NationStates Jolt Archive

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death. However I do not think spies should be killed. Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.

edit: I forgot to add people who drink and drive. They to should be killed as their actions is equal to murder.

It is never acceptable. Killing is wrong; it is as simple as that, and two wrongs never make a right.

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death. However I do not think spies should be killed. Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.

I'm more of a hard labor proponent myself, but I agree w/ your list.

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death. However I do not think spies should be killed. Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.
who gave you the right to decide what to do with another persons' life and their right to live?


pretty obviously, i'm against in all cases.

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death. However I do not think spies should be killed. Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.

yeah I guess so, everyone makes mistakes, but some people don't seem to learn from them

Never. The threat of killing an innocent is too great, and to be honest, the threat of recidivism in someone going into, say a Supermax is nil.

It is never acceptable. Killing is wrong; it is as simple as that, and two wrongs never make a right.
But killing them isnt wrong, its justice.

Never.

who gave you the right to decide what to do with another persons' life and their right to live?


pretty obviously, i'm against in all cases.

When people choose to break basic social mores, they relinquish most of thier rights. When they do that to an extreme, they relinquish thier right to life. Sovietstan is not the one being "given" the right, we're talking about society.

But killing them isnt wrong, its justice.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the world will soon be blind.

As I've said before: Never. Killing is not justice, violence solves nothing. Period.

Never.

The death penalty is the only way to guarantee the criminal won't re-offend.

Never

When they do that to an extreme, they relinquish thier right to life.

I didn't think that was possible given then people are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to life.

who gave you the right to decide what to do with another persons' life and their right to live?

.
They void their right to decide when they commit their crimes.

When people choose to break basic social mores, they relinquish most of thier rights. When they do that to an extreme, they relinquish thier right to life. Sovietstan is not the one being "given" the right, we're talking about society.

Nope, rights apply universally. What is the point of rights if one can decide that another has relinquished them?

I'd say definitely for murders, not sure about rapists. I think throwing the rapists in jail would eventually reward them with the appropriate punishment from the other inmates, hehe.

The reason I'd advocate the death penalty is to show criminals that they WILL face the consequences of their actions. Prison is just a waste of time. If anything they waste taxpayer money while sitting around in there playing video games and selling cigarettes.

Philosophy, if you think killing is always wrong, would you say that killing someone who is trying to kill your family is the wrong thing to do? I think we'd agree that killing is always bad, that is, it's always an unpleasant thing. But in certain situations the consequences are worse for not killing.

Never. Executions are barbaric.

I didn't think that was possible given then people are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to life.

So you think a "creator" approves of said individuals taking it upon themselves to remove the "inalienable right to life" away from innocents? Or are you trying to say that rights are absolute?

When people choose to break basic social mores, they relinquish most of thier rights. When they do that to an extreme, they relinquish thier right to life. Sovietstan is not the one being "given" the right, we're talking about society.

Well, okay then - what gives society the right to determine who deserves to live and who deserves to die? And what consequences are there for "society" when it turns out that "society" has executed an innocent person, as it sometimes does?

I don't really support it at all, though I can at least understand support of it (despite disagreeing) in cases of serial murderers/serial rapists/serial child molesters etc, or ones who repeat offend those crimes after being released.

And what consequences are there for "society" when it turns out that "society" has executed an innocent person, as it sometimes does?
It loses a potential productive citizen.

Nope, rights apply universally. What is the point of rights if one can decide that another has relinquished them?

The person committing the crime has made that decision individually. Society then can choose whether that person should retain theirs. Or are you saying rights are absolute?

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death. However I do not think spies should be killed. Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.

When the Bible says so.

When people choose to break basic social mores, they relinquish most of thier rights. When they do that to an extreme, they relinquish thier right to life. Sovietstan is not the one being "given" the right, we're talking about society.
so they break the social contract?

yes, that makes sense (and i knew that i just like asking difficult questions ;)) but it doesn't give the OP as an individual the right to decide. only society. whether or not this means people instilled with the power of the state (judges) or actual referendums on cases i don't know.

i would also submit that it is morally wrong to kill, be it the state or an individual that is doing the killing. i don't believe breaking the social contract voids the right to life, but the right to freedom. but that's a totally different issue, heh

Nope, rights apply universally.
no, they dont. People lose certain rights when they commit crimes. If that wasnt the case we wouldnt be able to put people in prison as it removes their right to freedom. When they murder or rape they just remove their right to live.

Well, okay then - what gives society the right to determine who deserves to live and who deserves to die? And what consequences are there for "society" when it turns out that "society" has executed an innocent person, as it sometimes does?

Society does not have rights. Society has obligations. If one member of it is removing the rights of other individuals, it has the obligation to protect the majority.

The consequences are that the society then must improve itself to ensure that the innocents are not unjustly punished.

It is never acceptable. Killing is wrong; it is as simple as that, and two wrongs never make a right.

Would you being opposed to killing someone who was about to kill you, or killing someone before they could someone else? If you believe those actions are not immoral, then killing itself cannot be immoral.

Murder is wrong, killing is not. Killing a murderer or rapist really isn't a big deal to me.

When people choose to break basic social mores, they relinquish most of thier rights. When they do that to an extreme, they relinquish thier right to life. Sovietstan is not the one being "given" the right, we're talking about society.


But why should it be our choice to decide when the still have the right to live or not. I mean in the past it might have been a starving man stealing to feed his family. Society's morals will change and with that their opinion on the graveness of crimes we can't objectively make a decision like that.

Never. The threat of killing an innocent is too great, and to be honest, the threat of recidivism in someone going into, say a Supermax is nil.
I agree. As the situation is today, never. The risk of killing innocent people is an unacceptable risk.

The death penalty is the only way to guarantee the criminal won't re-offend.
And?

so they break the social contract?

yes, that makes sense (and i knew that i just like asking difficult questions ;)) but it doesn't give the OP as an individual the right to decide. only society. whether or not this means people instilled with the power of the state (judges) or actual referendums on cases i don't know.

In most cases, an individual should not make that decision w/o justification from society. I would disagree in cases where the individual is defending themselves from an immediate threat, though.

i would also submit that it is morally wrong to kill, be it the state or an individual that is doing the killing. i don't believe breaking the social contract voids the right to life, but the right to freedom. but that's a totally different issue, heh


In a perfect world I would agree w/ you.

And?
That's the entire point, isn't it? If you didn't mind them re-offending you'd not bother chastising them at all.

Would you being opposed to killing someone who was about to kill you, or killing someone before they could someone else? If you believe those actions are not immoral, then killing itself cannot be immoral.

Murder is wrong, killing is not. Killing a murderer or rapist really isn't a big deal to me.

I pointed out the same thing to him. People always tend to make the jump between saying something is unpleasant to saying that it's wrong.

i would also submit that it is morally wrong to kill, be it the state or an individual that is doing the killing. i don't believe breaking the social contract voids the right to life, but the right to freedom. but that's a totally different issue, heh
Actually its not. Its morally wrong to murder, there is a difference. Killing in war, the use of the death penalty, or killing someone in defence of your life or properity is not morally wrong. In many ways it is vital to a healthy society.

But why should it be our choice to decide when the still have the right to live or not. I mean in the past it might have been a starving man stealing to feed his family. Society's morals will change and with that their opinion on the graveness of crimes we can't objectively make a decision like that.


And today, that is considered reprehensible in most societies. It has improved. The OP's list, which I mostly agree w/, are in no way comparable to stealing a loaf of bread.

Actually its not. Its morally wrong to murder, there is a difference. Killing in war, the use of the death penalty, or killing someone in defence of your life or properity is not morally wrong. In many ways it is vital to a healthy society.
That would depend on your morals now, wouldn't it? It's not like morality is an objective universal truth.

It loses a potential productive citizen.

Well that's not much of a punishment

When they murder or rape they just remove their right to live.
Why just because you say so. I might not agree with a murderer getting the death penalty but I understand it but a rapist? No.

In such cases as the crime and proof of guilt of the crime are sufficient enough to justify it.

So you think a "creator" approves of said individuals taking it upon themselves to remove the "inalienable right to life" away from innocents? Or are you trying to say that rights are absolute?

Rights are absolute, yes. As for the creator bit, I was quoting the US Declaration of Independence.

Well that's not much of a punishment


Why just because you say so. I might not agree with a murderer getting the death penalty but I understand it but a rapist? No.

To be fair, I believe the OP meant repeat rapists. I look for the advantage in things. Chemical castration then hard labor.

Would you being opposed to killing someone who was about to kill you, or killing someone before they could someone else? If you believe those actions are not immoral, then killing itself cannot be immoral.
If you could simply injure them to the extent of preventing them from being a danger, then you shouldn't go as far as to kill because it isn't necessary (though I can totallly understand a parent killing anyone who poses an immediate threat to their child, for example, whether I agree completely or not). If killing is necessary to protect yourself or others who are in immediate danger, or an accidental side-effect, I wouldn't condemn it.

That's the entire point, isn't it? If you didn't mind them re-offending you'd not bother chastising them at all.

Just a quote this reminded me of: "Crime can disappear but at what price?" -Moka Only
cough1984cough

Rights are absolute, yes. As for the creator bit, I was quoting the US Declaration of Independence.


Then you are going against every case law that has ever occured. Would you say the same about the "right of the people"? Is the BOR absolute.

And today, that is considered reprehensible in most societies. It has improved. The OP's list, which I mostly agree w/, are in no way comparable to stealing a loaf of bread.

If someone steals a loaf of bread to feed his family. He owes the baker one loaf of bread. If someone murders someone else, he owes them one life. Frankly, aside from criminals who are minors or those who plead insanity, I don't see what's wrong with an eye for an eye.

Actually its not. Its morally wrong to murder, there is a difference. Killing in war, the use of the death penalty, or killing someone in defence of your life or properity is not morally wrong. In many ways it is vital to a healthy society.
killing = taking a persons' life
murder = taking a persons' life


seem like the same thing to me.
whether or not motive or reasoning is different, the outcome is the same, and it is the outcome that is morally wrong.

That's the entire point, isn't it? If you didn't mind them re-offending you'd not bother chastising them at all.
Not the entire point, no. It doesn't mean it is just, or morally acceptable, or necessary/fitting for the crime. You can go to all kind of extremes which would prevent crime, or punish criminals, but most people would agree that you weigh up the situation and draw a line somewhere. I believe that killing someone for a crime, while effective in preventing them from offending again, is not just or morally acceptable, the negatives and risks outweight any positives, and that no-one is able to judge exactly what is a fitting punishment so such an extreme measure should not be taken.

killing = taking a persons' life
murder = taking a persons' life


seem like the same thing to me.
whether or not motive or reasoning is different, the outcome is the same, and it is the outcome that is morally wrong.
ok, if someone was attacking and killing you, would you fight back if it would result in killing or attacker, or would you just let the person kill you?

It loses a potential productive citizen.


The consequences are that the society then must improve itself to ensure that the innocents are not unjustly punished.

Here's what I don't understand. The unjust killing of innocents should be considered murder, yes? And the wages of murder, according to you people, is death, yes? So the consequences for society when society unjustly kills an innocent are....society loses a potentially productive member, and should (but, if we're being honest, doesn't) improve itself to ensure that it doesn't screw up again.

Hardly seems fair, really.

As far as I'm concerned, until our justice system is so perfect that there is never any risk whatsoever of sending an innocent person to his or her death, the death penalty is unacceptable. And even if the system were perfect, there is only one purpose that the death penalty serves better than true life imprisonment, and that is retribution - which is in no way society's responsibility. Keeping criminals from reoffending is necessary. Revenge upon them is not, even if it may sometimes feel good.

The death penalty is never okay for several reasons; to name a few...

1) you could be killing an innocent person, which isn't okay at all.

2) I see it as the easy way out - why should we cut short the suffering of rapists and murderers? Prison life isnt so great, especially the ones where we send murderes and rapists, although I would like to see it changed in many ways (but that is another topic), and I don't mean to make it easier on them

3) the death penalty has not decreased the crimes it is meant to deter

4) I believe it has been shown to cost more to administer the death penalty on someone than it is to house them for life in prison.

ok, if someone was attacking and killing you, would you fight back if it would result in killing or attacker, or would you just let the person kill you?

You know, countries that don't execute their citizens still have courts that take stuff like "self defence" into consideration.

killing = taking a persons' life
murder = taking a persons' life


seem like the same thing to me.
whether or not motive or reasoning is different, the outcome is the same, and it is the outcome that is morally wrong.
I would argue that, generally speaking, motive does change the morality of things to quite a large extent, but in this situation, I still think the death penalty is wrong and should not be allowed, though it is a situation where I can sympathise with the reasoning behind it in many cases.

ok, if someone was attacking and killing you, would you fight back if it would result in killing or attacker, or would you just let the person kill you?
Exactly. If you say that killing is always wrong, you would not advocate ending someone's life for any reason at all.

I'll pose an even more sticky example. You travel back in time and have the opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler before he carries out the war and the Holocaust. If you let him live, he will go on to do those things. If you kill him, Europe will be at peace (just for the sake of our example). Would you kill him?

ok, if someone was attacking and killing you, would you fight back if it would result in killing or attacker, or would you just let the person kill you?
ah now self-defense, that's a different matter.

for a start, this is a hypothetical situation. i've never been in that situation, thankfully, and hopefully most people never encounter it in their lives. secondly how are you to know your attacker intends to kill you? build a bigger strawman?
thirdly, as glitziness said up there, why is it not possible to wound your attacker and get away? i see nothing wrong with running away from a fight if it means you (or your opponent) gets to live.

however, if in the heat of things i did kill my attacker, it would be self defense. it is still morally wrong, but under the social contract should carry a lower penalty as there may have been little choice in the matter (ie manslaughter charges apply).


its not perfect but its not a perfect world.

Never. Killing is wrong, and by allowing the state to do it, you just blur the line of what's wrong, therefore increasing crime. And even the worse criminal can change. And also remember that there will _always_ be errors.

Then you are going against every case law that has ever occured. Would you say the same about the "right of the people"? Is the BOR absolute.

I'm not interested in case law. Law is dynamic, not concrete. We change laws all the time. Some states in the US have abolished the death penalty, hence, there is no "case law" in those states giving them the right to put someone to death.

Interestingly enough, where I live - Texas - is one of the biggest death penalty states in the Union, but somehow crime still carries on as normal.

I'll say it again: Rights are absolute.

If you are attacked, you dont have to kill them to defend yoruself. if they happen to die from your defense while you were just trying to subdue them, then I can't see a problem, as long as the death was accidental.

I don't see why it has to be either kill the person or do nothing. :rolleyes:

I would argue that, generally speaking, motive does change the morality of things to quite a large extent, but in this situation, I still think the death penalty is wrong and should not be allowed, though it is a situation where I can sympathise with the reasoning behind it in many cases.
no. motive does not change the morality, only the level to which that breach of moral codes should be punished.

And today, that is considered reprehensible in most societies. It has improved. The OP's list, which I mostly agree w/, are in no way comparable to stealing a loaf of bread.

You break the law and at one time it was thought they should both end in death.

The death penalty is stupid. It has a margin for error like most punishments but if you get the wrong guy with this punishment you can't go, "Sorry old chap, dreadful mix up dontcha know. Well off you go back home then, and heres some compensation." Also, killing is wrong in all cases except self defence. As in defence from someone who is actively about to kill you, not someone who could kill you because they haven't been executed, but even then I would try my best not to kill them and just to knock them out or something. Anyway, locking someone up for life is just as good as killing them but you can go "Sorry old chap, dreadful mix up dontcha know. Well off you go back home then, and heres some compensation." if you get it wrong.

ok, if someone was attacking and killing you, would you fight back if it would result in killing or attacker, or would you just let the person kill you?

I will not kill someone to defend myself. Incapacitate, sure, but never kill. Ever.

however, if in the heat of things i did kill my attacker, it would be self defense. it is still morally wrong, but under the social contract should carry a lower penalty as there may have been little choice in the matter (ie manslaughter charges apply).


its not perfect but its not a perfect world.
So then you could say that executing a murderer is society's own form of killing in self defense. Not perfect but not a perfect world.

ah now self-defense, that's a different matter.

for a start, this is a hypothetical situation. i've never been in that situation, thankfully, and hopefully most people never encounter it in their lives. secondly how are you to know your attacker intends to kill you? build a bigger strawman?
because as you said it is a hypothetical and in this hypothetical your attacker wants to kill you. Perhaps he is hitting you repeatly with a blunt object and wont stop 'til your dead.

thirdly, as glitziness said up there, why is it not possible to wound your attacker and get away? i see nothing wrong with running away from a fight if it means you (or your opponent) gets to live.
again its a hypothetical
however, if in the heat of things i did kill my attacker, it would be self defense. it is still morally wrong, but under the social contract should carry a lower penalty as there may have been little choice in the matter (ie manslaughter charges apply).
Why should you be charged with manslaughter? I dont think killing as a result of self defence should carry any penalty with it.

So then you could say that executing a murderer is society's own form of killing in self defense. Not perfect but not a perfect world.
Except it's a different situation. One is an immediate threat, where you have to do something to protect yourself now or die. The other is not at all the same.

Oooh, ooh! I forget to say this. If someone who kills someone deserves to die, then surely every soldier who has killed someone, every doctor who cuts the wrong vein, every police officer whose finger slipped, and every executioner, should all themselves be executed.

Oooh, ooh! I forget to say this. If someone who kills someone deserves to die, then surely every soldier who has killed someone, every doctor who cuts the wrong vein, every police officer whose finger slipped, and every executioner, should all themselves be executed.
Like we keep on saying, the motive and desired outcome does matter.

I'll pose an even more sticky example. You travel back in time and have the opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler before he carries out the war and the Holocaust. If you let him live, he will go on to do those things. If you kill him, Europe will be at peace (just for the sake of our example). Would you kill him?

Well, there would be the whole issue of fucking with history and what not so probably not. But if that wasn't the case I would kill him. BUT, I would kill him because that would be the only way to save all the holocaust victims and I would have to be 100% sure that it would be him. The difference between him and murderers now would be that we have an alternative way to punish them. If you've killed enough people that it is almost definite you'll reoffend you'll most likely have a long enough sentence that you won't have a chance to reoffend because you'll be in jail for the rest of your life. I'm not sure how much sense I'm making but I understood it when it was in my head.

Problems with death penalty:
It's unevenly applied; poor folks are much more likely to be sentenced to death and to actually be executed.
The mistake rate is uneven; poor folks are more likely to be wrongly convicted and therefore wrongly executed.
Racism plays a part; both of the above are true for black and brown folks as well.
It's expensive; in our efforts to reduce mistakes, our system allows for long and many appeals.
It's unfixable; when new evidence exonerates a person, there's no way to say oops and let them go. If we cannot return something, should we be prohibited from taking it?
Evidence suggests it doesn't actually deter crime. (A real likelihood of getting caught deters crime. If you got a $40 speeding ticket almost every time you exceeded the limit, would you stop speeding? $300 tickets once in a rare while don't stop speeding. Seeing other cars pulled over doesn't stop speeding.)
It's morally inconsistent; if the society says killing people is wrong, even if you think you have a good reason, then we're sending a really strange message to do it officially.
It's dangerous. Consider that the beheadings in Saudi Arabia are legal under Islamic law, but we get upset about someone being killed for disagreeing with a religion. If laws get weird in this country, at least imprisonment allows someone to wait until the weird law is repealed or to flee once they get out.
Some would say it lowers the morality of all citizens, toughening them against compassion or conscience, to allow their government to deliberately take the lives of others, whether by the death penalty or in a preventable war.
Some would say that the Judeo-Christian commandment "Thou shalt not kill" applies to all people, in war or crime or otherwise, and that such justice should be left to God.
Some would say that since our life here is brief and difficult and the afterlife is infinitely long and ruled by God, then to die by the hand of a robber and spend eternity in heaven (or to hide under the bed and let him have the stereo system) is far better than to kill that robber and suffer forever for it.
I may not agree with every reason cited above, but I agree with enough to oppose the death penalty.

Well, there would be the whole issue of fucking with history and what not so probably not. But if that wasn't the case I would kill him. BUT, I would kill him because that would be the only way to save all the holocaust victims and I would have to be 100% sure that it would be him. The difference between him and murderers now would be that we have an alternative way to punish them. If you've killed enough people that it is almost definite you'll reoffend you'll most likely have a long enough sentence that you won't have a chance to reoffend because you'll be in jail for the rest of your life. I'm not sure how much sense I'm making but I understood it when it was in my head.
Yeah, I get your idea. You're saying many murderers of today, unlike Hitler, can be reconditioned to functioning members of society. Of course, that's a tough thing to do. At least for me personally, the reason I advocate the death penalty for murderers is a form of mutually assured destruction. It's not the killing itself that I value, but the example it would set for any future murderers. Hopefully they would come to understand they cannot murder someone and expect to survive. Give them some time to reconsider their actions.

...snip...

Good post.

Why do you choose to have repeat child molesters to death, but do not require the others to commit the crime again?

Yeah, I get your idea. You're saying many murderers of today, unlike Hitler, can be reconditioned to functioning members of society. Of course, that's a tough thing to do. At least for me personally, the reason I advocate the death penalty for murderers is a form of mutually assured destruction. It's not the killing itself that I value, but the example it would set for any future murderers. Hopefully they would come to understand they cannot murder someone and expect to survive. Give them some time to reconsider their actions.
But the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent is questionable at best.
And then there is the "nothing to loose"-dilemma: Once someone has comitted the crime, they would have nothing to loose - they may break the law again because they have no fear of an increased punishment should they get caught.

Not the entire point, no. It doesn't mean it is just, or morally acceptable, or necessary/fitting for the crime. You can go to all kind of extremes which would prevent crime, or punish criminals, but most people would agree that you weigh up the situation and draw a line somewhere. I believe that killing someone for a crime, while effective in preventing them from offending again, is not just or morally acceptable, the negatives and risks outweight any positives, and that no-one is able to judge exactly what is a fitting punishment so such an extreme measure should not be taken.
To be honest, "Morals" and "Justice" aren't really things I understand; probably the reason for our differing opinions on the subject.

Here's what I don't understand. The unjust killing of innocents should be considered murder, yes? And the wages of murder, according to you people, is death, yes? So the consequences for society when society unjustly kills an innocent are....society loses a potentially productive member, and should (but, if we're being honest, doesn't) improve itself to ensure that it doesn't screw up again.

Hardly seems fair, really.
Well, the only way to make it fair would be to kill the entire society, which is even worse for it than the accidental killing of one. But that's the difference; society thought, at the time, that it was killing a criminal and preventing further crime. It has accidentally got it wrong and killed an innocent. Unfortunate, especially for the innocent.

Mistakes should then be learned from (but yes, if we're honest, won't be). That's because humans are broken, though (at least in that they act in a manner other than that which they require of themselves); if they weren't we wouldn't have crime.

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death. However I do not think spies should be killed. Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.

First degree murder
Felony murder
Forcible rape with special circumstances (repeat offender, aggravated battery, mayhem, done in front of children, etc.)
Child molestation with special circumstances (second offense by adult over 18 on child under 14, battery, kidnapping, etc.)
Treason (as defined in the Constitution)
Desertion with special circumstances (deserting while under fire, etc.)
Espionage with special circumstances (selling nuclear secrets, e.g., Rosenberg case, etc.)
Terrorism: ANY act that deliberately targets non-military targets and causes death or injury

Executions should also be public and televised, except for terrorists, who should be executed in secret and immediately cremated and flushed. No audience for them.

Well, the only way to make it fair would be to kill the entire society, which is even worse for it than the accidental killing of one. But that's the difference; society thought, at the time, that it was killing a criminal and preventing further crime. It has accidentally got it wrong and killed an innocent. Unfortunate, especially for the innocent.

Mistakes should then be learned from (but yes, if we're honest, won't be). That's because humans are broken, though (at least in that they act in a manner other than that which they require of themselves); if they weren't we wouldn't have crime.

Heh. The alternate way to make it fair would be for society not to take it upon itself to kill people. Which was my point. :p

The fact is, most people don't lose sleep at night over the idea that they might be tacitly condoning the killing of innocents. It doesn't affect them directly, and thus there's no compelling reason for them to stop tacitly condoning the killing of innocents. If society screws up, 99.9% of society will never even know. So I suppose it just sort of seems bizarre to me to trust people who have nothing at stake and no real negative consequences for making the wrong decision with the responsibility of deciding who gets to live and who must die.

Terrorism: ANY act that deliberately targets non-military targets and causes death or injury

I wouldn't want to get involved in a bar brawl in your country...

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death.
What a silly, irrational attitude. As a Christian I oppose the death penalty, and I also believe that it does not work.

First degree murder
Felony murder
Forcible rape with special circumstances (repeat offender, aggravated battery, mayhem, done in front of children, etc.)
Child molestation with special circumstances (second offense by adult over 18 on child under 14, battery, kidnapping, etc.)
Treason (as defined in the Constitution)
Desertion with special circumstances (deserting while under fire, etc.)
Espionage with special circumstances (selling nuclear secrets, e.g., Rosenberg case, etc.)
Terrorism: ANY act that deliberately targets non-military targets and causes death or injury

Executions should also be public and televised, except for terrorists, who should be executed in secret and immediately cremated and flushed. No audience for them.
I agree executions should be public and televised. I also think the appeals process shouldnt be as long as it is.

Executions should also be public and televised, except for terrorists, who should be executed in secret and immediately cremated and flushed. No audience for them.

I thought no one could come up with a television show more disgusting than "The Swan" or "Temptation Island." How thoroughly I underestimate people... :(

I've heard the argument that the electric chair is actually more expensive than keeping the prisoner alive in jail...
Maybe we should end it quick and cheap with a bullet in the mouth.

Seriously, how is having electrodes shocking you in the head any more merciful than shooting you.

Then charge the executed's estate for the bullet and the time of the Dept. of Correction.

Seriously, how is having electrodes shocking you in the head any more merciful than shooting you.
Seriously? Effectiveness, I think. You can live in agony for quite some time with a bullet in your head.

Treason and only treason.

What a silly, irrational attitude. As a Christian I oppose the death penalty, and I also believe that it does not work.
yeah, well you know what? I think being a Christian is a silly, irrational attitude. The death penalty does work because people pay for their crimes.

Wouldnt being alive, knowing you are being punished, more viable than the nothingness of death?

Wouldnt being alive, knowing you are being punished, more viable than the nothingness of death?
Sometimes they don't give a damn.

I agree executions should be public and televised.
What for? It doesn't make them any more dead.
Just make it as quick and painless as possible. It's done because it's necessary, not because it's fun.

Sometimes they don't give a damn.

And death will change that?

It's always a good thing to take the lives of people such as murderers and serial rapists, along with never-do-wells. Bleach to the gene pool and one less scumbag to harm good people.

And death will change that?
No but maybe it's not the government's job to re-educate people. For those who are beyond any kind of remorse for their murders (which should be individually determined), the best thing for the rest of us is just to off them.

Killing people who do not support the death penalty is acceptable.

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death. However I do not think spies should be killed. Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.

edit: I forgot to add people who drink and drive. They to should be killed as their actions is equal to murder.
I mostly argee with this. Drinking and driving alone doesn't deserve the death penalty but if you kill alot of people in the process it does.

:) :mp5: --> :( :sniper:

Killing people who do not support the death penalty is acceptable.
Lol, hardcore.

Killing people who do not support the death penalty is acceptable.


why?

*looks at name*

oh I see.

I don't see why we don't just ban the death penalty and put people we would kill in prison for the rest of their lives. In my opinion, it is a worse penalty and it actually costs less.

No but maybe it's not the government's job to re-educate people. For those who are beyond any kind of remorse for their murders (which should be individually determined), the best thing for the rest of us is just to off them.
Holy <R4P, that made complete and total sense (im not being sarcastic)
:) :mp5: -->:( (gets 65 years of prison)
:) :sniper: -->:D (gets death penalty)

No but maybe it's not the government's job to re-educate people. For those who are beyond any kind of remorse for their murders (which should be individually determined), the best thing for the rest of us is just to off them.

Makes sense. We should off the executioners then, since they most likely have no remorse for their murders.

The taking of a life is the taking of a life.

it actually costs less.

it is not cheaper. we still ahve to feed and clothe them, and have you seen the inside of some of those prisons? ya no, they live in almost luxury in there. ac, decent food, cable, books, and they pay nothing. cuz we do. we (taxpayers) pay for the life-in-prison penalty. personaly, i say kill em and forget about it. they killed somebody, and even the bible is pro-death penalty. thats enough for me.

and even the bible is pro-death penalty. thats enough for me.

Thou shall not kill isnt very pro-death penalty.

it is not cheaper. we still ahve to feed and clothe them, and have you seen the inside of some of those prisons? ya no, they live in almost luxury in there. ac, decent food, cable, books, and they pay nothing. cuz we do. we (taxpayers) pay for the life-in-prison penalty. personaly, i say kill em and forget about it. they killed somebody, and even the bible is pro-death penalty. thats enough for me.


it costs much more with the death penalty

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

yeah, well you know what? I think being a Christian is a silly, irrational attitude. The death penalty does work because people pay for their crimes.
At least my "irrational attitude" doesn't harm individuals or society.

The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Countries with the DP typically have higher murder rates than those without.

The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Countries with the DP typically have higher murder rates than those without.

Source?

Makes sense. We should off the executioners then, since they most likely have no remorse for their murders.

The taking of a life is the taking of a life.
We disagree on the very basic point of what constitutes murder so there's nothing more for me to say on that.

the bible is pro-death penalty. thats enough for me.
The Bible says let God do the killin'. ;)

Source?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/i/homiciderates.gif

We disagree on the very basic point of what constitutes murder so there's nothing more for me to say on that.

To murder is to intently end the life of another human.

Theres nothing more for me to say on that.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/i/homiciderates.gif

I love this. Thanks.

I love this. Thanks.

yw ;)

Killing isn't the worse you can do to a person (and their relatives and friends). That's what Voldemort doesn't understand, many of the wortld doesn't... and most of the militar do know (Guantánamo... why are they alive...?).

You can torture, shut someone up, let him/her not sleep, send him/her to a mental institution... That's much worse than killing/murdering.

It means that "ok, don't kill that person but torture it for a month and drop it in the desert" is more cruel than the original idea. So in the end the death penalty can be not as horrible as some other things.


Anyway, I'm against both. Just the fact that you can kill/torture someone who may be innocent is enough. Although in many, many cases, there is no chance of rehabilitation.

I thought no one could come up with a television show more disgusting than "The Swan" or "Temptation Island." How thoroughly I underestimate people... :(

Feel free to wallow in self-righteousness and not watch :D

I wouldn't want to get involved in a bar brawl in your country...

That would probably constitute manslaughter. Let's not be pedantic.

Oooh, ooh! I forget to say this. If someone who kills someone deserves to die, then surely every soldier who has killed someone, every doctor who cuts the wrong vein, every police officer whose finger slipped, and every executioner, should all themselves be executed.

Murder = wrongful killing with malice aforethought.

None of your examples meets the definition of murder. Nor treason, rape, child molestation, espionage or any other proposed capital crime. So your argument is untenable.

Feel free to wallow in self-righteousness and not watch :D

If it's self-righteous not to take pleasure in the suffering of others, then I guess I must be self-righteous. "Humane" or "not a psychopath" seem like better descriptors for someone who doesn't find the killing of human beings to be fun popular entertainment, but, hey, whatever.

That would probably constitute manslaughter. Let's not be pedantic.
I wasn't even thinking of manslaughter. Even a single punch would be enough to constitute terrorism under your definition. Let's be precise.

There should not be a death penalty for several reasons.

1.) If you wrongly convict someone and give them death, then you cannot bring them back after you find out you screwed up.

2.) Revenge killing is considered murder. The death penalty is basically revenge killing. So therefore, the death penalty is lowering society to the level of the murderer. Also, it makes it hypocritical.

3.) The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison, as it has been proven by people before me.

As for the first reason, I shall give you the example of a husband and wife convicted of treason and given death during WWII. They took the fall for a friend to protect their children or something like that. They were not guilty, as a series of letters found by their children many years later proved. They went to the supreme court and the conviction was overturned. HOWEVER, it was after their parents were executed. So they only did it to clear their parent's names.

To murder is to intently end the life of another human.

Theres nothing more for me to say on that.

You are legally and factually wrong. There's nothing more for me to say on that.

Some people are insane, and the world is better off without them. I'm talking about dictators such as Hitler. But for the most part I am against the death penalty in nearly all respects.

I wasn't even thinking of manslaughter. Even a single punch would be enough to constitute terrorism under your definition. Let's be precise.

Then use the definition like that found in Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code:

"the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'

Replace US-specific terms with terms appropriate to other states as needed.

Are we clear now?

You are legally and factually wrong. There's nothing more for me to say on that.

So knowingly ending another's life ISNT murder? Whoa Im gonna go out and do that right now since I obviously can because its not murder!

Then use the definition like that found in Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code:
*snippity*
Are we clear now?
Yup, you didn't mean what you wrote. Crystal :)

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html
Bar graph showing data for 24 States.

Where are the other 26 states? Why are they excluded from this data? Seems suspiciously like cherry picking the data to show what they want.

I almost agree with your list. I agree that murderers, rapists (aside from statutory rape between, say, a 15 year old and 18 year old, if the younger party conscented (but was not legally able to conscent) stuff like that), and child molestors should die. But I also believe that traitors should die. Somebody who steals our government's secrets and tries to sell them to another country that could potentially do our country great harm, that's nearly as bad as murder. They know what they are doing is selling death for profit, they should die as well, as the risk is too great that even if we were to lock them up for life, that they would escape somehow, do it again, and then what happens next... Washington DC, New York City, Chicago... all turned to dust. They were willing to do that, I'm willing to kill them.

I would like to the see the death penalty in use for the following:

Unaccidental Homicide/Manslaughter
Rape
Severe Crimes Against Children
Treason

who gave you the right to decide what to do with another persons' life and their right to live?


pretty obviously, i'm against in all cases.

They did, when they committed and repeated abhorrent crimes against others. Personally, I think life in prison with no chance of ever returning to society again is worse though - death seems almost like an escape.

In my complete, honest opinion... its acceptable for murder, treason, etc...

As for those against it: So what then? Lock a serial rapist in jail for 20 years? Guess what: Unless they're old as sin, they'll be back and continue their habit 9 times outta 10.

As far as I'm concerned, you violated your rights to ANYTHING once you broke the law. Plain and simple. You killed someone? You don't deserve "humane" treatment. You sold secrets about the government? You don't deserve "humane" treatment. Cruel and unusual punishment? That, friends, is an abserd thing to punish people for. Why is simple. Killing someone is, unless done in a torture-fashion, pointless. The way it is now, they just fade out of existance PAINLESSLY. If they AREN'T guilty, for whatever reason, that is their problem. I say just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well." Because if that happens, that is all you can do.

Torturing someone for days on end, just barely keeping them alive to see another day... that should be what "Capital" Punishment is. Not this pathetic, sad excuse for a punishment. Lethal Injection, indeed. Its nothing more than a watered-down, worthless substitute for a real punishment. Twisted by humanity's desire to never see another human in pain, even if they did something considered wrong by society.

You know how few crimes would be commited if the "Capital Punishment" actually lived up to its name? None. Or close to it. I don't care if you think its harsh, because I'll say it again, "You violated your rights to ANYTHING if you broke the law." The harsher the treatment, the harder it is to abuse. You know that if I go out and kill someone right now I'll probably have a better life than about 40 to 50% of the population? 3 meals a day, satellite TV, internet access probably, free-room and board... Its practically perfect. The fact that it is even possible to have a good life in a PRISON shows how pathetic of a job the world is doing in keeping crime under control.

This may come across as harsh, cruel, insensitive, or as trolling. But it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, its the cold hard truth that nobody wants to face. And that is why day after day, the "justice" system gets abused more and more.

Again, I'll state that I'm not trolling in any way, shape, or form. Though you may interprete it as such. You are free to think however you want, I honestly couldn't care less. Ultimately, this is just my opinion. Take it as you wish.

I agree with most cases of the death pentalty but for treason... thats takeing it a step to far....

They did, when they committed and repeated abhorrent crimes against others. Personally, I think life in prison with no chance of ever returning to society again is worse though - death seems almost like an escape.

But as long as you live you have a little sliver of hope, and with that hope comes the possability of escape. With every security system, there are always flaws. It's an unacceptable risk that a mass murderer or child molester or something could ever get free (which is disgusting, because they LET them free in our society after they "serve their time, even after repeted studies that say that people that fucked up DO NOT CHANGE.)

There's a good movie about that, reminds me. Called the Shawshank Redemption. You'll see the irony in my statement if you have watched it though, it almost illustrates a counterpoint to my argument... still love the movie though.

Where are the other 26 states? Why are they excluded from this data? Seems suspiciously like cherry picking the data to show what they want.


I dunno and you could be right. That was the only site I could find that had any kind of clear comparison in regards to the question being asked.

They did, when they committed and repeated abhorrent crimes against others. Personally, I think life in prison with no chance of ever returning to society again is worse though - death seems almost like an escape.


I agree with this wholeheartedly - how is death a punishment? in my eyes, it's letting them off easy.

In my complete, honest opinion... its acceptable for murder, treason, etc...

As for those against it: So what then? Lock a serial rapist in jail for 20 years? Guess what: Unless they're old as sin, they'll be back and continue their habit 9 times outta 10.

As far as I'm concerned, you violated your rights to ANYTHING once you broke the law. Plain and simple. You killed someone? You don't deserve "humane" treatment. You sold secrets about the government? You don't deserve "humane" treatment. Cruel and unusual punishment? That, friends, is an abserd thing to punish people for. Why is simple. Killing someone is, unless done in a torture-fashion, pointless. The way it is now, they just fade out of existance PAINLESSLY. If they AREN'T guilty, for whatever reason, that is their problem. I say just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well." Because if that happens, that is all you can do.

Torturing someone for days on end, just barely keeping them alive to see another day... that should be what "Capital" Punishment is. Not this pathetic, sad excuse for a punishment. Lethal Injection, indeed. Its nothing more than a watered-down, worthless substitute for a real punishment. Twisted by humanity's desire to never see another human in pain, even if they did something considered wrong by society.

You know how few crimes would be commited if the "Capital Punishment" actually lived up to its name? None. Or close to it. I don't care if you think its harsh, because I'll say it again, "You violated your rights to ANYTHING if you broke the law." The harsher the treatment, the harder it is to abuse. You know that if I go out and kill someone right now I'll probably have a better life than about 40 to 50% of the population? 3 meals a day, satellite TV, internet access probably, free-room and board... Its practically perfect. The fact that it is even possible to have a good life in a PRISON shows how pathetic of a job the world is doing in keeping crime under control.

This may come across as harsh, cruel, insensitive, or as trolling. But it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, its the cold hard truth that nobody wants to face. And that is why day after day, the "justice" system gets abused more and more.

Again, I'll state that I'm not trolling in any way, shape, or form. Though you may interprete it as such. You are free to think however you want, I honestly couldn't care less. Ultimately, this is just my opinion. Take it as you wish.
my god you are very sick i would say you need to see a doctor... life is sacred.... i may not beleve in much any more... a basic rule of thumb, "how would you like that to be done to you..."

But as long as you live you have a little sliver of hope, and with that hope comes the possability of escape. With every security system, there are always flaws. It's an unacceptable risk that a mass murderer or child molester or something could ever get free (which is disgusting, because they LET them free in our society after they "serve their time, even after repeted studies that say that people that fucked up DO NOT CHANGE.)

There's a good movie about that, reminds me. Called the Shawshank Redemption. You'll see the irony in my statement if you have watched it though, it almost illustrates a counterpoint to my argument... still love the movie though.

Exactly - they're always going to be a risk. So we lock them up for life and one escapes...that's better than letting every single one of them go after 7 years.

In my complete, honest opinion... its acceptable for murder, treason, etc...

As for those against it: So what then? Lock a serial rapist in jail for 20 years? Guess what: Unless they're old as sin, they'll be back and continue their habit 9 times outta 10.

As far as I'm concerned, you violated your rights to ANYTHING once you broke the law. Plain and simple. You killed someone? You don't deserve "humane" treatment. You sold secrets about the government? You don't deserve "humane" treatment. Cruel and unusual punishment? That, friends, is an abserd thing to punish people for. Why is simple. Killing someone is, unless done in a torture-fashion, pointless. The way it is now, they just fade out of existance PAINLESSLY. If they AREN'T guilty, for whatever reason, that is their problem. I say just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well." Because if that happens, that is all you can do.

Torturing someone for days on end, just barely keeping them alive to see another day... that should be what "Capital" Punishment is. Not this pathetic, sad excuse for a punishment. Lethal Injection, indeed. Its nothing more than a watered-down, worthless substitute for a real punishment. Twisted by humanity's desire to never see another human in pain, even if they did something considered wrong by society.

You know how few crimes would be commited if the "Capital Punishment" actually lived up to its name? None. Or close to it. I don't care if you think its harsh, because I'll say it again, "You violated your rights to ANYTHING if you broke the law." The harsher the treatment, the harder it is to abuse. You know that if I go out and kill someone right now I'll probably have a better life than about 40 to 50% of the population? 3 meals a day, satellite TV, internet access probably, free-room and board... Its practically perfect. The fact that it is even possible to have a good life in a PRISON shows how pathetic of a job the world is doing in keeping crime under control.

This may come across as harsh, cruel, insensitive, or as trolling. But it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, its the cold hard truth that nobody wants to face. And that is why day after day, the "justice" system gets abused more and more.

Again, I'll state that I'm not trolling in any way, shape, or form. Though you may interprete it as such. You are free to think however you want, I honestly couldn't care less. Ultimately, this is just my opinion. Take it as you wish.


Remind me to snipe you if you ever obtain public office anywhere or these twisted ideals diffuse...what a terrifying thought.

But as long as you live you have a little sliver of hope, and with that hope comes the possability of escape. With every security system, there are always flaws. It's an unacceptable risk that a mass murderer or child molester or something could ever get free (which is disgusting, because they LET them free in our society after they "serve their time, even after repeted studies that say that people that fucked up DO NOT CHANGE.)

There's a good movie about that, reminds me. Called the Shawshank Redemption. You'll see the irony in my statement if you have watched it though, it almost illustrates a counterpoint to my argument... still love the movie though.

what about if we implanted gps trackers inside them?

For me it is acceptable for murderers, repeat child molesters and rapists. To me they are not worthy of life and such actions should result in their death. However I do not think spies should be killed. Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.

edit: I forgot to add people who drink and drive. They to should be killed as their actions is equal to murder.

I drink a beer or two after work every thursday at Hooters then I drive home. You want to kill me? Fascist.

what about if we implanted gps trackers inside them?

What if we did...? So if they escape, we can track them back down and catch them quicker? It doesn't take long to find another person to slaughter, or another little kid to rape. The GPS tracker thing would be a good idea I suppose, so that in the case that they wondered too far out of range of the prison, an explosive charge would detonate in their brain stem killing them instantly. But stuff like that... I donno, seems like it'd malfunction one day or something (and either they all end up getting free, or all their brains blow up at once one day), or somebody could hack into it, blah blah, seems shady, unreliable. I'd perfer .50 cal turret mounts on gun towers at all times any day. But I suppose it could suppliment. :p

I drink a beer or two after work every thursday at Hooters then I drive home. You want to kill me? Fascist.

Better now than after you kill a family of four. Idiot.

It is quite acceptable for the State to execute Enemies of the State. After all, anyone with any counter-revolutionary ideas is a danger to everyone, and must be eliminated as soon as possible. Even if they are imprisoned, they can still infect others with their ideas.

In my complete, honest opinion... its acceptable for murder, treason, etc...

As for those against it: So what then? Lock a serial rapist in jail for 20 years? Guess what: Unless they're old as sin, they'll be back and continue their habit 9 times outta 10.

As far as I'm concerned, you violated your rights to ANYTHING once you broke the law. Plain and simple. You killed someone? You don't deserve "humane" treatment. You sold secrets about the government? You don't deserve "humane" treatment. Cruel and unusual punishment? That, friends, is an abserd thing to punish people for. Why is simple. Killing someone is, unless done in a torture-fashion, pointless. The way it is now, they just fade out of existance PAINLESSLY. If they AREN'T guilty, for whatever reason, that is their problem. I say just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well." Because if that happens, that is all you can do.

Torturing someone for days on end, just barely keeping them alive to see another day... that should be what "Capital" Punishment is. Not this pathetic, sad excuse for a punishment. Lethal Injection, indeed. Its nothing more than a watered-down, worthless substitute for a real punishment. Twisted by humanity's desire to never see another human in pain, even if they did something considered wrong by society.

You know how few crimes would be commited if the "Capital Punishment" actually lived up to its name? None. Or close to it. I don't care if you think its harsh, because I'll say it again, "You violated your rights to ANYTHING if you broke the law." The harsher the treatment, the harder it is to abuse. You know that if I go out and kill someone right now I'll probably have a better life than about 40 to 50% of the population? 3 meals a day, satellite TV, internet access probably, free-room and board... Its practically perfect. The fact that it is even possible to have a good life in a PRISON shows how pathetic of a job the world is doing in keeping crime under control.

This may come across as harsh, cruel, insensitive, or as trolling. But it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, its the cold hard truth that nobody wants to face. And that is why day after day, the "justice" system gets abused more and more.

Again, I'll state that I'm not trolling in any way, shape, or form. Though you may interprete it as such. You are free to think however you want, I honestly couldn't care less. Ultimately, this is just my opinion. Take it as you wish.

I'm pro capital punishment... but thats a little psycho man. This isn't the 15th century. I also have a problem with your statement about if they're not guilty, thats their problem... yeah, it sure as hell is their problem, if they're not guilty. Atleast with the way we do things today, if they're not guilty, and they get the death penalty, it doesn't hurt. It is still a terrible thing in my book to have an innocent person sentanced to death, and I know it has happened, and will continue to happen, our legal system is not perfect, but we have to be humane.

It is quite acceptable for the State to execute Enemies of the State. After all, anyone with any counter-revolutionary ideas is a danger to everyone, and must be eliminated as soon as possible. Even if they are imprisoned, they can still infect others with their ideas.

Traitors, sure. Couter-revolutionaries voicing their opinions? Please.

It is quite acceptable for the State to execute Enemies of the State. After all, anyone with any counter-revolutionary ideas is a danger to everyone, and must be eliminated as soon as possible. Even if they are imprisoned, they can still infect others with their ideas.

The Death Penalty for original, revolutionary ideas? That sounds a little scary...don't we have a first ammendment for that?

Better now than after you kill a family of four. Idiot.


Gawd you are naive if you thing a beer can result in the death of anyone. You've been brainwashed by the prohibitionists.

What if we did...? So if they escape, we can track them back down and catch them quicker? It doesn't take long to find another person to slaughter, or another little kid to rape. The GPS tracker thing would be a good idea I suppose, so that in the case that they wondered too far out of range of the prison, an explosive charge would detonate in their brain stem killing them instantly. But stuff like that... I donno, seems like it'd malfunction one day or something (and either they all end up getting free, or all their brains blow up at once one day), or somebody could hack into it, blah blah, seems shady, unreliable. I'd perfer .50 cal turret mounts on gun towers at all times any day. But I suppose it could suppliment. :p


I was thinking more along the lines of having an outer perimeter where an alarm goes off as soon as a tagged prisoner enters it, not giving them a chance to even leave the grouds.

Hacked? Why have the implanted device do anything more than give location coordinates?

If theree seems to be a malfunctioning implant, then replace it.

How do you see everyone going free one day with a system like this? lol
I never said anything about gaurds beign replaced by these devices. They would be an added security precaution.


I was going for more logical than crazy, but to each his own.

Gawd you are naive if you thing a beer can result in the death of anyone. You've been brainwashed by the prohibitionists.

You sound like a naive 14 year old. have you any idea how many millions have died in car accidents where alcohol wasn't involved? Well just to prove you're a "man" have a beer first to up your chances. So long as you don't hit anyone else...it'll clean up the gene pool.

So knowingly ending another's life ISNT murder? Whoa Im gonna go out and do that right now since I obviously can because its not murder!

What part of "malice aforethought" don't you get?

When it is 100% certain that a person committed murder and that person can be demonstrated to be a danger to others as well.

Traitors, sure. Couter-revolutionaries voicing their opinions? Please.

The speech of counter-revolutionaries is a major danger.

Gawd you are naive if you thing a beer can result in the death of anyone. You've been brainwashed by the prohibitionists.

Tell that to my mother, she survived, but was in hospital for three months. One beer was all the driver had had, but it was enough to get him to ignore the speed limit and the one way - no entry sign. My mother on a moped had no chance.

IDIOT.

In my complete, honest opinion... its acceptable for murder, treason, etc...

Free speech....civil protest....having sex with a tree...unpaid parking tickets....

As for those against it: So what then?

"I don't care what you think, but I'll still say what I think."

Lock a serial rapist in jail for 20 years?

"Or however long they get for multiple rapes."

Guess what: Unless they're old as sin,

"Or have an IQ of over 100."

they'll be back and continue their habit 9 times outta 10.

"Because everyone knows serial rapists don't become impotent in 20 years."

As far as I'm concerned, you violated your rights to ANYTHING once you broke the law.

Oh, I parked in a handicapped space, I deserve to be drawn and quartered.

Plain and simple. You killed someone? You don't deserve "humane" treatment.

I swear, I thought it was the blue wire!

You sold secrets about the government?

Psst! Canada! The government is going to start testing your hockey teams for drugs!

You don't deserve "humane" treatment.

Where does this train go again?
Some sort of cool all-Jewish camp called Auschwitz!
Aw shit, what did we do this time?

Cruel and unusual punishment?

Like watching Carrot Top doing stand-up.

That, friends, is an abserd thing to punish people for.

"Because cruelty is so right!"

Why is simple. Killing someone is, unless done in a torture-fashion, pointless.

Like eating is pointless if you don't savor the flavor.

The way it is now, they just fade out of existance PAINLESSLY.

Unless they're afraid of needles.

If they AREN'T guilty, for whatever reason, that is their problem.

Oh, it's my fault I was framed!

I say just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well." Because if that happens, that is all you can do.

Appeals are going to be abolished, too?

Torturing someone for days on end, just barely keeping them alive to see another day... that should be what "Capital" Punishment is.

Oh my, the UN must be wrong cause torture is sooo justified!

Not this pathetic, sad excuse for a punishment. Lethal Injection, indeed. Its nothing more than a watered-down, worthless substitute for a real punishment.

Like the Kool-Aid at the cult meeting, only it kills faster and you get to eat what you want before.

Twisted by humanity's desire to never see another human in pain, even if they did something considered wrong by society. You know how few crimes would be commited if the "Capital Punishment" actually lived up to its name?

Less than the number of people that would illegally immigrate out of the country.

None. Or close to it.

Am I right or what?

I don't care if you think its harsh, because I'll say it again, "You violated your rights to ANYTHING if you broke the law."

Yes! Extremism totally works! Just look at Nazi Germany and the former USSR! They were so perfect!

The harsher the treatment, the harder it is to abuse.

Yes! Abuse the punishments more so that we'll get bored of them and eventually learn not to abuse, just like someone addicted to cocaine!

You know that if I go out and kill someone right now I'll probably have a better life than about 40 to 50% of the population?

Including the stiffs buried in the ground, of course.

3 meals a day

OMGGRUELANDTUNASANDWICHES!!!

satellite TV

WHO BLOCKED TEH PR0N?!?!

internet access probably

E-prison forums! Oh boy!

free-room and board... Its practically perfect.

"There's even nightly spooning with Bubba!"

The fact that it is even possible to have a good life in a PRISON

"So long as you don't give us a reason to send in a riot squad."

shows how pathetic of a job the world is doing in keeping crime under control.

"We have the highest prison rate in the world! We must be doing something wrong if we're above even Cuba! Haiti has 4 prisoners per 10,000 people, so we should do what they're doing!"

"Which is exactly why hobos are always killing each other and turning themselves in to get off the streets and into a life of joy."

This may come across as harsh, cruel, insensitive, or as trolling. But it isn't.

"I swear, I thought the rule meant no references to Troll dolls may be in your post!"

As far as I'm concerned, its the cold hard truth that nobody wants to face.

"More people don't want to turn their back on Bubba's warm hard truth for a second."

And that is why day after day, the "justice" system gets abused more and more.

"It's sick and horrific that lawyers are trying to make it more effective, more humane, and alltogether better! We should execute them all!"

Again, I'll state that I'm not trolling in any way, shape, or form.

"Trolls are smelly, dumb, and have bad teeth. I cover myself in nice flowers, passed kindergarten, and call 1-800-Dentist."

Though you may interprete it as such.

"Infer because I don't want to imply until I know what my point is so I can actually prove it!"

You are free to think however you want, I honestly couldn't care less.

"My care and empathy receptors are temporarily out of service until we get to that part in the 10-step group program."

Ultimately, this is just my opinion.

"My very primitive, very ignorant, and very sick opinion."

Take it as you wish.

"But don't write sarcastic remarks about it."

It's always a good thing to take the lives of people such as murderers and serial rapists, along with never-do-wells. Bleach to the gene pool and one less scumbag to harm good people.
Nice Bible quotes in your sig, did you learn them from Pulp Fiction?

Whens the death penalty acceptable?

When you need dead criminals .

For me, it's acceptable for murderers. If you kill, you should be killed.

I'd castrate rapists, and put thieves to work on a chain gang until they paid off the value of what they stole. Hopefully they didn't steal a ferrari :D

Murder and treason/spying are all I can think it is justified for.

What for? It doesn't make them any more dead.
Just make it as quick and painless as possible. It's done because it's necessary, not because it's fun.
why cant it be both?

I drink a beer or two after work every thursday at Hooters then I drive home. You want to kill me? Fascist.
If you willing get yourself drunk and then take a weapon(car) and use it in a irresponible way(driving) and kill an innocent person with your actions then yes you should die, 100%.

Never acceptable. The state shouldn't have the power to kill when it is not threatened. Not to say that I wouldn't personally kill anyone under certain circumstances...

At least my "irrational attitude" doesn't harm individuals or society.

The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Countries with the DP typically have higher murder rates than those without.
I would argue that Christianity does in fact harm individuals and society but I suppose that is a seperate discussion. The death penalty on the other hand benefits both.

China has the DP and has 1/10 the crime rate of the US and many western countries so I think it does work to a limited extent as a deterrent.

To me, never. I don't believe we have the right to kill someone, even if they themselves have killed.

the following should have the following punishments

Murder - Medical Experimentation / organ harvesting - dependant on pre mediatated / crime of passion etc..
Manslaughter / death by Dangerous Driving -Human Crash Test Dummy ( for example destructive testing for helmets / seat belts/ speed tests and effects on the bodies after crashing)
Sexual Crimes - Medical Experimentation / chemical castration / drug trials

Save using expensive methods you can use the criminal element of society so they can be of some use, cheaper than life in prison or reoffending..

the following should have the following punishments

Murder - Medical Experimentation / organ harvesting - dependant on pre mediatated / crime of passion etc..
Manslaughter / death by Dangerous Driving - Crash Test Dummy ( destructive testing for helmets)
Sexual Crimes - Medical Experimentation / chemical castration / drug trials

...

...

Honestly? I don't think it's acceptable in any state or form. Nobody has the right to take another person's life. When you can prove that you have never, ever done anything wrong then you can authorise another person's life to be taken. Until then you shouldn't be able to.
As for saying that crime rates are lower in places like China than they are in America, would you prefer to live in China than America? Or would you like America to become like China? Probably not.

I didn't think that was possible given then people are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to life.


I question that assumption.
It is rhetoric - not Gospel Truth ( or Koran Truth or Torah Truth for that matter. )

who gave you the right to decide what to do with another persons' life and their right to live?


pretty obviously, i'm against in all cases.

And what about the rights of a murderers victim(s)?

When there is sufficient evidence to rule out any doubt of guilt and/or in cases of multiple victims, I think the death penalty ought to be an option. Why waste taxpayer money to feed, cloth, and house a person that will never be rehabilitated? It is also a great deterent when one knows what consequences they may face for their violation of another individual rights.

For rapists and child molesters, well, child molesters often end up killed in prison. The survivors can be punished well enough with hard labor. Rapists with a grocery list for a rap-sheet should just have thier nuts put on the chopping block. When you repeatidly display that you aren't responsible enough to refrain from violating other peoples rights, you ought to be made to give yours up.

.... Im just wondering where you draw the line as in which crimes should warrent the death penalty.

edit: I forgot to add people who drink and drive. They to should be killed as their actions is equal to murder.
Never.

to edit: wtf? You drink and drive 5 miles back home, don't hit anything, don't cause any harm to anyone -> death penalty? I loathe drunk drivers but that's just ridiculous.

Prison is just a waste of time. If anything they waste taxpayer money while sitting around in there playing video games and selling cigarettes.


And how long the inmates stay on death row before the execution?

And what about the rights of a murderers victim(s)?

*snip*

I don't believe those rights extend to killing (even if it is state sactioned) the murderer.

Tell that to my mother, she survived, but was in hospital for three months. One beer was all the driver had had, but it was enough to get him to ignore the speed limit and the one way - no entry sign. My mother on a moped had no chance.

IDIOT.
I honestly don't believe that one beer had anything to do with it.

He was a horrible driver or that one beer was in fact several beers.

When there is sufficient evidence to rule out any doubt of guilt and/or in cases of multiple victims, I think the death penalty ought to be an option. Why waste taxpayer money to feed, cloth, and house a person that will never be rehabilitated? It is also a great deterent when one knows what consequences they may face for their violation of another individual rights.


I hope that you read the whole thread. But shortly
-death penalty is more expensive
-death penalty does not work as a deterrent

I hope that you read the whole thread. But shortly
-death penalty is more expensive
-death penalty does not work as a deterent

you mean that
-death penalty does not always work.
-dollars matter more than justice

Meanwhile, every sicko who gets impaled for raping an 8 year old girl never gets to rape another one again.
Me likes that bunchies!

you mean that
-death penalty does not always work.
-dollars matter more than justice

Meanwhile, every sicko who gets impaled for raping an 8 year old girl never gets to rape another one again.
Me likes that bunchies!
wtf? No. I mean that death penalty does not work as a deterrent. I don't know what you mean by "death penalty does not always work"

I don't give a damn how much it costs. I didn't make that claim. Several others did. For example Jobbinoonen (close enough) asked why waste taxpayers' money.

Never.

wtf? No. I mean that death penalty does not work as a deterrent. I don't know what you mean by "death penalty does not always work"

I don't give a damn how much it costs. I didn't make that claim. Several others did.


Deterrence, shmeterrence.

I count results in sickos getting terminated.

It is only acceptable when someone can not be reformed and is a danger to society, sociopathic murderers, repeat child rapists* ect. The death penalty isn't a punishment, it's not meant to "scare people from breaking the law", it's a way to further protect the rights of the citizens, just like the jail system is not to punish people but to protect the rights of the citizens, one way to do this is to focus on rehabilitating anyone we can so that they can be safe to release.





*which are eligable for the death penaltly where I live.

Tell that to my mother, she survived, but was in hospital for three months. One beer was all the driver had had, but it was enough to get him to ignore the speed limit and the one way - no entry sign. My mother on a moped had no chance.

IDIOT.

entirely agreed. Beginning with the idiot part.

Just a pair of beers along with a wheel can result in horrible damage.

Nice to know your mother survived. Mine didn't, just because some stupid kid imagined it was a good idea to drink three beers and then go home fast before the father's curfew ended. He also thought he had time to stop before he hitted that lady trying to cross the street with the supermarket bags going to the parking lot. I guess the beers didn't count in the fact he was driving too fast, and that his reflexes didn't work fast enough.

Thanks to a trio of beers, my mother turned to be a roadkill, almost destroying my entire family and removing a good, talented person from the face of the earth without any need, leaving a depressed, fallen in love man alone and three kids without their caring mother.

Fuck you.

It is only acceptable when someone can not be reformed and is a danger to society, sociopathic murderers, repeat child rapists* ect. The death penalty isn't a punishment, it's not meant to "scare people from breaking the law", it's a way to further protect the rights of the citizens, just like the jail system is not to punish people but to protect the rights of the citizens, one way to do this is to focus on rehabilitating anyone we can so that they can be safe to release.





*which are eligable for the death penaltly where I live.

In these cases, why not keep them in custody indefinitely? Why kill them?

In these cases, why not keep them in custody indefinitely? Why kill them?
not to sound cruel (okay it does anyway) why keep them around? what purpose could they serve?

Never. And there are more reasons ten this right to life thing. A good reason against death penaly is that if a person is thrown in jail for a crime that it is found out that he has not done, he can simply be released. however if the innocent person is sentenced to death, an innocent person is gone forever. you can't reverse it.