Death Penalty (sparked by the abortion topic, heh)

[Tweek]

Recently in Washington, the Green River Killer Gary Ridgway confessed to over 50 murders. He was given a long sentence (i think some life sentences and fines). But he was not sentenced to death.

You have no idea how infuriated I was. He showed absolutely no remorse. He is a waste of space even in jail.

He's the type of criminal that the death penalty had in mind, i think. but our system is SO BONED that he's still alive, probably still not giving a crap about the familes who are suffering because of what he did.



What do you all think of the death penalty?

[SLAW]

I am against the death penalty. There is a lot of good that can come from murderers in prison their whole lives. I want serial killers studied to the bare bone of their psyche. I want us to learn everything about them, to decrease the chances of more people to turn out like them. It will decrease crime in the long run.

I understand that most people are for the death penalty and I understand why. But I feel if society will truely start moving forward, the death penalty will slowly die itself. It is just inhumaine for a society to put human beings to death. But as far as i'm concerned, sitting in a cube for 23 hours a day, then moving to a bigger cube to walk around for an hour is a brutal and savage punishment, yet a thousand times more practical.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Tweek
What do you all think of the death penalty?

It clearly doesn't 'work'...just look at the statistics.

[Tweek]

But in the case I stated, the killer wasn't remorseful at all.
Without remorse, sitting in the cell for 23 (or whatever) hours a day will have zero effect.


It's not just this that pisses me off about the justice system. A while back, a CONFESSED child molester was released from on a technicality. Luckily he was found (near where I live), and arrested again for giving a phony address when applying for a driver's license. Why?! Why does shit like this happen?! He confessed to over 200 molestations and he was released! Why?!

-calms down-

[RicochetShaw]

I am against it.

[countchocula]

If a guy rapes me against my will, I'm not going to rape him to avenge my asshole. I apply the same logic to capital punishment. I'm not going to sink to, say, Charles Manson's level by wishing death upon him. I have a sneaking suspicion that he'll die one day regardless of whether or not I want him to fry. Let these fucks waste away in prison. The death penalty only serves to reinforce this country's puerile "Oh yeah? Well, I'll show you!" sentiment.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Tweek
But in the case I stated, the killer wasn't remorseful at all.
Without remorse, sitting in the cell for 23 (or whatever) hours a day will have zero effect.

Will killing him make him remorsful?


It's not just this that pisses me off about the justice system. A while back, a CONFESSED child molester was released from on a technicality. Luckily he was found (near where I live), and arrested again for giving a phony address when applying for a driver's license. Why?! Why does shit like this happen?! He confessed to over 200 molestations and he was released! Why?!


I don't know why, why don't you tell me what the technicality was. Ah, I think I smell an example of incompetent police work or a fumbling DA coming. :D

[notchreturns]

Originally posted by countchocula
If a guy rapes me against my will, I'm not going to rape him to avenge my asshole.

Haha :D

This line made me chuckle.

I'm against Capital Punishment. Kinda barbariac, no? I believe society should move on, strive away from the horrible actions and behavior of our ancestors, not embrace it with open arms, especially when it comes to killing. Sure, we've made it more civilized you could say, but in the end it's still killing a human being for killing a human being. Kind of a double standard...

[BubbaStrangelove]

- It would help the prison overcrowding situation.

- Tax payers spend too much money supporting criminals, and not enough supporting education, intervention, and out-reach care.

- The system is currently misused, and needs better standards for use.




As far as using statistics to show it doesn't work, I want to see that.

In my opinion, the statistics I've seen can just as easily show that it's not used as much.

[Tweek]

Originally posted by SLAW
Will killing him make him remorsful?




I don't know why, why don't you tell me what the technicality was. Ah, I think I smell an example of incompetent police work or a fumbling DA coming. :D


I may be wrong but isn't prison the equivalent of saying "Go to your room and think about what you've done"? Another reason I wanted this guy to die was in case of some technicality that might set him free. It's happened before. He's a total sociopath and seems beyond help.



The technicality of the child molestors release was that the victim behind the charge of his upcoming trial killed himself. Under some sort of messed up law, he was set free.

[Tweek]

Originally posted by notchreturns
Kinda barbariac, no? I believe society should move on, strive away from the horrible actions and behavior of our ancestors, not embrace it with open arms, especially when it comes to killing. Sure, we've made it more civilized you could say, but in the end it's still killing a human being for killing a human being. Kind of a double standard...



Killing a human being for killing a human being... It's not always a human being. try a human being x 56. Do you really think any good will be done by keeping the man in a cell? If he has no conscience, what good will it do to keep him in the prison system.


Look up Gary Ridgway, read some shit on him, or if there's video of him, watch it and then tell me he's not a waste of space.

[JCPhoenix]

Originally posted by Tweek
Killing a human being for killing a human being... It's not always a human being. try a human being x 56. Do you really think any good will be done by keeping the man in a cell? If he has no conscience, what good will it do to keep him in the prison system.


Look up Gary Ridgway, read some shit on him, or if there's video of him, watch it and then tell me he's not a waste of space.

i actually spent about an hour a couple weeks ago reading about this guy and the countless people he's killed. it's truly insane, and he doesn't show remorse either.

That said, I am still against the death penalty. The taking of someone's life is something we have no right to do. No MATTER how many people they've killed. Just keep in mind, you're making this person *NOT EXIST*. He or she will NEVER be around again. To me, that's a scary thing. A VERY scary thing, and it crosses the line for us to judge whether someone should die or not.

Putting killers like him in jail for life is good because he cannot kill any more innocent people.

And some people show remorse. This guy is an extreme case, actually the MOST extreme. If i recall, I read that he has the record for the most people killed by a serial killer.

Not only that, but even if I agreed with the death penalty, it is still used much more often than it should be.

And what if a guy is innocent of the charges? A jury is not always right. People are fallible. Is the possible death of one innocent person worth the death of others who would otherwise not have any impact for the rest of their life on society?

I think not. Some may say, oh it would be just one mistake. One innocent person. But that may seem like a small thing, but imagine it was you who was that innocent person. And your life was about to be thrown away for no reason at all.

[Tweek]

Fair enough, I'll ask a different question:


Why does confessing to multiple murders get you out a death sentence?


Does it make any sense?



Putting killers like him in jail for life is good because he cannot kill any more innocent people.
Unless there's one of those pesky technicalities. I don't put it past the system to release him on a technicalities.

[notchreturns]

Originally posted by Tweek
Killing a human being for killing a human being... It's not always a human being. try a human being x 56. Do you really think any good will be done by keeping the man in a cell? If he has no conscience, what good will it do to keep him in the prison system.


Look up Gary Ridgway, read some shit on him, or if there's video of him, watch it and then tell me he's not a waste of space.

If he has no conscience, then who are we to send him to his death? And if he does have a conscience and realized his faults, feels obvious sorrow, do we still send them to their death? Yes, I feel for the victims, their families and friends, but I also feel for a human being who has lost any sort of feeling at all. I can only imagine what that person must feel, or the lackthereof, and I just simply feel sorry for them.

[Tweek]

I am an empathetic person... Not for a confessed serial killer.

Heh, I should be a prosecutor.

-strokes chin-

[JCPhoenix]

Originally posted by Tweek
Fair enough, I'll ask a different question:


Why does confessing to multiple murders get you out a death sentence?


Does it make any sense?




Unless there's one of those pesky technicalities. I don't put it past the system to release him on a technicalities.

well there's a difference in this case. Again it's been acouple weeks since i read up on this, but I believe the judge made the decision for the sake of the victim's families.

Due to the fact that the man was the only one who knew where the remains of the victims lay, the only way they were getting it out of him was if they made sure he wouldn't get the death penalty.

So there was a choice to be made, so he could've been put on death penalty, but they opted to give the families closure - something that i feel was the right decision. It is more important for the victims to get some closure on such a big missing piece of their lives then to kill the guy.

[bmain77]

As far as the monetary issue someone brought up, I've always heard that it's actually cheaper to keep a convicted murderer in prison for life than it is to kill him. This is because of the cost of the massive appeals process you have to go through in a case like this and so on. That being said I don't know that its true. I've never seen the actual figures to back that up, but I've heard that from several different sources.

I personally don't have an opinion on the issue. However, if someone is to be killed there better be little question if any at all to his or her guilt or innocence. I'm talking solid DNA evidence and all that. There have been too many cases of innocent people killed or sentenced to life.

And I'd almost rather see a convicted Child molester executed rather than a murderer. You can never fix a pedophile as far as I'm concearned.

[Tweek]

the cost of the massive appeals

true... every time a death penalty is given, there's an automatic appeal.



And I'd almost rather see a convicted Child molester executed rather than a murderer. You can never fix a pedophile as far as I'm concearned.

Also true.

I hate pedophiles more than Gary Ridgway.

I'm not going into that as my typing won't catch up with my brain.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Tweek
I may be wrong but isn't prison the equivalent of saying "Go to your room and think about what you've done"?

Oh man, I really hated that as a kid. I just wanted someone to kill me.



Another reason I wanted this guy to die was in case of some technicality that might set him free. It's happened before. He's a total sociopath and seems beyond help.

Are you still talking about the molester? Can't put him to death.




The technicality of the child molestors release was that the victim behind the charge of his upcoming trial killed himself. Under some sort of messed up law, he was set free.

He admitted to many, but their only hope was on one person? Sounds like a real mess.

Look, people everywhere seem to think that the enforcment of the death penalty will deter crime. As if murderers are out there thinking, it's okay that i kill people, they won't kill me, I just have to sit in a cell for the rest of my life. Fun!!!

[charliebobo]

I am AGAINST the death penalty. It is barbaric, the triumph of animal eye-for-an-eye instinct over reason. If it's illegal for a man to killl another man, why should it be legal for the state to do so? Yes, I'm sorry for the families of the victim and all, but will killing the murderer really make them feel better? Some consolation...
Will it help society? Will it reduce violence? Hmm, let's see, my country thinks it's right to kill people, to get revenge... that's a nice message, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Besides, statistics have shown it does not work as a deterrent.
One more thing: the fact that the USA is the only first world country (apart from Japan) still using it should really give you something to think about (especially when you look at crime statistics)...

[BubbaStrangelove]

I still want to see these statistics.

More people were executed in Texas than in New York, and the crime rate is lower in Texas.


Now show me yours.





Putting killers like him in jail for life is good because he cannot kill any more innocent people.



What if they killed a fellow prisoner, and it was later revealed that the prisoner who was killed was wrongly convicted?

[flowrchild]

One phrase says it all for me:

Why do we kill people that kill people to show people that killing is wrong?

[James Logan]

I'm definitely against the death penalty. It doesn't make criminals remorseful, it doesn't scare 'em (a lot of criminals would rather die than be assured they'll spend their whole life without possibility of coming out in jail, getting raped by a fat guy named Bubba each time they try to take a shower), and biggest of all...it just ain't right.

Someone killed somebody else so we'll just kill him to punish him!

Doesn't that make us as a society as barbaric as the very murderer? Or does it even make any sense? Hell no!

It is not cheaper to execute a detainee. You've got years of appeals to go through, technicalities, and then you've gotta actually put the guy/gal to death.

It doesn't scare other potential criminals to make them see if they become murderers or rapists, you'll kill 'em. Number one, because they're crazy fucks -- do you think that before killing his brother or raping a 14-year old girl, what of those fuckjobs will stop and go "no, wait, I can't do that...I risk the death penalty!". Number two, because honestly? Statistics show that it's the same for a criminal to look at a life sentence than to death. Death penalty: seven to nine years in jail while all appeals are filed, then you're dead, end of story. Life sentence: you spend your life, every single fuckin' day of every single fuckin' week of every single fuckin' month of every single fuckin' year of your life in a small cell, surrounded by nasty guys who'll buttfuck you in the shower and beat you up in the yard, no future, no nothing. That'd scare me more than just one lethal injection.

It doesn't help reduce criminality. Someone here said that it should, because Texas has the death penalty, NY doesn't, and Texas has a lower crime rate. Well my answer is: India has cricket and a very high economic growth rate. The US of A has baseball, and a slower growth rate. The US should start playing fuckin' cricket if they want the same economic growth as India.
Does my reasoning make sense? No. That's because the simple fact that two factors can be found in the same place at the same time doesn't make it evidence enough to prove a link of cause between the first fact and the second fact. Texas has a lower crime rate than New York? Well, New York has strong social disparities, a very dense urban environment that's hard to control and regulate, it has a lot of immigrants which unfortunately creates ethnic tensions between those who see themselves as "true Americans" and those who apparently are not entitled to that, New York has several mob families still up and running their little business, and so and so forth. I'm sure those factors explain the crime rate, not the fact that there's no death penatly.

Other examples: the UK doesn't have the death penatly, France doesn't, Germany doesn't, Italy doesn't, no other developed country in the world does. And you know what? The US has a higher overall crime rate than the UK, than France, than Germany, than Italy, than almost every single damn one of these developed countries. Thank you death penatly?

The death penalty, to me, is just plain wrong. And even if it weren't -- it just plain doesn't work, either.

[Grebdron]

I would work in the gas chamber.

I would throw the switch for the chair.

I would lock and load for the firing squad.

I would wear the hood and work the gallows.

Some people need to die.

[charliebobo]

Originally posted by Grebdron

Some people need to die.

Why?

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by charliebobo
Why?

Because they are poxes on civilization. Because there is no logical reason to keep somebody like Manson alive.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Because they are poxes on civilization. Because there is no logical reason to keep somebody like Manson alive.

But Manson never actually killed anyone.

I don't feel comfortable knowing that just a few individuals have the right to take away a strangers life...does that sounds naive?

[JohnTheHenchman]

Call me cruel, but I don't care about the lives of those who choose to take innocent lives. I don't care what happens to them.

What makes me against the death penalty is an innocent person being executed.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Call me cruel, but I don't care about the lives of those who choose to take innocent lives. I don't care what happens to them.

What makes me against the death penalty is an innocent person being executed.

Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me either.

See 10 Rillington Place, the John Reginald Christie case.

I know forensic science (um, is that right?) has come on in leaps and bounds since then, but I still firmly believe mistakes can be made.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
I know forensic science (um, is that right?) has come on in leaps and bounds since then, but I still firmly believe mistakes can be made.

It's also a fact that minorities receive the death penalty markedly more than caucasians.

The death penalty is a grossly flawed immoral system, in my opinion.

[Morgana]

I don't think the death penalty is particularly effective. People like murderers and rapists should suffer. I would think putting prisoners to death is actually putting them out of their mysery. I'm against the death penalty. Let this scum rot and suffer in prison.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
But Manson never actually killed anyone.

That doesn't matter to me. Kiddie fuckers, serial rapists, murderers...they're all in the same bag to me.

[Tweek]

to get revenge

It's not revenge, it's punishment.

heh


And Manson ORCHESTRATED deaths

[Indiana Sev]

Originally posted by Tweek
It's not revenge, it's punishment.

Well put.

Certain crimes require certain punishments. It's not like the death penalty is this big surprise punishment that's laid upon the criminal, everybody knows the rules, everybody knows there is a chance they'll get the chair if they kill someone. If you don't like it, keep your noses clean, scumbags (I'm speaking of the would-be criminals, of course).

Otherwise, it's off with your heads.

[Indiana Sev]

Originally posted by Morgana
Let this scum rot and suffer in prison.

I don't want to take the chance that the killer won't suffer and will instead find some meaning and purpose in his life in prison.

He doesn't deserve the opportunity of a fulfilling life (even in jail) because he took the life of another. That's the way I see it...

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Morgana
I don't think the death penalty is particularly effective. People like murderers and rapists should suffer. I would think putting prisoners to death is actually putting them out of their mysery. I'm against the death penalty. Let this scum rot and suffer in prison.



But I totally don't agree with this arguement that since it doesn't work, we shouldn't do it.

I mean, obviously putting people in prisons doesn't stop crime either -- should we also do alway with prisons since those don't work either?

And it is this same arguement I use for the penalty -- I would rather spend less money, and use less resources killing criminals than keeping them in jail.

Okay - Yes, it is awful when someone is executed and they are found out to be innocent. But call me old fashioned -- I just think it's wwaaaaaaayyyyyy worse to think someone is rehabillitated, release them from prison, and turn out to be wrong when they rape and murder 20 kids.

Yeah - Let's protect everyone EXCEPT those who are innocent without a doubt.

One other thing -- You always hear stories about people being found innocent, but in cases they really aren't all squeky clean. Most of the time the are gang members, and other low lives who, yeah, may have not murdered that specific person, or done that specific crime -- however, they were suspected for darned good reason.

All you read in the paper is - "Innocent person released from death row" -- when really you should be reading - "We almost got one!"

Don't get me wrong, I am very unauthoritarian, and movies like Green Mile and Dancer in the Dark get to me, but --- Grebdron, if you ever get the job, can I use you as a reference?

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
Well put. It's not like the death penalty is this big surprise punishment that's laid upon the criminal, everybody knows the rules, everybody knows there is a chance they'll get the chair if they kill someone. If you don't like it, keep your noses clean, scumbags (I'm speaking of the would-be criminals, of course).

Exactly. Sociopaths are cognizant of the death penalty, yet they don't seem to mind being sociopaths. They're obviously not intimidated by the legal system. Death is an escape for these people. In fact, death is as good as escaping prison. People forget that a life sentence is practically a death sentence. "But he murdered 1,048 albino midgets! He deserves to die!" Don't worry. He will. We shouldn't be the ones who kill him, though. We're above that (or at least I'd like to think we are). Innocent, guilty...it doesn't matter. You don't punish a rapist by raping him; you don't punish a pedophile by violating some random toddler in front of him; you don't punish a murderer by murdering him.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by countchocula
You don't punish a rapist by raping him; you don't punish a pedophile by violating some random toddler in front of him;


Right, you just murder them.

It's not about revenge.

Sociopaths are sociopaths. They can choose to at least try to get help, but instead the choose to kill people. Many times they kill for no good reason, or a reason that only concerns them. If they want to die in the chair -- good let them. Do you realize it was anti-death penalty activits who tried to prevente the execution of a death row inmate who wanted to die, but there was evidence that he was innocent.

None of it really makes any sense. If you haven't heard that news story, I can find a link to it.

Here the link to that story (http://www.stpetetimes.com/2004/05/27/State/Man_who_wanted_to_die.shtml)

[MarkItZero]

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the death penalty, it should be plainly obvious to everyone, that the current system that decides who gets executed is deeply flawed.

In 2000, the governor of Illinois placed a moratorium on all executions in the state (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/index.html). A study later found dozens of innocent men on death row. The results of these investigations were so shocking that the governor eventually reduced the sentences of everyone on death row (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/11/illinois.death.row/index.html) to simply life in prison. I am very surprised that no other states have follwed his lead.

Time and time again, studies have shown that the legal system is very biased and far from fair.

So even if you do think the government should have the right to execute criminals, I dont think that anyone could argue against the fact that the current legal system needs drastic overhauls in order to ensure that inncocent men and women are not wrongly put to death.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Right, you just murder them.

It's not about revenge.

I never said anything about revenge. I spoke of punishment.

If they want to die in the chair -- good let them. Do you realize it was anti-death penalty activits who tried to prevente the execution of a death row inmate who wanted to die, but there was evidence that he was innocent.

If you want to punish inmates, then why give them what they want? You're not punishing them; you're indulging them.

[James Logan]

I think to those defending the death penalty here, one point that comes back over and over again is that some people deserve to die, and if they won't, there's the risk they'll either find a "fullfilling" life in prison, or that they'll come back out and kill or rape someone again. I got three questions:

a) How easy is it to find a fullfilling life in prison? It's a ten foot cell, peeing and crapping in front of other men, possible rapes in the shower, no future, no nothing.
b) Depending on your answer there, even if a convicted criminal does find some kind of redemption in prison...how do we consider that, then? Is he still a murderer and always be a murderer or can we consider he's learned something, he's grown, he's changed? Do we believe in redemption or don't we? (I have no clear opinion on this myself, it's a complicated issue)
c) As I said earlier, in Europe for instance, no country has the death penalty anymore, and yet crime rates are lower than in the US of A. How does the argument that "kill-'em-or-they'll-come-back-and-do-it-again" hold up against this fact, which clearly shows that, despite not executing criminals (and in some countries such as France not having criminals do more than 20-25 years of time in 90% of cases), crime rates don't go up?

I just want opinions on those questions. Let's face it, it's a tough issue -- one of my girl friends, for instance, was raped last year, and God knows that if I knew the rapist I'd want him dead. Worse, I'd smash him against a wall myself. But as far as reason goes...I just don't think it would be right, and I don't think it would solve anything, either.

[Morgana]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
But I totally don't agree with this arguement that since it doesn't work, we shouldn't do it.

I mean, obviously putting people in prisons doesn't stop crime either -- should we also do alway with prisons since those don't work either?



I never said that Bubba. Prisons are clearly needed as the criminals need to be kept apart from the general population.

I actually think the whole prison system needs an overhaul. Prisoners in the States should have fewer privileges and fewer rights. As I mentioned in one of my posts in another thread, I'm from the former communist bloc. You think prisoners there could have access to books, and to educating themselves behind bars, or to any kind of recreational activities? Hell no. Prison was the LAST place you wanted to get into. A prisoner had no rights and privileges. Now THAT is a deterrent.

I think this country spends way too much time defending the rights of criminals. Cruel and unusual punishment my ass. Once it has been proven that you are a criminal who can't follow the rules of society, then you shouldn't have the rights of society.

[Indiana Sev]

Originally posted by James Logan

a) How easy is it to find a fullfilling life in prison? It's a ten foot cell, peeing and crapping in front of other men, possible rapes in the shower, no future, no nothing.

It's not a matter of easy or hard, they don't even deserve the chance to find the slightest enjoyment out of life, thus ending their life is the best solution. They ended someone's chances of living their life, whether it be in happiness or sadness. So, now it's their turn...

b) Depending on your answer there, even if a convicted criminal does find some kind of redemption in prison...how do we consider that, then? Is he still a murderer and always be a murderer or can we consider he's learned something, he's grown, he's changed? Do we believe in redemption or don't we? (I have no clear opinion on this myself, it's a complicated issue)

He shouldn't be allowed redemption. He can look for that in heaven or hell or wherever he ends up. He threw away his rights of redemption on this planet the moment he killed another human being. It's about appreciating the value of people's lives.

c) As I said earlier, in Europe for instance, no country has the death penalty anymore, and yet crime rates are lower than in the US of A. How does the argument that "kill-'em-or-they'll-come-back-and-do-it-again" hold up against this fact, which clearly shows that, despite not executing criminals (and in some countries such as France not having criminals do more than 20-25 years of time in 90% of cases), crime rates don't go up?


I don't back up that argument, personally. I don't think it has an affect either way if they stay reformed or not, most of them get life in jail anyway if they don't get the death sentence. I just think it's a just punishment for ending someone's life.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by countchocula
If you want to punish inmates, then why give them what they want? You're not punishing them; you're indulging them.



If you want to rehabilitate inmates, then why leave them to rot in prison? You're not rehabilitating them; you're wasting their time (and our resources).


I wouldn't be such a stark advocate for the death penalty if someone could provide a SOLUTIOn other than just let people hang out in jail.

No one seems to realize that we pay for a prisoners dental work, food, bed -- That's expensive. Sorry, I would rather my tax money go to buiding schools than supporting criminals.

THEIR DENTAL WORK!

And this whole thing about giving the criminals what they want makes no sense. Couldn't we just as easiily say that criminals are committing crimes to get into the prison so they can get free dental work?

Alot of people here seem to be implying that people who want to die go and commit murders so they can get arrested, have a trial, sit in prison, and then one day be executed.

I think this is really far away from the way criminals actually think.

My stance is that people don't care about the death penalty, and therefore it isn't a reason to not committ heinous crimes. And the reason it is not taken seriously is because of people who fight to get people off death row. I really believe that people aren't detoured by captial punishment, because they really don't think that they'll end up getting the chair.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
If you want to rehabilitate inmates, then why leave them to rot in prison? You're not rehabilitating them; you're wasting their time (and our resources).

Those on death row (assuming that they're guilty) are too far gone to be rehabilitated. If you're in favor of the death penalty because it's a veracious form of punishment, I'd argue that an early grave isn't punishment (in the eyes of an amoral killer anyway). If you're in favor of the death penalty because it's the cheaper alternative, I'd argue that...well, I don't have a counterclaim. I don't have a solution.

It's hard to determine what each individual convict wants. The majority of them probably view death as a bargain. I know I'd rather die than to have to submit to prison life.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by countchocula
If you're in favor of the death penalty because it's a veracious form of punishment, I'd argue that an early grave isn't punishment (in the eyes of an amoral killer anyway).


I'm not actually so much in favor of using it as a punishment. It's kind of like erasing a useless program, or a virus. Or another way, it's like taking an antibiotic to kill off bacteria.

I understand that this is a horrible way to deal with things. Really, we SHOULD avoid it all together. We are not though. Instead of focusing on getting rid of the death penalty, or keeping the death penalty, I wish the states would focus more on preventing the issue of the death penalty ever coming up by keeping certain people from committing crimes that cause certain people to feel the need to want blood.

Instead of going back on something we are currently using, and many people are satisfied with, we should put all of our focus into how we can prevent these crimes.

I think the death penalty debate is something The Man came up with to throw us off the real problems. It's a nice platform for politicians to take, and it's one that keeps the gears off the political machine well oiled.

We need to get people in power based on how they plan to reform criminals, and educate children, not on something as abstract as the right to live.

I'm kind of loose about all of this, so this isn't stuff I'm 100% sure about. All of it is just what makes the most sense to me. I, for the most part, think it is easier to add than to take away.

In my ideal, there would come a time where death penalty laws were removed simply because they hadn't been enforced for ages. It would be awesome if that time were tomorrow, but that isn't going to happen, and tying up the courts isn't going to make it happen either.

[countchocula]

That's something we can agree on. If we keep capital punishment, they could at least reintroduce the guillotine. It's just more fun.

[Tweek]

It's kind of like erasing a useless program, or a virus.


That's the comparison i was trying to make, thank you.

Also, I wholeheartedly believe that guilty violent criminals lose most of their rights.
Like a pedophile released from prison who wants to move into a neighborhood and it happens to be filled with kids. Hell no. That's one instance I agree with an angry mob.

[Anthony4sho]

Only God has the right to judge life with death. Yea, throw the keys away and keep them on 24/7 lockdown and let them rot. But only God can judge them, not men.

That contradicts tho with my support of Abortion. How can some1 say they support abortion but be against the Death penalty, right?

I don't know. It's hard to explain and it's too late to find the right words to use.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Indiana Sev

[Indy's answer] [/B]

Sorry I cut your answers from the quote, Sev, just wanted to quote you to show I was replying to your post but not crowd the thread with a twenty line quote.

So basically...you're telling me the death penalty is right, because it's the proper punishment for certain criminals. I hear you, man, I just don't think that death is the biggest punishment they can get. Death is a way out. Put 'em on 24hr. solitary confinment or something -- that's gonna make 'em suffer. Death is just a bad moment to go through, and then...well, then (except if you believe in Hell, but let's not get into that), then they're out of their pain. Isn't it a greater punishment to have the guy rot in a solitary, totally dark, stinking cell for his whole life?

As for bringing back the guillotine (Count C.'s remark)...that's how we used to do things in France up to the mid 1980s, when the death penalty was abolished here. And yeah, it was fun...family entertainment, y'know. ;)

[BubbaStrangelove]

James - I know you were responding to Indiana, so you can just ignore this is you want. :)



Death is a way out. Put 'em on 24hr. solitary confinment or something -- that's gonna make 'em suffer.


All of this thought seems to almost be like we are basing everything on what the criminal wants. I keep trying to point out - fuck the criminals. If victims want blood, then let them have blood.

And here is something this topic has made me think of -- Maybe we should, IF we keep using the death penalty, NOT leave it up to some random judge. Let's let the victims/victims families decide. If they see no need for blood, I hardly see how anyone else would see that need.

I would be much, much happier knowing my tax dollars were at least going to keep people alive who are actually wanted alive by people who actually have something to do with it, and not just people who can protest the loudest.



Isn't it a greater punishment to have the guy rot in a solitary, totally dark, stinking cell for his whole life?


This is a really abstract question. I can make it tangible though -- It costs money to keep people alive, and I don't support keeping criminals alive while allowing innocent children to suffer in poverty. The money we are wasting on death row could be used elsewhere.

More so than leaving a criminal to rot in jail, it would be a much worse to hire Michael Jackson to perform 24/7 for the killer, but that just isn't economically viable.

[Raoul Duke]

Originally posted by Anthony4sho
Only God has the right to judge life with death. Yea, throw the keys away and keep them on 24/7 lockdown and let them rot. But only God can judge them, not men.

That contradicts tho with my support of Abortion. How can some1 say they support abortion but be against the Death penalty, right?

I don't know. It's hard to explain and it's too late to find the right words to use.

You can't really bring God into the arguement, not everyone believes in Him.

I also agree with Grebdron that some people deserve to die. I mean, honestly, why do we need serial killers still living? Do they contribute anything but misery to others? They're beyond help and should hang for the actions they commit.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
I mean, honestly, why do we need serial killers still living? Do they contribute anything but misery to others? They're beyond help and should hang for the actions they commit.

I could say the same for Jesus freaks and telemarketers, but I can't kill them. Murder isn't righteous just because the victim happens to be an inconvenience.

[TheDeadWalk]

I believe in Capital Punishment to the extent that it should be used for those deemed unsafe and unstable to control in a maximum security prison.
(For quick reference, pretend Hannibal Lecter was actually a real person.)

It's all about the opportunity costs. What are you gaining and giving up at the same time while keeping this person alive? How much of an extra risk is he to the rest of your inmates and/or your security staff?

Cost is not an issue, as it costs a pretty penny to execute someone, that the same as housing them for multiple years anyways. I think Grebdron would agree that some of them deserve a noose around the neck, and then be buried in the back yard, but its not that simple in America...

As for studying, well through the appeals courts it often takes years for the execution process to pass through, so there's some study time. You can be a Doctor in eight years, so I imagine we got all the info off of Ted Bundy that we could.

In France, a death row inmate provided as great research and study. He proved how long you could make certain hand gestures for several moments after your head was lopped off via the guillotine.

[someguy]

The answer is simple. Replace the death sentence with the following

-lock them in a room with only a toilet and a bit of floor space to lay on. They will have no clothes

-No windows and one door that only has a slot for putting the food in. Once the prisoner enters the door is bolted shut. The door(and room)is covered in thick steel so there is no chance of escaping.

-Only 1 toilet in the incredibly small space. They'll have to sleep on a floor

-Feed them three times a day with little food and water

-Keep them there until they die

Now what would be worse? Getting a lethal injection or suffering for the rest of your life? Murderers, pedophiles, and other people who do incredibly wrong things with purpose are scum and should be treated and live like it. It's the way I view that.

[DRbeauty]

You know I really don't have a sure stance on this issue. I don't feel comfortable sending someone off to die if there's reasonable doubt. But at the same time with clear cut evidence I don't care if they do die. But the line is obviously not clearly drawn on this issue. And I'm not sure how I would feel if someone came into my house and killed my family. I think I'd want to kill them myself. And that's the thing. The people who support the death penalty with an "eye for an eye" are not using the full meaning of this phrase. If someone shoots someone to death, they should be shot to death. That's what an eye for an eye means. The death penalty sucks on that. You torture and murder my family and you get lethal injection? How is that fair? It's not. If you can't make them suffer what's the point?

[SAI]

I've always been against the death penalty, for several reasons.

1: It clearly does not work, violent crime is higher per capita in the US than the UK (which banned the death penalty over 40 years ago)
2: There is an inherent contradiction in it. 'Killing is wrong, to demonstrate how wrong we will kill you'.
3: It costs MORE to execute someone than to imprison them, simply due to appeal costs.
4: INNOCENT people have been executed. This alone is, for me, reason enough to end the death penalty. I saw a story on tv a couple of days ago about a couple who went to death row for the murder of a cop and were later proved to be innocent. The wife was released but the husband had already been executed (in a hideously bothched execution in which the switch on the electric chair had to be thrown 3 times, his head was set on fire and he took 13 minutes to die. all for something SOMEONE ELSE did).
There are also cases like that of the West Memphis 3 (one of whom is on death row) which make me very concerned that the US is not done executing innocent people yet.
5: By executing these people we lose the oppurtunity to study them. They would be far more use if subjected to analysis, analysis that might lead us to capture other people like them sooner.
6: Execution is often justified by saying that the families of the victims want blood as payback for their suffering. Fine, but... don't a lot of death row inmates have families as well? Does the fact that their family members are on death row mean that these people should also be punished with the death of a loved one, just as the families of victims have?

[BubbaStrangelove]

1: It clearly does not work, violent crime is higher per capita in the US than the UK (which banned the death penalty over 40 years ago)


If you going to compare statistics, you can use Americans -- In New York there are more murders, per capita, than in Texas. In Texas there were more executions.




2: There is an inherent contradiction in it. 'Killing is wrong, to demonstrate how wrong we will kill you'.


I don't look at it like that.

It more like: If you murder people, you will be executed. Now you understand the rules, and should be expected to play by them. That's RULE #1 -- Everyone else plays by the rule -- why are we trying to protect people who don't play fair, when we make it look so easy to play fair.

I mean, really - everyone makes it sound like killing someone is this easy thing to do -- Like murders have some sort of infliction, like a hangnail, that makes it hard for them not to kill people.

What's so difficult to understand the muder is bad? If someone can't follow rule number one, we should be enforcing what we promised - not looking for a way to give it to them easy.


3: It costs MORE to execute someone than to imprison them, simply due to appeal costs.



Wait a minute -- Those appeals aren't made to have someone executed. Most appeals come from the defense - not the prosecution. Most appeals are in the sake of preventing the death penalty.

I also think the appeals process is screwed up.



4: INNOCENT people have been executed. This alone is, for me, reason enough to end the death penalty. I saw a story on tv a couple of days ago about a couple who went to death row for the murder of a cop and were later proved to be innocent. The wife was released but the husband had already been executed (in a hideously bothched execution in which the switch on the electric chair had to be thrown 3 times, his head was set on fire and he took 13 minutes to die. all for something SOMEONE ELSE did).
There are also cases like that of the West Memphis 3 (one of whom is on death row) which make me very concerned that the US is not done executing innocent people yet.





I agree. Something needs to be done.





5: By executing these people we lose the oppurtunity to study them. They would be far more use if subjected to analysis, analysis that might lead us to capture other people like them sooner.


Unfortunately, we live in a world were we cannot study people against their wishes. The ACLU would throw a tizzy if they learned of studies being done on death row inmates.



6: Execution is often justified by saying that the families of the victims want blood as payback for their suffering. Fine, but... don't a lot of death row inmates have families as well? Does the fact that their family members are on death row mean that these people should also be punished with the death of a loved one, just as the families of victims have?


If a muderer knows he is going to die, if he committs murder -- then it is his fault his family will miss him. Not the state's.

[Jon Lyrik]

I'm against the death penalty. It's nothing more but eye-for-an-eye mentality. How about this quote: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

The state kills someone for killing?

And the worst part is that innocent people can get executed for something they did not do. The system is not perfect, there are innocent people on death row.

Just lock these people up in jail for life. It's better punishment anyway. Would you have these nasty criminals suffer for a few moments at the hand of the state, or rotting in jail for the rest of their lives, bored, hungry, and with no privacy? Let's not forget getting assraped by Big Boy Bubba either.

[SAI]

Bubba. I'm sure you know that the death penalty was stopped in the US and came back into use with the case of Gary Gilmore who asked to be executed. He was. Should he have been?

I would say not, both on the general principal that if killing is wrong then it is wrong whoever is doing it and on the basis that the very fact Gilmore requested death means he should have been denied it.

If you going to compare statistics, you can use Americans -- In New York there are more murders, per capita, than in Texas. In Texas there were more executions.

Fair enough but I'm sure that my comparison holds up across Europe (which does not operate the Death penalty) does yours hold up across all states that have death as a sentencing option?

I mean, really - everyone makes it sound like killing someone is this easy thing to do -- Like murders have some sort of infliction, like a hangnail, that makes it hard for them not to kill people.

I don't believe murder is easy, not for a second but I do believe there are people who are predisposed, for whatever reason, to become murderers.

What's so difficult to understand the muder is bad? If someone can't follow rule number one, we should be enforcing what we promised - not looking for a way to give it to them easy.
Of course murder is bad, thats part of my point, I see executions as state sponsored murder, an act that lowers us to the level of those we seek to punish. As for your second point I find myself in agreement with some of the other schmoes here, surely a life in prison, with the knowledge you will never leave, is worse than the relatively quick (and now, so it is said with the lethal injection, painless) process of death.

Wait a minute -- Those appeals aren't made to have someone executed. Most appeals come from the defense - not the prosecution. Most appeals are in the sake of preventing the death penalty.
Of course appeals come from the defence. That does not change the central point.
How is the process screwed up, should there be less appeals? should there be no automatic right to appeal? Eiether of those would create more miscarriages of justice, more innocent people dead.

I agree. Something needs to be done.
I take it that you are not in favour of what I said. That one execution of an innocent is reason enough to end the death penalty. If this is the case what do you propose be done?

Unfortunately, we live in a world were we cannot study people against their wishes. The ACLU would throw a tizzy if they learned of studies being done on death row inmates.
And this is the part where i don't give two fucks about the rights of criminals. Studies on serial killers, unlike the death penalty, would work for the greater good of society.

If a muderer knows he is going to die, if he committs murder -- then it is his fault his family will miss him. Not the state's.
Fair enough but that does not address the point. Why does the action of their family member mean that one more family should be punished with the needless loss of a loved one. The relatives have done NOTHING wrong. (I understand that it is hard to imagine people like this as having loved ones after what they have done to get to death row but it remains the case that many families do stand by their relatives)

[Nate6]

I did a research paper on new lie-detector methods and my research shows that far too many innocent people have been sent to death row. One is too many, let alone the hundreds that have been.

I don't personally support the death penalty because I don't see how I have the right to determine whether or not another human being gets to live or die. BUT, if the death penalty is to be used, I say we place a moratorium on it until we have a more concrete method of determining the guilty from the innocent.

[SAI]

Since my last post I've been searching round the net for a little more info on the death penalty and have found this site http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/fiveRs1.html
which puts up more objections in a more articulate way than I can, here they are.


1 The death penalty is racist.

The 1972 Furman V. Georgia case abolished the death penalty for four years on the grounds that capital punishment was rife with racial disparities. Over twenty five years later, those disparities are as glaring as ever.


African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population, but are 43% of prisoners on death row. Although Blacks constitute 50% of all murder victims, 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white.

Since 1976 only ten executions involved a white defendant who had killed a Black victim.

In all, only 37 of the over 18,000 executions in this country's history involved a white person being punished for killing a Black person.

A comprehensive Georgia study found that killers of whites are 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than killers of Blacks.

More than 75% of those on federal death row are non-white. Of the 156 federal death penalty prosecutions approved by the Attorney General since 1988, 74% of the defendants were non-white.

The crime of being poor and Black
Girvies Davis spent 16 years on death row. He was sentenced to death in 1978, accused of being an accomplice in a robbery in which someone else shot and killed the victim. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. He was convicted purely on the basis of a signed "confession" -- a confession in which he also confessed to 9 other murders known to have been committed by others. He was illiterate at the time he supposedly penned the confession. Girvies said that police took him out for a ride and threatened to shoot him "while trying to escape" if he didn't sign the confession. The police admitted that they took him for a drive, claiming it was to search for evidence! Despite this information, Illinois gov. Jim Edgar refused to commute Girvies Davis sentence or allow a retrial, and he was executed on May 17, 1995. He died because he was poor and Black.


2 The death penalty punishes the poor.

If you can afford good legal representation, you won't end up on death row.

Over 90 percent of defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent and cannot afford to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent them. They are forced to use inexperienced, underpaid court-appointed attorneys.

In most states the pay for court appointed attorneys is so low that lawyers assigned to capital cases will lose $20-$30 an hour if they do an adequate job. In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi defense attorneys are paid a flat fee of $1,000 -- which translates into about 5 dollars an hour for most lawyers.

In 1996 Clinton cut federal funding to 20 legal resource centers which provided counsel to poor defendants. Now, all of the centers that received this funding have shut down.

Many capital trials last less than a week -- hardly enough time to present a good defense.


3 The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.

Since 1976, more than 100 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence. In other words, 1 in 7 of those on death row have been freed after being fully exonerated.

The book, In Spite of Innocence, notes that between 1900 and 1992 there have been 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted of murder or capital rape -- a third of whom were given a death sentence. The authors discovered that in 23 of these cases, the person was executed.

Illinois has released as many from death row as it has executed since 1976. As a result, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice said, "Despite the courts' efforts to fashion a death penalty scheme that is just..., the system is not working. Innocent people are being sentenced to death... If this is the best our state can do, we have no business sending people to their deaths."

President Clinton has called appeals by death row prisoners "ridiculous" and "interminable." He signed a law that limits prisoners to a single habeas corpus appeal within one year of conviction. Under this law, many of those released from death row due to innocence since 1976 would be dead.

"I am an innocent man."
Leonel Torres Herrera was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1982 murders of two police officers. New evidence was brought forward which proved that Herrera's brother committed the murders. By Texas law, which states that any new evidence must be presented within 30 days of the conviction, this new revelation was irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Texas ruling, arguing that Herrera's claim of "actual innocence" was in itself not a constitutional claim for which judicial relief could be granted. Thus, though the court agreed he was innocent, Leonel was executed on May 12, 1993.


4 The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.

An FBI study shows that states which have abolished the death penalty averaged lower murder rates than states which have not.

More executions, more murders
Texas moved from its first execution after Furman in 1982 to becoming the national leader in the use of the death penalty. During the same period, the state also experienced a tremendous growth in its violent crime rate. From 1982 to 1991, the national crime rate rose by 5%. In the same period, the Texas crime rate rose by 24%, and the violent crime rate in Texas rose by nearly 46%. In Texas, more people die from gunshot wounds than traffic accidents. A strong case can be made that, rather than decreasing murder, capital punishment actually has a brutalizing effect on society, contributing to an increase in murder.


5 The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment."

In the decades since Furman 13 people have been executed who were under the age of 18 when they committed the crime for which they were convicted. Seventy more juveniles are currently on death row awaiting execution.

Since Furman 34 mentally retarded inmates have been executed.

RICKY RAY RECTOR died in order to help Bill Clinton get elected President. Ricky was black and mentally retarded. In 1992, Clinton left the campaign trail and returned to Arkansas to oversee Ricky's execution so he could show that he was "tough on crime." Ricky had absolutely no understanding of what was about to happen to him. As a part of his last meal, he requested pie for dessert, but explained he would eat it when he came back. He was executed on Jan. 24, 1992.


This information was sourced from the website of Campaign to end the death penalty.

There is a lot of information in there that troubles me but two parts in particular shock and disturb me.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Texas ruling, arguing that Herrera's claim of "actual innocence" was in itself not a constitutional claim for which judicial relief could be granted. Thus, though the court agreed he was innocent, Leonel was executed on May 12, 1993.

DEAR GOD. If INNOCENCE, proven innocence, is not enough to prevent an execution what is?

Ricky had absolutely no understanding of what was about to happen to him. As a part of his last meal, he requested pie for dessert, but explained he would eat it when he came back. He was executed on Jan. 24, 1992.

That's shocking and, frankly, suggests to me that this man should have been in a mental institution. If he has no understanding of his own death then how much can he have of the one he caused?

I'd be interested to hear what people who are for the death penalty have to say to any of this

[PapaJupe2k]

Nice article SAI. I'm most definatley opposed to the death penalty. I had some points to make and I certainly dont want to be redundant since that article was so comprehensive, but I'll just give a few of my views and then cruise on out of here and enjoy the discussion.

That was a staggering statistic in that article about 1 out 7 death row inmates being set free. You wonder how many more have been wrongfully put to death. And in reality only one person actually knows the true guilt or innocence, and that is the person being accused. What a sick feeling that would be if that was me sitting there knowing I was innocent. I know advocates of the death penalty grow extremely frustrated with the long appeals process, but you cant free a dead man.

I just cant behind taking a life in any fashion. State approved or not it is still murder. I'm not saying to molly coddle convicted murders, lock them up and make their life miserable, it should be, and more importently never allow them out in society to repeat their crimes. Hey does the state of Kansas still use hanging as a form of execution?

Well this may be a little incoherant and muddled, but so is my mind right now... hangover you know. I may have more to say later and jump back in the conversation, but for now I'll just sit back and listen and head back to my Sports forum- College pigskin talk.

Oh yeah and by the way for a member of the board who may wish to see me legally executed for unadulterated stupidity and my numerous heinous crimes against common sense, the sports forum is a non extraditionary non death penalty forum... so it cant happen.:p ;)

[ilovemovies]

IMO when you put to somebody to death you lower yourself to the killer's level, period! THERE IS NO EXCEPTION OR JUSTIFICATION! That is how I feel about it. I've read several of the posts and it's been an interesting read but there is no if's and's or but's about it. Killing in shape, way or form (that include's as punishment) is cruel and inhuman.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Okay, SAI, everyone.....

It's a civil rights issue, this whole thing about we shouldn't kill criminals. I've never felt it was an eye for an eye punishment. Yes, murder is illegal, and yes we punish criminals by murdering them. It's no different than cops having to speed to catch speeders on the high way. What kind of arguement would it be if we said that speeding shouldn't be enforced by allowing the cops to speed in order to issue tickets.

It just gets loopy, and that's why I don't like the "if they can't do it, we should do it either' arguement.

Now, if someone wants to petition the ACLU and other groups to give the prisons some slack -- bring back mandatory work programs, cut the TV privliedges, maybe not give them weights over, say, 25lbs so that they came out a but less scary -- then I could maybe live with a prisoner serving life in prison.

The one thing about this "you are giving hem what they want" arguement is that -- Alot of people are better off in prison. Couldn't we just say that people would murder people just so they can serve some time?

That is the way the system is RIGHT NOW -- sorry, I would have to assert that more people are getting arrested to hang out in jail than to get executed. I think everyone is being short-sighted by saying that jail is all horrible. I kid you all not, I've looked inside these places, they aren't all that bad. (and no, I didn't get the name bubba on the inside...)

My point is - yeah, we need to cut many of these criminals civil rights, and there are too many people fighting against doing that.

You all show me an Americanized prison system that detracts from crime as much as the death penalty, and then I can start thinking about getting rid of the death penalty. The way it is right now, there are no feasable alternatives. If someone could come up with a solution to the numerous prison problems, I, and I imagine many others like me, would love to see the death penalty go away.

Maybe this all stems from the fact that I've seriously sat down, and came up with a list of crimes I could commit in order to serve time and have my dental work taken care of. (My dentist is a rich fuck.)

[BubbaStrangelove]

Oh, and earlier I mentioned movies about the DP that made me not like the death penalty

Dancer in the Dark
Green Mile

Let me tell you. Tonight I saw MONSTER, and at the end, was like,


SPOILERS FOR MONSER*********


"Well, that was a good use for the death penalty."

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
IMO when you put to somebody to death you lower yourself to the killer's level, period! THERE IS NO EXCEPTION OR JUSTIFICATION! That is how I feel about it. I've read several of the posts and it's been an interesting read but there is no if's and's or but's about it. Killing in shape, way or form (that include's as punishment) is cruel and inhuman.

So you are saying that there never is, or never will be an inmate(s) too difficult, dangerous, and hazardous to other civilian/inmate lives to contain?

I just can't see how society could put themselves at risk by keeping extremelly dangerous criminals alive. You risk so much more in the long run, especially if the inmate ever escapes, or gets a free second to slice the throat of his prison guard.

I can't understand for the life of me, to keep dangerous anti-social psychopaths like that. It's like keeping a rabid pit bull alive in a pin. Why? So you can feed it everyday while it tries to bite through the cage and take out your jugular?

Sometimes creatures are so dangerous, they need to be destroyed.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
So you are saying that there never is, or never will be an inmate(s) too difficult, dangerous, and hazardous to other civilian/inmate lives to contain?




If they are hazardous to other inmates lock him/her up in solitary confinement then. Killing is wrong no matter what.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
If they are hazardous to other inmates lock him/her up in solitary confinement then. Killing is wrong no matter what.

No, killing is not wrong no matter what.

I served in teh army. I was shot at, and returned fire. Was I wrong? I don't think so.

There are circumstances under which it is acceptable to kill somebody.

Taking the life of a dangerous person, to protect society, is not wrong, IMO. Even if it is the prison guards we're protecting by offing some douchebag murderer, s'allright by me.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
If they are hazardous to other inmates lock him/her up in solitary confinement then. Killing is wrong no matter what.

Would you feel comfortable feeding him, seeing him get his shower, bringing him out for exercise, cleaning his cell, or be in charge of stabilizing him when his toilet becomes clogged and he's shitting on the floor?

He has nothing to live for, and anytime he can swing a razor blade at your throat, or mash your head against the cell doors, he's going to do it. And if he can ever escape the prison? Well, we remember those seven Texas inmates that escaped. First thing they did was kill a cop on Christmas Eve. Fuck them man.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Civil liberties - they protect everyone, except the civil.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by Grebdron
No, killing is not wrong no matter what.

I served in teh army. I was shot at, and returned fire. Was I wrong? I don't think so.

There are circumstances under which it is acceptable to kill somebody.

Taking the life of a dangerous person, to protect society, is not wrong, IMO. Even if it is the prison guards we're protecting by offing some douchebag murderer, s'allright by me.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. Killing is wrong unless it's in self defense. Certainly when your in war it's self defense. But I disagree with your last statement.

I know if and when we catch Osama Bin Laden (sp?) there is not a chance in hell he won't get the death penalty but imagine the message we would send to the world if we didn't kill him. We would show the world that we are actually capable of being merciful. I think that would be great. But I'm not niave (sp?). Obviously he would be put to death if and when we catch him.

Besides, like it or not we live in a violent society and so many people will be demanding his death. They is a lot of bloodlust in the world. But I am for justice, not revenge. That's why I think it would great to see him in prison for the rest of his life instead of having him put to death.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
But I am for justice, not revenge.

Me, too. I just think justice in many cases is served by the death penalty.

It may not be a deterrent to murder in general. But it's damned sure a deterrent to that person.

[cstroman]

Can a person be ANTI-Death Penalty but PRO-Abortion?

And how do you justify that?

[cstroman]

I am FOR the death penalty but NOT as a punishment, God no. Otherwise we would torture them before hand. Instead we just put them to sleep like a rabid dog and for the same reasons. We are not PUNISHING the dog, we just don't want them spreading their disease to the world.

I am for the Death Penalty because it removes the person from society that if left can cause more detremental harm to the populace through influence, teaching or radical shared ideology.

As proof I offer Charles Manson as just ONE example of someone whose ideology is still alive and kicking because he is. The ACLU and others have guaranteed his right to interviews on TV, books, etc.

It's like saying Hitler should be alive so he could have continued spreading his "doctrines" to the world through his influence and power. I'm glad he put the gun to his head and did the job so we wouldn't have to. And I think, had he survived, that he should have been put down.

Same with Klebold and Harris. If they had survived, the last thing I would have wanted is for them to get off on a "technicallity" or a "insanity" charge or get some sympathy for their actions because they "had no choice in their minds but to act" type idiocy that goes on in this country today.

The Death Penalty is NOT a punishment or a deterrent (although it could be used to argue such) but is the only way to remove permanently the chance of harm to society that they have.