Capital Punishment

[The Outsider]

I am against the death penalty to the max.
It's inhumane and some of them dont work causing pain to the victim and a waste of tax payers money.

[Theazninvasion68]

Mass murder, Geneoside. Yes, a death to a few. No.

Overall, i dont care.

[Intergalactic Christ]

For crimes such as rape, murder, ect, yes. Britains prisons are currently very very crowded, which is obviously a problem. That isn't the most important reason though. We need it because the public have to pay to keep these bastards fed, clothed, and entertained! Why should we pay to keep these people in a safe place with a roof over their heads, when we have homeless people, out there on the streets. That's where our priorities should lie. When I'm paying taxes, I WON'T be happy to know that some of it is being spent on the likes of Ian Huntley (brits should know who), who apparently has a playstation 2 in his cell.

Also, there's the whole issue of repeat offenders. Some of these sick minded people, when they get out, will kill/rape again. Whilst this time around it would be much easier to catch them, wouldn't it be better if the crime had been prevented in the first place?

For minor crimes, no.

I think I'll tackle some of the argments against Capital Punishment now.

It's murder, everyone has a right to live: Yes, everybody DOES have a right to live. But which lives would you place more value on? Those of criminals, or the public? Don't forget that after someone has been raped, they're probably going to be scarred for life. And after commiting serious crimes, do they deserve to have roofs over their heads?

What if you get it wrong?: Obviously, a full trial would be needed to determine if the person was guilty or not.

It's the easy way out: True, but they aren't really going to be around to care, are they?

I think that either the punishments for serious crimes need to be harsher, or capital punishment needs to be introduced. I mean, come on! I've seen tougher conditions on reality TV!

Edit: Ousiders point: If they don't work, do it again. It's not as huge a waste of money as keeping someone alive for 20 odd years. I say we just get a guillotine and behead them all. Messy, but fairly cheap and can be used over and over again. That sounds a bit inhumane. I'm tempted to go on about how the medieval people used to go watch the beheadings, but no.

[insanechica007]

:mellow: It's just killing more that don't need to be killed. No matter what someone has done, there is no way they deserve death. Killing them won't make up for their crimes. In fact, it would put them out of their embarassment or other guilt if they're sane enough. It's wrong.

[saunderitos]

Originally posted by insanechica007@Oct 28 2005, 11:38 AM
:mellow: It's just killing more that don't need to be killed. No matter what someone has done, there is no way they deserve death. Killing them won't make up for their crimes. In fact, it would put them out of their embarassment or other guilt if they're sane enough. It's wrong.
Maybe.


I think that all crimes that would land you in jail you should get executed for. It would stop crime.

All the criminals would be released from jail. They are told,you commit a crime- you havin' yo' had blasted off mutha fucka (not really like that :P)They wont commit crime again.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by insanechica007@Oct 28 2005, 11:38 AM
:mellow: It's just killing more that don't need to be killed. No matter what someone has done, there is no way they deserve death. Killing them won't make up for their crimes. In fact, it would put them out of their embarassment or other guilt if they're sane enough. It's wrong.
So, if someone goes on a killing spree, even if they kill 150+ people (it's been done before, but the guy who did it hanged himself in prison), they still deserve to live? Why, may I ask?

[Tom]

I'm totally against the death penalty , because i just think it's morally wrong.

[Todd]

I only support it when it can be proven 100% that the person is guilty....DNA evidence, security camera footage, confession, something like that. But when there's not enough evidence to prove them 100% guilty, then they should be acquited. But, typically, they aren't and juries convict without solid proof. In those cases, I'm against the death penalty since there's still a chance they're innocent

[Link04]

Under no terms do I support the death penalty.

Firstly, one of the main arguments FOR the death penalty is that it is a negative incentive for potential violent criminals. This seems to make sense, but statistical evidence (Freakonomics by Steve Levitt has a nice summary) has proven that no such incentive is noticable with the types of numbers being recorded. Secondly, murdering a murder is purely hypocritical, and doesn't take any strides in attempting to find out why people truly commit these crimes. If it is a physcological deficiency, they may prove useful test subjects to find out what they hell is going on in their heads. If they have no such problems, then yes, they deserve to be punished for violating a person's rights, but two wrongs don't make a right, to be horridly cliche. Thirdly, it costs a load of money to carry out the types of capital punishment they offer. And in retort to something someone else said about a full trial, just because something's done legally doesn't mean it's done fairly, truthfully, or correctly.

[Amanda]

It depends on the crime but I think it would be better if the person had to suffer for the rest of their life in jail. There are problems with that though. Like someone said above, jails are over-crowded with people already. I think people who have killed others or have done similar crimes deserve the death penalty but some crimes don't.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Link04@Oct 28 2005, 07:59 PM
Under no terms do I support the death penalty.

Firstly, one of the main arguments FOR the death penalty is that it is a negative incentive for potential violent criminals. This seems to make sense, but statistical evidence (Freakonomics by Steve Levitt has a nice summary) has proven that no such incentive is noticable with the types of numbers being recorded. Secondly, murdering a murder is purely hypocritical, and doesn't take any strides in attempting to find out why people truly commit these crimes. If it is a physcological deficiency, they may prove useful test subjects to find out what they hell is going on in their heads. If they have no such problems, then yes, they deserve to be punished for violating a person's rights, but two wrongs don't make a right, to be horridly cliche. Thirdly, it costs a load of money to carry out the types of capital punishment they offer. And in retort to something someone else said about a full trial, just because something's done legally doesn't mean it's done fairly, truthfully, or correctly.
1) if jail won't put people off crimes, neither will death. this doesn't really change, they just have different things that they are(nt) getting worried over.
2) You don't have to use 10000+ people for mental investigation, noly about 100.
3) I agree, a cheaper alternative should be used, like I said above
4) Yes, accidents have happened in the past, but it isn't like they happen left right and centre. I do think that it should be completely clear that the person is guilty before death.

[Luke]

I don't agree with the death sentance, why kill to show killing is wrong?

[Link04]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 28 2005, 09:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 28 2005, 09:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Link04@Oct 28 2005, 07:59 PM
Under no terms do I support the death penalty.

Firstly, one of the main arguments FOR the death penalty is that it is a negative incentive for potential violent criminals. This seems to make sense, but statistical evidence (Freakonomics by Steve Levitt has a nice summary) has proven that no such incentive is noticable with the types of numbers being recorded. Secondly, murdering a murder is purely hypocritical, and doesn&#39;t take any strides in attempting to find out why people truly commit these crimes. If it is a physcological deficiency, they may prove useful test subjects to find out what they hell is going on in their heads. If they have no such problems, then yes, they deserve to be punished for violating a person&#39;s rights, but two wrongs don&#39;t make a right, to be horridly cliche. Thirdly, it costs a load of money to carry out the types of capital punishment they offer. And in retort to something someone else said about a full trial, just because something&#39;s done legally doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s done fairly, truthfully, or correctly.
1) if jail won&#39;t put people off crimes, neither will death. this doesn&#39;t really change, they just have different things that they are(nt) getting worried over.
2) You don&#39;t have to use 10000+ people for mental investigation, noly about 100.
3) I agree, a cheaper alternative should be used, like I said above
4) Yes, accidents have happened in the past, but it isn&#39;t like they happen left right and centre. I do think that it should be completely clear that the person is guilty before death. [/b][/quote]
1) Well, death is more frightening than jail, most people would probably say. However, it&#39;s most likely that the people that do commit these crimes simply aren&#39;t swayed by either, for whatever reason. If that&#39;s the case, then what&#39;s the point of capital punishment?
2) And where do you pull that figure from?
3) The guillotine, you mean? Surely you aren&#39;t serious. What&#39;s the difference? Injecting someone with an expensive toxin and beheading them with a weighted blade achieves the same end. I don&#39;t think that end is in any way productive to reducing crime or stopping crime.
4) And what is completely clear? Most of the time, the series of appeals a criminal goes through prolongs to the process to a mind-numbing extent. A lot of the time, the decision is so final that people leave cases open at the risk of finding new evidence. I know it isn&#39;t terribly likely, but it occurs, and therefore deserves consideration.

[Mechanical Christ]

Some people have the "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" mentality that is hard to change.

[The Outsider]

Originally posted by Hellflame@Oct 28 2005, 11:29 PM
I don&#39;t agree with the death sentance, why kill to show killing is wrong?
dammit&#33; :o
why couldnt have u told me this before i had my speech?
i never thought of that >.<

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Hellflame@Oct 28 2005, 11:29 PM
I don&#39;t agree with the death sentance, why kill to show killing is wrong?
You aren&#39;t killing to "show" that it&#39;s wrong, you&#39;re doing it to get rid of scum.

Link:
1)The point of killing them is so that we can sleep easy in our beds at night, knowing there is no possibility they can escape, nor that they will kill again when they are let out. what I don&#39;t like about prison is that life sentences are not life sentences, they&#39;re about 15 years max, I&#39;d say.
2) It&#39;s what always happens. They&#39;ll test about 80 women using a new shampoo, and say that "60% of women notice they have less split ends, blah blah." I know the numbers aren&#39;t accurate, it was just an example.
3) The emphasis was on cheaper.
4) Of course, every case is different, but what you don&#39;t mention is that in some cases, it IS crystal clear who&#39;s the killer, you&#39;re just referring to a small handful of crimes where people have been found innocent.

[saunderitos]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 29 2005, 06:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 06:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Hellflame@Oct 28 2005, 11:29 PM
I don&#39;t agree with the death sentance, why kill to show killing is wrong?
You aren&#39;t killing to "show" that it&#39;s wrong, you&#39;re doing it to get rid of scum.

Link:
1)The point of killing them is so that we can sleep easy in our beds at night, knowing there is no possibility they can escape, nor that they will kill again when they are let out. what I don&#39;t like about prison is that life sentences are not life sentences, they&#39;re about 15 years max, I&#39;d say.
2) It&#39;s what always happens. They&#39;ll test about 80 women using a new shampoo, and say that "60% of women notice they have less split ends, blah blah." I know the numbers aren&#39;t accurate, it was just an example.
3) The emphasis was on cheaper.
4) Of course, every case is different, but what you don&#39;t mention is that in some cases, it IS crystal clear who&#39;s the killer, you&#39;re just referring to a small handful of crimes where people have been found innocent. [/b][/quote]
You should agree with me :D
Kill everyone who could have a prison sentence for their crimes. Including stealing more than however many times.

[Intergalactic Christ]

You have a good point. But then things might get a little bit out of hand.

[saunderitos]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ@Oct 29 2005, 08:01 AM
You have a good point. But then things might get a little bit out of hand.
How so?

No one would commit crime :D


And execute people with asbo&#39;s :angry:

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by saunderitos+Oct 29 2005, 08:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (saunderitos @ Oct 29 2005, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Intergalactic Christ@Oct 29 2005, 08:01 AM
You have a good point. But then things might get a little bit out of hand.
How so?

No one would commit crime :D


And execute people with asbo&#39;s :angry: [/b][/quote]
All chavs should be executed, full stop. :lol:

I think everyone commits a crime at some point in their life, surely you can&#39;t say you haven&#39;t stolen at least 1 penny sweet? :P

[saunderitos]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 29 2005, 08:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 08:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -saunderitos@Oct 29 2005, 08:06 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Intergalactic Christ@Oct 29 2005, 08:01 AM
You have a good point. But then things might get a little bit out of hand.
How so?

No one would commit crime :D


And execute people with asbo&#39;s :angry:
All chavs should be executed, full stop. :lol:

I think everyone commits a crime at some point in their life, surely you can&#39;t say you haven&#39;t stolen at least 1 penny sweet? :P [/b][/quote]
That won&#39;t land you in jail :D

[Intergalactic Christ]

It might&#33; What if the shopkeeper really really overreacts?

[saunderitos]

You can&#39;t get jailed for a single theft unless its a huge one, there are no massive thefts from corner shops :P

[Intergalactic Christ]

There could be, if they stole a till. The sort where you push a button and it goes ding, not the one from Rammstein. --in joke-- :lol:

[Luke]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 29 2005, 06:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 06:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Hellflame@Oct 28 2005, 11:29 PM
I don&#39;t agree with the death sentance, why kill to show killing is wrong?
You aren&#39;t killing to "show" that it&#39;s wrong, you&#39;re doing it to get rid of scum.

Link:
1)The point of killing them is so that we can sleep easy in our beds at night, knowing there is no possibility they can escape, nor that they will kill again when they are let out. what I don&#39;t like about prison is that life sentences are not life sentences, they&#39;re about 15 years max, I&#39;d say.
2) It&#39;s what always happens. They&#39;ll test about 80 women using a new shampoo, and say that "60% of women notice they have less split ends, blah blah." I know the numbers aren&#39;t accurate, it was just an example.
3) The emphasis was on cheaper.
4) Of course, every case is different, but what you don&#39;t mention is that in some cases, it IS crystal clear who&#39;s the killer, you&#39;re just referring to a small handful of crimes where people have been found innocent. [/b][/quote]
1. The world will never be safe, if we were to kill every person in the world who has commited a murder there will still be murders, you cannot stop every person in the world killing. Sleeping easy at night thinking your not going to get killed while your asleep is just wishful thinking, its probably more than 99.9999999999999% unlikely that someone will kill you while your asleep but you can never rule it out because people kill for whatever reason, wether they&#39;re mentally challenged or just get a thrill out of it etc. The fact is that you could just walk out your door and get killed for your money, revenge or even just your fish and chips...

2. Its not like there&#39;s no space for building more prisons.

3. The idea that the death sentance is in effect just because its cheaper is quite sickening.


A great man once said if you keep taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth you will have a whole society of blind and toothless people.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Hellflame@Oct 29 2005, 11:13 AM
1. The world will never be safe, if we were to kill every person in the world who has commited a murder there will still be murders, you cannot stop every person in the world killing. Sleeping easy at night thinking your not going to get killed while your asleep is just wishful thinking, its probably more than 99.9999999999999% unlikely that someone will kill you while your asleep but you can never rule it out because people kill for whatever reason, wether they&#39;re mentally challenged or just get a thrill out of it etc.

2. Its not like there&#39;s no space for building more prisons.

3. The idea that the death sentance is in effect just because its cheaper is quite sickening.


A great man once said if you keep taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth you will have a whole society of blind and toothless people.
1) I know that, and I&#39;ve already said that C.P. isn&#39;t going to stop people killing. What it will do, is make sure they won&#39;t do it again.

2) True, but why spend money on a prison when you can spend it on a new school or public resource? Which would you rather have?

3) The idea of innocent peoples murder, rape, burglary, ect, is even more sickening. At least they were innocent.

[The Outsider]

the death sentence is the worst you can sentence to anyone.

imagine you have to watch your loved ones rapist die from lethal injection. the first time he surivives, cos it has failed. the second time it works. imagine that guy going into fits. imagine how painful it is to see your son die, if the rapist was your son.
its also a waste of tax payers money.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by The Outsider@Oct 29 2005, 11:28 AM
the death sentence is the worst you can sentence to anyone.

imagine you have to watch your loved ones rapist die from lethal injection. the first time he surivives, cos it has failed. the second time it works. imagine that guy going into fits. imagine how painful it is to see your son die, if the rapist was your son.
its also a waste of tax payers money.
Imagine an innocent, 13 year old girl walking down the street, comeing back from the corner shops. Said rapist jumps out at her, and well.. you know the rest. A couple of months later, the rapist is being led into the injection room. The girl hears that the injection failied the first time, and the guy was in pain. Just like she was. Now, he&#39;s dead, and he can never bother her again. She doesn&#39;t have to go to any more trials, hear about him on the news, etc.

If my son was a rapist, I&#39;d be ashamed.

Oh yeah, and imagine seeing your daughter knifed to death in the street by a murderer.

I think £13,000 a year to keep a criminal alive is a bigger waste of taxpayers money.

[The Outsider]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 29 2005, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--The Outsider@Oct 29 2005, 11:28 AM
the death sentence is the worst you can sentence to anyone.

imagine you have to watch your loved ones rapist die from lethal injection. the first time he surivives, cos it has failed. the second time it works. imagine that guy going into fits. imagine how painful it is to see your son die, if the rapist was your son.
its also a waste of tax payers money.
Imagine an innocent, 13 year old girl walking down the street, comeing back from the corner shops. Said rapist jumps out at her, and well.. you know the rest. A couple of months later, the rapist is being led into the injection room. The girl hears that the injection failied the first time, and the guy was in pain. Just like she was. Now, he&#39;s dead, and he can never bother her again. She doesn&#39;t have to go to any more trials, hear about him on the news, etc.

If my son was a rapist, I&#39;d be ashamed.

Oh yeah, and imagine seeing your daughter knifed to death in the street by a murderer.

I think £13,000 a year to keep a criminal alive is a bigger waste of taxpayers money. [/b][/quote]
Imagine your son being tried in Asia:

Death by
> Hanging
> Shot by a bunch of guys with rifles
> Being trampled by an elephant.


If you killed your daughters rapist, that would be illegal. But if the government did it, it would be considered legal. isnt that unfair rights?

What about the fact, that there have been scandals in the past, where the police deliberatley mistake one man for another, cos the accused man is liable for death sentence from the one that did do the crime. Police corruption.

What about the fact, that most people found guilty of a crime, has evidence clearing them up, after the death date.

[saunderitos]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ@Oct 29 2005, 11:08 AM
There could be, if they stole a till. The sort where you push a button and it goes ding, not the one from Rammstein. --in joke-- :lol:
:lol:

Heh heh

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by The Outsider+Oct 29 2005, 11:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Outsider @ Oct 29 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Imagine your son being tried in Asia:

Death by
> Hanging
> Shot by a bunch of guys with rifles
> Being trampled by an elephant.


If you killed your daughters rapist, that would be illegal. But if the government did it, it would be considered legal. isnt that unfair rights?

What about the fact, that there have been scandals in the past, where the police deliberatley mistake one man for another, cos the accused man is liable for death sentence from the one that did do the crime. Police corruption.

What about the fact, that most people found guilty of a crime, has evidence clearing them up, after the death date.[/b]
Well, it&#39;s a shame we live in Asia then, isn&#39;t it? :mellow:

Seriously though, I don&#39;t care what way a murderer dies, as long as he dies. Who cares how humane a way a criminal dies, when he isn&#39;t exactly the most humane person alive himself.


Well, if it&#39;s unfair, then lets legalise murder&#33; (and fight for criminals rights at the same time, woohoo&#33;):) The government can do what they want because they have been chosen by the people, they are acting on the publics behalf.

You&#39;re talking about a handful of cases there. Not the majority of all crimes. And humans make mistakes, everybody knows that. It&#39;s just a fact of life that sadly, we have to deal with it. More often than not, the man that is framed isn&#39;t completely innocent.


<!--QuoteBegin--Intergalactic Christ@Oct 29 2005, 11:08 AM
There could be, if they stole a till. The sort where you push a button and it goes ding, not the one from Rammstein. --in joke-- :lol:
:lol:

Heh heh[/quote]
I put that in cos I knew you&#39;d get it ;)

[saunderitos]

I put that in cos I knew you&#39;d get it ;)
:lol:

Unlike other &#39;non believers&#39; as I call them.




About the thing the kid said about Asia.
They are so very different to us. They live in a system where other things are acceptable. Not our customs,doesn&#39;t mean wrong.

[Debus]

I&#39;m undecided about this really. I used to support it fully for certain crimes but i&#39;ve been thinking about it. I mean yeah, if someone really has commited a really horrible crime then they have no place in society because they only cause damage. But on the other isn&#39;t killing them an easy way out for them? They don&#39;t have to suffer, thinking about what they did. I would rather see them go insane and wraught (sp?) with guilt than just simply die.

I dunno though. Still undecided >_<

[saunderitos]

Originally posted by Debs@Oct 29 2005, 02:20 PM
I&#39;m undecided about this really. I used to support it fully for certain crimes but i&#39;ve been thinking about it. I mean yeah, if someone really has commited a really horrible crime then they have no place in society because they only cause damage. But on the other isn&#39;t killing them an easy way out for them? They don&#39;t have to suffer, thinking about what they did. I would rather see them go insane and wraught (sp?) with guilt than just simply die.

I dunno though. Still undecided >_<
What if they have no regrets or guilt?

You&#39;ve done a great job keeping them alive and letting them out when &#39;life&#39; is only 20-25 years.

If its life,it should be your ass in incartioned (typo?) in the prison system till you die,or you die straight away.

[Luke]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 29 2005, 11:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Hellflame@Oct 29 2005, 11:13 AM
1. The world will never be safe, if we were to kill every person in the world who has commited a murder there will still be murders, you cannot stop every person in the world killing. Sleeping easy at night thinking your not going to get killed while your asleep is just wishful thinking, its probably more than 99.9999999999999% unlikely that someone will kill you while your asleep but you can never rule it out because people kill for whatever reason, wether they&#39;re mentally challenged or just get a thrill out of it etc.

2. Its not like there&#39;s no space for building more prisons.

3. The idea that the death sentance is in effect just because its cheaper is quite sickening.


A great man once said if you keep taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth you will have a whole society of blind and toothless people.
1) I know that, and I&#39;ve already said that C.P. isn&#39;t going to stop people killing. What it will do, is make sure they won&#39;t do it again.

2) True, but why spend money on a prison when you can spend it on a new school or public resource? Which would you rather have?

3) The idea of innocent peoples murder, rape, burglary, ect, is even more sickening. At least they were innocent. [/b][/quote]
1. Prison will make sure they don&#39;t do it again.

2. Why not both? Its not like there&#39;s a shortage of money especialy in places like America.

3. True, but taking away a killer&#39;s freedom is more than enough punishment for that, there&#39;s nothing worse than taking away someones freedom IMO.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Hellflame@Oct 29 2005, 04:44 PM
1. Prison will make sure they don&#39;t do it again.

2. Why not both? Its not like there&#39;s a shortage of money especialy in places like America.

3. True, but taking away a killer&#39;s freedom is more than enough punishment for that, there&#39;s nothing worse than taking away someones freedom IMO.
1) Not necessarily, there are repeat offenders.

2) But what about the land for them? If I had to choose between a college and a prison in my hometown, it&#39;s be the college

3) Taking away somebodys life

[Dean]

Sure, I agree with capital punishment. Corporal punishment should be reinstated in schools too.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Dean@Oct 29 2005, 06:14 PM
Sure, I agree with capital punishment. Corporal punishment should be reinstated in schools too.
--applause--

[Dean]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 29 2005, 07:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Dean@Oct 29 2005, 06:14 PM
Sure, I agree with capital punishment. Corporal punishment should be reinstated in schools too.
--applause-- [/b][/quote]
Actually, no. Expel them before they get to GCSE and watch them rot.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Dean+Oct 29 2005, 06:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dean @ Oct 29 2005, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Intergalactic Christ@Oct 29 2005, 07:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Dean@Oct 29 2005, 06:14 PM
Sure, I agree with capital punishment. Corporal punishment should be reinstated in schools too.
--applause--
Actually, no. Expel them before they get to GCSE and watch them rot. [/b][/quote]
Oh yes, I like you so so much these past 5 minutes :)

[Luke]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 29 2005, 05:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Hellflame@Oct 29 2005, 04:44 PM
1. Prison will make sure they don&#39;t do it again.

2. Why not both? Its not like there&#39;s a shortage of money especialy in places like America.

3. True, but taking away a killer&#39;s freedom is more than enough punishment for that, there&#39;s nothing worse than taking away someones freedom IMO.
1) Not necessarily, there are repeat offenders.

2) But what about the land for them? If I had to choose between a college and a prison in my hometown, it&#39;s be the college

3) Taking away somebodys life [/b][/quote]
1. Prison security isn&#39;t 100% fool proof but it is enough

2. I didn&#39;t necessarily mean building more prisons in population settlements, rural areas can be used

3. Taking away somebody&#39;s freedom is worse than taking their life IMO

[JJ]

iam undecided on this - there are plus and minus&#39; to both sides of the arguements

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Hellflame@Oct 29 2005, 06:38 PM
1. Prison security isn&#39;t 100% fool proof but it is enough

2. I didn&#39;t necessarily mean building more prisons in population settlements, rural areas can be used

3. Taking away somebody&#39;s freedom is worse than taking their life IMO
1) Security? No mate, I didn&#39;t mean escaping, I meant offending again when they got out

2) I&#39;d still rather spend the money on public facilities. Money is a bigger issue than building land

3) Not IMO. When you know you&#39;re going to die, there&#39;s a natural instinct there to be scared. In prison, yeah, you&#39;re scared for a while, but it becomes a daily routine, life, and you&#39;d get used to it.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Hellflame@Oct 29 2005, 07:38 PM
1. Prison security isn&#39;t 100% fool proof but it is enough
Occasionally there&#39;s some psychopath who&#39;s released way ahead of the end of their sentence, and they don&#39;t all come out as born-again evangelists or whatever.

[Dave+Kay]

No. I don&#39;t support it. for 2 reasons. 1. For some of those sick people, death is the easy way out. prison is the best way. where they will learn that if they kill/rape whatever they will be shoved in a cell for however long and suffer, rather than taking the (usualy) quick way out and not really suffering for what they did (when i say not really suffering, i mean their suffering (if they were put to death) would be nothing compared to that of the family and friends of victims and victims of their crimes themselves.) also, 2. What good is another dead person. don&#39;t forget, they are somebodys son/daughter. so what is the point in causing more sorrow and upsetting more people, when killing the killer does not bring back the dead. it will not solve anything. rather, make things worse.

I used to think it was a good idea. but recently my opinion has really changed.

EDIT: I didn&#39;t vote as my reason has nothing to do with how humane things are.

[Justin]

Personally, i believe in the powers of rehabilitation. I think that it really depends on the situation. I&#39;d say that 90% of the time, murderers wouldn&#39;t kill again if they got a sentence with the chance of parole in 5+ years.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Justin@Oct 29 2005, 08:42 PM
Personally, i believe in the powers of rehabilitation. I think that it really depends on the situation. I&#39;d say that 90% of the time, murderers wouldn&#39;t kill again if they got a sentence with the chance of parole in 5+ years.
That&#39;s a fair point. What I meant to say from the start was that capital punishment should be reserved for people like Haigh, Gein, Shipman, people on that level.

[saunderitos]

Originally posted by Dean+Oct 29 2005, 07:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dean @ Oct 29 2005, 07:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Justin@Oct 29 2005, 08:42 PM
Personally, i believe in the powers of rehabilitation. I think that it really depends on the situation. I&#39;d say that 90% of the time, murderers wouldn&#39;t kill again if they got a sentence with the chance of parole in 5+ years.
That&#39;s a fair point. What I meant to say from the start was that capital punishment should be reserved for people like Haigh, Gein, Shipman, people on that level. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t know any of them.

[Dean]

Originally posted by saunderitos+Oct 29 2005, 09:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (saunderitos @ Oct 29 2005, 09:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Dean@Oct 29 2005, 07:50 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Justin@Oct 29 2005, 08:42 PM
Personally, i believe in the powers of rehabilitation. I think that it really depends on the situation. I&#39;d say that 90% of the time, murderers wouldn&#39;t kill again if they got a sentence with the chance of parole in 5+ years.
That&#39;s a fair point. What I meant to say from the start was that capital punishment should be reserved for people like Haigh, Gein, Shipman, people on that level.
I don&#39;t know any of them. [/b][/quote]
J.G Haigh murdered people, drank their blood and dissolved the corpses in sulphuric acid. Ed Gein made furniture and other sick shit out of corpses. Howard Shipman is the doctor who abused his position to kill around 250 people, which makes him the most prolific serial killer ever.

[cece13]

This one&#39;s kind of hard for me....... I don&#39;t know my stance on this issue yet I guess, I think that the issue would have to hit a little bit closer to home for me to decide.

I do know that if somebody killed somebody that I love I wouldn&#39;t want them to be sentenced to death, I&#39;d rather them be in prison for the rest of their lives they deserve to live and see what they did was wrong.... maybe suffer a bit internally. guilt and all of that crap.

[The Outsider]

What about the fact that most people in this thread agrees with me that the death sentence is inhumane?


An argument put forward by the victims of crime suggest that offenders of heinous crimes such as third degree murder are punished by the ultimate sanction of capital punishment. Capital punishment in most people’s minds includes death by execution to the offender in most countries.
Australia in the 1960’s ended the death row. However, some other countries aren’t as humane and fortunate as us. They have a higher moral conviction to deliver the ultimate penalty to the offenders. Fortunately Australia stopped its hanging and retired the noose for good with the last person to be hung as history will record unjustly, Ronald Ryan.
The most famous hanging in Australian history was the hanging of Ned Kelly. The bushranger who ran the famous Kelly gang. However, Ned Kelly was wrongly accused of the crime of shooting a policeman. It was actually his brother Dan Kelly, who was the perpetrator.
However, when you compare the Australian method of carrying out the death sentence to the ways of capital punishment of other countries, for example:
• Lethal injection
• Electric chair (Texas and Mississippi still use this method)
• Being trampled by an elephant (its true…Asian and African countries mainly)
• Firing squadron of 5 men armed with rifles
• The stocks
• Gas chamber
• Exile
In countries where it has been abolished, debate is sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders, though few countries have brought it back after abolition.
In 2001 there were 3,048 reported cases in 31 countries. 90% of the deaths occurred in four countries.

The People&#39;s Republic of China carried out 2,468 executions. Iran killed 139 people, Saudi Arabia 79 and the United States 66 (down from 85). In 2000 there had been 1,457 executions. The People’s Republic of China has executed 20,000 since 1990 with 1,781 people executed between April and July 2001 in a "Strike Hard" crime crackdown. In most countries that have capital punishment, it is used to punish only murder and/or for war-related crimes. In some countries like the People&#39;s Republic of China, even non-violent crimes, like drug and business related crimes, are punished with capital punishment.
The death penalty is a controversial political issue, particularly in democracies where it is retained.
Australian society believes in justice but we only hold our justice to life behind bars. Not taking of lives.
However, there are criminals that deserve death for their heinous acts.
The only reasons that we hold criminals behind bars for a lifetime of punishment who have committed heinous crimes is because Australians believe:
• The death penalty is murder.
• This is a human rights violation.
• Torture and cruelty are wrong.
• Many executions are messed up
• Criminal proceedings are imperfect.
• Racism is sometimes involved
• It can encourage police misconduct as in the incident described in the documentary film The Thin Blue Line.
Murder is wrong; therefore the death penalty is wrong. No matter what way you think about it, you are still taking a life.
The offender is still human, and that person still has their humane rights; to be treated equal.
Many executions are messed up and the executed suffer extended pain in dying, and even those who die instantly suffer extreme mental torture leading up to and during the preliminaries of the execution process.
Many people facing the death penalty have been acquitted, sometimes only minutes before their scheduled execution. Others, however, have been executed before evidence clearing them is discovered. Whilst criminal trials not involving the death penalty can involve mistakes, there is at least the opportunity for mistakes to be corrected.
At least in the United States, poor people and those from ethnic minorities are more likely to be executed than whites convicted of similar crimes. Hence, its application is selective and unfair. Additionally, it is argued that the race of the victim can also affect the likelihood of the application of the death penalty, which again is unfair.
In the late 1970s, an innocent man named Randall Adams was framed by the Dallas County Police Department in Texas for a notorious murder of a police officer because they knew the more likely suspect, David Harris, was still a minor and thus not qualified for the death penalty so Adams had to serve as a scapegoat to execute.
Many political attempts to renew the death sentence have failed. For Australian society has always had a lifetime behind bars. Even though we are strong allies with America and other countries that enforce brutal capital punishment, we choose to be independent from their judicial system and create a world and an environment where we set an example that not only enforces human rights, but also enforces the legal system.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Australians believe:
• The death penalty is murder.
• This is a human rights violation.
• Torture and cruelty are wrong.
• Many executions are messed up
• Criminal proceedings are imperfect.
• Racism is sometimes involved
• It can encourage police misconduct as in the incident described in the documentary film The Thin Blue Line.
Murder is wrong; therefore the death penalty is wrong. No matter what way you think about it, you are still taking a life.
The offender is still human, and that person still has their humane rights; to be treated equal.


Don&#39;t forget, the victim had all these human rights too. The criminal didn&#39;t think much of their rights, did they? Therefore, the punishment that fits the crime is to strip the criminal of his human rights.


Murder for murderers = fair. They murder,they get murdered. Sounds fair enough to me.
Killing was a human rights violation. Say the death penalty was around in Britain today. When they killed the person, they would know what would happen if they got caught. They act, they get the consequences.
Whilst wrong, torture and cruelty can be effective. In some cases it&#39;s impossible to sweet-talk a criminal.
If they get messed up, bad luck for the criminal. They shouldn&#39;t have comitted the crime in the first place.
Racism is always going to be a big problem in society. But I&#39;ll go onto a completely different tangent if I start on that.
Surely the police must have a reason for "misconducting"?


Basically, my point here is: Say the death sentence was around today, in your country. A criminal commited a crime. The criminal would know that they would be sentenced to death, and they would have to accept that. They would know what the punishment was, yet they chose to do the crime. Therefore, they pretty much chose to be killed.

[briansalo]

I believe that a human being should only be denied the rights they have denied to others. Although the death penalty should only be used if it&#39;s been 100% proven that the individual is guilty of their charges...

Also, I think that we should be doing more to prevent people from becoming killers n&#39; such, rather than bringing back capital punishment to help the indigestion in prisions... People are just being lazy by doing that...

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by briansalo@Oct 30 2005, 11:14 AM
I believe that a human being should only be denied the rights they have denied to others. Although the death penalty should only be used if it&#39;s been 100% proven that the individual is guilty of their charges...

Also, I think that we should be doing more to prevent people from becoming killers n&#39; such, rather than bringing back capital punishment to help the indigestion in prisions... People are just being lazy by doing that...
I agree with all but the last bit. There is no way you can stop crimes of passion, you will never be able to prevent crime completely.

[Dean]

Lethal injection and the electric chair aren&#39;t nearly as bad as what some people do to get themselves a death sentence.


I agree with all but the last bit. There is no way you can stop crimes of passion, you will never be able to prevent crime completely.
You could say that a crime of passion isn&#39;t necessarily worthy of a death sentence, like if the crime was heat of the moment. Stuff like that could be down to, say, an anger problem that could actually be dealt with.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Dean@Oct 30 2005, 02:19 PM
You could say that a crime of passion isn&#39;t necessarily worthy of a death sentence, like if the crime was heat of the moment. Stuff like that could be down to, say, an anger problem that could actually be dealt with.
True, I hadn&#39;t thought of that, that&#39;s one of the times I think there shouldn&#39;t be an execution

[Link04]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 29 2005, 06:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 06:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Hellflame@Oct 28 2005, 11:29 PM
I don&#39;t agree with the death sentance, why kill to show killing is wrong?
You aren&#39;t killing to "show" that it&#39;s wrong, you&#39;re doing it to get rid of scum.

Link:
1)The point of killing them is so that we can sleep easy in our beds at night, knowing there is no possibility they can escape, nor that they will kill again when they are let out. what I don&#39;t like about prison is that life sentences are not life sentences, they&#39;re about 15 years max, I&#39;d say.
2) It&#39;s what always happens. They&#39;ll test about 80 women using a new shampoo, and say that "60% of women notice they have less split ends, blah blah." I know the numbers aren&#39;t accurate, it was just an example.
3) The emphasis was on cheaper.
4) Of course, every case is different, but what you don&#39;t mention is that in some cases, it IS crystal clear who&#39;s the killer, you&#39;re just referring to a small handful of crimes where people have been found innocent. [/b][/quote]
Ah yes, eliminating "scum" by becoming scum. The ends, you&#39;ll find, do not hallow or justify the means.

1) Can you? Can you rightfully say that you&#39;ll sleep better at night? You&#39;re saying that you&#39;ll sleep better at night knowing that the state did nothing to find out WHY things happened, they just perscribed capital punishment as a pill to treat the symptoms? I feel safe in assuming that we&#39;d all sleep better at night if causality was found and treated, instead of this sort of social amputation you call justice.
15 years? And where did you obtain that figure from? You seem to be making quite a few assumptions in your argument.

2) Really? Always? Come now, I don&#39;t believe there&#39;s any foundation for what you&#39;re trying to propose. Cosmetics is one thing, by criminal psychology? If you&#39;d like to post your statistical findings, please, be my guest.

3) And are you so sure of that? Is it cheaper? You seem, again, to be making quite a few assumptions without taking the time to prove your premises. I&#39;m not necessarily proposing opposite, but consider the doubt that surrounds your proposition. Does it take more money to feed, clothe, and house an individual for 50, 60 years, or does it take more money to pay the courts, judges, jury, for all the court appeals, for the means of death, and to food, house, and clothe the individual for the average amount of time spent on death row?

4) Yes, but as I said, the fact alone that such doubt exists would be enough to reconsider such permanent "non" treatment. You see, we&#39;re not quite talking about shampoo here, we&#39;re talking about human life.

[The Outsider]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ@Oct 30 2005, 08:26 AM

Australians believe:
• The death penalty is murder.
• This is a human rights violation.
• Torture and cruelty are wrong.
• Many executions are messed up
• Criminal proceedings are imperfect.
• Racism is sometimes involved
• It can encourage police misconduct as in the incident described in the documentary film The Thin Blue Line.
Murder is wrong; therefore the death penalty is wrong. No matter what way you think about it, you are still taking a life.
The offender is still human, and that person still has their humane rights; to be treated equal.


Don&#39;t forget, the victim had all these human rights too. The criminal didn&#39;t think much of their rights, did they? Therefore, the punishment that fits the crime is to strip the criminal of his human rights.


Murder for murderers = fair. They murder,they get murdered. Sounds fair enough to me.
Killing was a human rights violation. Say the death penalty was around in Britain today. When they killed the person, they would know what would happen if they got caught. They act, they get the consequences.
Whilst wrong, torture and cruelty can be effective. In some cases it&#39;s impossible to sweet-talk a criminal.
If they get messed up, bad luck for the criminal. They shouldn&#39;t have comitted the crime in the first place.
Racism is always going to be a big problem in society. But I&#39;ll go onto a completely different tangent if I start on that.
Surely the police must have a reason for "misconducting"?


Basically, my point here is: Say the death sentence was around today, in your country. A criminal commited a crime. The criminal would know that they would be sentenced to death, and they would have to accept that. They would know what the punishment was, yet they chose to do the crime. Therefore, they pretty much chose to be killed.
but why waste more money killing them? why cant u keep them alive?

[palingenesis]

the whole concept contradicts itself. i say no.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by The Outsider+Oct 30 2005, 07:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Outsider @ Oct 30 2005, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Intergalactic Christ@Oct 30 2005, 08:26 AM

Australians believe:
• The death penalty is murder.
• This is a human rights violation.
• Torture and cruelty are wrong.
• Many executions are messed up
• Criminal proceedings are imperfect.
• Racism is sometimes involved
• It can encourage police misconduct as in the incident described in the documentary film The Thin Blue Line.
Murder is wrong; therefore the death penalty is wrong. No matter what way you think about it, you are still taking a life.
The offender is still human, and that person still has their humane rights; to be treated equal.


Don&#39;t forget, the victim had all these human rights too. The criminal didn&#39;t think much of their rights, did they? Therefore, the punishment that fits the crime is to strip the criminal of his human rights.


Murder for murderers = fair. They murder,they get murdered. Sounds fair enough to me.
Killing was a human rights violation. Say the death penalty was around in Britain today. When they killed the person, they would know what would happen if they got caught. They act, they get the consequences.
Whilst wrong, torture and cruelty can be effective. In some cases it&#39;s impossible to sweet-talk a criminal.
If they get messed up, bad luck for the criminal. They shouldn&#39;t have comitted the crime in the first place.
Racism is always going to be a big problem in society. But I&#39;ll go onto a completely different tangent if I start on that.
Surely the police must have a reason for "misconducting"?


Basically, my point here is: Say the death sentence was around today, in your country. A criminal commited a crime. The criminal would know that they would be sentenced to death, and they would have to accept that. They would know what the punishment was, yet they chose to do the crime. Therefore, they pretty much chose to be killed.
but why waste more money killing them? why cant u keep them alive? [/b][/quote]
What are you talking about???

1 Bullet=Very cheap
Years of additional food, clothing, etc=Much more expensive.

[saunderitos]

Originally posted by Dean+Oct 29 2005, 08:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dean @ Oct 29 2005, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -saunderitos@Oct 29 2005, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by -Dean@Oct 29 2005, 07:50 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Justin@Oct 29 2005, 08:42 PM
Personally, i believe in the powers of rehabilitation. I think that it really depends on the situation. I&#39;d say that 90% of the time, murderers wouldn&#39;t kill again if they got a sentence with the chance of parole in 5+ years.
That&#39;s a fair point. What I meant to say from the start was that capital punishment should be reserved for people like Haigh, Gein, Shipman, people on that level.
I don&#39;t know any of them.
J.G Haigh murdered people, drank their blood and dissolved the corpses in sulphuric acid. Ed Gein made furniture and other sick shit out of corpses. Howard Shipman is the doctor who abused his position to kill around 250 people, which makes him the most prolific serial killer ever. [/b][/quote]
Thanks, I remembered shipman just after i posted :P









I think that we should still kill them. It pisses me off that they are gonna be released so soon after commiting murder etc.

[the_face_inside]

i&#39;m absolutely against it,though sometimes it seems to be the only solution.

[The Outsider]

Originally posted by Glenn+Oct 31 2005, 03:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Glenn @ Oct 31 2005, 03:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -The Outsider@Oct 30 2005, 07:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Intergalactic Christ@Oct 30 2005, 08:26 AM

Australians believe:
• The death penalty is murder.
• This is a human rights violation.
• Torture and cruelty are wrong.
• Many executions are messed up
• Criminal proceedings are imperfect.
• Racism is sometimes involved
• It can encourage police misconduct as in the incident described in the documentary film The Thin Blue Line.
Murder is wrong; therefore the death penalty is wrong. No matter what way you think about it, you are still taking a life.
The offender is still human, and that person still has their humane rights; to be treated equal.


Don&#39;t forget, the victim had all these human rights too. The criminal didn&#39;t think much of their rights, did they? Therefore, the punishment that fits the crime is to strip the criminal of his human rights.


Murder for murderers = fair. They murder,they get murdered. Sounds fair enough to me.
Killing was a human rights violation. Say the death penalty was around in Britain today. When they killed the person, they would know what would happen if they got caught. They act, they get the consequences.
Whilst wrong, torture and cruelty can be effective. In some cases it&#39;s impossible to sweet-talk a criminal.
If they get messed up, bad luck for the criminal. They shouldn&#39;t have comitted the crime in the first place.
Racism is always going to be a big problem in society. But I&#39;ll go onto a completely different tangent if I start on that.
Surely the police must have a reason for "misconducting"?


Basically, my point here is: Say the death sentence was around today, in your country. A criminal commited a crime. The criminal would know that they would be sentenced to death, and they would have to accept that. They would know what the punishment was, yet they chose to do the crime. Therefore, they pretty much chose to be killed.
but why waste more money killing them? why cant u keep them alive?
What are you talking about???

1 Bullet=Very cheap
Years of additional food, clothing, etc=Much more expensive. [/b][/quote]
what if it fails the first 20 times? like a couple of cases throughout the world? it costs more than keeping a person alive.

[Todd]

Originally posted by The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 07:24 PM
what if it fails the first 20 times? like a couple of cases throughout the world? it costs more than keeping a person alive.
Who the hell requires 20 shots to kill someone? I&#39;ve never fired a real gun in my life and I could do it in less than 20. And 20 bullets are still insanley cheap

[The Outsider]

no i meant the first 20 times by killing them with an lethal injextion.

[Todd]

Originally posted by The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 07:31 PM
no i meant the first 20 times by killing them with an lethal injextion.
When the hell has it taken 20 attempts to kill someone with the lethal injection? :rolleyes:

Tell me, do you think before you post, or do you just blindly submit posts with facts you pulled out of your ass? :rolleyes:

[The Outsider]

but still...

It violates the right to life.

It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Todd+Nov 3 2005, 01:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Nov 3 2005, 01:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 07:24 PM
what if it fails the first 20 times? like a couple of cases throughout the world? it costs more than keeping a person alive.
Who the hell requires 20 shots to kill someone? I&#39;ve never fired a real gun in my life and I could do it in less than 20. And 20 bullets are still insanley cheap [/b][/quote]
Please realize that the cost of state sponsered death is much more than the bullet put into someone. Along with the means of execution is the cost of the jury, judge, and all other court expenses for the several appeal trials that occur when someone is sentenced to death, there is the cost of living for the average time an individual spends on death row, which is usually an extended period of time. This is far more than purchasing a bullet. So is it really less expensive than maintaining an individual&#39;s life in jail? Do you have any evidence, or are you just "blindly submit posts with facts you pulled out of your ass?"

[Todd]

Originally posted by The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 10:25 PM
It violates the right to life.
So when someone violates an innocent person&#39;s right to life, it&#39;s not fair to violate their right to life? Eye for an eye.

[The Outsider]

so if someone raped your daughter you would want to

1) make the state pay more money then keeping them in jail ... like Link04 said?
2) see their sorry soul die

[Todd]

Originally posted by The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 11:12 PM
so if someone raped your daughter you would want to

a) make the state pay more money then keeping them in jail ... like Link04 said?
B) see their sorry soul die
I&#39;d like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba, then die. Although, honestley, I&#39;m against the death penalty for anything besides murder, so realisticly, I&#39;d just like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba.


BTW, I don&#39;t actually want to watch the fucking take place, I just want to know it actually happened :lol:

[The Outsider]

Originally posted by Todd+Nov 3 2005, 05:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Nov 3 2005, 05:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 11:12 PM
so if someone raped your daughter you would want to

a) make the state pay more money then keeping them in jail ... like Link04 said?
B) see their sorry soul die
I&#39;d like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba, then die. Although, honestley, I&#39;m against the death penalty for anything besides murder, so realisticly, I&#39;d just like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba.


BTW, I don&#39;t actually want to watch the fucking take place, I just want to know it actually happened :lol: [/b][/quote]
okay...so if someone murdered your daughter?

[Todd]

Originally posted by The Outsider+Nov 2 2005, 11:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Outsider @ Nov 2 2005, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Todd@Nov 3 2005, 05:13 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 11:12 PM
so if someone raped your daughter you would want to

a) make the state pay more money then keeping them in jail ... like Link04 said?
B) see their sorry soul die
I&#39;d like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba, then die. Although, honestley, I&#39;m against the death penalty for anything besides murder, so realisticly, I&#39;d just like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba.


BTW, I don&#39;t actually want to watch the fucking take place, I just want to know it actually happened :lol:
okay...so if someone murdered your daughter? [/b][/quote]
Then yes, I&#39;d like to see the bastard die.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Todd+Nov 3 2005, 04:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Nov 3 2005, 04:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 10:25 PM
It violates the right to life.
So when someone violates an innocent person&#39;s right to life, it&#39;s not fair to violate their right to life? Eye for an eye. [/b][/quote]
...for an eye for an eye for an eye.

That sort of logic is perpetual, because then who is there to take the eye of the "eye-taker"? Government murdered a murder, who&#39;s there to murder government? Who&#39;s there to murder them?

My other post is worth reading too.^ ;)

[Will]

I&#39;m against the death penalty, no matter what. It doesn&#39;t matter what the person&#39;s done. It doesn&#39;t matter if they&#39;re completely sane and knew exactly what they were doing the entire time that they were committing their crime, be it murder or something else. It doesn&#39;t matter. No-one deserves to die and everyone should be allowed to die naturally. It&#39;s the basic right to life, which should be the most basic freedom that anybody&#39;s afforded. Murdering a murderer doesn&#39;t make any sense because, as Link04 stated, it&#39;s perpetual. The government&#39;s murdering someone, yet no-one seems to care. That doesn&#39;t make any sense to me. I don&#39;t care if someone&#39;s murdered my father: they deserve their right to live, no matter how they&#39;re going to live out the rest of their days, whether it&#39;s in prison or not.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Link04+Nov 2 2005, 11:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Nov 2 2005, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Todd@Nov 3 2005, 04:58 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 10:25 PM
It violates the right to life.
So when someone violates an innocent person&#39;s right to life, it&#39;s not fair to violate their right to life? Eye for an eye.
...for an eye for an eye for an eye.

That sort of logic is perpetual, because then who is there to take the eye of the "eye-taker"? Government murdered a murder, who&#39;s there to murder government? Who&#39;s there to murder them?

My other post is worth reading too.^ ;) [/b][/quote]
I see your point about the government being the murderer, but come on, does the government really deserve punishment for putting a cold blooded murderer down?

And I read your other post. If you read my previous post in the thread, I only support death penalty in cases where it can be 100% proven that they&#39;re guilty (DNA evidence, security camera, confession, whatever) and if the evidence against you is that strong, you don&#39;t stand much of a chance in an appeal and most likley aren&#39;t going to appeal till you can&#39;t appeal anymore.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Todd+Nov 3 2005, 05:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Nov 3 2005, 05:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Link04@Nov 2 2005, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by -Todd@Nov 3 2005, 04:58 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 10:25 PM
It violates the right to life.
So when someone violates an innocent person&#39;s right to life, it&#39;s not fair to violate their right to life? Eye for an eye.
...for an eye for an eye for an eye.

That sort of logic is perpetual, because then who is there to take the eye of the "eye-taker"? Government murdered a murder, who&#39;s there to murder government? Who&#39;s there to murder them?

My other post is worth reading too.^ ;)
I see your point about the government being the murderer, but come on, does the government really deserve punishment for putting a cold blooded murderer down?

And I read your other post. If you read my previous post in the thread, I only support death penalty in cases where it can be 100% proven that they&#39;re guilty (DNA evidence, security camera, confession, whatever) and if the evidence against you is that strong, you don&#39;t stand much of a chance in an appeal and most likley aren&#39;t going to appeal till you can&#39;t appeal anymore. [/b][/quote]
You&#39;d be surprised, as far as my observation goes, appeals are made for the sake of delay, until a judge or a court finally deems it non-productive, but even then, they remain on death-row for years. However, I do not know conclusively of any trends as to the average number of appeals, that may be something for me to look into.

And yes, the government has put down a coldblooded murderer. But if an individual did that on his own will, would it not be murder as well? Why should the government be considered any different, surely two deaths aren&#39;t more moral or right than one?

[Dean]

Killing someone isn&#39;t murder if it&#39;s righteous. But yeah, whether it&#39;s righteous or not is up to you.

I agree with the idea of new laws where home owners have more rights when it comes to protecting their property, too.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Dean@Nov 3 2005, 02:40 PM
Killing someone isn&#39;t murder if it&#39;s righteous. But yeah, whether it&#39;s righteous or not is up to you.

I agree with the idea of new laws where home owners have more rights when it comes to protecting their property, too.
Oh it&#39;s not? Then what do you define murder as?

[The Outsider]

Originally posted by Todd+Nov 3 2005, 05:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Nov 3 2005, 05:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by -Todd@Nov 3 2005, 05:13 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--The Outsider@Nov 2 2005, 11:12 PM
so if someone raped your daughter you would want to

a) make the state pay more money then keeping them in jail ... like Link04 said?
B) see their sorry soul die
I&#39;d like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba, then die. Although, honestley, I&#39;m against the death penalty for anything besides murder, so realisticly, I&#39;d just like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba.


BTW, I don&#39;t actually want to watch the fucking take place, I just want to know it actually happened :lol:
okay...so if someone murdered your daughter?
Then yes, I&#39;d like to see the bastard die. [/b][/quote]
and that murderer was your son?

how would u react?