PDA

View Full Version : Is the Death Penalty ethical?



zsk
07-26-2009, 04:31 PM
Do you think it is ethical,or do you think it's ok to use them?
Would you/are you scared to live in a country where the Death penalty can be used?

It's often discussed and i want to hear your meanings about it.....

KHWHD
07-26-2009, 04:57 PM
I believe in the death penalty, yes. Unfortunately there is no death penalty here though.

Back in April, a little girl (Tori Stafford, 8) was seen leaving with someone on a video surveillance camera after school. She was kidnapped and her remains were just found a week ago. Her 2 murderers are in prison.

They both deserve the death penalty. They're both pieces of scum that don't deserve to live for what they did to that poor innocent little girl.

http://www.canada.com/Human+remains+identified+missing+Tori+Stafford/1812732/story.html

zsk
07-26-2009, 05:01 PM
That is realy cruel... i thought the same as you some months before...but this humans are sick and is it right to kill sick people??? they need help,but they should be arrested forever,so there's no danger for other people

KHWHD
07-26-2009, 05:02 PM
Why should we, the taxpayers pay for them to sit in prison for the rest of their lives? Why are we paying for their crimes?

zsk
07-26-2009, 05:04 PM
Why should we, the taxpayers pay for them to sit in prison the rest of their lives? Why are we paying for their crimes?

do you think it is right to kill a human,only because of the money???
but otherwise,they could do a job in prison to get money....that's right,but it's the fault of the state and the laws,not of the humans

edit: i think it's ok in the military right(so like sadam or the nazi-regime),were executed) it is ok,but not in civil right

KHWHD
07-26-2009, 05:09 PM
We, the taxpayers work for our money. Why should we have to spend our hard money to let them sit in prison for a murder that they committed?

zsk
07-26-2009, 05:13 PM
We, the taxpayers work for our money. Why should we have to spend our hard money to let them sit in prison for a murder that they committed?

i already said,the men could work for their money,like they do in germany... they get money from firms for working(like producing toys,working in the prison's kitchen....... )

And also make sure,that the judgements make mistakes,and so they would accept to kill innocent people.... if there would be 10.000 people executed that are guilty and 1 person,that is innocent,it would be a real crime in my opinnion by te state and the judgment,so it's better to punish the 10.000 people with prison for their full life

Harleyquiiinn
07-26-2009, 05:30 PM
I believe in the death penalty, yes. Unfortunately there is no death penalty here though.

Back in April, a little girl (Tori Stafford, 8) was seen leaving with someone on a video surveillance camera after school. She was kidnapped and her remains were just found a week ago. Her 2 murderers are in prison.

They both deserve the death penalty. They're both pieces of scum that don't deserve to live for what they did to that poor innocent little girl.

http://www.canada.com/Human+remains+identified+missing+Tori+Stafford/1812732/story.html

See, this is exactly why criminal law is considered as repairing an offence to the society and not to the victims. This is also why Criminal sentences are considered as a way to protect society and pay your debt instead of revenge.

Yes Shank, this is an absolutely awful crime. The parents must be devastated. But it doesn't justify death penalty..

Would you accept that people can be sentenced to jail because they broke into a house if the State was allowed to come in your house at any time and take your DVD Player ?

It's the same... the criminal law of a state cannot be taken seriously if the State is allowed to do that same offence. And where do you put the limit ? Child murderers ? Pedophiles ? Just murderers in general ?

Not to mention the possibility of a mistake... especially in "Jury" countries. you can say things like "this is terrible, these people should be sentenced to death". What if you have a guy, completely broke and desperate and needs money to feed his children, who decided to rub a store. He panics because he is not a professionnal offender and he shoots everywhere cause he's terrified. Too bad... a kid was in the store... What do you do ?

When something like death penaly becomes a law, you don't have the control over when it is applied...

I am firmly against death penalty.

Disclaimer: All this message is IMO :)

Edit> I also think that all that speech about paying taxes so having the right to decide if someone should stay in prison or not is sick. You pay taxes so society can work. You decide how society should work when you vote. Not when you pay taxes.

Ka1n
07-26-2009, 05:55 PM
The bottom line is YES. From here bunch of smart people should decide where is the limit. If it's 100% proven homicide and a killer is not mentally ill, then YES. Oh, hell the lollipop yes!

I can't imagine a killer masturbating in a jail doing valentine hearts. Lethal injection.

When somebody kills, his life automatically lose its value and should be removed from this world.

jacknife737
07-26-2009, 06:00 PM
I am opposed to the death penalty for a number of reasons.

Straight off, ethically, I do not believe the state should be in the business of killing its own citizens.

My main objection, is that even though we have a relatively effective legal system, there still exists a chance that an innocent person may be sentenced to death. There are countless examples of persons being convicted of crimes they did not commit.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions

Shank, the cost of capital punishment, actually far exceeds the costs of imprisoning a criminal for life. So as a tax payer, you’d actually be spending far more money to have someone executed.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13279051
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

KHWHD
07-26-2009, 06:03 PM
Shank, the cost of capital punishment, actually far exceeds the costs of imprisoning a criminal for life. So as a tax payer, you’d actually be spending far more money to have someone executed.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13279051
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

So what about here in Canada.... for some reason I think I've had this conversation not too long ago about this exact same thing.

Regardless, every thing I said was my opinion and stand strongly behind it.

ShutUpYouFuckingMime
07-26-2009, 06:05 PM
I back jacknife737 on this issue.

zsk
07-26-2009, 06:09 PM
I am opposed to the death penalty for a number of reasons.

Straight off, ethically, I do not believe the state should be in the business of killing its own citizens.

My main objection, is that even though we have a relatively effective legal system, there still exists a chance that an innocent person may be sentenced to death. There are countless examples of persons being convicted of crimes they did not commit.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions

Shank, the cost of capital punishment, actually far exceeds the costs of imprisoning a criminal for life. So as a tax payer, you’d actually be spending far more money to have someone executed.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13279051
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

so please vote for no...

jacknife737
07-26-2009, 06:11 PM
So what about here in Canada.... for some reason I think I've had this conversation not too long ago about this exact same thing.

Regardless, every thing I said was my opinion and stand strongly behind it.

It would be the same thing; it's the legal costs that keep capital punishment so high.

However, the main reason why Canada eventually abolished the use of capital punishment (the last execution was in 1962) was due to several high profile cases of wrongful convictions of people like Steven Truscott.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Truscott

Harleyquiiinn
07-26-2009, 06:17 PM
Oh by the way, I forgot to say this before... you ask if it is useful. I guess you mean to discourage other possible offenders.

So, there is that Italian lawyer/philosopher from the 18th century called Beccaria who had a theory about this. You see, he thought that when it comes to prevent offences, it is not how strong the possible sentence is that discourages people but how sure they are to actually have a sentence.

Basically, people will commit a sentence (I mean most of them... for people who are sick/perverts, it is different) only they have a feeling of impunity. If they think they have a good chance to get caught, the chances they commit a crime are decreasing.

So it's only a theory, although it has been verified many times, especially when it comes to driving offences. But I think it is a valid one. This is why I think that Death penaly is not only cruel and unjustified but also completely useless, except for revenge... (and that is never a good reason...)

[[Meli.x]]
07-26-2009, 06:23 PM
While i do appreciate others views, i believe the death penalty should be brought back. I live in England, and the moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley narrowly escaped the death penalty (it was removed just months before they were sentenced.). I dont know how infamous these two are in other countries, but here, they are known as two of the most prolific serial killers of our time. They tortured, raped, and killed 5 children before they were caught. They even recorded the sounds of at least one of the children begging for her life. People like this do not deserve to live.
there may be the argument that innocent people may be sentenced, but is that not a worthy sacrifice to remove those who ARE a danger from the planet. In this country, a life inprisonment does not mean life in jail. Some people deserve to die.
i believe serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, terrorists and child abusers are all worthy of the death penalty. but i would get rid of the humane ways it is done in some places... if it were up to me, their deaths would be long and painful, inflicted however the victims or the victims family deems necassary.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.
i am not religious, i do not believe in heaven or hell. but that is one teaching from the old testament that i respect and believe in.
It may leave the whole world blind, but sometimes, revenge is the only means of punishment.
Of course, none of this is arguing with those who opose the death penalty, i completely respect and understand your point of view, but i do not agree with it.

KHWHD
07-26-2009, 06:23 PM
2 other people voted yes - but they can't explain?

zsk
07-26-2009, 06:28 PM
another point is that the people maybe feel saver in their country,so i do!
even if you think about how sick the laws are in some countries
for example: In Saudi Arabia you'll be executed for bank robbery and adultery,and in many other countries because of dealing with drugs...i know there was something on the news that a german woman(23 years old) took drugs with her and was fated to die (in an arabian country or so),she had luck,because they found out,that it was under the limit of weight(the drugs) for the death penalty,so she got arrested for her full life
i think that's very sick!
In some countries even childs and teenager can be executed (again in saudi-arabia for example)

a little map/statistic:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/archive/d/d0/20090628131547%21Todesstrafe2.png/800px-Todesstrafe2.png
-the blue is without detah penalty
-light blue is only with military rights
-yellow since 10 years there were no executions(but it is still under law)
-orange death penalty only against adulst
-red also agaisnt teenagers

Ka1n
07-26-2009, 07:29 PM
That is realy cruel... i thought the same as you some months before...but this humans are sick and is it right to kill sick people??? they need help,but they should be arrested forever,so there's no danger for other people
All of them are sick? No. The healthy ones with IQ above 100 could be removed for example.

do you think it is right to kill a human,only because of the money???
Do you think it is right to kill a human for fun??? It has nothing to do with money. Life for life. That's fair.

like producing toys,working in the prison's kitchen....... )

And also make sure,that the judgements make mistakes,and so they would accept to kill innocent people.... if there would be 10.000 people executed that are guilty and 1 person,that is innocent,it would be a real crime in my opinnion by te state and the judgment,so it's better to punish the 10.000 people with prison for their full life
That's a bad joke.

The judge that sentenced an innocent person to death should go to prison. That's a nice limit. It should be tight, there's no place for mistakes. Or let bunch of judges vote yes or no. Or if that's not enough, only if a killer confesses that he did it.

See, this is exactly why criminal law is considered as repairing an offence to the society and not to the victims. This is also why Criminal sentences are considered as a way to protect society and pay your debt instead of revenge.

Would you accept that people can be sentenced to jail because they broke into a house if the State was allowed to come in your house at any time and take your DVD Player ?

And where do you put the limit ? Child murderers ? Pedophiles ? Just murderers in general ?

Not to mention the possibility of a mistake... especially in "Jury" countries. you can say things like "this is terrible, these people should be sentenced to death". What if you have a guy, completely broke and desperate and needs money to feed his children, who decided to rub a store. He panics because he is not a professionnal offender and he shoots everywhere cause he's terrified. Too bad... a kid was in the store... What do you do ?

When something like death penaly becomes a law, you don't have the control over when it is applied...

Edit> I also think that all that speech about paying taxes so having the right to decide if someone should stay in prison or not is sick. You pay taxes so society can work. You decide how society should work when you vote. Not when you pay taxes.
Who says that death penalty is a revenge? It's a fair punishment.

WTF? I don't understand that example. Make a better one with a murder and tell me where is a problem with state and criminal law.

Murders.

Obvious Death penalty.

Yeah, let's not make mistakes.

I agree with you, it has nothing to do with money. It's all about what is fair and what's not.

Ka1n
07-26-2009, 07:43 PM
Straight off, ethically, I do not believe the state should be in the business of killing its own citizens.
Straight off, death penalty is not a killing. Only murderers and fat killz.

Static_Martyr
07-26-2009, 07:44 PM
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.

"An eye for an eye only leaves us all blind..."

FTR, I am anti-death penalty, for reasons already mentioned. Most of all, though:

-) I believe too many people accept the death penalty as a "necessary" consequence of personal emotional responses to the crimes committed by the guilty. I don't think it's wrong to have emotional responses to particularly gratuitous offenses, but I do think it's wrong to use those emotional responses as a basis on which to make important moral judgments.

-) And no, it's not that I care about "the criminal's rights," I just think it's hypocritical for a nation to tout its "values" and "morals" when our justice system completely ignores the very values that they say found our nation --- prisoners are imprisoned not as an act of revenge against the prisoner, but to make sure that they do not infringe on others' rights to life, liberty and happiness. Thus, killing them is unnecessary, and from what I've seen here, the desire to do so, is usually provoked by heavily-emotional prejudgments, or knee-jerk reactions.

I mean, I fully understand the desire to "make them pay," but like the quote says, revenge leads nowhere. If we kill in revenge, that will cause people to see us as unjust, and act out in further revenge against our actions, which will only lead to more revenge.

(Granted, that's a personal philosophical standpoint, but I still stand by it.)

EDIT: A slight clarification on that second point....our government says that life is inherently, inalienably valuable. Unfortunately, that includes serial killers, rapists, murderers and pedophiles. We don't get to pick and choose whose lives are valuable and whose are not, and just kill them because we think they don't deserve to live. All that matters to me is that these people are removed from the place where they can cause harm --- living in free society. It's not about making them suffer, or "getting them back for what they did." No amount of revenge will take back what they did. To me, it's about making sure it doesn't happen again.

jacknife737
07-26-2009, 07:54 PM
The judge that sentenced an innocent person to death should go to prison. That's a nice limit. It should be tight, there's no place for mistakes. Or let bunch of judges vote yes or no. Or if that's not enough, only if a killer confesses that he did it.

The legal system is not perfect, mistakes happen. Innocent people have been sentenced to die and having a team of judges voting, isn't going to change that. Also, a confession is not an absolute truth, many people offer false confessions all the time. There is no possible way to prove with 100% certainty, that a person committed a crime, and thus there remains the possibility of an innocent person being sentenced to death.


Straight off, death penalty is not a killing. Only murderers and fat killz.

It is killing; state-sanctioned killing. You may feel as if it is justified, but it doesn't change that fact.

Ka1n
07-26-2009, 07:55 PM
];1336980']
there may be the argument that innocent people may be sentenced,

i believe serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, terrorists and child abusers are all worthy of the death penalty.
It's not the argument to abolish death penalty. It's the argument to push the limit of death penalty higher.

Whoa whoa, that's too much. Rapists should not be sentenced to death. They are not murderers.

Ka1n
07-26-2009, 08:09 PM
Also, a confession is not an absolute truth, many people offer false confessions all the time. There is no possible way to prove with 100% certainty, that a person committed a crime, and thus there remains the possibility of an innocent person being sentenced to death.

It is killing; state-sanctioned killing. You may feel as if it is justified, but it doesn't change that fact.
It doesn't matter if it is or not. If someone is willing to die, let him. If we find out he didn't do it, let's find the right one and punish him.

It's not, it's a punishment. Only murderers kill. You've got it wrong. If it's not clear, a new word should be invented. State-sanctioned killing is not a very fortunate wording. It's just a punishment, it's doesn't matter what kind of punishment.

Use your own brain.

jacknife737
07-26-2009, 08:27 PM
It doesn't matter if it is or not. If someone is willing to die, let him. If we find out he didn't do it, let's find the right one and punish him.

That is an incredibly stupid, inefficient, and quite frankly, immoral way to run a legal system.



It's not, it's a punishment. Only murderers kill. You've got it wrong. If it's not clear, a new word should be invented. State-sanctioned killing is not a very fortunate wording. It's just a punishment, it's doesn't matter what kind of punishment.

Use your own brain.

It doesn't matter if you think it's not "fortunate", that's what it is.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines killing as "an act of causing death". Again, just because you view the act of killing in certain circumstances to be justified, doesn't somehow alter its definition.

Ka1n
07-26-2009, 09:03 PM
That is an incredibly stupid, inefficient, and quite frankly, immoral way to run a legal system.

It doesn't matter if you think it's not "fortunate", that's what it is.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines killing as "an act of causing death". Again, just because you view the act of killing in certain circumstances to be justified, doesn't somehow alter its definition.
Better than let 9.999 murderers masturbate and make valentine hearts.

Yeah, it doesn't matter if I think it or not. It only does matter if more than 50% of people think it in a democratic country or enough votes from politicians in the parliament.

This shouldn't be about dictionary just like it shouldn't be about money. Why don't they use "an act of causing death" instead of (state-sanctioned)killing? Again, it's not the act of killing. How many definitions are there and which one is the right one for this case? Let's use discrete mathematics. If a murderer kills that means a judge can't kill, unless a judge is a murderer but that's a very ridiculous special case. So, you have to use a new bunch of words without the word killing.

Good arguments you've got, people, keep them comming. I like to destroy them.

hshduppsnt
07-26-2009, 09:18 PM
bah... my whole post got messed up when i tried to edit then my computer crashed...

I don't feel like typing it all again so I'll just say no.

jacknife737
07-26-2009, 09:32 PM
Better than let 9.999 murderers masturbate and make valentine hearts.

You're claiming that innocent people may have to die to prevent masturbation in prison.....stop being stupid.



Yeah, it doesn't matter if I think it or not. It only does matter if more than 50% of people think it in a democratic country or enough votes from politicians in the parliament.

What exactly are you arguing here? That any law is justified, if it is backed by the majority of the populace? So if the majority of voters felt that slavery should be reinstated, you'd be ok with that? Also, determining what is and what is not a law isn't always determined by a legislature; a country's high court engages in this as well.



This shouldn't be about dictionary just like it shouldn't be about money. Why don't they use "an act of causing death" instead of (state-sanctioned)killing? Again, it's not the act of killing. How many definitions are there and which one is the right one for this case? L


et's use discrete mathematics. If a murderer kills that means a judge can't kill, unless a judge is a murderer but that's a very ridiculous special case. So, you have to use a new bunch of words without the word killing.

We are arguing over the definition of a word, ergo the most important tool here is a dictionary. Look, killing is an action. An action that can undertaken via an individual or state entity. Regardless of who commits the action, it is still classified as "killing". The term "murder" has a different meaning from "kill". Attempt to sugarcoat it all you want, when the state engages in capital punishment, it is killing its own citizens.

You're starting to bore me.

Ka1n
07-26-2009, 10:35 PM
You're claiming that innocent people may have to die to prevent masturbation in prison.....stop being stupid.

What exactly are you arguing here? That any law is justified, if it is backed by the majority of the populace? So if the majority of voters felt that slavery should be reinstated, you'd be ok with that?

We are arguing over the definition of a word, ergo the most important tool here is a dictionary. Look, killing is an action. An action that can undertaken via an individual or state entity. Regardless of who commits the action, it is still classified as "killing". The term "murder" has a different meaning from "kill". Attempt to sugarcoat it all you want, when the state engages in capital punishment, it is killing its own citizens.

You're starting to bore me.
No. I'm willing to push the limit because of your arguments so mistakes are not made anymore. You are being stupid because you are abolishing death penalty.

I wouldn't be ok with that. But I obviously couldn't do anything about it, except for rebelling? What I'm trying to say is that I'm beyond the current system, smarter than EU commision that creates legislation. EU is against death penalty and I think it's wrong and in the future the whole world will have death penalty. Also, you are giving a ridiculous example, humanity goes forwards not backwards.

Why is it called death penalty and not killing penalty or murder penalty? Because it's not. You have to recognize the meaning and the weight in certain areas where it is used. You can't just use some synonym that has nothing to do with the problem and use it to your own advantage. The problem is that the current world has it sugarcoated.

Hmmm, apparently we have a different weight behind the word kill. However, I'm surprised you are not more hardcore. Why don't you straight away tell that judge or state murders??? You are abolishing death penalty, therefore you say that judge or state is murderer. Kill is a bit weaker than murder but that's still sugarcoated. State is doing a good thing when causes a death to murderers and that's fairly neutral. We should have a word that's at least opposite to kill or murder. Oh wait, that's state-sanctioned killing. :D Aren't there smarter pro death penalty sugarcoaters?

I'm a centrist and it makes sense to call it death penalty. Or state-sanctioned death. But not kill, that's too strong. Not punishing murderer with death is too weak. Fascinating. I gotta think about it. I really enjoy the conversation with you.

Ka1n
07-26-2009, 11:22 PM
It's kinda sad that it has to be about dictionary because it's pretty clear for me. Imagine some hollywood movie, murderer says: I'm gonna kill you! Is the state doing the same thing as the murderer?

Murderer doesn't shout I'm gonna cause you death in a human way with lethal injection.

jacknife737
07-26-2009, 11:45 PM
It's kinda sad that it has to be about dictionary because it's pretty clear for me. Imagine some hollywood movie, murderer says: I'm gonna kill you! Is the state doing the same thing as the murderer?

Murderer doesn't shout I'm gonna cause you death in a human way with lethal injection.

There is nothing humane about pumping somebody full of poison until they expire.

Anyways we are arguing over semantics here and i'm starting to feel like a parrot since i'm having to repeat myself so much.

Using your example; what the "hollywood movie murderer" would be doing is MURDER (the illegal, or deliberate killing of one person by another*). When the state executes a prisoner, they are killing them, in a legal and sanctioned manner; but they are still killing them.

But yes, on a personal level i view both actions, be it if the state, or individual does so, to be equally immoral.

*definition taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.

Human
07-26-2009, 11:52 PM
I'm opposed to some of the cases, but support others.
I think it depends on what someone has done, obviously.
Every single circumstance would be different.

I think that instead of killing a person they could put them to use by making them do hard labor that no one else really wants to do, or for smart minds have them work on something else. Its free labor either way.

Ka1n
07-27-2009, 12:24 AM
There is nothing humane about pumping somebody full of poison until they expire.

Anyways we are arguing over semantics here and i'm starting to feel like a parrot since i'm having to repeat myself so much.

Using your example; what the "hollywood movie murderer" would be doing is MURDER (the illegal, or deliberate killing of one person by another*). When the state executes a prisoner, they are killing them, in a legal and sanctioned manner; but they are still killing them.

But yes, on a personal level i view both actions, be it if the state, or individual does so, to be equally immoral.

*definition taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Well, there's no better option with a fair punishment right know. This universe sucks. :d In Babylon 5 they were able to erase personality. However, strong telepaths could restore it. :D

It's a difficult issue and I'm bored with usual arguments. However, saying yes to death penalty is obviously justified. The problem is to find the limit where there are no mistakes. Confession of a murderer is a reasonable limit.

Illegal killing and legal killing are almost equal!! Legal killing would mean that you can for example buy the rights to kill somebody and you don't get punished. You ARE ALMOST saying that state kills illegally. Also, you should have bothered and add: ";but they are still legally killing them.". You can't go from legally killing them to killing them.

Hahaha, how can you even think that a murder is immoral??? Murder is infinite times worse than the word immoral. Murder should never be touched with such a weak word as immoral. Also, state is defending its people by a fair punishment, it's doing good. This is anything but equal. Is it immoral that state is doing good???

Ka1n
07-27-2009, 12:30 AM
You are just playing with a language without any connotations and logical consequences.

Harleyquiiinn
07-27-2009, 12:50 AM
Ka1n> My example was sgowing you that murder is murder. That's it. Sometime, there is a reason between the murder. It's still terrible, but shit happens... you seem to have the wrong idea that murderers are all monsters with a knife between their teeth... well, no they aren't.
You also have monsters, but they are a lot rarer... and it will still be called murder.

So you have this offence in the law called murder and it says it can ben punished by death penalty. The question was: how do you distinguish between the people who deserves it or not ?
A bunch of smart people ? well... that bunch of smart people won't always be in the jury. And this question is always subjective.

And yes, it is a revenge, not a punishment. An eye for an eye... a punishment means that evnethough a person did something terrible, she is still part of society but you put her away to make sure she pays her debt and doesn't hurt anyone... I am not even going to discuss the possibilities of reintegration into the said society with you... all you seem to think about is masturbating in jail.

To sum up: don't you think I, as a person, wouldn't want some offenders to die ? some people who did things so terrible that they lost their belonging into society forever ? we also have some of them here... but I also know that if vote for a law in favor of death penalty, the sentence may be applied to people that it shouldn't be. I am not talking about innocent people, I am talking about the non-monsters. Therefore, I am against it (and also against it for the reasons I said before)

MeliX> I think it was very honest of you to say it was a matter of revenge. I don't agree with you though...
I doubt it ever comes back in England by the way... It has a constitutionnal value in your country because you ratified the European Convention of Human Rights...

Ka1n
07-27-2009, 01:02 AM
Gonna reply tomorrow hun.

Be prepared guys! I didn't even start attacking your outdated knowledge.

Harleyquiiinn
07-27-2009, 01:24 AM
Ah, see you then. I'm leaving for a little while... too bad... although, I have no idea how a knowledge about death penalty can be outdated... I would never have thought that killing someone could be considered as progress no matter how... :confused:

Oxygene
07-27-2009, 04:00 AM
I am truly devided on the death penalty

I believe some people should be killed.. defiatley

I do however feel it wrong to execute in the name of everyone. If I don't agree with the execution of someone it is very wrong to kill in my name....


I do however believe that people like that need to locked up in a dark 3x6 dark room with a bed a toiled a pizza shoved under the door a day, and a noose.

Rutegard
07-27-2009, 04:23 AM
no .....................

zsk
07-27-2009, 07:31 AM
Yeah, let's not make mistakes.

I agree with you, it has nothing to do with money. It's all about what is fair and what's not.

but you know there will always be a mistake,and you know the danger of killing innocent people is to high in my opinion....
about 150 people lost their lifes in america because of detah penalty and they were innocent!

zsk
07-27-2009, 07:36 AM
MeliX> I think it was very honest of you to say it was a matter of revenge. I don't agree with you though...
I doubt it ever comes back in England by the way... It has a constitutionnal value in your country because you ratified the European Convention of Human Rights...

and that's good!
believe me i feel saver because of living in europe!

zsk
07-27-2009, 07:50 AM
All of them are sick? No. The healthy ones with IQ above 100 could be removed for example.


i'm not talking about murder,that would not be such a big crime for me to execute someone!
the thing i thought is killing little children or raping women; i think those crimes are even a lot harder than killing someone!
and those people are sick,and because of that it's not fair to let them be executed

and even if someone will kill another person; there are always reasons for the act.... like somebody had sex with someones wife/husband
and otherwise if there's no reason the human is sick so there can't be a crime that is so hard to executed the person who did the crime aside from sick people and it's not ok to kill sick people

actually you should see there is even no good reason to kill a human

ad8
07-27-2009, 10:40 AM
oh my god this thread rules.

First of all, I am against the death penalty.
My opinion is similar to Static_Martyr's. I think that a) revenge is a concept that won't lead to more peace and a better society
b) the state should not be able to decide about the life/death of its citizens
c) people should start thinking about why murders/crimes are being done. I think people should at least try to find a way to create a more stable society with a better way of looking at each other and considering the perspective of others.

jacknife737
07-27-2009, 03:47 PM
Also, state is defending its people by a fair punishment, it's doing good. This is anything but equal. Is it immoral that state is doing good???

It's not "defending" anything, it's essentially engaging in revenge killings.

Anyways, we're still engaged in a battle over semantics, which really has little to do with my main objection(s) to the use of capital punishment. You started this particular discussion by attacking my views on the morality of the death penalty; this cannot be proven either way, you either view it as just or unjust and debate will most likely change little. My view is that it is immoral for the state to be able to kill it's own citizens

My central objection to capital punishment is that as there exists the possibility of innocent persons being sentenced to die, due to the flaws in the current legal system, the death penalty cannot be justified.

There are of course other objections, such as the high cost, its ineffectiveness in acting as a deterrent, ect.


The problem is to find the limit where there are no mistakes. Confession of a murderer is a reasonable limit.

It's a problem that cannot be solved in a statisfactory manner. A confession is not an effective test, as false confessions are made all the time for various reasons. Police intimidation, torture, psychological weakness (a weak minded suspect will simply say anything to end the interrogation process), ect, ect, ect.

So, i've made my point, and i doubt i'll reply anymore in this thread since these types of discussions tend to go around in circles, and this one already has.

[[Meli.x]]
07-27-2009, 04:58 PM
Whoa whoa, that's too much. Rapists should not be sentenced to death. They are not murderers.

They may not have taken a life, but they may have destroyed one...
whether the victim be male or female, i believe it should be punishable by death.
Edit: Rape is about power, as is serial killing... it is only the acts themselves which are different. A rapist could ruin their victims life. whether you like it or not, taking a life is not the only means of destroying one.


Gonna reply tomorrow hun.

Be prepared guys! I didn't even start attacking your outdated knowledge.

This thread is about opinion.
You have no right to "attack" other peoples "outdated knowlege". I have done my research, my knowlege is as up to date as yours... does it really matter if you agree with anyone, opinion is opinion, and you must be a tool to feel as though you have to attack it.

[[Meli.x]]
07-27-2009, 05:06 PM
and that's good!
believe me i feel saver because of living in europe!

personally, i would feel safer knowing that those sentenced had no means of coming back.
I was horrified to find out that Jamie Bulgars killers were released with new names, new lives. They may have only been 10 and 11 when they tortured and killed a 3 year old boy, but if they can do it then, they could do it again... i dont feel safe in a country whos legal system allows such criminals back into society.
I dont believe rehabilitation works.

wheelchairman
07-27-2009, 07:43 PM
You think 10 and 11 year olds should have life sentences? I mean if rehabilitation could work on anybody, it'd be fucking children.

[[Meli.x]]
07-28-2009, 05:13 AM
bearing in mind, these 10 and 11 year olds stole, beat, threw paint over, sexually assaulted and then put the dead body of a 3 year old boy on train tracks to see if it would be cut in half...
So yes.
i believe that they should have got life sentences.

wheelchairman
07-28-2009, 05:52 AM
So if the crime is serious enough, you believe that anyone of any age should get life sentences? Even if they are 10 years old?

IamSam
07-28-2009, 06:18 AM
I mean if rehabilitation could work on anybody, it'd be fucking children.

I don't know what you were going for here...


There was a guy here that would kidnap a neighbors kid, rape them, then cut up the body and put it into some casserole or other food and give it to the family so they would literally eat their own kid. He showed no remorse for it.

Death penalty yea or nay?

Omni
07-28-2009, 08:02 AM
No. I'm willing to push the limit because of your arguments so mistakes are not made anymore. You are being stupid because you are abolishing death penalty.

What you're saying is hard to agree with, Ka1n, because what you're describing is a utopia. In a ideal world, sure, no mistakes would be made, but as long as humans exist, they will make human errors. And that's all there is to it. If we're going to argue like that, then I'm going to say I'd be willing to push to the limits of making sure murders no longer happen in the first place, without the use of any kind of violence, and a death penalty isn't even needed. There, no death penalty. We win anyway.


EU is against death penalty and I think it's wrong and in the future the whole world will have death penalty. Also, you are giving a ridiculous example, humanity goes forwards not backwards.

Yes, society moves forward. Which is exactly why there will be no death penalty in the future.



Why is it called death penalty and not killing penalty or murder penalty? Because it's not.

It's called the death penalty because the punishment is named after the outcome. Why are you even bringing this up? It's painfully irrelevant, and the fact that your argument hinges delicately on the fact that murder and the death penalty aren't the same thing (they are) is retarded. It doesn't matter how much value you place on a word, the killing of a human being, by another human being, is murder.

zsk
07-28-2009, 09:19 AM
What you're saying is hard to agree with, Ka1n, because what you're describing is a utopia. In a ideal world, sure, no mistakes would be made, but as long as humans exist, they will make human errors. And that's all there is to it.
And that's exactly what I'm talking about!
You can't just say ohh we're not going to make mistakes.....we ARE all going to do mistakes,and that's the point!

dexter12296566
07-28-2009, 10:08 AM
i dont find death penalty a good or constructive idea. and i hate the bastards that like to go and watch people die

Superdope
07-28-2009, 10:31 AM
What I'm trying to say is that I'm beyond the current system, smarter than EU commision that creates legislation. EU is against death penalty and I think it's wrong and in the future the whole world will have death penalty. Also, you are giving a ridiculous example, humanity goes forwards not backwards.

No. just... no.

dexter12296566
07-28-2009, 10:42 AM
it is so wrong to watch someone kill another person its just sick(in a bad way)

[[Meli.x]]
07-28-2009, 04:01 PM
So if the crime is serious enough, you believe that anyone of any age should get life sentences? Even if they are 10 years old?

Yes, I do.

[[Meli.x]]
07-28-2009, 04:04 PM
it is so wrong to watch someone kill another person its just sick(in a bad way)

Not so long ago, it used to be a form of public entertainment... if the person deserves it, then what is sick about it?
Am i the only one here who agrees with the death penalty?
Seriously?

zsk
07-28-2009, 04:09 PM
];1337694']Not so long ago, it used to be a form of public entertainment... if the person deserves it, then what is sick about it?
Am i the only one here who agrees with the death penalty?
Seriously?

it's because the most humans want to get distance from dark ages like the middle ages or the 2WW
That's because humans are different than animals
humans should not kill eachother,whatever they've done(except for your life is in danger,or s.o. else' life is in danger)

[[Meli.x]]
07-28-2009, 04:29 PM
Humans are animals, regardless of our sophistication. You get the power hungry and the blood thirsty. Killing is in our nature, but we ignore it on the most part because of how society is, and what it expects of us.

dexter12296566
07-28-2009, 05:18 PM
];1337694']Not so long ago, it used to be a form of public entertainment... if the person deserves it, then what is sick about it?
Am i the only one here who agrees with the death penalty?
Seriously?

i am thinking you are

IamSam
07-28-2009, 05:46 PM
i am thinking you are

No. I agree with it as long as there are no doubts that it's the right person.

dexter12296566
07-28-2009, 05:51 PM
No. I agree with it as long as there are no doubts that it's the right person.

i dont really think about it but even if they do it it is wrong to let people watch

Omni
07-28-2009, 05:57 PM
];1337694']Not so long ago, it used to be a form of public entertainment... if the person deserves it, then what is sick about it?
Am i the only one here who agrees with the death penalty?
Seriously?


No, but you're the only one who holds such a child-like view of how sentences should be carried out. It almost makes me wish unfortunate, accidental circumstances lead you to a situation in which you're relying on people who hopefully think differently than you. Then you'd see everything isn't so black and white.

You're kind of a complete, utter fucking moron, to be honest.

zsk
07-28-2009, 05:59 PM
];1337701']Humans are animals, regardless of our sophistication. You get the power hungry and the blood thirsty. Killing is in our nature, but we ignore it on the most part because of how society is, and what it expects of us.

No! Humans are a kind of animal
they're relevant but it's not the same

dexter12296566
07-28-2009, 05:59 PM
You're kind of a complete, utter fucking moron, to be honest.

it is good to see someones message like that and not be about me

[[Meli.x]]
07-28-2009, 06:35 PM
Why are we any different to an Ape?
Or a Penguin?
and so on.
And yes, we have technology, but that doesnt mean we are superior, the only reason we are was through force... we fought our way to the top of the food chain. Which doesnt support your point at all.

If we arent animals then what are we?

zsk
07-28-2009, 06:45 PM
];1337741']Why are we any different to an Ape?
Or a Penguin?
and so on.
And yes, we have technology, but that doesnt mean we are superior, the only reason we are was through force... we fought our way to the top of the food chain. Which doesnt support your point at all.

If we arent animals then what are we?

i'm not talking about technologies!
Humans have a soul!

[[Meli.x]]
07-28-2009, 06:46 PM
No, but you're the only one who holds such a child-like view of how sentences should be carried out. It almost makes me wish unfortunate, accidental circumstances lead you to a situation in which you're relying on people who hopefully think differently than you. Then you'd see everything isn't so black and white.

You're kind of a complete, utter fucking moron, to be honest.

Okay, 1) no need for the last comment, im holding what i thought was a sensible debate with people of opposing views, apparantly i was wrong.
2) If i commited a crime that i have previously specified, then i would deserve to die. end of.
3) Child-like? the only one child like i can see is someone calling a complete stranger a fucking moron for expressing their opinions. whats up? Did you spit your dummy out because i dont agree with you?

[[Meli.x]]
07-28-2009, 06:54 PM
i'm not talking about technologies!
Humans have a soul!

and other animals dont?

WammyOver
07-28-2009, 07:06 PM
No, but you're the only one who holds such a child-like view of how sentences should be carried out. It almost makes me wish unfortunate, accidental circumstances lead you to a situation in which you're relying on people who hopefully think differently than you. Then you'd see everything isn't so black and white.

You're kind of a complete, utter fucking moron, to be honest.

What the fuck gives you the right to call her that? Its just her views on the subject and i agree with her. True, some people are sentenced who did nothing at all, but then you get people who rape children and destroy their lives, so why not get rid of them? what worth does their life have after that?
And you are the one being childish, its you saying "it almost makes me wish... " Yeah. Really mature.

people like you really piss me off ! DICK

adombomb222
07-28-2009, 10:07 PM
I think it’s retarded to hand out life sentences with out the possibility of parole. I really find it unnecessary to have taxpayers’ money paying for someone who isn’t getting a chance at parole. As for the death penalty, I think it’s necessary. And there are certain circumstances in which it’s dangerous, however, I think when someone confesses or is sentenced to life with out the possibility of parole that the death penalty is a useful tool.

ad8
07-29-2009, 03:18 AM
So what started off as a comical thread has just become a comedy thread. I love it.

Ka1n
07-29-2009, 04:06 AM
Ka1n> you seem to have the wrong idea that murderers are all monsters with a knife between their teeth... well, no they aren't.

The question was: how do you distinguish between the people who deserves it or not ?
A bunch of smart people ? well... that bunch of smart people won't always be in the jury. And this question is always subjective.

And yes, it is a revenge, not a punishment. An eye for an eye... a punishment means that evnethough a person did something terrible, she is still part of society but you put her away to make sure she pays her debt and doesn't hurt anyone... I am not even going to discuss the possibilities of reintegration into the said society with you... all you seem to think about is masturbating in jail.

To sum up: don't you think I, as a person, wouldn't want some offenders to die?

I am not talking about innocent people, I am talking about the non-monsters.
What? WTH? Very intelligent people kill too. If they don't have some serious diagnosis they should be sentenced.

I mean people with university education. I don't know what's enough, 100 judges? 200? In combination with a lie detector and confession of a convicted person. Also, expert opinion from doctors and psychologists. Is that enough?

It's a fair punishment. I don't feel any anger and nobody murdered my familly members. Is it moral to allow a murderer to have pleasures like eating food, having friends in jail and masturbating? Things a killed person will never be able to experience. I'm not a hardcore an eye for an eye person. I'm consistent. A rape or smuggling drugs shouldn't be done with an eye for an eye.

That's a revenge.

Who the hell are non-monsters? Describe them.

Ah, see you then. I'm leaving for a little while... too bad... although, I have no idea how a knowledge about death penalty can be outdated... I would never have thought that killing someone could be considered as progress no matter how... :confused:
Well, the times has changed. We can test DNA of convicted people. With time there will be no mistakes and in disputable cases shouldn't be used death penalty. Also, I pretty much logically proved that state doesn't murder.

but you know there will always be a mistake,and you know the danger of killing innocent people is to high in my opinion....
about 150 people lost their lifes in america because of detah penalty and they were innocent!
With confession of a murderer there are no mistakes. If he is mentally ill, 5 doctors should comfirm it. If he is an idiot who can't tell he didn't do it then he doesn't deserve to live and that's not a mistake. All the cases should never be closed. Also, there must be some serious proofs that he did it. It's not like anybody's gonna confess.

Omni
07-29-2009, 04:38 AM
]]Okay, 1) no need for the last comment, im holding what i thought was a sensible debate with people of opposing views, apparantly i was wrong.
2) If i commited a crime that i have previously specified, then i would deserve to die. end of.
3) Child-like? the only one child like i can see is someone calling a complete stranger a fucking moron for expressing their opinions. whats up? Did you spit your dummy out because i dont agree with you?


1) Maybe the last comment was a bit unnecessary. I apologize. However, any person who believes a child of any age as well as rapists should receive a death penalty is not a sensible person. It's fine if you believe in the death penalty, but that's just ridiculous.

2) You make light of death while you're not facing it, which is easy to do.

3) I didn't accuse you of being childish. I think your views are very moronic and ass-backward. Me calling you a complete idiot (which I apologized for) is far less harsh than say, executing an 8 year-old for a murder he most likely didn't maliciously plan, because they're 8, so you don't have a lot of room to talk.


And you are the one being childish, its you saying "it almost makes me wish... " Yeah. Really mature.

people like you really piss me off ! DICK

I didn't accuse her of being childish or immature, I accused her views of right and wrong of being child-like, because quite frankly, they are. Anyone who looks at the world as a place where anyone of any age who committed a murder or rape should be put to death just like that, has a very undeveloped sense of justice. I didn't wish anything on her, it almost makes me wish something would happen because with her dictator-esque views of death, that's the only way she'd see that sometimes accidents happen, or sometimes situations out of your control arise and you don't deserve the firing squad.

ad8
07-29-2009, 04:41 AM
If he is an idiot who can't tell he didn't do it then he doesn't deserve to live and that's not a mistake.
So if Albert Einstein told you something like "I am smarter than you and therefore you are an idiot and don't deserve to live." you would just accept it?

Ka1n
07-29-2009, 05:00 AM
i'm not talking about murder,that would not be such a big crime for me to execute someone! the thing i thought is killing little children or raping women; i think those crimes are even a lot harder than killing someone!

and those people are sick,and because of that it's not fair to let them be executed

and even if someone will kill another person; there are always reasons for the act.... like somebody had sex with someones wife/husband

actually you should see there is even no good reason to kill a human
You are not capable to talk about the issue. Killing a child is a murder. Rape is nothing against murder. People can heal over the time, if not, then at least deal with it somehow. When you are dead you can't deal with anything. You are fuckin' dead for a long time.

Do you have a medical education to tell that they have some diagnosis? You can't generalize.

HAHAHA, you can't be serious.

There is. Million? Billion dollars? So you can buy an island and live there forever. Those people are not mentally ill. They are fuckin' idiots that should be dead.

It's not "defending" anything, it's essentially engaging in revenge killings.

Anyways, we're still engaged in a battle over semantics, which really has little to do with my main objection(s) to the use of capital punishment. You started this particular discussion by attacking my views on the morality of the death penalty; this cannot be proven either way, you either view it as just or unjust and debate will most likely change little. My view is that it is immoral for the state to be able to kill it's own citizens

My central objection to capital punishment is that as there exists the possibility of innocent persons being sentenced to die, due to the flaws in the current legal system, the death penalty cannot be justified.

There are of course other objections, such as the high cost, its ineffectiveness in acting as a deterrent, ect.
Here we disagree. How it's not defending? Should we abolish the police then? How can I revenge when nobody killed members of my family. I'm being honest. I honestly think it a fair punishment.

You are inconsistent and you have trouble with semantics. I proved that state doesn't kill.

There are no mistakes with a confession of a murderer.

You can't be serious. We have established that this shouldn't be about money. That can be fixed too, my axe is very sharp and cheap. Oh wait, we are killing in a human way which you said is not possible. You are inconsistent. Also, kids should be taught in school that if they take someones life they are dead.

];1337319']They may not have taken a life, but they may have destroyed one...
whether the victim be male or female, i believe it should be punishable by death.

A rapist could ruin their victims life.

This thread is about opinion.
That's a great example of revenge. That wouldn't be a fair punisment. I have already explained a rape.

You can heal it or at least deal with it somehow. When you are dead, you can't.

Your opinion is wrong. I'm just telling you.

You think 10 and 11 year olds should have life sentences? I mean if rehabilitation could work on anybody, it'd be fucking children.
Under 18, sentence for life in prison at maximum.

Ka1n
07-29-2009, 05:14 AM
No. just... no.
You wouldn't believe who is in EU parliament. Fuckin' Jobbik has 3 seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_a_Better_Hungary

Also, candidates for a president in the USA don't believe in evolution.

If I'm not better than all, I for sure beat those mentioned.

Ka1n
07-29-2009, 06:05 AM
and the fact that your argument hinges delicately on the fact that murder and the death penalty aren't the same thing (they are) is retarded.

It doesn't matter how much value you place on a word,

the killing of a human being, by another human being, is murder.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
(common denominator is a death, doesn't mean it's the same thing, that's why they are called differently)
Do you want a proof? Death penalty is a punishment. Murder is a crime. They oppose each other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Yeah, it doesn't matter if The Offspring is good or awesome.

OK. Now, tell me what's a death penalty.

ShutUpYouFuckingMime
07-29-2009, 07:30 AM
I really don't like how you're down playing the severity of rape, Ka1n. I feel that rape is far worse than murder because when someone has been murdered, they suffer no more. The psychological effects rape has on a person can be pretty damning and could potentially drive one to suicide. Sure they may get past it, and a lot of people do, but the memory of that incident stays with them FOREVER. I take it you've never been raped or known anybody who has with the way you keep down playing it as if it were no big deal compared to murder.

jacknife737
07-29-2009, 03:04 PM
I proved that state doesn't kill.

Simply stating your opinion, isn't "proving" anything. I won't continue this part of the discussion, since i've already stated my say over the matter.


There are no mistakes with a confession of a murderer.

Yes there are, I listed them earlier.


You can't be serious. We have established that this shouldn't be about money.

That's why it's not my main objection, go back and read my posts.


That can be fixed too, my axe is very sharp and cheap. Oh wait, we are killing in a human way which you said is not possible. You are inconsistent.

I'm universally against the death penalty; i'm incredibly consistent. And the high costs are the result of legal/court fees, not the method of execution.


Also, kids should be taught in school that if they take someones life they are dead.

Kids are taught today that murder is wrong, and you'll recieve strict punishment. And guess what, it still happens.

zsk
07-29-2009, 05:22 PM
Kids are taught today that murder is wrong, and you'll recieve strict punishment. And guess what, it still happens.

@kain:
i think you should know that statistics demonstrate that the deatch penalty isn't deterrend for criminal people
the criminality in america is a lot higher than the criminality in germany!

so it's realy useless for the State and the people

Omni
07-29-2009, 06:02 PM
I'm like 80% sure Ka1n is just a troll, now. Let him talk to himself.

zsk
07-30-2009, 03:45 PM
Die Todesstrafe kostet mehr als ein Leben lang im Gefängnis zu verbringen. Ein Report in der Dallas Morning News von 1992 zeigte, dass die Durchschnittskosten für einen Todesstrafenfall bei 2,3 Millionen Dollar liegen im Gegensatz zu 750 Tausend Dollar für lebenslang im Gefängnis. Dies ist auf das längere Verfahren, sowie die Berufungsprozesse zurückzuführen. Wenn man den Berufungsprozess verkürzen würde, könnte das dazu führen, dass noch mehr unschuldige Menschen hingerichtet werden.

that article says,that the death penalty costs even MORE than life long prison!

[[Meli.x]]
07-30-2009, 03:58 PM
1) Maybe the last comment was a bit unnecessary. I apologize. However, any person who believes a child of any age as well as rapists should receive a death penalty is not a sensible person. It's fine if you believe in the death penalty, but that's just ridiculous.

2) You make light of death while you're not facing it, which is easy to do.

3) I didn't accuse you of being childish. I think your views are very moronic and ass-backward. Me calling you a complete idiot (which I apologized for) is far less harsh than say, executing an 8 year-old for a murder he most likely didn't maliciously plan, because they're 8, so you don't have a lot of room to talk.

I used the example of Thompson and Venables assuming knowlege. they had also previously tried to take another child but got caught and stopped. If that isnt premeditated, i dont know what is.
Would you feel safe in a country, knowing that the same two people, who are now bigger, stronger, and more clever than they were then, are now back on the streets with a new identity? that was my point. Also, i think the punishment should reflect the crime... if a child accidentally kills someone, im not sure in what situation that would happen... then it would be obvious that it was an accident.
as for my attitude towards death, i dont do anything without considering the consequences, if i was risking being put to death, then i would be less likley to commit the crime in the first place.

adombomb222
07-31-2009, 12:11 AM
that article says,that the death penalty costs even MORE than life long prison!

Well, that's because we spend so much money making a big ordeal about it, and painless/ human. One bullet is all you need to kill a human being, and that costs pennies on the dollar.

jacknife737
07-31-2009, 12:16 AM
Well, that's because we spend so much money making a big ordeal about it, and painless/ human. One bullet is all you need to kill a human being, and that costs pennies on the dollar.

Third time i've had to say this in the thread.

The high cost of capital punishment isn't due to the method of execution, it's to do with the cost of court/legal fees associated with it.

IamSam
07-31-2009, 12:25 AM
Third time i've had to say this in the thread.

The high cost of capital punishment isn't due to the method of execution, it's to do with the cost of court/legal fees associated with it.

And here we go again. Alex comes SWEEPING into a conversation, delivering logic like goddamn Tinkerbell, and fails miserably because the logic dust is being spread over objects that have no sense of what logic is. Like Glen Beck.

adombomb222
07-31-2009, 12:28 AM
Well I apologies for not reading through out the entire thread. The judicial system costs the taxpayers a lot of money already, why would something seemingly so simple be more expensive? Trial, jury finds the person guilty and judge sentences death. That should be the end of it, and yes of coarse there are certain circumstances when, time should be allowed to follow up and shit. But if a guy pleads guilty or is found guilty without reasonable doubt, that should be the end of it, take him to the back the next day and shoot him.

wheelchairman
07-31-2009, 07:22 AM
Wow HAU, I'm surprised you haven't been caught yet. :) But your secret is safe with me!