got an incompetent or just a badass mofo executioner, it can be quite painfull...

Yep, normally it shouldn't be painfull, unfortunately in most states there is no prescribed order for the injections, AND I even heard that most of the executioners don't even know what injection is for paralysis, sleep or death, so if ya got an incompetent or just a badass mofo executioner, it can be quite painfull...

Well, looking back over the US executions by Lethal Injection, most of the problems seem to have been caused by long-term drug addiction taking a destructive toll on the veins of the 'criminal'. I don't really see that that is a failing on the part of the system.

In two of the cases where vein location was a major problem, the criminal helped the executioner find a suitable vein, and was 'rewarded' by a fairly quick demise.

Some people do have allergic reactions to the drug, and can be sent into spasms... but this doesn't necessarily mean they are feeling pain... and I would guess it's hard to find out if you are allergic to LETHAL injections before the fact.

Gacy's execution was delayed by a stopped-up tube, which was apparently a technical error.

As far as I can tell, unless someone has been messing with the order of the chemicals, and I'm not sure it is open to tampering... the chemical feed is automatic... starting with a saline 'leader', followed by Sodium Thiopental (the anaesthetic), follwed by Pancuronium Bromide (the paralysing agent), and finally Pottasium Chloride (to stop the heart).

"Death results from anesthetic overdose and respiratory and cardiac arrest while the condemned person is unconscious".

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=479

Guillotine is the best way to execute criminals, heavy sharp blade that hits

back of neck at 'breakneck' speed lol

Bullets, ropes, electric chair, lethal injection are too messy, these guillotine

executions should be done in public as well.

I heard theres one state in America that allows anyone on deathrow to pick

their own method of execution within reason of course, one guy requested a

firing squad and was granted it instantly.

Has anyone seen the Green mile when that bastard of a warden didnt put any

water into the sponge and the poor guy cooked to death, stuff like that

wouldnt happen with a guillotine.

Its still the most humane way to kill somone quickly and should be bought

back immediately.

I'm all for capital punishment. Seriously, what is the point of courts jailing someone for life imprisonment? Sure you can say that its justice because they are incarcerated for all time and can think upon the wrong they have done... but there are some incorrect assumptions in such a premise.

One is that some of them don't even think what they did is wrong, they *like* what they did, so they are hardly going to feel guilt or sorry about it, they'll just feel pissed off and want to kill someone else. And hey some lifers live in relatively comfortable situations, in their own little gangs, raping inmates, and enjoying every minute of it. After that they go outside for an hour for exercise, and go to the mess for 3 meals a day. And then at the end of the day they go back to their own little room (remember they are considered extremely dangerous so get their own room) to watch some TV, play a DVD, or some lucky ones get out the Playstation for a game...

Sounds horrible doesn't it?

Meanwhile taxpayers are paying a small fortune every year to keep this person incarerated, clothed, fed, and looked after, and governments complain about jails overfilling.

Wait 2 years of a life sentence, and if nothing new comes up, execute them. You save your country thousands of dollars per year per person, and free up needed jail space. Win win situation.

Wait 2 years of a life sentence, and if nothing new comes up, execute them. You save your country thousands of dollars per year per person, and free up needed jail space. Win win situation.

I don't even need to respond to something as stupid and cruel as that. You sound fucking scary.


The easiest argument against the death penalty is that inevitably, innocent people are murdered by it. THAT by itself, is more than enough to discredit it...unless some of you fascists want to say the deaths of *bad* people outway the deaths of the innocent, I don't even think Twin Ion would go that far.


As for capital punishment in general, keep in mind the four functions of the justice system.

A) Deterence, if we punish people, they will not break the law.

This applies in most cases of jail and fines, but when it comes to something so heinous that they can get life in jail without parole or death, it is only murders, and grisly, well-thought out muders at that. Death versus life in jail without parole...deterence is a joke for people willing to murder.

B) Isolation, to keep these violent people away from society so they don't hurt us further.

Life in jail without parole versus death...both accomplish this equally, thus death has no benefit.

C) Rehabilitation, to make convicts into productive members of society again

If a criminal has done something worthy of life in prison or death, then obviously rehabilitation is not an issue. btw, killing someone is hardly a good start though.

D) Punishment/Vengeance, they hurt us, so we get to hurt them under the guise of law

This is a foolish outdated concept, that the government should specifically exact suffering on people just for the sake of the victims. This is something government should NOT be doing.


----------------------------


Anyways, there is nothing that life in prison fails to accomplish that only death can do...besides revenge by the victim's family, but that has never been a justifiable reason.

Unless you're a fascist like Twin Ion and put a dollar sign on life.

A) Deterence, if we punish people, they will not break the law.
B) Isolation, to keep these violent people away from society so they don't hurt us further.
C) Rehabilitation, to make convicts into productive members of society again
D) Punishment/Vengeance, they hurt us, so we get to hurt them under the guise of law


Deterence - Death is a better solution to all this point. For one its the ultimate deterence... plan a murder to kill, and you'll end your own life with the same stroke.

Isolation - They are kept away from society, fair enough, but they also should be punished. The life some of them leave is not much of a punishment. They are in fact better off than many homeless people. Does that mean all they need to go to get fed well, and a roof over their head, is to kill someone?

Rehabilitation - The death sentence would be reserved for those that the courts believe rehabilitation is impossible. If they thought rehab was possible they generally wouldn't give out a life sentence anyway. And hey if a convicted murderer was supposedly rehabilitated then he isn't isolated from the rest of society is he? And rehab is just a word, just a concept. It doesn't mean he won't ever reoffend, just not likely. I don't like those odds.

Vengeance - The death penalty has nothing to do with vengeance... just practicality... as far as the government is concerned. And so what if the family of the victim take some small pleaseure from it. At least they can sleep at night knowing that the murderer that took the life of their mother/father/sister/brother/daughter/son no longer exists.

And sure you might not like it but hey... everything also does cost money. These murderers aren't going to be rehabilitated, are never going to be released, so why are we wasting our time and resources on them. They showed they had no respect for society by murdering someone... they are a rabid, uncontrollable animal... put them down.

No one has the right to take another's life. That goes equally well for representatives of the state. There are better ways for responding to killing than doing the same thing, that only makes the punisher just another killer.

What about miscarriges of justice? what about those who kill because they are mentally ill? What about those who kill accidentally?

Fortunately here in Britain we do not have the death penalty. It's just a pity that the USA, Saudi Arabia and other barbaric justice systems don't follow our example.

No one has the right to take another's life. That goes equally well for representatives of the state. There are better ways for responding to killing than doing the same thing, that only makes the punisher just another killer.

What about miscarriges of justice? what about those who kill because they are mentally ill? What about those who kill accidentally?

Fortunately here in Britain we do not have the death penalty. It's just a pity that the USA, Saudi Arabia and other barbaric justice systems don't follow our example.
It's the EU model to abolish death penalty as a requirement to be in the EU. As such, I'd say, it is not *your* example as Briton but a European example. There are those who are advanced social nations and those who got stuck somewhere in the stoneage. The US is definitely one of the 2nd category in the social area and civil rights.

It's the EU model to abolish death penalty as a requirement to be in the EU. As such, I'd say, it is not *your* example as Briton but a European example. There are those who are advanced social nations and those who got stuck somewhere in the stoneage. The US is definitely one of the 2nd category in the social area and civil rights.

I didn't say that Britain is the only country that does not have the death penalty. However, it's the state that I can speak about. In fact Britain banned the death penalty long before we joined the EU

I didn't say that Britain is the only country that does not have the death penalty. However, it's the state that I can speak about. In fact Britain banned the death penalty long before we joined the EU
UK abolished the death penalty in 1971 (except for treason). Germany in 1949, Canada in 1976.

Britain joined the EC (former name for the EU) in 1973. So, this was not *that* long ago ;) However the requirement to drop the DP was instated in 1983 (Protocol No. 6 (http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/CounEurProto6.htm)), which is also a main reason why countries like Turkey are not in the EU yet (and probably won't be for some time).

Here's some more info on the EU stance on this:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/adp/

The European Union campaigns towards the universal abolition of the death penalty. This stance is rooted in the belief in the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person, regardless of the crime committed.

Abolition of the death penalty is a requirement for countries seeking EU membership. All candidate countries (see regular reports on the accession countries) have acceded to Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty. In addition, EU Member States are all signatories to Protocol 13 to the ECHR, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, which was adopted in Vilnius in May 2002. This treaty explicitly bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including in war-time.

However, despite a global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty, a large number of executions are still taking place and many countries retain the capital punishment de facto or in their legislation.

In 1998 the EU decided, as an integral part of its human rights policy, to strengthen its international activities in opposition to the death penalty. The EU drew up policy guidelines for demarches (or representations) and other actions it will take on capital punishment in multilateral fora and towards third countries. These guidelines provide a set of criteria for making representations and outline minimum standards to be applied in countries retaining the death penalty. The EU also presses, where relevant, for moratoria to be introduced as a first step towards the abolition of the death penalty.

This EU commitment was reaffirmed in December 2000 at the European Council Summit in Nice, with the solemn proclamation of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rightsendepdf file. In the meantime, the Charter has become the second part of the EU Draft Constitutional Treaty which is currently under consideration for adoption by the European Council. The Charter reaffirms the right of everyone to life and the prohibition of the death penalty (Article II-2). It also states that no one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty (Article II-19).

No individual was the last person hanged in the UK, as the last executions took place at the same time but at different prisons: Peter Anthony Allen at Liverpool and Gwynne Owen Evans at Manchester Prisons. Both were hanged on 13 August 1964. Subsequent people were sentenced to death, but they were all reprieved.

As recently as 1965 - when Britain abolished the death penalty for murder - there were just 12 countries in the world that had fully abolished the death penalty.

Today, 69 countries have abolished for all crimes, 13 have abolished for all but exceptional crimes (such as treason and wartime offences) and a further 23 countries are abolitionist de facto - in that they have not executed anyone for at least ten years. In the last ten years alone 34 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, while a further 3 countries have got rid of the death penalty for ordinary crimes. In the last year, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria and Azerbaijan abolished the death penalty. Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan suspended executions.

What about miscarriges of justice? what about those who kill because they are mentally ill? What about those who kill accidentally?

Those that kill accidentally are considered rehabilitatable, and are not imprisoned with a life sentence. It is primarily only those with life sentences, or such sentences which would likely result in the prisoner dying before the end of prison term (within reasonable terms (ie 50 years imprisonment for a 40 yo)), that should be executed after a predetermined period to allow for any likely new evidence to appear. Given the current level of DNA technology currently available it is far less likely for new evidence to arrive as it would have already been processed (as opposed to times of ol' when such things were impossible).

And doesn't the courts convict "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

:eek: :sniper:

And doesn't the courts convict "beyond all reasonable doubt"?


Innocent people have been convicted and executed. After this was discovered, they have been rehabilitated. Ain't life funny? Suppose how the executioner felt after he heared that the he executed was innocent.

More, we aim at being greater, not lesser. How can death penalty rise you above the criminal you execute?

That is the one problem with the death penalty. It is caused by corrupt attornies who don't give a crap about anything but their wallets.

That is the one problem with the death penalty. It is caused by corrupt attornies who don't give a crap about anything but their wallets.
And judges who are humans, thus can be racist or influenced outside the court room. Juries who are humans and who can be influenced outside the court room or who can be racist. As long as humans make up the judical systems (which will hopefully always be the case), we risk executing innocents, if we employ the death penalty.

Innocent people have been convicted and executed. After this was discovered, they have been rehabilitated. Ain't life funny? Suppose how the executioner felt after he heared that the he executed was innocent.

More, we aim at being greater, not lesser. How can death penalty rise you above the criminal you execute?

How many years were allowed before the execution took place? And in what year did these mistakes occur. With recent increases in technology it is easier to be more thorough in any investigation. Cases where executed people have later been found innocent is because of increases in technology which allowed authorities to revisit evidence. The odds of that happening these days is a near impossibility... after allowing a suitable grace period of course.

And why should the executioner feel anything afterwards? To avoid potential trauma to the executioner (for the act of them killing somebody) you can devise a way that there are 3 people in the room, and 3 buttons. All 3 push a button, but only one starts the machine. Nobody knows who followed the order to execute the prisoner. In some countries that had execution by firing squad they used a line of rifleman. All rifleman, but one, had only gunpowder in their rifles. At the order all fired. Only one bullet leaves the masses, and kills the prisoner. Who killed the prisoner? Noone knew.

And how can the death penalty rise you above the criminal you executed? The reason for the death. They killed for any number of reasons, you kill to prevent them doing so again.

And judges who are humans, thus can be racist or influenced outside the court room. Juries who are humans and who can be influenced outside the court room or who can be racist. As long as humans make up the judical systems (which will hopefully always be the case), we risk executing innocents, if we employ the death penalty.

It was argued earlier that ultimately that life sentence and death penalty has the same overall effect. With this in mind, with the current judicial system, we risk jailing innocents with life terms. Whats the difference? If you allow 5 years as a grace period you could remove reasonable doubt that any new evidence would be forthcoming. Your argument is ultimately that the judicial system is flawed, not the practice of the death penalty... they aren't one and the same.

And the previous user argued that with corrupt lawyers and attornies too many people would go to jail and face the death penalty... and also implying racism? It is the defense lawyers who are more often than not the corrupt parties that are out for a pay packet... not the prosecuters. With the practice of a 5 year grace period you'd find defense lawyers bringing up scams to keep their client alive every 5 years... but why? Its not because new evidence arrived, its certainly not because they believe the person is innocent, is simply the case that they just got another pay bonus.

Terminate the lifers and you'll also free up the courts from endless, unneccesary, repetitive bickering.

You cannot say that death and life sentences are the same. If a person is found innocent after sentencing, be it 5 years or 50 years later. If they are dead, there's no way back. However, if in prison, the person still has the expectation of regaining their freedom and innocence acknowledged.

Your main fault is that you would still try and justify state murder, when there is never any justification for what you argue.

If murder is wrong, then murder in the name of the state is even more wrong because it's a deliberate and systematic consideration.

Would you say its fair to make the people pay to keep a person who rapes, or kills...or both.....in a home, and three square meals a day?
Actually, it is more expensive to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

I don't think anything gives one person the right to take the life of another, no matter what.

-If murder is wrong, then isn't murdering a murder also wrong?
-Studies have shown that the death penalty INCREASES crime rates. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167)
-If even ONE innocent person dies from the death penalty, it is wrong. No matter how many guilty people were killed prior to it, it's wrong. The judge, jury, and prosecuter responsable for the wrongful death ought to be put on trial as murderers(maybe the executioner, although it's not really his fault since he's following orders).
-"an eye for an eye" is a barbaric, uncivilized way of thinking, and I don't give a damn about what the Bible or any other "holy" book has to say about it.
-What would YOU fear more? A(n ideally) quick, painless death, or being locked in a prison room by yourself for the rest of your life with little to no chance of EVER getting out?
-

Anyways, there is nothing that life in prison fails to accomplish that only death can do...besides revenge by the victim's family, but that has never been a justifiable reason.



Actually... only a death sentence can GUARANTEE that the offender never offends again.

Of course capital punishment is humane. If people think its ok to rape and kill and ruin people's lives then why shouldn't they die for it?

The earth's population is far too high anyway, so if a wrong doer bites the dust everyday then is it really a problem?

You may think I'm a bit extreme but really I'm just practical.

:mad: :sniper:

-If murder is wrong, then isn't murdering a murder also wrong?
-Studies have shown that the death penalty INCREASES crime rates. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167)
-If even ONE innocent person dies from the death penalty, it is wrong. No matter how many guilty people were killed prior to it, it's wrong. The judge, jury, and prosecuter responsable for the wrongful death ought to be put on trial as murderers(maybe the executioner, although it's not really his fault since he's following orders).
-"an eye for an eye" is a barbaric, uncivilized way of thinking, and I don't give a damn about what the Bible or any other "holy" book has to say about it.
-What would YOU fear more? A(n ideally) quick, painless death, or being locked in a prison room by yourself for the rest of your life with little to no chance of EVER getting out?
-

First: the murderer isn't murdered. He is 'executed'. A state cannot commit a murder.

Second: Your somewhat biased source has influenced how you interpret your data, I'm afraid.

Most of the data on the page you cited comes down to the "Well, you can't prove it IS a deterrent" argument, or claims unsupportable linkages between two factors... e.g. One Execution in California is 'claimed' as the cause of a raise in homicides... but the homicide factor is based only on an 8 month period, rather than the year for all the other data - so there is no twelve month average, so the data is invalid.

By their logic, I could argue that: since no homicides happened in the 24 hours directly after the execution - execution is 100% EFFECTIVE as a deterrent... in fact, going further with that example, if they executed 1 person a day - logically there would be no homicides.

Of course, in other cases, the data is just plain wrong... they 'found no link between executions and murder rates' in Texas.... so, what were the executions for??? Jaywalking? Answer: no, they were for murder, since Texas has a higher homicide rate, and, therefore, more executions of offenders.

Presenting their data in reverse, there.

I find it interesting, also... that you place the life of ONE innocent (at risk of erroneous execution) above the lives of ALL the innocents that re-offending 'homicide-commiters' might kill.

Surely, so long as the justice system really tries it's best (so, rid it of the corruption and nepotism), it is better that one innocent die, if it means 9 other guilty parties never re-offend?

"First: the murderer isn't murdered. He is 'executed'. A state cannot commit a murder."

States can and do commit murder, for that to happen, representatives of the state have to sancion murder. They do so in the name of the state.

"First: the murderer isn't murdered. He is 'executed'. A state cannot commit a murder."

States can and do commit murder, for that to happen, representatives of the state have to sancion murder. They do so in the name of the state.

No - a state doesn't commit murder.

A murder is an UNLAWFUL killing (which may or may not be premeditated)

An execution is a LAWFUL killing (in accordance with prescribed laws)

So - a state doesn't murder.

"First: the murderer isn't murdered. He is 'executed'. A state cannot commit a murder."

States can and do commit murder, for that to happen, representatives of the state have to sancion murder. They do so in the name of the state.

Murder, by definition, has to be illegal. This is why it's very hard, but not impossible for the State to commit a murder.

Murder, by definition, has to be illegal. This is why it's very hard, but not impossible for the State to commit a murder.

It WOULD be impossible, if the State follows absolute due process... since, that would make the punishment LAWFUL... and a murder is UNLAWFUL.

And the previous user argued that with corrupt lawyers and attornies too many people would go to jail and face the death penalty... and also implying racism? It is the defense lawyers who are more often than not the corrupt parties that are out for a pay packet... not the prosecuters. With the practice of a 5 year grace period you'd find defense lawyers bringing up scams to keep their client alive every 5 years... but why? Its not because new evidence arrived, its certainly not because they believe the person is innocent, is simply the case that they just got another pay bonus.

Terminate the lifers and you'll also free up the courts from endless, unneccesary, repetitive bickering.

I agree with the death penalty. However, we need to crack down on corrupt lawyers; those, both defence and prosecuters, who would twist and distort evidence for their own gain. However, these are still rarer cases, not the norm.

A murderer found guilty should be put to death at once, preferably by a

guillotine, as it is still the most humane way to end their life.

Is executing someone for committing murder, murder again?

No it isnt.

Did the murderers care about taking someones life, why should they recieve

the same mercy they denied others then?

How high is the do gooders moral ground, if the murderer spared kills someone

in jail, or worse escapes and does someone in on the outside.

A murderer found guilty should be put to death at once, preferably by a

guillotine, as it is still the most humane way to end their life.

Is executing someone for committing murder, murder again?

No it isnt.

Did the murderers care about taking someones life, why should they recieve

the same mercy they denied others then?

How high is the do gooders moral ground, if the murderer spared kills someone

in jail, or worse escapes and does someone in on the outside.
If the murderer escapes or murders someone in jail, then the prison system needs a revision and not the death penalty needs to be used. This is logically incorrect.

If the murderer escapes or murders someone in jail, then the prison system needs a revision and not the death penalty needs to be used. This is logically incorrect.

How is it the fault of the prison system?

(I'm not saying that there ARE NO FAULTS in the prison system...)

But, if one person has the intention... the state of mind... to kill, and to kill again, that person cannot be 'cured' by incarceration... they can only be contained. And, the thing about containment is, sooner or later, every containment is going to 'give' a little.

So - the prison system has to be 'lucky' all day, every day, to keep the consciously dedided 'killer' under control.

The 'killer' has to be 'lucky' once to break those bonds long enough to kill.

Under those circumstances, absolute confinement is the only possible LOGICAL option APART from execution.

And, ABSOLUTE confinement would mean no human contact, ever. Even if the 'killer' was sick, no nursing staff. Which is more humane? The clean 'execution', or the slow atrophy, and eventual sickness without care, in a box?

If the murderer escapes or murders someone in jail, then the prison system needs a revision and not the death penalty needs to be used. This is logically incorrect.

And now my turn.

Pretty much what Grave said on that.

Also most people on death row are probably guilty as hell, I find it hard to

believe somone innocent could get in there.

Although one true story I heard two nights ago, a person was telling me how

once a friend of his got hit on by a gay bloke at a party in South Australia,

he rejected the advances, but when the gay guy persisted he got into a scuffle

with him and knocked the gay bloke flying into a table, the gay guy went into a

coma and later on died in hospital.

The I8 year old was charged with murder.

If death row existed in Australia he would be on it I guess, whats wrong here

is not the capital punishment, but the crime he was charged with.

Because it was manslaughter, not murder.

And now my turn.

Also most people on death row are probably guilty as hell, I find it hard to

believe somone innocent could get in there.


You just disqualified yourself from this discussion with such blatantly wrong statements. Where do you pull such statements from? Probably not from your brain - if you even have one.

You just disqualified yourself from this discussion with such blatantly wrong statements. Where do you pull such statements from? Probably not from your brain - if you even have one.

Although I normally disagree with everything Terminalia ever says, I have to agree with him on this one.

The people who are death row are SUPPOSED to be there because they were found guilty... this isn't supposed to be "maybe guilty" or "a bit guilty". If they are found guilty that is (if the justice system is working) because they are UNQUESTIONABLY guilty.

If this is not the case, it is the Judges that are at fault, the Jury that is at fault, the Courts that are at fault.

So, if everyone on death row ISN'T guilty, what does that say about your judicial system?

Although I normally disagree with everything Terminalia ever says, I have to agree with him on this one.

The people who are death row are SUPPOSED to be there because they were found guilty... this isn't supposed to be "maybe guilty" or "a bit guilty". If they are found guilty that is (if the justice system is working) because they are UNQUESTIONABLY guilty.

If this is not the case, it is the Judges that are at fault, the Jury that is at fault, the Courts that are at fault.

So, if everyone on death row ISN'T guilty, what does that say about your judicial system?
We do not have the death penalty in Germany, but human judical systems are always going to keep a slight chance of being false. Thus why each case where the death penalty is being decided, has a chance of being an innocent executed for something he/she did not do. There have been numerous cases in the US of innocents being executed. However dead is dead. Nobody cna bring them back and each innocent dieing for a judical system, is one innocent too much. I'd rather have them in prison and having the chance of being found innocent and released (with proper financial compensation for the loss of years and the humiliation), than dead and found innocent after the execution.

We do not have the death penalty in Germany, but human judical systems are always going to keep a slight chance of being false. Thus why each case where the death penalty is being decided, has a chance of being an innocent executed for something he/she did not do. There have been numerous cases in the US of innocents being executed. However dead is dead. Nobody cna bring them back and each innocent dieing for a judical system, is one innocent too much. I'd rather have them in prison and having the chance of being found innocent and released (with proper financial compensation for the loss of years and the humiliation), than dead and found innocent after the execution.

So, it's not the death penalty you are objecting to? It's the failure of the system to mete out proper justice, due to failings in it's mechanism?

Would you be happy with the death penalty if you were SURE that the perpetrator was guilty?

If not - your argument about 'innocents' being executed is nothing but a red herring.

This point of view has probably already been posted to death on this thread, but what the hell- I'm not reading through 13 pages of the same "guilty: burn in hell/guilty: but killing em makes us as bad" crap.

I oppose the death penalty, but because I'm an atheist.

"What the hell?" (no pun intended) you might ask- It is my belief that as there is no god there is a high likelihood of simple oblivion once an organism dies. Or, at the very least, just as high a likelihood of a peaceful, wonderful place for said criminal once they die, in spite of their 'evil' acts, as there is a 'hellish' place. Personally, I would rather have the security of knowing that their asses will rot in prison for at the very least, years, before they pass on to whatever place there is after this one.

[QUOTE=Gigatron]You just disqualified yourself from this discussion with such blatantly wrong statements.

Why is it blatently wrong?

Although bleeding hearts like yourself like to romanticise death row as having

a lot of innocent people on there, it is anything but.

Where do you pull such statements from? Probably not from your brain - if you even have one.

I have one.

So, it's not the death penalty you are objecting to? It's the failure of the system to mete out proper justice, due to failings in it's mechanism?

Would you be happy with the death penalty if you were SURE that the perpetrator was guilty?

If not - your argument about 'innocents' being executed is nothing but a red herring.
I oppose the Death Penalty because it is cruel and because no human judical system is flawless, resulting in the execution of innocents in countries that employ the Death Penalty. There are multiple factors that make my belief on this issue.

[QUOTE]



I have one.
I doubt it.

I oppose the Death Penalty because it is cruel and because no human judical system is flawless, resulting in the execution of innocents in countries that employ the Death Penalty. There are multiple factors that make my belief on this issue.

Why is it cruel? It could be argued that a quick, painless termination is FAR LESS cruel than multiple years of incarceration - especially since prisons seem to be such hotbeds of rape and violence.

The way I figure it, if your judicial system is not corrupt, and you only use the death-penalty for the worst violent offenders (where there is little doubt that the person is, in fact, guilty.... such as serial rapists, or killers that kill in public, etc.) then there is nothing wrong with a death penalty.

It is clean and quick. The criminal is not left exposed to abuses in prison, and will NEVER re-offend.

I'd be interested to hear a really good argument for why a death penalty is actually a bad thing... that wasn't just a christian cop-out "The sanctity of human life", or squemishness on the part of the opposition "But, execution is icky!".

Why is it cruel? It could be argued that a quick, painless termination is FAR LESS cruel than multiple years of incarceration - especially since prisons seem to be such hotbeds of rape and violence.

The way I figure it, if your judicial system is not corrupt, and you only use the death-penalty for the worst violent offenders (where there is little doubt that the person is, in fact, guilty.... such as serial rapists, or killers that kill in public, etc.) then there is nothing wrong with a death penalty.

It is clean and quick. The criminal is not left exposed to abuses in prison, and will NEVER re-offend.

I'd be interested to hear a really good argument for why a death penalty is actually a bad thing... that wasn't just a christian cop-out "The sanctity of human life", or squemishness on the part of the opposition "But, execution is icky!".
i totally agree with you. the only reason i oppose the death penalty in practice is that i don't believe our legal system is effective enough to hand down sentences with a sufficient level of certainty. in concept, i totally support the death penalty, and wish we could focus on fixing the legal system so that using the DP would be possible.

I think that Capital Punishment is very needed in the society today. If the people that are willing to take the life of another don't realize that there will be consequences then we have to show them that there will be. And the only way to properly punish them is to do to them what they did to the person they killed, no matter how grusome it may seem. If the person in question chopped someone up with an axe then the government should hire someone to chop him up with an axe.

i totally agree with you. the only reason i oppose the death penalty in practice is that i don't believe our legal system is effective enough to hand down sentences with a sufficient level of certainty. in concept, i totally support the death penalty, and wish we could focus on fixing the legal system so that using the DP would be possible.

I also think that the judicial system totally fails to uphold it's end of the arrangement.

I think that is, in roughly equal parts, political, and financial. The courts are so busy trying to please: the "Powers that Be", the "Pressure Groups" and the Media... and the lawyers are so busy writing their financial ticket on the backs of innocent/guilty verdicts... that the system has too many conflicting interests to let it work.

I pray for judicial reform.

However, because I am something of a pragmatist, and since the system works moderately well, and the 'guilty' verdict is usually based on some evidence... I find myself somewhat willing to accept it... Death Penalty and all.

If one or two innocents become martyrs to the cause of removing permenantly a number of truly wicked people, it is a sad loss, but possibly a justifiable one.

Like I say, though... I do WISH the system worked better... and that the innocent would suffer less to truly 'cure' the guilty.

I also think that the judicial system totally fails to uphold it's end of the arrangement.

I think that is, in roughly equal parts, political, and financial. The courts are so busy trying to please: the "Powers that Be", the "Pressure Groups" and the Media... and the lawyers are so busy writing their financial ticket on the backs of innocent/guilty verdicts... that the system has too many conflicting interests to let it work.

I pray for judicial reform.

However, because I am something of a pragmatist, and since the system works moderately well, and the 'guilty' verdict is usually based on some evidence... I find myself somewhat willing to accept it... Death Penalty and all.

If one or two innocents become martyrs to the cause of removing permenantly a number of truly wicked people, it is a sad loss, but possibly a justifiable one.

Like I say, though... I do WISH the system worked better... and that the innocent would suffer less to truly 'cure' the guilty.
As long as you are not affected personally by being mistakenly sentenced to death by a corrupt or racist judge and a jury influenced by outside lobby groups, then you can of course accept this. The price of the death penalty is that innocents die due to it with the only gain that convicted criminals do not take up prison space and if truly guilty, can never commit a crime again. However, if the prison system was managed properly and not used for oftentimes slave-like treatment of the incarcerated, the death penalty would not be "neccessary". Better and secure prisons could keep the imprisoned from getting out or commiting crimes in prison. After all, death penalty cases have many chances for revision, many times evidence needs to be collected and reviewed with the cost rising above life imprisonment costs. There are scientific studies (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html) in the US backing this up. The additional fact that juveniles, pregnant women or mentally retarded individuals are being sentenced to death, is unacceptable.

Have you people seen the movie "the green mile", or "the green line" or something like that (I don't know the exact name in english) with Tom Anks?

As long as you are not affected personally by being mistakenly sentenced to death by a corrupt or racist judge and a jury influenced by outside lobby groups, then you can of course accept this. The price of the death penalty is that innocents die due to it with the only gain that convicted criminals do not take up prison space and if truly guilty, can never commit a crime again. However, if the prison system was managed properly and not used for oftentimes slave-like treatment of the incarcerated, the death penalty would not be "neccessary". Better and secure prisons could keep the imprisoned from getting out or commiting crimes in prison. After all, death penalty cases have many chances for revision, many times evidence needs to be collected and reviewed with the cost rising above life imprisonment costs. There are scientific studies (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html) in the US backing this up. The additional fact that juveniles, pregnant women or mentally retarded individuals are being sentenced to death, is unacceptable.

The problem with amnesty international's data is that it is biased, and wrong.

The cost of death penalty is actually very low... the cost of all the furore around death penalty (mainly to please it's opponents) is much higher. The Amnesty data ignores the fact that most of the cost is in the 'jumping through hoops' stage. I would imagine that the actual execution itself costs pennies. Surely, the 600,000 dollars that the Amnesty page cited could be better used to fight crime, than to sustain a convict in prison for life. (You notice the Amnesty page totally ignored the costs of judicial process for life imprisonment).

Re: Juveniles... this hold true if you consider a juvenile to be anyone under 18. Not everyone does. In many places, you stop being a 'minor' at 16 - and thus become elligible for adult punishment. Amnesty neglects that fact.

Re: Mental retardation... if the retardation means that you kill people, and that you WILL kill people, how does it MATTER that this is a mental retardation? The 'cause' of the abberant behaviour isn't nearly as important as the RESULT of the behaviour. "Sorry Lady, your rape wasn't a BAD rape, it was just a 'mentally retarded' rape..."

I agree with you that they shouldn't sentence a pregnant woman to death, unless she was going to abort the foetus anyway. Otherwise, let her give birth (by Caesarian, to lower the risk to the 'baby'), and THEN execute her.

Have you people seen the movie "the green mile", or "the green line" or something like that (I don't know the exact name in english) with Tom Anks?
Or "Alkatraz" with Kevin Bacon.

...This makes me sick.
You talk like in the dark ages.
I don't know where or when you live, but I live in 2004.

We must cure, not kill.
You want to protect society, but you forget that people are the society. If you kill the people, you are killing what you are trying to protect. What does your society stand for? Saving as much money as we can? Let's kill the ill, the elders and the unemployed.

Have you ever met a mentally ill? I suppose you just don't know enough people to talk like you are.

If you want to kill anything that threaten your society, don't forget to add me on your list.

This makes me sick.
You talk like in the dark ages.
I don't know where or when you live, but I live in 2004.

We must cure, not kill.
You want to protect society, but you forget that people are the society. If you kill the people, you are killing what you are trying to protect.

Have you ever met a mentally ill? I suppose you just don't know enough people to talk like you are.

I have worked with the mentally ill, if that helps you...

My argument isn't about Tourette's syndrome... I am talking (since this is about the death penalty) about forms of mental retardation or illness that are actually harmful in society. I didn't say that we should cull the mentally ill, or that all mental illness is deserving of the death penalty.

What I said was, if mental retardation makes you a killer, how is that a defence?

From my reading of the Dark Ages, I don't believe I espouse anything like dark age values. I don't believe in torture, I don't believe in the execution of people because they are a different race or religion.

But, I do believe that the best way to stop some of the 'evil' of our society, would be to 'excise' it. Imprisonment doesn't work. Rehabilitation might work on some, but it is not THE answer, merely AN answer.

Why must we cure (not kill), when some people have already cost far more than just one life?

And I don't see a conflict between protecting society and executing the 'bad' element of that society. The serial killer or serial rapist has already 'opted-out' of the society, so does not DESERVE it's protection.

I have worked with the mentally ill, if that helps you...

My argument isn't about Tourette's syndrome... I am talking (since this is about the death penalty) about forms of mental retardation or illness that are actually harmful in society. I didn't say that we should cull the mentally ill, or that all mental illness is deserving of the death penalty.

What I said was, if mental retardation makes you a killer, how is that a defence?

From my reading of the Dark Ages, I don't believe I espouse anything like dark age values. I don't believe in torture, I don't believe in the execution of people because they are a different race or religion.

But, I do believe that the best way to stop some of the 'evil' of our society, would be to 'excise' it. Imprisonment doesn't work. Rehabilitation might work on some, but it is not THE answer, merely AN answer.

Why must we cure (not kill), when some people have already cost far more than just one life?

And I don't see a conflict between protecting society and executing the 'bad' element of that society. The serial killer or serial rapist has already 'opted-out' of the society, so does not DESERVE it's protection.
Eh.. society does not need to "protect" people, but does not have the right to *kill* people. Protection is rather from the society - tyrrany of the majority, if that rings a bell.

I have worked with the mentally ill, if that helps you...

My argument isn't about Tourette's syndrome... I am talking (since this is about the death penalty) about forms of mental retardation or illness that are actually harmful in society. I didn't say that we should cull the mentally ill, or that all mental illness is deserving of the death penalty.

What I said was, if mental retardation makes you a killer, how is that a defence?

From my reading of the Dark Ages, I don't believe I espouse anything like dark age values. I don't believe in torture, I don't believe in the execution of people because they are a different race or religion.

But, I do believe that the best way to stop some of the 'evil' of our society, would be to 'excise' it. Imprisonment doesn't work. Rehabilitation might work on some, but it is not THE answer, merely AN answer.

Why must we cure (not kill), when some people have already cost far more than just one life?

And I don't see a conflict between protecting society and executing the 'bad' element of that society. The serial killer or serial rapist has already 'opted-out' of the society, so does not DESERVE it's protection.My uncle is mentally ill. He is sckizophrenic and paranoïd. He hears voices all the day and he thinks everybody can read his mind. I don't know if you can imagine that but it is unsufferable. He has been caught by the police after spending 15 days without sleeping and after he started acting violently. He spent 11 years in mental hospital afterwards.
Now, thanks to the drugs, he is calm enough to live peacefully in the country side. He raises rabbits so as to care about something and to forget about the voices.
He was an engeneer and he is more clever than you will ever be.
I wish you could talk to him and see how clever he is. He has a great sense of humor.
As I've said in the previous post I edited, if you want to kill everything that may threaten your society, you can add me on the list because when your society starts killing my uncle, I'll start bombing the police stations.

My uncle is mentally ill. He is sckizophrenic and paranoïd. He hears voices all the day and he thinks everybody can read his mind. I don't know if you can imagine that but it is unsufferable. He has been caught by the police after spending 15 days without sleeping and after he started acting violently. He spent 11 years in mental hospital afterwards.
Now, thanks to the drugs, he is calm enough to live peacefully in the country side. He raises rabbits so as to care about something and to forget about the voices.
He was an engeneer and he is more clever than you will ever be.
I wish you could talk to him and see how clever he is. He has a great sense of humor.
As I've said in the previous post I edited, if you want to kill everything that may threaten your society, you can add me on the list because when your society starts killing my uncle, I'll start bombing the police stations.
your uncle didn't murder anybody, according to your account, so i think your "point" has already been responded to by Grave.

your uncle didn't murder anybody, according to your account, so i think your "point" has already been responded to by Grave.I said he was violent. Actually he tried to murder. This is not the point. He did it because he was mentally ill. He needs help, because he can't control himself. He didn't do it intentionally if you like.
Now I spit on those who say he deserves death.

I said he was violent. Actually he tried to murder. This is not the point. He did it because he was mentally ill. He needs help, because he can't control himself.
attempted murder does not carry the death penalty. so your example is not relavent.

attempted murder does not carry the death penalty. so your example is not relavent.
OK let say he succeeded. Would he have deserved the death penalty?

OK let say he succeeded. Would he have deserved the death penalty?
in my opinion it would depend on the circumstances. if he was being robbed and defended himself, resulting in the death of the robber, no. if his home was invaded and he shot the intruder, no. any of the same exemptions would apply to him that apply to all citizens, including self-defense.

however, if your uncle murdered another human being without one of those justifications, and if the legal system were equipped to prove that beyond any doubt, yes i believe he should be executed. if your uncle raped another human being for any reason at all i would support executing him.

the reason is that i don't support executing people merely to remove the threat to society that they present. that's a nice side effect, in my opinion, but it's not my primary reason for supporting the death penalty. even if treatment rendered your uncle "safe" for society, it would not reverse the fact that he took a life without just cause.

Eh.. society does not need to "protect" people, but does not have the right to *kill* people. Protection is rather from the society - tyrrany of the majority, if that rings a bell.

Society has a code of laws, just for the purpose of protecting people (and protecting their propety, of course).

Society does have the right to kill people. First: in the case of war. Second: where the law decrees that a killing is lawful, the society has the legal right to carry out that sentence.

Protection, re: tyranny of the majority - is an issue about the equality of peoples. A murderer doesn't fit into a specific categorisation, unless that grouping is "people that kill other people". Now - if you want to talk racial equality, sexual equality, gender equality, religious equality... then fine.

If you think that those who are working against a society need to be embraced BY that society, and treated equal TO that society, we will have to agree to disagree.

My uncle is mentally ill. He is sckizophrenic and paranoïd. He hears voices all the day and he thinks everybody can read his mind. I don't know if you can imagine that but it is unsufferable. He has been caught by the police after spending 15 days without sleeping and after he started acting violently. He spent 11 years in mental hospital afterwards.
Now, thanks to the drugs, he is calm enough to live peacefully in the country side. He raises rabbits so as to care about something and to forget about the voices.
He was an engeneer and he is more clever than you will ever be.
I wish you could talk to him and see how clever he is. He has a great sense of humor.
As I've said in the previous post I edited, if you want to kill everything that may threaten your society, you can add me on the list because when your society starts killing my uncle, I'll start bombing the police stations.

1) One of my inlaws is a paranoid schizophrenic. She has been heavily medicated for about a decade now. If she attempted to kill someone, or, even worse, suceeded... I think she deserves the same punishment as anyone else. If they sentenced her to the death penalty - because that is the result of the crime - then so be it. It is a condition, not an EXCUSE.

2) If he is no harm to his society, then he will not be executed... where did I say otherwise?

3) You have no way of knowing if he is 'more clever' than me. You are basing that assumption on favouritism and the passion of the moment.

4) Some very brilliant people have also been very dangerous people. Clever does not always equate to good. Does it, Dr Crippen?

5) An intersting viewpoint... if society sentenced your uncle to a sentence you didn't like, you would resort to a campaign of terrorist activities...?

in my opinion it would depend on the circumstances. if he was being robbed and defended himself, resulting in the death of the robber, no. if his home was invaded and he shot the intruder, no. any of the same exemptions would apply to him that apply to all citizens, including self-defense.

however, if your uncle murdered another human being without one of those justifications, and if the legal system were equipped to prove that beyond any doubt, yes i believe he should be executed. if your uncle raped another human being for any reason at all i would support executing him.

the reason is that i don't support executing people merely to remove the threat to society that they present. that's a nice side effect, in my opinion, but it's not my primary reason for supporting the death penalty. even if treatment rendered your uncle "safe" for society, it would not reverse the fact that he took a life without just cause.Let say a mechanician doesn't repair the brakes well enough and somebody dies in an accident because of that, do you support death penalty for the mechanician?

1) One of my inlaws is a paranoid schizophrenic. She has been heavily medicated for about a decade now. If she attempted to kill someone, or, even worse, suceeded... I think she deserves the same punishment as anyone else. If they sentenced her to the death penalty - because that is the result of the crime - then so be it. It is a condition, not an EXCUSE.

2) If he is no harm to his society, then he will not be executed... where did I say otherwise?I'd like you to aswer the question as well please. Let say a mechanician doesn't repair the brakes well enough and somebody dies in an accident because of that, do you support death penalty for the mechanician?

3) You have no way of knowing if he is 'more clever' than me. You are basing that assumption on favouritism and the passion of the moment.That's because there is no clear definition for cleverness. At least he is more compassionate and civilized than you.

4) Some very brilliant people have also been very dangerous people. Clever does not always equate to good. Does it, Dr Crippen?
It depends what clever means.

5) An intersting viewpoint... if society sentenced your uncle to a sentence you didn't like, you would resort to a campaign of terrorist activities...?
yes if it was the death penalty.
Same if my government restored the christian dictatorship and started killing the heretics.
There are some bounds not to cross.

Human nature decides this debate for me.
Only 2 emotions rule this debate, (as with most) Greed and Fear.
So long as greed for a certain thing (other people's money, other people's wives, etc.) is allowed to exceed the fear of consequences, the true barbarity of the human animal will rule the streets and the lives of innocents.
It is among the most important roles of civilization (civilized people) to ensure that the consequences for heinous acts are punitive enough to dissuade all but the most evil of monsters from performing those crimes.
Three hots and a cot until painless death is not persuasive. Only when the fear of consequences exceeds the greed or desire of the miscreant can the punishment truly be called just.

As recompense for their losses, the families of the victims of Timothy McVeigh watched via closed-circuit camera as he slowly and painlessly slipped into a drug-induced coma and expired. This is justice? Not in my mind.

Let say a mechanician doesn't repair the brakes well enough and somebody dies in an accident because of that, do you support death penalty for the mechanician?

Only if its proven as deliberate yes.

If not, then manslaughter.

I doubt it.

I do.

And its better than your one.

I do.

And its better than your one.
nuh-uh, is not!

yeah-huh, is so!

nuh-uh times a million!

yeah-huh times infinity!

nuh-uh times infinity plus one!

WAAAAAA, you can't come to my birthday party!

Let say a mechanician doesn't repair the brakes well enough and somebody dies in an accident because of that, do you support death penalty for the mechanician?
no, unless it were shown the mechanic knew that his error would cause death or deliberately was trying to cause an accident to happen.

and it wouldn't matter to me how crazy or schizophrenic the mechanic was, either.

incidentally, i see what comparison you are trying to make, but you realize that you're effectively asking if i think God should be killed every time somebody commits a murder; after all, isn't God supposedly the mechanic who designs each human, and isn't God the force that supposedly keeps us all running? so if we malfunction (i.e. insanity), then does that mean God should be given the death penalty?

personally, i think pretty much anything that kills God is going to be a good thing in the long run, but that's a whole other topic :).

no, unless it were shown the mechanic knew that his error would cause death or deliberately was trying to cause an accident to happen.

and it wouldn't matter to me how crazy or schizophrenic the mechanic was, either.

incidentally, i see what comparison you are trying to make, but you realize that you're effectively asking if i think God should be killed every time somebody commits a murder; after all, isn't God supposedly the mechanic who designs each human, and isn't God the force that supposedly keeps us all running? so if we malfunction (i.e. insanity), then does that mean God should be given the death penalty?

personally, i think pretty much anything that kills God is going to be a good thing in the long run, but that's a whole other topic :).What? I don't believe in god. That's not the point I was trying to make.

The point I was trying to make is that the schizophrenic paranoïd does not know what he is doing and therefore it is not deliberate. Therefore, he is in the same case as the incompetent mechanician. Therefore, by your standard, killing a mentally ill person for a crime he did not do deliberately is not acceptable. Is that a correct statement?

What? I don't believe in god. That's not the point I was trying to make.

The point I was trying to make is that the schizophrenic paranoïd does not know what he is doing and therefore it is not deliberate. Therefore, he is in the same case as the incompetent mechanician. Therefore, by your standard, killing a mentally ill person for a crime he did not do deliberately is not acceptable. Is that a correct statement?

Intention isn't the only deciding factor, surely?

If he doesn't mean to kill you, you are just as dead...

"Oh, wait, that didn't hurt... he didn't mean to do it, so that was a GOOD chainsaw through the chest..."

If the act was designed to kill, then he DID mean to do it... even if just for that moment, or just because he was confused.

Still, being bewildered shouldn't carry a death penalty... but killing someone (or raping them) BECAUSE you are bewildered shouldn't let you get away with it.

I'd like you to aswer the question as well please. Let say a mechanician doesn't repair the brakes well enough and somebody dies in an accident because of that, do you support death penalty for the mechanician?
That's because there is no clear definition for cleverness. At least he is more compassionate and civilized than you.
It depends what clever means.

yes if it was the death penalty.
Same if my government restored the christian dictatorship and started killing the heretics.
There are some bounds not to cross.

First: if the mechanic MEANS to leave the brakes unfixed, then YES, he did commit murder.

If it was an accident, he was either negligent (which COULD carry the death penalty) or it really WAS a total accident... in which case I would say he shouldn't face a death penalty.

You have no idea of the thruth of you claim, or any proof for your claim, that your uncle is more compassionate or civilized than I am. In my defence, I have never tried to kill anyone. I guess that means I'm winning.

You bought up cleverness, not me.

So - if someone you like gets 'the death penalty', even if they deserve it, you are going to riot? You are a danger to your society.

Capital punishment is a necessity for repeat offenders.
If you do not understand the first time around...

Too bad.

(and what is the point of killing a criminal if he doesn't suffer at least a little?
I say they should be spooned (with an unsharpened tablespoon, mind you) to death idealy by the victim or a close family member. Imagine the releif)
:eek: :sniper:

Capital punishment is a necessity for repeat offenders.
If you do not understand the first time around...

Too bad.

(and what is the point of killing a criminal if he doesn't suffer at least a little?
I say they should be spooned (with an unsharpened tablespoon, mind you) to death idealy by the victim or a close family member. Imagine the releif)
:eek: :sniper:

Kind of like the old testament ideas. The family of the victim got to carry out the punishment, and the punishment was 'measure for measure' with the crime.

Seems fair.

First: if the mechanic MEANS to leave the brakes unfixed, then YES, he did commit murder.

If it was an accident, he was either negligent (which COULD carry the death penalty) or it really WAS a total accident... in which case I would say he shouldn't face a death penalty.So you support the death penalty for negligence?

You have no idea of the thruth of you claim, or any proof for your claim, that your uncle is more compassionate or civilized than I am. In my defence, I have never tried to kill anyone. I guess that means I'm winning.No you loose. You are trying to kill people. Whether you do it by voting or with your knife doesn't make any difference to me. At least someone using a knife to kill someone has some kind of courage. You, you don't even have the courage to kill, but you support other people killing people.

You bought up cleverness, not me.
By my definition of cleverness (compassionate and civilized), my uncle is more than you are.

So - if someone you like gets 'the death penalty', even if they deserve it, you are going to riot? You are a danger to your society.
I'm going to riot if ANYONE get the death penalty, not just the people I like.
If it is a child or a mentally ill, I'll go even further.
Fortunately my society doesn't have the death penalty, so I'm not a danger. The people who want to restore it are however.

Kind of like the old testament ideas. The family of the victim got to carry out the punishment, and the punishment was 'measure for measure' with the crime.

Seems fair.
Like in the dark ages.

Capital punishment is a necessity for repeat offenders.
If you do not understand the first time around...

Too bad.

(and what is the point of killing a criminal if he doesn't suffer at least a little?
I say they should be spooned (with an unsharpened tablespoon, mind you) to death idealy by the victim or a close family member. Imagine the releif)
:eek: :sniper:Relief? NO, HELL NO. The crime is still done and the family is not doing any good by killing the offender.
It's not easy to keep thinking with reason when you are angry, it is a struggle. But reason is your only ally when you are at the bottom.
If you are too weak you can loose your mind and become as sick as the murderer. It is hard to forgive, it is not the easy way, but the easy way will lead you to madness. Madness is not relief.

I'm personally against the death penalty. This is becasue it's irreversible. There are far too many people falsely convicted, and I don't think it's worth executing innocent people for the sake of revenge on criminals. That said, if it was possible to be 100% sure in all cases, I would support the death penalty for people like murderers, rapists and terrorists. These sort of people don't deserve to live and I would support their execution if there was the 100% thing.

Killing Is Wrong! (http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html)

Killing Is Wrong! (http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html)
Hahaha :D That was brilliant!

Aaahhahahahaaa so true. Thanks!

Some thoughts on the matter:

People are both good and bad. No one is only good or only bad.

Society is made of said People, so expecting everyone in a society to be only good is both unreasonable and unrealistic. Yet one of Society's goals is to protect, not its people from harm, but the ideal of Good within its people. To this end we creates means to identify Bad ("crime"), hunt it down and excise it (the philosophy of justice, the legal system, jail, financial penalities, capital punishment, etc.) while allowing People to go on being what and who they are ("free" to do good or bad), all of which is very good for Economy. Bully on Society!

Killing humans is distasteful. So is vengeance. So is living outside of society. In order to live within our society and avoid the Machine of Justice, people tend to make extra effort to show everyone their good side and hide the bad things they do. Society reflects this same need when it hides away Bad in prisons, where no one has to see it. Trouble is, the people that society is hiding away are People, who are both good and bad. No one is only good or only bad. To look at people who do bad as Criminals is to see the only-Bad. But it's not crime we are locking away, it's us. It's People. What society does to other people = what we do to us. How society chooses to treat these people = how we treat us. Not "them".

I do not support the death penalty, and I think it is grossly over-used in the United States. I would support other means of corporal punishment as part of rehabilitation. I do support the idea of rehabilitation, very much so, as it is a means of dealing with the problem rather than avoiding (excising) it. I also support (in spirit and financially) my own society's means of dealing with problems before those problems create "Criminals" --youth shelters, homes for those living in poverty, drug rehabilitation centres, etc.

So you support the death penalty for negligence?
No you loose. You are trying to kill people. Whether you do it by voting or with your knife doesn't make any difference to me. At least someone using a knife to kill someone has some kind of courage. You, you don't even have the courage to kill, but you support other people killing people.
By my definition of cleverness (compassionate and civilized), my uncle is more than you are.

I'm going to riot if ANYONE get the death penalty, not just the people I like.
If it is a child or a mentally ill, I'll go even further.
Fortunately my society doesn't have the death penalty, so I'm not a danger. The people who want to restore it are however.

I would be willing to support the possible implementation of a death penalty for CRIMINAL negligence, yes. If someone puts another life at risk willingly, because they can't be bothered to do their job properly, then what they did was tantamount to murder.

So, I am not brave because I haven't murdered anyone... and I would be brave, in your eyes, if I killed someone with a knife. You are a strange person....

Cleverness is not compassion or civility. Your definition is void.

You still have no evidence to say that your uncle (who, you have admitted is an attempted-murderer) is more civilised, compassionate, clever... etc than I am. You are allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.

I don't 'support killing other people' as a random act. I do think that it is sometimes the best option in the case of social hazards.

Which nation do you mean, when you talk of children being executed? If you eman America (and I assume you do) then you are wrong... since they must be 16 to face execution, and sixteen is the age of majority... so they are not children in the eyes of the law.

Finally, since many nations DO have the death penalty, are you rioting right now? Or do they only 'count' if they are from your country?

Some thoughts on the matter:

People are both good and bad. No one is only good or only bad.

Society is made of said People, so expecting everyone in a society to be only good is both unreasonable and unrealistic. Yet one of Society's goals is to protect, not its people from harm, but the ideal of Good within its people. To this end we creates means to identify Bad ("crime"), hunt it down and excise it (the philosophy of justice, the legal system, jail, financial penalities, capital punishment, etc.) while allowing People to go on being what and who they are ("free" to do good or bad), all of which is very good for Economy. Bully on Society!

Killing humans is distasteful. So is vengeance. So is living outside of society. In order to live within our society and avoid the Machine of Justice, people tend to make extra effort to show everyone their good side and hide the bad things they do. Society reflects this same need when it hides away Bad in prisons, where no one has to see it. Trouble is, the people that society is hiding away are People, who are both good and bad. No one is only good or only bad. To look at people who do bad as Criminals is to see the only-Bad. But it's not crime we are locking away, it's us. It's People. What society does to other people = what we do to us. How society chooses to treat these people = how we treat us. Not "them".

I do not support the death penalty, and I think it is grossly over-used in the United States. I would support other means of capital punishment as part of rehabilitation. I do support the idea of rehabilitation, very much so, as it is a means of dealing with the problem rather than avoiding (excising) it. I also support (in spirit and financially) my own society's means of dealing with problems before those problems create "Criminals" --youth shelters, homes for those living in poverty, drug rehabilitation centres, etc.

Well said. I thought this was magnificent.

I utterly agree with you, except that I think excision is sometimes necessary... other than that, excellent... especially the last sentence:

I also support (in spirit and financially) my own society's means of dealing with problems before those problems create "Criminals" --youth shelters, homes for those living in poverty, drug rehabilitation centres, etc.

nuh-uh, is not!

yeah-huh, is so!

nuh-uh times a million!

yeah-huh times infinity!

nuh-uh times infinity plus one!

WAAAAAA, you can't come to my birthday party!

lol Bottles lost it. :)

Killing Is Wrong! (http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html)

What if someone in your family or a friend is being attacked by a mugger with

a knife and you killed this mugger somehow, to protect them, is killing wrong then?

Would you just let your family member or friend die just to protect your high

moral ground?

If so your inadvertently supporting killing.

Or are you just incredibly selfish, or maybe just someone who uses this

philosphey to hide from their own cowardice?

You can all argue about human rights, but if a man murdered my entire family, I'd want him dead.

I am of the opinion that if you take a life (thus removing the victim's rights), your rights are waived.

What if someone in your family or a friend is being attacked by a mugger with

a knife and you killed this mugger somehow, to protect them, is killing wrong then?

Would you just let your family member or friend die just to protect your high

moral ground?

Please don't confuse the death penalty with self defense.

I'm all in favour, but only when you can *prove* with certainty that they were guilty. Obviously, for serious crimes like rape, murder, paedophilia etc - though I believe less serious crimes should be more heavily punished than they currently are here in the UK ("Oh, you committed burglary? You need rehabilitation, love! We'll send you on a program to California so you can see how good life can be!" GRRRRR").

Prisoners bang on about their human rights. FUCK their human rights. They gave up the said rights the moment they took away someone else's.

lol Bottles lost it. :)
...and with an eardrum-bursting WOOOOOOOOSH, the point sails over Terminalia's head.

I would be willing to support the possible implementation of a death penalty for CRIMINAL negligence, yes. If someone puts another life at risk willingly, because they can't be bothered to do their job properly, then what they did was tantamount to murder.In the case of mentally ill people, it is not willingly.
Would you support the death penalty for the engeneers who worked on the Titanic?

So, I am not brave because I haven't murdered anyone... and I would be brave, in your eyes, if I killed someone with a knife. You are a strange person....
You have murdered many people. Supporting politicians to kill people is the same as killing them, just a weak and coward way to do it actually.
I have more respect for those who actually do it with a knife, although they are still assholes.
For instance, I respect those who were on the plane to suicide themselves on a building more than Ossama ben laden who ordered them to do it. Both are assholes, but Ossama is the greatest one.

Cleverness is not compassion or civility. Your definition is void.
Whatever.

You still have no evidence to say that your uncle (who, you have admitted is an attempted-murderer) is more civilised, compassionate, clever... etc than I am. You are allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.
No I'm not.
You support the death penalty, he doesn't. He is therefore more compassionate and civilized than you are.

I don't 'support killing other people' as a random act. I do think that it is sometimes the best option in the case of social hazards.
Come on. It is only revenge and emotional driven barbary. Of course it is not necessary. How many countries don't have it?

Which nation do you mean, when you talk of children being executed? If you eman America (and I assume you do) then you are wrong... since they must be 16 to face execution, and sixteen is the age of majority... so they are not children in the eyes of the law.I was not talking about the US. I was talking about killing children and mentally ill people. Everything is not about the US.

Finally, since many nations DO have the death penalty, are you rioting right now? Or do they only 'count' if they are from your country?
I'm boycotting products from countries still applying the death penalty.
Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, Congo, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, some states of the USA.

So you support the death penalty for negligence?
No you loose. You are trying to kill people. Whether you do it by voting or with your knife doesn't make any difference to me. At least someone using a knife to kill someone has some kind of courage. You, you don't even have the courage to kill, but you support other people killing people.
By my definition of cleverness (compassionate and civilized), my uncle is more than you are.

you also support killing, you realize; you support that i have the right to kill somebody who is brutally attacking me, if it is necessary for my self-defense. i'm willing to bet that you would support the right of a parent to shoot somebody who was trying to hurt or kill their child. everybody supports killing in certain situations, it's just a matter of which situations they believe are justified. insulting those who don't hold your opinion doesn't help your case at all.

also, it doesn't take courage to be a murderer, believe me; i have worked with convicted and confessed murderers, and most of them are the most amazing cowards you will ever meet. to try to draw a parallel between a murderer and a person who supports legalized executions is only going to make you look foolish, because the one is a person who believes their personal wants are more important than the law and the other is a person who believes that protection of the rights of the public (through the rule of law) is paramount, and is more important than the selfish wants of a single person.

the person who supports the death penalty is not advocating the capricious murder of other citizens, they are supporting what they believe is a just punishment for those who take away the most important freedoms of their fellow citizens...you can dislike it, you can protest it, and you can be as upset about it as you please, but if you try to imply that supporting the death penalty is tantamount to murder then you have given up your right to complain when people laugh at you or decide not to respect your own views on the subject.

Some of the replies on here are very harsh. I wonder why? lol... Anyways, I'm not for capital punishment, but resolutions and regulations passed haven't stopped anyone from completing the gruesome acts either. Persuasion to do so by any member state of any organization could recommend that they support a gruesome act. However, within the State that I reside, I don't believe the death penalty is an option.

You can all argue about human rights, but if a man murdered my entire family, I'd want him dead.

I am of the opinion that if you take a life (thus removing the victim's rights), your rights are waived.
Then you are as ill as the man who did it.
You don't know why he did it. Maybe his father and his mother were murdered in front of him when he was young, then he lost some of his humanity. Now he is murdering people because he is sick.
Don't let the sickness propagate. If you are too weak, he can contaminate you and you can become as sick as he is.
You have to struggle and fight anger and hate. This is your only enemy.

you also support killing, you realize; you support that i have the right to kill somebody who is brutally attacking me, if it is necessary for my self-defense. i'm willing to bet that you would support the right of a parent to shoot somebody who was trying to hurt or kill their child. everybody supports killing in certain situations, it's just a matter of which situations they believe are justified. insulting those who don't hold your opinion doesn't help your case at all.

also, it doesn't take courage to be a murderer, believe me; i have worked with convicted and confessed murderers, and most of them are the most amazing cowards you will ever meet. to try to draw a parallel between a murderer and a person who supports legalized executions is only going to make you look foolish, because the one is a person who believes their personal wants are more important than the law and the other is a person who believes that protection of the rights of the public (through the rule of law) is paramount, and is more important than the selfish wants of a single person.

the person who supports the death penalty is not advocating the capricious murder of other citizens, they are supporting what they believe is a just punishment for those who take away the most important freedoms of their fellow citizens...you can dislike it, you can protest it, and you can be as upset about it as you please, but if you try to imply that supporting the death penalty is tantamount to murder then you have given up your right to complain when people laugh at you or decide not to respect your own views on the subject.There are some communication problems it seems.
When did I compare those who support the death penalty with murderers?

I just compared the act of killing with a knife to the act of supporting someone to kill.

There are some communication problems it seems.
When did I compare those who support the death penalty with murderers?
in reference to a pro-death penalty player:

"No you loose. You are trying to kill people. Whether you do it by voting or with your knife doesn't make any difference to me. At least someone using a knife to kill someone has some kind of courage. You, you don't even have the courage to kill, but you support other people killing people."

in reference to a pro-death penalty player:

"No you loose. You are trying to kill people. Whether you do it by voting or with your knife doesn't make any difference to me. At least someone using a knife to kill someone has some kind of courage. You, you don't even have the courage to kill, but you support other people killing people."Is killing with a knife murder?

Is killing with a knife murder?
oh give me a break. the back-pedalling is starting to tangle the gears, honey.

oh give me a break. the back-pedalling is starting to tangle the gears, honey.We really have a communication problem.
If killing with a knife was murder, then killing with an electric chair would be murder as well.
What I said is that I respect more those who apply themselve the death penalty than those who just support it.

I don't think anything gives one person the right to take the life of another, no matter what. There are always alternatives. After all you're not even really punishing the person who is killed, or attempting too right them, you're just getting some lynch mob 'justice' and a sense of perverse self satisfaction. And what about if you get it wrong? Don't you deserve to die for the murder of an 'innocent'? I'm sure the victims family will think so.

EXACTLY!!!!!
any killing at all is unfair! the death penalty chould be outlawed!!!!!!

We really have a communication problem.
If killing with a knife was murder, then killing with an electric chair would be murder as well.

communication problem? no kidding...

if eating cream pie with a spoon is eating desert, then eating beef soup with a spoon is also eating desert. sorry honey, but it just ain't so. murder isn't defined by the impliment being used, it is defined by the motive for the act...if i kill somebody in self-defense, it doesn't matter if i used a knife, electric chair, or Wonky Widget, it's still not murder. if i decide that i want to see what it feels like to kill a man, just for the hell of it, then i will be committing murder no matter what i use to end his life.

What I said is that I respect more those who apply themselve the death penalty than those who just support it.
so you believe that taking a knife and killing somebody, outside the context of self-defense, war, or the other legal justifications, is NOT murder? you believe that my decision to knife somebody because i personally believe they deserve death is NOT murder? you believe that my decision to kill somebody because of my opinion of them is MORE justified than if a court of law convicts and sentences them for a crime?

you claim that you never compared death-penalty supporters to murder, so i guess you must believe that knifing a stranger on the street for fun isn't murder, huh?

or are you saying you respect a murderer MORE than a non-murderer?

i don't support my personal right to end human life simply because i think it's the right thing to do. i don't support anybody else's right to make that choice on their own. what i DO support is the implimentation of a system of evidence, documentation, proof, and law, one which has the authority to dispense punishment for violations of the social order as set down in those laws. i don't believe that i personally have the right to confiscate the property of somebody who defrauds me, since that would be theft, but i believe a civil claims court has the right to impose a fine or confiscate the property of the person who has defrauded me; there is a huge difference, and i don't recommend you advertise your failure to grasp it...especially not to law enforcement officers.

Well, looking back over the US executions by Lethal Injection, most of the problems seem to have been caused by long-term drug addiction taking a destructive toll on the veins of the 'criminal'. I don't really see that that is a failing on the part of the system.

In two of the cases where vein location was a major problem, the criminal helped the executioner find a suitable vein, and was 'rewarded' by a fairly quick demise.

Some people do have allergic reactions to the drug, and can be sent into spasms... but this doesn't necessarily mean they are feeling pain... and I would guess it's hard to find out if you are allergic to LETHAL injections before the fact.

Gacy's execution was delayed by a stopped-up tube, which was apparently a technical error.

As far as I can tell, unless someone has been messing with the order of the chemicals, and I'm not sure it is open to tampering... the chemical feed is automatic... starting with a saline 'leader', followed by Sodium Thiopental (the anaesthetic), follwed by Pancuronium Bromide (the paralysing agent), and finally Pottasium Chloride (to stop the heart).



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=479

It is automatic now, well, seems I'm no longer up to date :).
If thats the case... umm well... dunno what to say...