NationStates Jolt Archive

Do we really need a death penalty? It dosn't seem to deteer murder so why do we have it? I think it needs to go, and the appeals prosess eats up tax payers money.

Maybe I'm just a cruel liberal, but INJECT THE BASTARD WITH ALL THE POISON YOU GOT!

It would be a wonderful deterent if we could actually kill people. For f's sake limit the appeals to 3 appeals over 3 years. The minute your last appeal fails...goodnight. Also let's bring back public hangings, that'll keep these punks flying right. Let's also bring back public floggings for all sorts of crimes.

Maybe I'm just a cruel liberal, but INJECT THE BASTARD WITH ALL THE POISON YOU GOT!
Most Liberals find the Death Penalty evil.

Most Liberals find the Death Penalty evil.
Yeah, that's why I've been labeled as a cruel liberal.

Yeah, that's why I've been labeled as a cruel liberal.


Sinister, but not cruel. That would be an oxymoron. Maybe you are secretly an evil, crazed, hopped up, cruel republican.

conditonal:
I think that reality tv would be a far better use, think about it: several people with nothing to lose, and a shot at freedom on their own private island. could get messy, but would beat the pants off survivor.

I am for the death penalty because high crimes should be punished in the highest form. If anything, a removal of the death penalty entirely might not discourage murders. Peaoply might think, "They might convict me, but the most I'll get is life!"

Sinister, but not cruel. That would be an oxymoron. Maybe you are secretly an evil, crazed, hopped up, cruel republican.
Wait...a cruel republican would be like a facist right?

Wouldn't being a cruel liberal make me a nice conservative?

I am for the death penalty because high crimes should be punished in the highest form. If anything, a removal of the death penalty entirely might not discourage murders. Peaoply might think, "They might convict me, but the most I'll get is life!"

Ridiculous, and has not happened anywhere where capital punishment has been banned, ie. the majority of countries in the world.

Ridiculous, and has not happened anywhere where capital punishment has been banned, ie. the majority of countries in the world.

The murder rate went up in the UK, and has been steadily increasing, since hanging was abolished.

Three cheers for Mr. Pricky I say.

I like George Carlin's view on punishing criminals. Fence off a couple of rectangular states and let 'em take care of themselves. Although I would like more than a couple hundred dollars for my trouble.

The trick is to leave the death penalty for instances where there's just absolutely no way it can't be true, which is rare, and in those cases, make appeals damnably hard. Unfortunately, it would get corrupted so damned fast...

Normally, life in prison should be how it goes. The problem with prisons is that they're too often -kind-, instead of just reasonably humane.

Giving prisoners clean quarters and food that doesn't taste like urine=Okay.
Giving prisoners free cable, gym use, and easily criminally-used education (Chemistry, psychology, etc -- english, history, etc are fine)=Hell no.

Do NOT give them more tools to do crime with, and do NOT give them costly entertainment. Prison is supposed to -suck-.

Ridiculous, and has not happened anywhere where capital punishment has been banned, ie. the majority of countries in the world.

I live in New Zealand and when ever we get someone whose murdered there kids or something like that the most the person gets is twenty years. It would be ok if they actually spent their whole life in jail but most of the time they seem to appeal after 15 years.

I think death would be a great penalty to have here

Killing them is allowing them to take the easy way out. Keep them locked up for life without parole. No visitation or anything. That, my friends (or enemies! :o), is much, much more harsh than just killing them. Once they're dead, they don't have to think about what they've done.

Deterrence is not the point. The point is punishment--the subhuman murderers, thieves, trespassers, rapists, thieves, burglars, batterers, muggers, defrauders, assaulters, and robbers deserve nothing less than prolonged severe torture followed by certain painful death. Therefore, that is precisely what they should get. Anything else makes for a barbaric, uncivilized society.

Justice is all that matters. Not deterrence, not rehabilitation, not education. Simply justice--everyone gets what he deserves.

Deterrence is not the point. The point is punishment--the subhuman murderers, thieves, trespassers, rapists, thieves, burglars, batterers, muggers, defrauders, assaulters, and robbers deserve nothing less than prolonged severe torture followed by certain painful death. Therefore, that is precisely what they should get. Anything else makes for a barbaric, uncivilized society.

Justice is all that matters. Not deterrence, not rehabilitation, not education. Simply justice--everyone gets what he deserves.

Justice != vengence.

Of course they should keep the death penalty, I aspire at achieving that someday.

Killing them is allowing them to take the easy way out. Keep them locked up for life without parole. No visitation or anything. That, my friends (or enemies! :o), is much, much more harsh than just killing them. Once they're dead, they don't have to think about what they've done.

That's absolutely my view on that topic, give them livelong prison that sucks, without parole, that is punishment. Killing them because they killed someone else is vengance (?sp?).

Funny enough from what I've reading here, it's almost everywhere the same, once supporters of the death penality get their crime deterrent argument proven wrong, they say it's justice, but that sanctioned murder makes us not any better than them seems to slip their minds.

but that sanctioned murder makes us not any better than them seems to slip their minds.
And we have an obligation to be better why? For the criminals to demand it would be hypocritical, yes?
Also, – firstly, the claims that the death penalty doesn’t deter criminals is based on dodgy statistics. Sure, places with the death penalty tend to have high crime rates: that’s why they implemented the death penalty. Within a nation, when the death penalty is introduced, crime goes down. (And visa versa).

As for whether they deserve it – um, who cares? Surely the well being of law abiding citizens should be a higher priority? Both the sob stories about how they couldn’t help themselves and the howls for vengeance are a problem, as they both treat the criminal as more important than the victim.

Actually, having a psych scan on the victims of rape etc to determine on a case by case basis whether killing the rapist would help the victim heal makes more sense than an arbitrary punishment.

The murder rate went up in the UK, and has been steadily increasing, since hanging was abolished.

Three cheers for Mr. Pricky I say.

That is perhaps merely proportional to the rise in population in addition to the worst excesses of the Thatcher years where unemployment and deterrent sentencing policies led to a massive increase in crime.
If anything, overall crime is decreasing at this moment in time in the UK, and the perception that it has been increasing is the effect of media shock; i.e reaction to Harold Shipman, Soham etc... as well as the bias of other parties like the Conservative party.

To note, I am not with Labour, I cannot stand their leader and his war or their borderline-fascist ID-card policies. I am a Liberal Socialist so I in effect vote Liberal Democrat....

If murder is such a bad thing, then why is it (sometimes) legal in 36 states?

conditonal:
I think that reality tv would be a far better use, think about it: several people with nothing to lose, and a shot at freedom on their own private island. could get messy, but would beat the pants off survivor.
Ever read The Running Man?

and, what exactly gives us the right to decide who dies and, who lives? Revenge is not justice, death is not a deterrant. No one had the right to take the life of another, we should be better than they are and, if we aren't it makes us hypocrites for doingto them what they are being puinished for. Yo use a cliche, an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.

The death penalty has become a joke. It all began when they got rid of the electric chair. Maybe it was not as humane as lethal injection (and even that's debatable), but a gurney just doesn't have the same grandeur. Think of all the old gangster movies. Remember James Cagney in "Angels With Dirty Faces"? The Chair was always the way they went! The Chair symbolizes old-fashioned, American justice! (Which was not always a good thing--think of Sacco and Vanzetti, Bruno Hauptmann, the Rosenbergs...)
Then there's the lengthy appeals process. By the time somebody does finally get the Big Squirt, they're usually too old to remember what the hell it was they did, anyhow.
Another thing to consider is which crimes get the death penalty. Here in Pennsylvania, we recently had a couple who starved their 4-year-old daughter to death. The mom got life without parole because she confessed, so they didn't want to give the dad a stiffer sentence, so he got life, too. How was their crime any better than what Scott Peterson did?
So, all in all, I'm thinking that maybe it's time for the death penalty to go. At least until someone else starves a 4-year-old to death....

Deterrence is not the point. The point is punishment--the subhuman murderers, thieves, trespassers, rapists, thieves, burglars, batterers, muggers, defrauders, assaulters, and robbers deserve nothing less than prolonged severe torture followed by certain painful death. Therefore, that is precisely what they should get. Anything else makes for a barbaric, uncivilized society.

Justice is all that matters. Not deterrence, not rehabilitation, not education. Simply justice--everyone gets what he deserves.
I am interested how you can say that a society which kills its own citizens after torturing them as a punishment is the only civilised society and that all others are barbaric. By logical extension of this argument all the worlds major religions preach barbaric and uncivilised messages, the UN promotes barbarism and the EU and US are uncivilised and barbaric. Basically for you a civilised state is the opposite to the generally accepted definition?

In the British Virgin Islands
if you kill somebody, somebody will kill you,
if you shoot someone to death someone will shoot you to death,
if you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you do death,
if you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death.

They have one of the lowest murder rates oround.

And we have an obligation to be better why?

A little something called the moral high ground, perhaps? A state that murders cannot be justified in punishing its citizens for murder. That's simple hypocrisy.

In the British Virgin Islands
if you kill somebody, somebody will kill you,
if you shoot someone to death someone will shoot you to death,
if you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you do death,
if you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death.

They have one of the lowest murder rates oround.

If you rape someone, will someone rape you?

Capital punishment is fully in line with Catholic Church doctrine.
It is necessary as part of the state.

Capital punishment is fully in line with Catholic Church doctrine.
It is necessary as part of the state.

Because clearly state policy ought to have everything to do with Catholic Church doctrine, and nothing whatsoever to do with justice, right?

Capital punishment is fully in line with Catholic Church doctrine.
It is necessary as part of the state.
You gotta be kidding me - you advocate it as a way to keep people in line in your authoritarian government?!

Because clearly state policy ought to have everything to do with Catholic Church doctrine, and nothing whatsoever to do with justice, right?
The Catholic Church is the sole purveyor of justice.

The Catholic Church is the sole purveyor of justice.

Oh, you're one of those. Alright, I'll just move along then.

The Catholic Church is the sole purveyor of justice.
From now on I'm just gonna ignore this guy. He's either just purposely being an ass or completely ignorant/uncaring of other people's beliefs.

I oppose the death penalty. Whenever you listen to a victim or victim's family get interviewed who wants a criminal put to death, they're just dripping with hate. They say the want "justice," but all they really want is vengeance.

On a side note, anybody from Pennsylvania here that knows what happened with George Banks? Did they execute him or not? Last I heard it was sent back down to another court to re-hear testimony on his competence.

About death penalty.

I am glad to say: "No civilized country or state in the world got the death penalty" :)

I live in Denmark (Europe if you did not know it), and I have come to this conclusion: Some people are so stupid and arrogant they only seem to care about a how to carry out harsh justice then followed by swift revenge. Who told these people that revenge is justice and death penalty is a deterrant.

Are there any proof that Death penalty works better than a ordinary prison sentence? ARE THERE ANY PROOF??!

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Justice != vengence.

Justice means that everyone gets what he or she deserves.

What I have described above is precisely what the violent non-humans deserve.

conditonal:
I think that reality tv would be a far better use, think about it: several people with nothing to lose, and a shot at freedom on their own private island. could get messy, but would beat the pants off survivor.


www.stickdeath.com

Check out Stick Death survivor.

I am interested how you can say that a society which kills its own citizens after torturing them as a punishment is the only civilised society
I'm not. To be a citizen requires that one be a human being--murderers, rapists, thieves, trespassers, vandals, and muggers are NOT human.
major religions preach barbaric and uncivilised messages, the UN promotes barbarism and the EU and US are uncivilised and barbaric.
Pretty much--if they all hold that there is any higher virtue than justice.
Basically for you a civilised state is the opposite to the generally accepted definition?
If the generally accepted definition of civilization is one that holds that there is a higher virtue of justice, then yes, the generally-accepted definition is objectively incorrect.

Justice means that everyone gets what he or she deserves.

What I have described above is precisely what the violent non-humans deserve.

The U.S. justice system is not good enough at making determinations of guilt to justify giving it the power to take a person's life. A single innocent life is too high a price to pay, and when we've got imperfect human beings making determinations of guilt, it's bound to happen eventually if it hasn't already.

About death penalty.

I am glad to say: "No civilized country or state in the world got the death penalty" :)
Then you say wrong. The absence of the death penalty in a country means precisely that that country is barbaric. Why? Because it means that that country holds that there is a higher virtue than justice--a barbaric and objectively incorrect notion.

Are there any proof that Death penalty works better than a ordinary prison sentence?

"Working" is not the point. Deterrence and rehabilitation are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is justice--and in this case justice means long and horrible punishment.

The U.S. justice system is not good enough at making determinations of guilt to justify giving it the power to take a person's life. A single innocent life is too high a price to pay, and when we've got imperfect human beings making determinations of guilt, it's bound to happen eventually if it hasn't already.

That's beside the point. I'm arguing principle--if someone actually did commit such an act, he deserves the punishment I have described. How we can know for sure whether or not he did commit such an act is a completely different issue, and totally irrelevant to the moral principle of execution in and of itself.

I'm not. To be a citizen requires that one be a human being--murderers, rapists, thieves, trespassers, vandals, and muggers are NOT human.

Define human being, and show that murderers, rapists, thieves, trespassers, vandals, and muggers do not fit the definition.

Also, if trespassers are not human, is it justifiable for the government to execute them as well?

Define human being, and show that murderers, rapists, thieves, trespassers, vandals, and muggers do not fit the definition.
There is more to being a human being than bare physical attributes. Think about it. Compared to most beasts, you are not particularly large, you don't have sharp claws or long teeth, and your strength and speed aren't anything to shout about, either. So what is it, then, that sets you apart from lesser beings? Your ability to reason! Man properly deals with man not by brute force but by reasoned persuasion, in accordance with his nature--and even when dealing with nature, which MUST ultimately be dealt with by physical force (after all, if I went up to a tree and tried to persuade it to fall down so I could build a house in its place, you would quite justifiably call me insane), man still uses reason to decide first what it is he wants to do (and whether he wants to do it), and second how he intends to go about accomplishing it. Thus, when a man rejects reason as his means of apprehending the world around him in favor of brute force, he has rejected his very nature--the very quality that makes him human; thus, he ceases to be human.

Also, if trespassers are not human, is it justifiable for the government to execute them as well?
You bet your ass it is!

1. we need execution on pay per view; keep it Roman in style.

2.Public execution is valid due to the fact that it will set a brutal example of how our society deals with the refuse of mankind.

3. We are in favor of going back to medieval practices as far as torture and execution are concerned.

4. We believe that we are animals..yes we humans are animals. We behave like them so much it is a waste of time to argue differently.

5. We acknowledge that we are on top of the food chain due to our ability to communicate on a much higher level than all other known animals yet we are biologically still animals and cannot go against scientific nature.

6. There will always be war, famine, and a struggle between the have and have nots..hence nature.(watch the discovery channel to understand)

7. We are not nearly as evolved as we would like to so haughtily believe.

8. Vengence in certain circumstances is neccesary, otherwise you bow out to everything that happens to you and for that you have no sense of principle

9. We imagine that this will recieve many a foul reply and look forward the the arrival of logical dispute or refutation.

-end of transmission_____

I think THIS (http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html) says it better then any of us could.

I think THIS (http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html) says it better then any of us could.

I thought you quit.

Demons walk this world. There is darkness within all of us, but we choose to contain it and that makes us human. They spread it, they breed it. It is our nature to defeat these demons, to slay them, because their every action is a harm to those we love. Those that cross my path shall not remain.
I have been given the divine right by whatever creation you believe in to guard my love and my offspring. Evolution has left its mark in creatures that they are to defend their genes and their suitability. All of civilization is a banding together for mutual support of this cause. When the lion stalks the baby zebra, the mother zebra destroys it with a swift kick. For me to do less for my offspring is an insult, for then I would care less for my child than even a beast of the earth.
Because I will kill to defend my family, I will not condemn others who do.
Because we live in a civilization, we must prove that this death was justified.
Thus we have trials, and it can be publically accepted and agreed upon that this action is just, and that the death of this individual makes all our children safer.
It is not a matter of justice, or vengeance, or anger, or rage. It is love. We care enough for our children to accept this burden, and the darkness that taints us should we kill a human and not a demon. So that our children may move closer to the light.
Now imagine the alternative.
Killers are not destroyed, but imprisoned. Their lives are prolonged. Their evil continues to spread. Because there is no closure, the victims continue to live in fear. Because good men must now pay the weight of this one who killed, yet more are pained while the evil will never again have to worry about food or shelter, or access to medical care. In the worst of cases, he lives a far more comfortable life than his victims. He has profited by this murder.
They make appeals, which at the very best are merely a waste of time and money that harm the public and slow the wheels of justice. At the worst, they release a demon back into the populace, hardened by his experience, trained by his efforts and collaberation and discussion with other demons. All this time, effort, money, and fear... saved via a simple bullet administered by a judge seconds after the reading of a verdict. A verdict which mandates that any doubt be unreasonable, and even that unreasonable doubt must not have the weight of a shadow.

I thought you quit.


I did.. it's been what? 2 weeks? I never said how long I was quitting for ;)

Do you know what makes me sick...

In louisiana, we are a death peanalty state......while there was a shortage of flu vaccines.....all of the prisoners (including those on death row) got their flu shots....my grandmother did not get hers.....she died last week of the flu.....

These bastards need to be limited to 3 appeals in 3 years....and i think that lethal injection is WAY too humane for someoen that tortured, raped, and killed innocent women (our local serial killer derrick todd lee).....i thin kthe punishment should be fit for the crime.....the woman that drowned her 3 kids should be brought near death by drowning twice, resecutated both those times...then drowned a third time.....people who systematically tortured their vitims should be dealt with the same way.....death doesn't bother these people.....murderurs and rapists cannot be reconditioned...evil is evil no matter what way you slice it....

Life in prison is seldom life anymore.....life in prison is a walk in the park now....most of those people have better accomidations than than poverty-stricken people......they have cable, gyms, free educaiton, etc......forget wasting tax payer money on reconditioning...or keeping poeple alive while on death row...kill them and be done with it....

I did.. it's been what? 2 weeks? I never said how long I was quitting for ;)
Steph, seriously, your 3rd announcement that you quit is a bit much. I don't think we're all going to take you seriously when life beckons and you must go away forever for real.

Don't complain when you get 20 good-bye's from n00bs on your 4th one (or 5th, I've lost count)

All i know is i dont want half of my tax money paying for a piece of crap to live
behind bars.
why should rapists and murders have a meal a day?
they have goddamn roof over their heads

Steph, seriously, your 3rd announcement that you quit is a bit much. I don't think we're all going to take you seriously when life beckons and you must go away forever for real.

Don't complain when you get 20 good-bye's from n00bs on your 4th one (or 5th, I've lost count)

You misunderstand.. I quit modding.. I'm still not modding. I might again one day. But I'm not right now. I'm just posting as a player like the rest of you. Don't be such a cruel liberal.. heh :D

I did.. it's been what? 2 weeks? I never said how long I was quitting for ;)

Hey there stranger...*smiles*

Good to see you ride back into town!

Hey there stranger...*smiles*

Good to see you ride back into town!

Hey you, good to see you, you were always one of the good ones' :)

These bastards need to be limited to 3 appeals in 3 years....

Right. Let's get rid of a few of the safeguards preventing the wrongly convicted from being executed.

people who systematically tortured their vitims should be dealt with the same way.....

...evil is evil no matter what way you slice it....

The irony is killing me.

Life in prison is seldom life anymore.....life in prison is a walk in the park now....most of those people have better accomidations than than poverty-stricken people......they have cable, gyms, free educaiton, etc......

...and a big guy to sodomize them twice a day! What more could a prisoner ask for?

forget wasting tax payer money on reconditioning...or keeping poeple alive while on death row...kill them and be done with it....

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you absolutely insist on keeping execution, you'd better spend whatever it takes to ensure that only the guilty are put to death.

All i know is i dont want half of my tax money paying for a piece of crap to live
behind bars.
why should rapists and murders have a meal a day?
they have goddamn roof over their heads

You'd rather have even more tax money paying for a death sentence? Okay, but some of us don't see things that way.

do it the good old fashined way...

Rope....$5.00

Gallows.....$100.00

black hood.....$4.00

Knowing it's done and you instill fear in the hearts of others who wish to commit the same crimes.........Priceless

You'd rather have even more tax money paying for a death sentence? Okay, but some of us don't see things that way.
Well....it IS easier to just abort all court hearings and just push bullets into their skulls. But that's not the "civilized" way now is it?

Well....it IS easier to just abort all court hearings and just push bullets into their skulls. But that's not the "civilized" way now is it?

Well, thankfully it's not the way we do things in this country. Of course, there seem to be plenty of people in this thread who wouldn't mind making America a little more like Yemen.

I did.. it's been what? 2 weeks? I never said how long I was quitting for ;)

Well welcome back. After all you are, by far and away, the hottest mod.

:fluffle:


I never said that.

sanctioned murder makes us not any better than them.

I've never understood this argument.

If state-sanctioned murder is immoral, than surely state-sanctioned kidnapping and imprisonment is immoral.

If someone took a person and locked them in a room for 10 years they would be a criminal, yet we let the state do this widespread!

Sorry, the state DOES do things to criminals that would otherwise be considered illegal.

Prison isn't sanctioning kidnapping any more than the death penalty is sanctioning murder.

thou shalt not kill

thou shalt not kill


wow...that was the most useless post i have ever seen.....

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

-Exodus 21:12

I'm not. To be a citizen requires that one be a human being--murderers, rapists, thieves, trespassers, vandals, and muggers are NOT human.
So if one is found guilty of trespass one beomes non-human? Words fail me....

I am only against the death penalty because I feel that if just one time, an innocent person is put to death than the entire system has failed. And this has been proven to have happened already, therefore I feel it should be outlawed.

thou shalt not kill

It is Thou Shalt Not Murder

Kill without following the laws of God so to speak, as God himself smitten quite a few individuals.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, also has a universal application. Those who live by killing, shall be killed or what have you.

wow...that was the most useless post i have ever seen.....

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

-Exodus 21:12
pwned :)

Do we really need a death penalty? It dosn't seem to deteer murder so why do we have it? I think it needs to go, and the appeals prosess eats up tax payers money.

Death Penalty? Why yes. Putting psychopathic criminals in jail doesn't rehabilitate them. And by keeping them in jail eats up tax payers money.

Plus death penalty only goes to the most serious of crimes. Not every watch snatcher gets his hand chopped off.

I say, we put them in a pit, roughen them up. Give them guns and throw them into warzones and kill terorrists.

Deterrence is not the point. The point is punishment--the subhuman murderers, thieves, trespassers, rapists, thieves, burglars, batterers, muggers, defrauders, assaulters, and robbers deserve nothing less than prolonged severe torture followed by certain painful death. Therefore, that is precisely what they should get. Anything else makes for a barbaric, uncivilized society.

Justice is all that matters. Not deterrence, not rehabilitation, not education. Simply justice--everyone gets what he deserves.

Even those who are murdered?

Justice means that everyone gets what he or she deserves.No, that's vengeance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reason and Reality
I'm not. To be a citizen requires that one be a human being--murderers, rapists, thieves, trespassers, vandals, and muggers are NOT human.

So if one is found guilty of trespass one beomes non-human? Words fail me....

GET OFF MY LAWN!

*gunshot*

Wait, don't some do that already :confused:

Why don't you execute the men who crashed the planes on 9/11. Now THAT would be justice. No?
The death penalty is for wankers. The eye for eye thing is for wankers as well BTW.

Death Penalty? Why yes. Putting psychopathic criminals in jail doesn't rehabilitate them. And by keeping them in jail eats up tax payers money.

If I hear the "taxpayer money" argument from the pro-execution side one more time, I might just go out and murder someone myself. If you were really concerned about the taxpayer, you wouldn't be ignoring the fact that capital punishment costs more.

So if one is found guilty of trespass one beomes non-human? Words fail me....

Well, not necessarily found guilty of trespass, but actually committed trespass, regardless of the courtroom verdict. All a courtroom verdict determines is which side, according to the jury, best presented its case--it does not determine whether or not the defendant actually IS guilty. A guilty defendant can be wrongly acquitted, and an innocent defendant can be wrongly convicted--both happen. Thus, it is not the courtroom verdict that matters but what actually did happen. And, as I have addressed earlier, how to determine--or even if it is possible to determine--with absolute certainty whether or not someone is guilty of such an act is irrelevant to the principle that, if someone indeed did commit such an act, he has renounced his humanity and deserves slow torture and death.

Even those who are murdered?

If that were possible, certainly. So far as we know, though, it's not. It is possible, however, to deliver justice to the subhuman murderer--and some justice is better than none.

I wonder how many of the hypocrites who voted no RP as people who execute their citizens at the drop of a hat.

I wonder how many of the hypocrites who voted no RP as people who execute their citizens at the drop of a hat.

Not me, but how exactly can you call a discrepancy between the way one RPs and they way they act in real life "hypocrisy"? Surely someone has the option to play a role that's completely different from their actual personality, no?

On the one hand, death penalty allows no room for error. You can release someone who's been wrongly imprisoned, but you can't un-execute somebody.

On the same hand, an execution is more expensive than a life sentence. This is counterintuitive, but court costs are tremendous when compared to the cost of imprisonment (not to mention that convicts can spend decades on death row waiting out appeals).

On the same hand, the death penalty has not been shown to be an effective deterrent.

On the other hand, we have what? Good ole retributive justice? I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I thought the images of people cheering outside the court at Peterson's sentencing was pretty revolting. Like a bunch of primitives hooting when the head drops in the basket.

If I hear the "taxpayer money" argument from the pro-execution side one more time, I might just go out and murder someone myself. If you were really concerned about the taxpayer, you wouldn't be ignoring the fact that capital punishment costs more.
So thats we you dont want the Death penalty! ;)


I voted no.

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

-Exodus 21:12
So do you think gays should be put to death, too? The Bible says so. Have you ever been disrespectful to your parents? Well, according to the Bible, you should be executed. Have you ever worked on a Sunday (or Saturday if you're a Jew or Seventh-Day Adventist)? Do you wear cotton and wool together? Have you ever coveted anything? Touched the bed of a menstruating woman? Shaved your head? Gotten a tattoo? Well, shame on you! The Bible tells me so...

anyone ever see the movie "the life of david gale?"
i think if even one person is put to death even though they were innocent, it isn't worth having the death penalty.
that method the british used to have of shipping all the excess criminals to a far away island seemed to work well. so we pick an island, keep sending shiploads of them there with no resources, just drop them off there. before you know they'll have somehow managed to reform themselves and start saying "g'day mate."
this is similar to the george carlin method, except it puts them farther away.

So do you think gays should be put to death, too? The Bible says so. Have you ever been disrespectful to your parents? Well, according to the Bible, you should be executed. Have you ever worked on a Sunday (or Saturday if you're a Jew or Seventh-Day Adventist)? Do you wear cotton and wool together? Have you ever coveted anything? Touched the bed of a menstruating woman? Shaved your head? Gotten a tattoo? Well, shame on you! The Bible tells me so...

:rolleyes:

I have shaved my head, and I have three tattoos.

The death penalty is just not reasonable because it is completely irrevocable. If you're in favor of the death penalty, are you happy to live in a country where your own government could kill you for a crime you didn't commit? It's established fact, and hardly surprising, that mistakes get made and innocent people get the death penalty. How would you feel if you brother/sister, mother/father, wife/husband were killed by the government?

I wonder what the error rate is. One percent? Two percent? Maybe just a tenth of a percent. Does anyone honestly believe that is acceptable?

If you support the death penalty, are you so clueless that you honestly believe the process is flawless, or (more frighteningly) do you just not care that innocent people get killed?

The death penalty is just not reasonable because it is completely irrevocable. If you're in favor of the death penalty, are you happy to live in a country where your own government could kill you for a crime you didn't commit? It's established fact, and hardly surprising, that mistakes get made and innocent people get the death penalty. How would you feel if you brother/sister, mother/father, wife/husband were killed by the government?

I wonder what the error rate is. One percent? Two percent? Maybe just a tenth of a percent. Does anyone honestly believe that is acceptable?

If you support the death penalty, are you so clueless that you honestly believe the process is flawless, or (more frighteningly) do you just not care that innocent people get killed?

Your the voice of reason every state in America needs to hear.

NO MORE DEATH PENALTY!

In my country we dont have the death penalty.

The death penalty is necessary to maintain Christian justice.

The death penalty is necessary to maintain Christian justice.

Christian Justice can take a lot of forms. I've always been told that a Christian should turn the other cheek, love his enemies, and leave the buisiness of justice to God. After all, what are the concerns of this world, when compared with what comes after?

It's attitudes like that that tempt people like me to think ill of Christians, which isn't terribly fair, I'll admit.

EDIT: For clarity, by attitudes like that, I mean the one you expressed.

The death penalty is necessary to maintain Christian justice.


Your a fuirtcake arn't you. Do me a favor and do this :headbang: tell some sence is banged into your head.

Christian Justice can take a lot of forms. I've always been told that a Christian should turn the other cheek, love his enemies, and leave the buisiness of justice to God. After all, what are the concerns of this world, when compared with what comes after?

That is the very point. If they happen to somehow be innocent, then God shall be their Judge.... man should not decide on its own punishment for man, only let God decide as the Judge for eternity.....

That is the very point. If they happen to somehow be innocent, then God shall be their Judge.... man should not decide on its own punishment for man, only let God decide as the Judge for eternity.....

It's hardly leaving justice to God when you kill a person. You are punishing him to the greatest extent our laws allow when you kill him. The only reason you do it at all is because you think that killing a murderer is justice If we're not taking justice into our own hands when we give someone the death penalty why do we do it? Good christian virtues like revenge?

Or is it just a detterent. Heck, if we don't mind killing innocent people as a detterent to killing, why not just nuke everyone now and let God sort it out. That seems the surest way to get immediate and unfailing justice.

And think of all the infants you'd be saving from the risk of sinning.

It's hardly leaving justice to God when you kill a person. You are punishing him to the greatest extent our laws allow when you kill him. The only reason you do it at all is because you think that killing a murderer is justice If we're not taking justice into our own hands when we give someone the death penalty why do we do it? Good christian virtues like revenge?

Or is it just a detterent. Heck, if we don't mind killing innocent people as a detterent to killing, why not just nuke everyone now and let God sort it out. That seems the surest way to get immediate and unfailing justice.

And think of all the infants you'd be saving from the risk of sinning.
Specifically killing innocents would harm many souls.

I wonder what the error rate is. One percent? Two percent? Maybe just a tenth of a percent. Does anyone honestly believe that is acceptable?

If you support the death penalty, are you so clueless that you honestly believe the process is flawless, or (more frighteningly) do you just not care that innocent people get killed?
The error margin of 1% would be perfectly acceptable. That means 1 out of 100 people given the death penalty are innocent, not very many people are given the death sentance, so that has very little bearings on the rest of it.

But then again I just don't care if innocent people are killed, I know their are flaws in the system, but that just means that someone who goes through rehab is going to have gotten nothing out of it, and will kill again, because no system is perfect, something will always go wrong. I would rather kill a few innocent people, than let killers back out on the streets. Besides if I were in the situation I would much rather die sooner than have to waste away to nothing in a prison cell for the rest of my life.

The error margin of 1% would be perfectly acceptable. That means 1 out of 100 people given the death penalty are innocent, not very many people are given the death sentance, so that has very little bearings on the rest of it.

But then again I just don't care if innocent people are killed, I know their are flaws in the system, but that just means that someone who goes through rehab is going to have gotten nothing out of it, and will kill again, because no system is perfect, something will always go wrong. I would rather kill a few innocent people, than let killers back out on the streets. Besides if I were in the situation I would much rather die sooner than have to waste away to nothing in a prison cell for the rest of my life.

You gave an ample reason on why the Death Penelty must go. One innocent person being killed is a sin agenst man.

You gave an ample reason on why the Death Penelty must go. One innocent person being killed is a sin agenst man.
Keep in mind I HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! religion, so I don't care if one innocent person is killed, even if it's me.

The error margin of 1% would be perfectly acceptable. That means 1 out of 100 people given the death penalty are innocent, not very many people are given the death sentance, so that has very little bearings on the rest of it.

But then again I just don't care if innocent people are killed, I know their are flaws in the system, but that just means that someone who goes through rehab is going to have gotten nothing out of it, and will kill again, because no system is perfect, something will always go wrong. I would rather kill a few innocent people, than let killers back out on the streets. Besides if I were in the situation I would much rather die sooner than have to waste away to nothing in a prison cell for the rest of my life.

Life imprisonment still keeps open the option of releasing someone who turns out to be innocent. And there's no need to release repeat killers, as people have already pointed out, life imprisonment is cheaper than execution. If someone would have gotten the death penalty, give them life without parole.

I'm sure we could allow convicts to request the death penalty, for those who prefer it prison :-).

If our governement kills an innocent person, that is murder. If we allow that, we're either sending the message that practical considerations can justify murder, or that revenge can justify murder.

Neither one of those is a message I want my government sending.

Generally, I support the death penalty, however, only in the more extreme cases, such as serial killers. I think it depends on the circumstances of the killing. If it's some child molester raping and killing a 10 year old girl, I think he should probably be put to death. Then again, the prospect of life in prison seems much, much worse than death. I don't get why convicted murderers still fight to get life over the death penalty...it's not like you'll be doing anything for the rest of your life, it's not like your life will matter anymore. It's like trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

An alternative would be to let the convicted criminals decide if they want to live or die...but then most of them would choose to live, and the prison system would become clogged.

Besides everything else, the death penalty has never been shown to be effective as a deterent. There's at least as much evidence that the death penalty increases violent crime as that it decreases it.

Even if it turns out the death penalty does decrease crime rates, it can't be by much, or it would be easy to tell.

Do you believe killing innocent people is justified for such a minimal gain?

Besides everything else, the death penalty has never been shown to be effective as a deterent. There's at least as much evidence that the death penalty increases violent crime as that it decreases it.

Even if it turns out the death penalty does decrease crime rates, it can't be by much, or it would be easy to tell.

Do you believe killing innocent people is justified for such a minimal gain?
yes, I do.

yes, I do.

You may friend are doomed to be rencarnated for enternty the way you act.

yes, I do.

I have to admit, I can't really argue with that. I don't think I'd like to live in a world where most people thought like you though.

You may friend are doomed to be rencarnated for enternty the way you act.
see previous statement about religion.

I have to admit, I can't really argue with that. I don't think I'd like to live in a world where most people thought like you though.
all the more reason to keep the death penalty

Besides everything else, the death penalty has never been shown to be effective as a deterent. There's at least as much evidence that the death penalty increases violent crime as that it decreases it.

Even if it turns out the death penalty does decrease crime rates, it can't be by much, or it would be easy to tell.

Do you believe killing innocent people is justified for such a minimal gain?

I don't expect it to act as a deterrent. If it does, that's great, but if it doesn't, oh well. To me, it's about jutice. Do you honestly think someone who murdered 30 people deserves to live?

I don't expect it to act as a deterrent. If it does, that's great, but if it doesn't, oh well. To me, it's about jutice. Do you honestly think someone who murdered 30 people deserves to live?

And what about the innocent people who die because you want justice? Is it worth their lives so that you can have revenge? If no innocent people were ever given the death penalty, this might be another argument.

There's no way you can get justice from a murderer. The people he killed can't be brought back, and his death can't come close to paying for it. Why make matters worse by risking more innocent lives.

And what about the innocent people who die because you want justice? Is it worth their lives so that you can have revenge? If no innocent people were ever given the death penalty, this might be another argument.

There's no way you can get justice from a murderer. The people he killed can't be brought back, and his death can't come close to paying for it. Why make matters worse by risking more innocent lives.

If there's enough evidence to sentence someone to the death penalty, then it's quite obvious that they are guilty. And in the rare occasion that an innocent person is sent to death, yes, it's not right, but it happens. People make mistakes. No, the people can't be brought back, but to deny someone of the right to live is the closest you can get.

If there's enough evidence to sentence someone to the death penalty, then it's quite obvious that they are guilty. And in the rare occasion that an innocent person is sent to death, yes, it's not right, but it happens. People make mistakes. No, the people can't be brought back, but to deny someone of the right to live is the closest you can get.

I have no idea how killing someone is remotely close to bringing someone back to life.

Basically what you're saying is that revenge is more important than innocent lives. Or, to be fair, that one innocent life is worth revenge on 99 people or something close to that.

If that's what you believe, I have to wonder why you think revenge is so important. After all, revenge seems more important to you than the thing you're trying to get revenge for. Why else would you risk another innocent death to get it?

let me ask you this......let your child be killed by someone who laughs at you when you cry over her death......and then see if you want that person dead....

we need public stonings, is what we need. like in the middle east! theyre cool.

I have no idea how killing someone is remotely close to bringing someone back to life.

Basically what you're saying is that revenge is more important than innocent lives. Or, to be fair, that one innocent life is worth revenge on 99 people or something close to that.

If that's what you believe, I have to wonder why you think revenge is so important. After all, revenge seems more important to you than the thing you're trying to get revenge for. Why else would you risk another innocent death to get it?

Revenge =/= Justice. The whole point is justice. Killing someone isn't close to bringing someone back to life, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's the most justice you'll get. You're acting like every person convicted and sentenced to death is innocent. They're not.

scott peterson is a sonofabitch

scott peterson is a sonofabitch

I'd tend to agree. I believe he should die, although seeing him rot away in a jail cell wouldn't be bad, either.

I'd tend to agree. I believe he should die, although seeing him rot away in a jail cell wouldn't be bad, either.

if i was him id take the death sentence, cuz boy is he gonna have a lotta "friends" in jail! :D

if i was him id take the death sentence, cuz boy is he gonna have a lotta "friends" in jail! :D

Heheheh...now that I think about it, life isn't a bad sentence for him.

let me ask you this......let your child be killed by someone who laughs at you when you cry over her death......and then see if you want that person dead....

I have trouble imagining myself in that position, it's true. But I don't think I would want revenge. The thought of revenge just leaves you with a hollow feeling. It wouldn't help.

Revenge =/= Justice. The whole point is justice. Killing someone isn't close to bringing someone back to life, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's the most justice you'll get. You're acting like every person convicted and sentenced to death is innocent. They're not.

Ok. You're right that revenge and justice aren't the same, so I haven't been completely fair. Justice, from my point of view, is an attempt to set right what's wrong in the world -a very tentative definition, actually, I'd need to know your definition to answer properly.

Taking that definition though, there's just not a heck of a lot of justice in the death penalty, and certainly not enough to justify the inevitable mistakes.

Another popular definition I've seen earlier on this thread is that justice is getting what you deserve. Frankly, I don't think this definition does much better on the justice vs. risk of innocent lives scale.

What I'm positive of is that by any reasonable definition, a government killing an innocent man is a MASSIVE injustice, and it takes a lot to justify the risk.

I have trouble imagining myself in that position, it's true. But I don't think I would want revenge. The thought of revenge just leaves you with a hollow feeling. It wouldn't help.



Ok. You're right that revenge and justice aren't the same, so I haven't been completely fair. Justice, from my point of view, is an attempt to set right what's wrong in the world -a very tentative definition, actually, I'd need to know your definition to answer properly.

Taking that definition though, there's just not a heck of a lot of justice in the death penalty, and certainly not enough to justify the inevitable mistakes.

Another popular definition I've seen earlier on this thread is that justice is getting what you deserve. Frankly, I don't think this definition does much better on the justice vs. risk of innocent lives scale.

What I'm positive of is that by any reasonable definition, a government killing an innocent man is a MASSIVE injustice, and it takes a lot to justify the risk.

You're quite right. Killing someone who doesn't deserve to die is a great injustice, and the government should be fined and persecuted when this happens...but it still won't bring that person back. As for my definition of justice...I think that it's essentially getting what you deserve, but more of doing what is right than getting what you deserve. I'm a pretty moral person, and I can't stand to see injustice done. No innocent person deserves to have the life snuffed out of them by some lunatic.

i say bring duels back! swords are mandatory, and samurai are better than everybody else.

Capital punishment should never be enforced. If someone has even a minute chance of being innocent, they would miss out on that chance. If they were totally innocent, they would be punished for something they hadn't commited.

Try and justify killing a scapegoat.

You're quite right. Killing someone who doesn't deserve to die is a great injustice, and the government should be fined and persecuted when this happens...but it still won't bring that person back. As for my definition of justice...I think that it's essentially getting what you deserve, but more of doing what is right than getting what you deserve. I'm a pretty moral person, and I can't stand to see injustice done. No innocent person deserves to have the life snuffed out of them by some lunatic.

Well, with that definition of justice, certainly a murderer can never be brought real justice. The government could torture him before we kill him if you want him to get closer to what he deserves, but along this line of reasoning eventually the government is doing as much evil as all the criminals it can get its hands on.

At the extreme I think it's pretty obvious this doesn't qualify as doing what's right.

Ultimately, I'm sometimes a little sympathetic to the death penalty myself - sometimes a principle like justice is more important than a human life - but I don't think that that sort of power should be put in the hands of the government. I don't trust the government that much. In a democracy especially, you get a lot of people who because they think it's a deterent, or because they want revenge will be too quick to kill someone.

Besides, exactly when the death penalty is called for is such a debatable issue, that it just seems unreasonable to go handing it out when you're not absolutely positive you're doing the right thing.

Anyway, sadly, I have to go now to catch a plane to go home for Christmas, but thanks for the enjoyable debate. :-)

Justice also requires compassion, mercy, and the ability to understand the big picture.

A man rapes a 10 year old girl and is released because his mother commits perjury to give him an allabi. The mother of the victim kills him right there in the court room. Is it justice to kill her too? Is it justice to imprision for untill her daughter is an can legaly buy alcohol. No, it it justice to understand that she is not a danger to anyone else, she does not need to be rehabilitated, and imprisioning will only cause more harm to an innocent girl who has suffered more than most people can imagine.

It is true that justice is giving everyone what they deserve, but it is also true that everyone deserves a second chance. The entire point of prision is rehabilitation, if it were for punishment that it would be easily enough to just cane most offenders. It is possible for everyone to be rehabilitated, even sadistic serial killers. It is just that some people require intense drug-assisted brainwashing that is currently considered to be inhumane.
It is also better for society to rehabilitate than it is to imprison or execute, for the rehabilitated can work to better society.

It might supprise some people to learn that, since the advent of DNA testing, one death-row prisioner has been proven innocent for ever 10 that have been exectued. Extrapolating from this, from the time the death penality was re-introduced to the time DNA testing became popular at least 10% of all executed convicts were actually innocent. The number is probably higher because DNA is not an infalliable catch-all.

As it has been said, the Death Penality isn't reversable. Neither is drug-assisted brainwashing. The differance between the two is that the latter creates a productive member of society who can return to a normal life or sorts. Less death, less imprisoment, more compassion and more brainwashing; that's my opinion.

Interesting.

Then what would people do with the woman who lured a pregnant woman to her home, killed her, cut out the fetus(8 months), and tried to pass it as her own?

Brainwash her, then put her to work in a day care center. She obviously has a strong maternal instinct which can be put to good use, with the proper brainwashing.

My problem with the death / no death debate is that it concentrates on the criminal and not the victim and his or her family. When someone is killed everything they are or could be - every hope, dream, achievement, smile, pleasure - is torn from them. Justice cries out for the strongest penalty. A member of society that kills forfeits the right to be part of that society, whether by death or incarceration. The fact that murderers (in the UK) serve an average of 12 years of a so-called mandatory life sentence spits in the face of justice and robs the victim of the one final hope they could have had.

My problem with the death / no death debate is that it concentrates on the criminal and not the victim and his or her family. When someone is killed everything they are or could be - every hope, dream, achievement, smile, pleasure - is torn from them. Justice cries out for the strongest penalty. A member of society that kills forfeits the right to be part of that society, whether by death or incarceration. The fact that murderers (in the UK) serve an average of 12 years of a so-called mandatory life sentence spits in the face of justice and robs the victim of the one final hope they could have had.
Yes but even when they come out they remain on licence for the rest of their lives - meaning that their sentence is reactivated if they even associate with the wrong people for example. It isn't as black and white as it can seem.

let me ask you this......let your child be killed by someone who laughs at you when you cry over her death......and then see if you want that person dead....

The law should have nothing to do with emotions -- yours, mine, or anyone else's. The law is reason free from passion.

yes, I do.

Really? Would you care to explain, in your own words, exactly what it is about the death penalty that makes it worth the occasional loss of an innocent human life?

Really? Would you care to explain, in your own words, exactly what it is about the death penalty that makes it worth the occasional loss of an innocent human life?
I'm more for capital punishment than I am for the death penalty. The only reason I support it so strongly is because it is a cruical part of capital punishment. I feel that capital punishment is far more effective than a slap on the wrist ever will be. I know that I would never steal anything if their was the threat of getting my hand chopped off. But also because I don't value human life at all. If i don't make sense I've just had a long day, thats all.

The law should have nothing to do with emotions -- yours, mine, or anyone else's. The law is reason free from passion.
Note the key word. Should.

Abolish it--here's why:

1. The death penalty has NO effect on murder rates. There are examples of crime rates going up after banning the death penalty, and there are examples of it going down. Simply put, it is not a deterrent.

2. It is biased along racial and class lines. Poorer minorites convicted by all-white juries are disproportionately likely to be sentenced to death.

3. The system is prone to error. Since 1973, in Illinois ALONE, 12 death row inmates were released before their planned executions. ONE innocent death is too many.

4. Most importantly, taking a life, no matter who does it, is wrong. No civilian should have the power to take anyone's life, except in self-defense.

I'm more for capital punishment than I am for the death penalty. The only reason I support it so strongly is because it is a cruical part of capital punishment. I feel that capital punishment is far more effective than a slap on the wrist ever will be. I know that I would never steal anything if their was the threat of getting my hand chopped off. But also because I don't value human life at all. If i don't make sense I've just had a long day, thats all.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that life imprisonment (and yes, I do believe that we ought to make a life sentence mean an actual lifetime spent in prison) amounts to a slap on the wrist? Or are you grouping life imprisonment in as another type of capital punishment? Or are you saying something else entirely?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that life imprisonment (and yes, I do believe that we ought to make a life sentence mean an actual lifetime spent in prison) amounts to a slap on the wrist? Or are you grouping life imprisonment in as another type of capital punishment? Or are you saying something else entirely?
That one, but I was really tired, so it didn't sound right

Do we really need a death penalty? It dosn't seem to deteer murder so why do we have it? I think it needs to go, and the appeals prosess eats up tax payers money.


You know, we could just strap them down in a chair and make them watch Dr. Phil for hours and hours. Thats truely cruel punishment.

4. Most importantly, taking a life, no matter who does it, is wrong. No civilian should have the power to take anyone's life, except in self-defense.

Wouldn't kidnapping and locking someone in a small room be considered wrong?

The state already does things that would otherwise be considered criminal in the treatment of criminals.

Quote:

Justice cries out for the strongest penalty

-Wrong! That is not justice but revenge. There is a big differenceand and most people do not seems to know it!

-If you are screaming/flaming "GIVE ME THE KAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE BASTARDS" you are either proberly poorly educated or have a no sense of reality!

-I think a sentence of 12-15 years for a murder is fair and just. If they are mentally sick... we just put them into a hospital for the mentally sick! There is no need for the death penalty.

-No civilized country in the western world has the death penalty! Because you are rich and wealthy does not mean you are right or civilized :mp5: :rolleyes:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

death penalty is insane and useless. and, to some extent, so is imprisoment.

when someone breaks a law, behind the technalicties (that is various articles of a law) he/she also breaks a moral value of the society. that cannot be undone. justice, as in a right compensation of ones actions is an utopia. we get closest to that in case of theft - the thief simply returns the stolen goods (or works and buys those goods if he already used/condumed/destroyed them). however, that leaves the moral prejudice uncovered, and that cannot be undone or compensated. the same with rape, murder, and averything else. there is no way you can undo or compensate the harm that has already been done.

so, we have a situation here: one member of our society disregarded all the incientives society uses to keep its members obediant (not in the negative sense of the word). public shame, marginalizations, fear of consequnces did not work in the case of the raper/murderer/etc (let's make abstraction of those who are mentally ill). the reason of the punishment is not to compensate for the harm, but to determin the future respect of the laws. a rapist spends 15 years in prison not to repay someone for the harm done, but because society wants to tell him that something nasty happens to rapists; for that one, the incentives for respecting the law have been greatly increased. theorethically, time in prison is not fun, so the next time he thinks of raping, he will have one (more) reason not to.

hundreds years ago prisons were really terrible places, so this worked much better. nowadays, life in prison is rather pleasent. a much more efficient punishment is not prison as we have it today, but isolation. you would much more affected by the lack of contact with another human then you are by the lack of freedom to move. to some extent, life in prison is not different from life in the army and many volunteer for the former.

one who breaks a law - regardless what he did - show a potential to do it again. i am not concerned with getting even (as i said, it is an utopia). i am concerned with determing that individual not to break the laws again and i think that i can best achive that by increasing the incentives for respecting the laws (in this case by adding negative incentives).

has anyone ever tought why the punishment is imprisonment? why would the fact that you are resticted to living in a delimited area be efficient?

-I think a sentence of 12-15 years for a murder is fair and just. If they are mentally sick... we just put them into a hospital for the mentally sick! There is no need for the death penalty.

I think a sentence of 12-15 years is disgustingly unjust.

Imagine if a man came into your house (aged 18) and killed your parents, siblings, partner/spouse, children. You lose your entire family, you will never see the people that you love again. Then you see the guy that killed them walking free, aged 33, with decades of life left in him.

You think that is justice? The man who has taken away lives, who has stolen potential decades of joyful life from their victims, walking free as a bird while the victim still has to suffer thier loss.

Quote:

I think a sentence of 12-15 years is disgustingly unjust.

Imagine if a man came into your house (aged 18) and killed your parents, siblings, partner/spouse, children. You lose your entire family, you will never see the people that you love again. Then you see the guy that killed them walking free, aged 33, with decades of life left in him.

I think... about 15 years maybe only 12 is right in this "case". I know most of you Americans think he should have between 100 and 500 years or the kapital punishment! I think you are so very very very wrong!

Well... have to go... MERRY CHRISTMAS :)

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

I think... about 15 years maybe only 12 is right in this "case". I know most of you Americans think he should have between 100 and 500 years or the kapital punishment! I think you are so very very very wrong!

So you would have no problem with seeing this man enjoying 40-70 more years of his life, walking around with all his freedom back at 33 while your family/loved ones were lying dead in their graves?

And I'm not an American :) Read the bar on the left. And to quote someone, hit the button marked "Quote" at the bottom right of the post.