View Full Version : The Death Penalty: For or Against
I am in full support of it, even being a liberal.
This is just one extreme example of why I support it. 68 times? That's just sickening, and the fact that their children were there when he did it? WTF is the matter with people?
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081016/NEWS/810160378/1350?Title=Death_penalty_raised_in_stabbing
I say find him guilty and then just shoot him. The appeals process is a waste of time and money.
And my number one reason for supporting the death penalty?
Richard Allen Davis:
http://www.bonestamp.com/bonestamp/images/Celebs/Richard%20Allen%20Davis%20of%20Polly%20Klass%20Fam e.jpg
He kidnapped a little girl from her bedroom in October 1993, and then after killing her, he dumped her body less then 2 miles from my home, along the side of a freeway. That picture above is him after sentencing, before he was lead away by the guards.
I'm a supporter of the death penalty, but only in extreme situations. If someone murders someone else, then that person should be put to death. It's the old philosophy of "an eye for an eye." However, for everything else, I think a prison sentence is sufficient.
In the past, I was a supporter of the death penalty because I thought there would be lower costs, as opposed to keeping the criminal in prison for the rest of his or her life. However, I'm pretty sure there have been studies that have proven that it costs the same amount of money either way, simply because of the appeals process.
Against. Killing to show killing is wrong is hypocrisy defined IMO.
Christopher
10-16-2008, 07:31 PM
At this point, I think it's what you deserve if you end up in that position. I don't believe in reintroducing prisoners into society. Bad people are bad people, they had their chance.
It's not like it's not clear that you aren't supposed to kill or hurt others, if you can't understand that you aren't supposed to be in our society anyway.
The only people I'm worried about are those who have to go through the whole procedure of the death penalty as a job. That must be horrible.
Gitsnik
10-16-2008, 08:03 PM
Against.
11:54
10-16-2008, 08:50 PM
I pretty much agree with Will. If you murder, then you don't deserve to live.
Chris(tmas)
10-16-2008, 09:05 PM
Let them get buttfucked for the rest of their lives in jail. Against.
TheRockChick
10-16-2008, 09:28 PM
I have to agree with Chris here.
Will summed it all up there, and i have to agree
I used to be for it, but lately, DNA technology has been getting better and better, there have been several cases across the country of people on death row or serving life sentences who were wrongly accused and jailed, being cleared by DNA which is something like 99.999999% accurate. So now, except in the most extreme cases where you have a killer who admits what he's done, is proud of it and has absolutely no remorse whatsoever, I'm against it. Too much room for error. It's bad enough we have been jailing people who are innocent, but it's even worse that we've been killing them (and yes, I'm sure there have been people executed who really were innocent)
Theazninvasion68
10-17-2008, 03:59 AM
I say if their convicted, with DNA testing and ect or whatever.
If they're found guilty and what they had done involved 2+ murders in a midly or more grusome way (torture, corpse-rape, dismemberent, chemical breakdown, dumping into river in a bag/pieces ect ) then yes.
I pretty much agree with Todd.
I don't think it's as black and white as "If you kill someone you deserve to die".
Arlene
10-17-2008, 10:50 AM
I agree with Will. However, I DO see Todd's side, but I sway the other way more.
Penny
10-17-2008, 11:19 AM
Let them get buttfucked for the rest of their lives in jail. Against.
Agreed.
Daniel
10-17-2008, 11:49 AM
I don't really agree with it in an "eye for an eye" sense. That is, just executing straight up murderers. But for more extreme cases (for example serial killers), I'm for it. Australia stopped executions a good forty years ago, mind.
Messy Marj
10-17-2008, 03:45 PM
For extreme cases where it's been proven enough then yes, die please.
Timothy
10-17-2008, 03:46 PM
I used to be for it, but lately, DNA technology has been getting better and better, there have been several cases across the country of people on death row or serving life sentences who were wrongly accused and jailed, being cleared by DNA which is something like 99.999999% accurate. So now, except in the most extreme cases where you have a killer who admits what he's done, is proud of it and has absolutely no remorse whatsoever, I'm against it. Too much room for error. It's bad enough we have been jailing people who are innocent, but it's even worse that we've been killing them (and yes, I'm sure there have been people executed who really were innocent)
I essentially agree with this.
I don't agree with Death Penalty at all.
Just post here if you wanna know why I don't agree. I'm too lazy to type at the moment, unless absolutely asked to do so. :)
lpboarder
10-19-2008, 02:57 AM
I am for it and to add to it, prisoners on death row should be given limited appeals too. You take another human life then you should lose your rights as a human as well.
Harlz
10-19-2008, 04:47 AM
Yeah I'm with Chris... Let them rot, dying is the easy way out for some of these lowlifes.
Ryo Hazuki
10-23-2008, 08:03 PM
Against. Killing to show killing is wrong is hypocrisy defined IMO.
My exact views.
Well, it wouldn't necessarily be killing to show all killing is wrong.
Just playing devil's advocate there.
Linja
10-23-2008, 08:15 PM
I'm for it in extreme cases, but generally I agree with the 'buttfuck theory' voiced by Chris (now doesn't that sound weird). I don't believe in the 'reintroduced to society' thing. There's actually going to be that sort of case here, soon. In the 90s, there were a lot of criminals who lured people - young women, mainly - away, held them for ransom, and then killed them anyway, brutally, and they were jailed for 15-25 years. They'll be coming out soon, and I, for one, don't believe that they can have changed. It's not safe for them to be in society, and that will just make the streets a scarier place, when they get out.
Christopher
10-23-2008, 08:16 PM
Yeah I'm with Chris... Let them rot, dying is the easy way out for some of these lowlifes.
I'd agree with that if they actually suffered, but in some countries prison is the good life compared to how some people live outside of prison.
Chris(tmas)
10-23-2008, 08:19 PM
I'd agree with that if they actually suffered, but in some countries prison is the good life compared to how some people live outside of prison.
Yeah, like here in Holland. People in prison even have their own TV. It's ridiculous.
Ryo Hazuki
10-23-2008, 08:36 PM
To kill the person that had just killed someone is doing something that person did that you said was wrong and then saying it is right. It's hypocrisy. Think of it this way, it's like a cycle ; someone kills someone, you kill the person that kills someone, (is that right?, I think not" so for you being wrong and for you killing someone , someone gets to kill you because according to your justifications it's okay to kill someone who had killed another someone, and it keeps going on in that cycle until everyone on earth except one person is dead, unless they kill themselves for killing the last person. I think it's insane.
Edit:sp
To kill the person that had just killed someone is doing something that did that you said was wrong and then saying it is right. It's hypocrisy. Think of it this way, it's like a cycle ; someone kills someone, you kill the person that kills someone, (is that right?, I think not" so for you being wrong and for you killing someone , someone gets to kill you because according to your justifications it's okay to kill someone who had killed another someone, and it keeps going on in that cycle until everyone one earth expect one person is dead, unless they kill themselves for killing the last person. I think it's insane.
Hypothetically speaking their execution would probably be under different circumstances and with different motives.
Hypothetically speaking their execution would probably be under different circumstances and with different motives.
Even so, it's still taking away someone's life. When it comes down to it, no matter what the motive is, killing is killing.
To an extent that would be true, but when you consider someone like Richard Ramierez or Ed Gein I don't think the way they killed people is quite the same as being executed, however you break it down.
Gloomy Mushroom
11-17-2008, 06:50 AM
I've always been against it. For the reasons that it shouldn't be "An Eye for An Eye" because what does revenge acheive? Plus, you have to think of the success rate of the killings. There have been several cases where the killing method has failed time and time again. It's inhumane. What ever happened to love thy neighbour?
I've always been against it. For the reasons that it shouldn't be "An Eye for An Eye" because what does revenge acheive? Plus, you have to think of the success rate of the killings. There have been several cases where the killing method has failed time and time again. It's inhumane. What ever happened to love thy neighbour?
The same thing that happened to thou shall not kill. Killing someone for the joy of it is not ok, but I fully support the use of executions as punishment, especially when the victim of the crime was a child. I also think, as a parent, if anyone ever hurts one of my children, that person had better hope that the cops find them before I do. Execution would be peaceful compared to what I would do.
It's inhumane. What ever happened to love thy neighbour?
Inhumane would be quartering someone on an execution block.
"Quartering may in truth be considered the most horrible penalty ever invented. This punishment dates from the remotest ages. In almost all cases, the victim had previously to undergo various accessory tortures: sometimes his right hand was cut off, and the mutilated stump was burnt in a cauldron of sulphur; sometimes his arms, thighs, or breasts were lacerated with red-hot pincers, and hot oil, pitch, or molten lead was poured into the wounds. After these horrible preliminaries, a rope was attached to each of the limbs of the criminal, one being bound round each leg from the foot to the knee, and round each arm from the wrist to the elbow. These ropes were then fastened to four bars, to each of which a strong horse was harnessed, as if for towing a barge. These horses were first made to give short jerks; and when the agony had elicited heart-rending cries from the unfortunate man, who felt his limbs being dislocated without being broken, the four horses were all suddenly urged on with the whip in different directions, and thus all the limbs were strained at one moment. If the tendons and ligaments still resisted the combined efforts of the four horses, the executioner assisted, and made several cuts with a hatchet on each joint. When at last, for this horrible torture often lasted several hours - each horse had drawn out a limb, they were collected and placed near the hideous trunk, which often still showed signs of life, and the whole were burned together. Sometimes the sentence was, that the body should be hung to the gibbet, and that the limbs should be displayed on the gates of the town, or sent to four principal towns in the extremities of the kingdom. When this was done, "an inscription was placed on each of the limbs, which stated the reason of its being thus exposed."
Loving thy neighbour went out the windows when thy neighbour killed the other.
I'm for it, if someone was convicted beyond all reasonable doubt using DNA, facts etc then they deserve to die.
Christopher
11-17-2008, 09:32 PM
"An Eye for An Eye" love thy neighbour?
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]thou shall not kill
So you'd base law on religion? I don't think that's a very good idea, but that's a whole different discussion.
This discussion has gotten old. The fact is criminals shouldn't go unpunished, the best way to do that and prevent them from commiting crimes again is death.
So you'd base law on religion? I don't think that's a very good idea, but that's a whole different discussion.
It's just semantics. They're both phrases that are part of a lexis outside of religion anyway.
Theazninvasion68
11-17-2008, 10:34 PM
I know this is iffy but.
If you had public Executions like it used to be, wouldn't it scare murderers away from murdering? or no?
:S I didn't give too much thought, but I was wondering...
Gloomy Mushroom
11-17-2008, 11:03 PM
So you'd base law on religion? I don't think that's a very good idea, but that's a whole different discussion.
This discussion has gotten old. The fact is criminals shouldn't go unpunished, the best way to do that and prevent them from commiting crimes again is death.
Tell that to me again when we discuss the abortion debate.
_cam_
12-17-2008, 04:58 AM
IM A BIG PRO(depends on the case filed) eventhough my country doesn't on approve it!
...Lauren?
12-23-2008, 04:16 AM
Killing is killing, but some people really deserve to be killed. Deciding who deserves can be iffy though, so I'm against. Let them rot in prison.
Roxas
12-29-2008, 10:50 AM
It depends on how bad the crime is. If it's something like robbery, just sentence them to a couple of months in jail. If it's something like the firing in Bombay...then the government should make sure they turn into the sadists those terrorists were and hurt them. BADLY. And then chop their heads off.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.