Death Penalty! For or against?

[steeltoe]

This should be good. I tend to be for it but dangit if they could just guarantee 100% they got the right guy. Too many folks have gotten proven innocent after decades behind bars. But if it's 100% proven I say gas em, hang em, shoot em, whatever. Better yet, let the victim's family do it if they want.

[dtalbott]

For.

[joe617]

For.


:stupid: :stupid:

[Rally 291]

For

[pouchkangaroo]

an eye for an eye - For

[(diet)DrThunder]

Against.

1. No gov't should ever be given the power to kill its citizens, ever.
2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.
3. Mistakes are made.
4. Keep this up and Papa will have a stroke.

[HPPT]

4. Keep this up and Papa will have a stroke.

I actually dig the death penalty. But my standard would be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt." I would make it "beyond any doubt." And I would grant DNA testing to any accused who requests it. But if DNA turns out to incriminate you, the appeals process is terminated.

I might have a different opinion in five minutes.

[(diet)DrThunder]

Really I was referring to the relentless onslaught in The Dungoen in general giving you a stroke...not this particular topic.

[Tracee Polcin]

Hang em' high!!!

[joe617]

Blah

Against.

1. No gov't should ever be given the power to kill its citizens, ever. Isn't it the citizens (jury) that have this power, not the government

2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't. Disagree, I believe the "why" makes it right or wrong

3. Mistakes are made. True, IMO this is the worst part about carrying out the death penalty

4. Keep this up and Papa will have a stroke. I just finished an 8 hour CPR class at work last week. Don't worry Papa, I always carry chapstick so my lips are soft ;)

[joe617]

And I would grant DNA testing to any accused who requests it. But if DNA turns out to incriminate you, the appeals process is terminated.

Hell of an idea!!!:up:

[Marcmcm]

For...

If there was an eye-witness, no appeals

If there is DNA evidence, no appeals

If you have both, Courthouse to the Execution chamber all in one fell swoop.

[Chip@KWS]

Hang em' high!!!

:stupid: :stupid: :stupid:

[HPPT]

If there was an eye-witness, no appeals


Right, because eyewitnesses have historically proved to be 100% reliable. :rolleyes:

Actually, I am seizing this opportunity to propose the death penalty for any eyewitness who turns out to have falsely accused someone of a crime.

[Turbotech]

For......With concrete DNA evidence.

The condemned should then be brought out and the sentence carried out in front of the courthouse.....Shock value works, plain and simple.

[Marcmcm]

Actually, I am seizing this opportunity to propose the death penalty for any eyewitness who turns out to have falsely accused someone of a crime.


That I will agree with...

Would you accept video or photographic evidence for no appeals?

[RCjohn]

I actually dig the death penalty. But my standard would be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt." I would make it "beyond any doubt." And I would grant DNA testing to any accused who requests it. But if DNA turns out to incriminate you, the appeals process is terminated.



See that's the way it should be. I agree totally. You wouldn't get very many death sentences but on that note... you shouldn't get many.

[RCjohn]

Against.

1. No gov't should ever be given the power to kill its citizens, ever.
2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.
3. Mistakes are made.
4. Keep this up and Papa will have a stroke.

So you don't believe war is ever right? The cops should never kill a citizen?

[panthercity]

For.

[(diet)DrThunder]

I was trying to simplify by leaving out a discussion of war, self defense, or public defense (like a cop shooting a guy who's endangering others, etc.).

When it comes to convicting a person of killing another person, then killing that person, I have trouble making sense of that. In an attempt to be clearer, I do not believe that any gov't institution (justice, in this case) should ever, under any circumstances, ever kill a person as an institutional practice of enforcement or punishment (I'm trying to separate war etc. here...).

This is not the same thing, you might notice, as a person deserving to die. All sorts of scumbag assclowns deserve death by ball peen hammer. That doesn't make it right to kill them in a society where it's wrong to kill people.

[pouchkangaroo]

Against.
3. Mistakes are made.


It's not acceptable someone have to spare their lives over one's mistakes - nonsense!

[Hyperdyne]

I prefer the European approach...

Find an island and drop them off. Only thing it will cost is fuel. If they can survice, good for them. If not, oh well. If we find out your innocent, congratulations. You had a nice vacation...

[joe617]

It's not acceptable someone have to spare their lives over one's mistakes - nonsense!

I thought he was talking about mistakes in the justice system (like putting an innocent man to death) but I could be wrong.

[(diet)DrThunder]

It's not acceptable someone have to spare their lives over one's mistakes - nonsense!

Nonsense, indeed.

[(diet)DrThunder]

I thought he was talking about mistakes in the justice system (like putting an innocent man to death) but I could be wrong.

I was.

[R Acree]

No sense, indeed.

Would you consider this edit?

[HPPT]

I thought he was talking about mistakes in the justice system (like putting an innocent man to death) but I could be wrong.

Pouch needs things to be typed very slowly. :D

[pouchkangaroo]

Against.

1. No gov't should ever be given the power to kill its citizens, ever.
2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.
3. Mistakes are made.
4. Keep this up and Papa will have a stroke.

Pouch needs things to be typed very slowly. :D

I have a tendency to miss a turn here and there :D

[RCjohn]

I was trying to simplify by leaving out a discussion of war, self defense, or public defense (like a cop shooting a guy who's endangering others, etc.).

When it comes to convicting a person of killing another person, then killing that person, I have trouble making sense of that. In an attempt to be clearer, I do not believe that any gov't institution (justice, in this case) should ever, under any circumstances, ever kill a person as an institutional practice of enforcement or punishment (I'm trying to separate war etc. here...).

This is not the same thing, you might notice, as a person deserving to die. All sorts of scumbag assclowns deserve death by ball peen hammer. That doesn't make it right to kill them in a society where it's wrong to kill people.

I see what you are saying. :up:

[joe617]

That doesn't make it right to kill them in a society where it's wrong to kill people.

This is the main difference between people who support and oppose the death penalty. IMO I believe it is wrong in our society to kill innocent people.

[steeltoe]

For those against the death penalty, let's take young Jessica Lunsford. At 9 yrs old she was kidnapped, raped, then buried alive. She suffocated in a shallow grave. We have conclusive proof of the bad guy's guilt. (He was caught and convicted).

I can see no reason for this scumbag to share the same world we do. Why should this man live one second longer than necessary?

[HPPT]

For those against the death penalty, let's take young Jessica Lunsford. At 9 yrs old she was kidnapped, raped, then buried alive. She suffocated in a shallow grave. We have inconclusive proof of the bad guy's guilt. (He was caught and convicted).

I can see no reason for this scumbag to share the same world we do. Why should this man live one second longer than necessary?

because you said proof was inconclusive.

[steeltoe]

because you said proof was inconclusive.

LOL, that did it. I'm out.


Dangit he quoted me now it's there forever.

[evakat]

for it

[(diet)DrThunder]

For those against the death penalty, let's take young Jessica Lunsford. At 9 yrs old she was kidnapped, raped, then buried alive. She suffocated in a shallow grave. We have INconclusive proof of the bad guy's guilt. (He was caught and convicted).

I can see no reason for this scumbag to share the same world we do. Why should this man live one second longer than necessary?

(I knew what you meant :) )

Like I said...there is a wide chasm between 'deserves to die' and 'the justice system should kill him.' This guy fits squarely into the 'deserves to die via ball peen hammer' group, no question about it. That still doesn't make it right for the gov't (by extension) to kill him.

[Turbotech]

(I knew what you meant :) )

Like I said...there is a wide chasm between 'deserves to die' and 'the justice system should kill him.' This guy fits squarely into the ;deserves to die via ball peen hammer' group, no question about it. That still doesn't make it right for the gov't (by extension) to kill him.

But isn't that the whole point of a jury trial..The gov. doesn't sentence the perp to death, a jury of his peers "us", do that..

[HPPT]

But isn't that the whole point of a jury trial..The gov. doesn't sentence the perp to death, a jury of his peers "us", do that..

Damn good point. Dave? :)

[(diet)DrThunder]

It's still an extension of the justice system. It is the law that a person can be put to death if they are convicted of a crime...that's the problem area.

EDIT: I meant to continue, and submitted by accident...

The main reason that this is a bad idea, is that it opens the door for a slippery slope of capital crime definition. And, we can't even say "oh, that won't happen" because it has happened. Over time, there have been proposals to add multiple rape convictions or child rape to the list of capital crimes. Now, do I think that a child rapist deserves to die? Of course I do...who wouldn't? But if child rape is bad enough to warrant it, why not adult rape, or attempted child rape? Compelling arguments can be made for both. How about attempted adult rape? We agree that if you drive drunk, and you kill someone it's murder, right? Why shouldn't that be a capital offense? I definitely put drunk drivers who kill people on my list of people who deserve to be killed. We could go on and on...and this is the problem.

If, on the other hand, you do not allow the death penalty under any circumstances, there is no chance for such a progression to occur.

Jeez...another edit: I had a really protracted argument about the definition of murder a while back, and it had nothing to do with the subject at hand. If you don't agree that drunk driving deaths are murder, please substitue some other form of killing a person...I'm confident that you get my point :)

[joe617]

But isn't that the whole point of a jury trial..The gov. doesn't sentence the perp to death, a jury of his peers "us", do that..

Damn good point. Dave? :)


Please see post number 10.....now pay attention, dammit!!!

[Turbotech]

Ok how about allowing vigilantly justice then....

Perp kills my wife, he is convicted with no question... I get 5 minute alone with him in a locked room...I have no problem "extracting justice" and now it's not the gov problem..It's between me and the perp....

[(diet)DrThunder]

Ok how about allowing vigilantly justice then....

Perp kills my wife, he is convicted with no question... I get 5 minute alone with him in a locked room...I have no problem "extracting justice" and now it's not the gov problem..It's between me and the perp....

If that happened to my wife, I would want to hunt and kill the dude, no question...and who knows, I might even actually do it if it comes to that...who can know what they'd do?

But, morally it is still wrong to kill a person. If I did it, I'd be wrong.

[joe617]

Ok how about allowing vigilantly justice then....

Perp kills my wife, he is convicted with no question... I get 5 minute alone with him in a locked room...I have no problem "extracting justice" and now it's not the gov problem..It's between me and the perp....

Vigilante justice poses a huge threat to the wrongly accused. IMO That's not really vigilante justice because the justice system has already had it's hands in the situation during the trial and conviction.

[Turbotech]

So what are we as a nation to do.....Locking them up for life doesn't work as a deterrent to others, killing them is bad....Whats the alternative, hugs and or harsh language?

And I'm not being a smart ass, what other coarse of action can be taken..

[(diet)DrThunder]

So what are we as a nation to do.....Locking them up for life doesn't work as a deterrent to others, killing them is bad....Whats the alternative, hugs and or harsh language?

And I'm not being a smart ass, what other coarse of action can be taken..

Killing them isn't a deterrent either. The point of locking them up for life is to keep them away from the opportunity to kill other innocent people.

[panthercity]

Against.

2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.


Since we're into the slippery slope defense, once we decide it is OK to have wars, i.e. kill people to get what we want, we've start down that self same slope.

I find it repugnant and a failure of our society that we are put in a position to have to decide if a person should die for offending society. But, since that is the case, I believe that the dead have a 0% recidivism rate.

[HPPT]

Killing them isn't a deterrent either. The point of locking them up for life is to keep them away from the opportunity to kill other innocent people.

Killing them is not a deterrent to them, but it will make other people think. What do you think would happen to the murder rate is murder was downgraded to a misdemeanor? my opinion is that it would go up.

And the death penalty also takes away the opportunity to kill other innocent people. At a lower cost (which would be much lower if the appeals did not take 10 years)

[steeltoe]

I was out but...

What about kids? I mean like the 12 yr old who brains his brother because he wants the playstation. It happens quite a bit. How young or how old is ok to execute someone for murder? 12, 14, 15, 18? I don't particularly like the idea of murderous youth mixing in with my little cousins. I'm not at all convinced in rehabilitation for some things. Some folks are just born bad. All the way through bad.

Should we have to pay for their room and board and health care and education while they are locked up for life? That money would surely be better spent on helping the folks who actually do know right from wrong. There are some young people out there with complete disregard for anyone or anything. They kill without remorse. Are they exempt from the death penalty? Not talking about "purifying the breed" just talking about the appropriate punishment for the crime.

[HPPT]

I believe some children are evil. Pure evil. So if it needs to be done, so be it.

[(diet)DrThunder]

Killing them is not a deterrent to them, but it will make other people think. What do you think would happen to the murder rate is murder was downgraded to a misdemeanor? my opinion is that it would go up.

And the death penalty also takes away the opportunity to kill other innocent people. At a lower cost (which would be much lower if the appeals did not take 10 years)

Time has shown us that the death penalty is not, in fact, an effective deterrent to committing capital crime. Over time, there is no evidence that states w. the death penalty have lower rates of capital crime than states that don't. There are a few instances where the reverse was true on a limited basis, but overall, it just isn't a deterrent.

You're right that it's cheaper (or should be) to off the perps, but that isn't a reason to kill people.

[HPPT]

You're right that it's cheaper (or should be) to off the perps, but that isn't a reason to kill people.

I am not saying it's a reason. But it helps facilitate the decision. :)

[RoadRacerX]

Against.

1. No gov't should ever be given the power to kill its citizens, ever.


Roe V. Wade


2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.


Fetuses are people, too. Not crabgrass.


3. Mistakes are made.


Which is why there are exhaustive appeals processes in place. Really, what is the average number of years a convict waits before execution? And statistically, very very rarely are death-row inmates actually found innocent. Especially with new DNA evidence. What's that you say? Free Mumia? :D


4. Keep this up and Papa will have a stroke.

Tell the truth- you and Papa had a bet to see how long it'd take for me to bring abortion into this thread, huh? :crackup:


But, morally it is still wrong to kill a person.

That is why murderers who commit heinous murders are sometimes sentenced to death. But you say that morally, it is wrong, even though they will suffer a death far more humane than that of their victims.

Why is it that you find it morally okay to suck the brain out of a live baby in the womb?


That doesn't make it right to kill them in a society where it's wrong to kill people.

So sayeth you for the hundredth time. The perp killed an innocent, which is wrong. In my mind, under the right circumstances of the crime, the guilty deserves the sentence handed down by the jury. If it's death, so be it. You're just refusing to separate the morality of executing the guilty vs. the killing of an innocent at the hands of the murderer. There is a difference.



I do not believe that any gov't institution (justice, in this case) should ever, under any circumstances, ever kill a person as an institutional practice of enforcement or punishment.


Again, there IS a difference in the morality of the crime and the punishment.



Killing them isn't a deterrent either. The point of locking them up for life is to keep them away from the opportunity to kill other innocent people.

Bravo sierra! Execution is a fine deterrent to having them kill again. Especially when some liberal states in the northeast insist on letting their murderers out on unsupervised "vacations", so they can kill again. Remember Willie Horton?

[auminer]

Would y'all "against" folks also object to the convicted murderer having to spend the rest of his life locked in a 5x8 cell plastered with images of the person/persons he killed and their families?

How about a montage of the deceased at Disneyworld on this wall..... the victim's wedding pics on this wall.... some snapshots of the woman he raped&murdered along that wall.... FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.


Would that be cruel and unusual?

[(diet)DrThunder]

Roe V. Wade

There is no gov't institutionalized mandated aborting of fetuses. If there were, I would be against this too.


Fetuses are people, too.

No, they aren't.


Which is why there are exhaustive appeals processes in place. Really, what is the average number of years a convict waits before execution? And statistically, very very rarely are death-row inmates actually found innocent. Especially with new DNA evidence. What's that you say? Free Mumia? :D

And yet, mistakes are still made. 'Very rare' isn't never, and one is too many.



That is why murderers who commit heinous murders are sometimes sentenced to death. But you say that morally, it is wrong, even though they will suffer a death far more humane than that of their victims.

Yes I do. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

Why is it that you find it morally okay to suck the brain out of a live baby in the womb?

Asked and answered.


So sayeth you for the hundredth time. The perp killed an innocent, which is wrong. In my mind, under the right circumstances of the crime, the guilty deserves the sentence handed down by the jury. If it's death, so be it. You're just refusing to separate the morality of executing the guilty vs. the killing of an innocent at the hands of the murderer. There is a difference.

Asked and answered (a few times in this thread).


Bravo sierra! Execution is a fine deterrent to having them kill again. Especially when some liberal states in the northeast insist on letting their murderers out on unsupervised "vacations", so they can kill again. Remember Willie Horton?

that is not the definition of 'deterrent.' As I mentioned earlier, they should be kept in jail permanently. The fact that some killers have been erroneously released from jail has nothing to do with capital punishment.

[joe617]

Time has shown us that the death penalty is not, in fact, an effective deterrent to committing capital crime.

Maybe this is because there are too few that are actually put to death and even when someone is put to death it is usually 10-50 years before they ever get to meet their maker. I believe that if the number of people executed per year were to increase 20x you would see a significant reduction in crimes that warrant the death penalty.

[Yzasserina]

Would y'all "against" folks also object to the convicted murderer having to spend the rest of his life locked in a 5x8 cell plastered with images of the person/persons he killed and their families?

How about a montage of the deceased at Disneyworld on this wall..... the victim's wedding pics on this wall.... some snapshots of the woman he raped&murdered along that wall.... FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.


Would that be cruel and unusual?

Well, I'm for the death penalty, but I wouldn't want this. I don't want you punished, I want you gone. But if you're still here, I want you to work, not suffer. Not because I don't want you to suffer, but because it doesn't benefit anyone.

[nig]

But isn't that the whole point of a jury trial..The gov. doesn't sentence the perp to death, a jury of his peers "us", do that..

Judge takes care of sentencing.

[sdg]

For.

and

child molesting and rape are both punishable by death.

[pouchkangaroo]

I believe some children are evil. Pure evil. So if it needs to be done, so be it.
i believe everyone arrive in this world clueless and clearly very good in crying for milk when hungry. Everything else is pretty much a learned behavior and self enhancement whether it be in good or bad way.

[Orvis]

If that happened to my wife, I would want to hunt and kill the dude, no question...and who knows, I might even actually do it if it comes to that...who can know what they'd do?

But, morally it is still wrong to kill a person. If I did it, I'd be wrong.

Yeah, that "slippery slope" thing comes back to stare at us on something like this. If someone was drunk and ran my wife off the road and killed her I'm not sure what I would do. If she was kidnapped, tortured and killed by some pervert then I feel that I would be justified (in my own mind) to try to get the chance to cause the person a great amount of pain before killing him myself. Where do you draw the line on punishment. Are we really "punishing" someone when we carry out the death penalty or or we just doing it to remove them from society? When you look at it from that angle then we should be removing a bunch of lawbreakers from society that way.
People like the couple recently caught that tortured and killed their own daughter and stuffed her into a cooler and threw her into the Gulf of Mexico.
We simply don't need that kind of people in our midst. Even if they're in jail.

I'm for the death penalty but only if the person is found guilty beyond doubt.

[R Acree]

How about instead of execution, we put them in an induced coma? We wouldn't be killing them. They couldn't cause any problems while in prison. And, their muscles would atrophy to the point where they wouldn't be much problem when they got out. Or is that too Demolition Man?

[joe617]

How about instead of execution, we put them in an induced coma?

Nah, they need to be executed and their organs given to good people who need them. Then by executing them we would be SAVING the life of another....is that a problem?

[Orvis]

i believe everyone arrive in this world clueless and clearly very good in crying for milk when hungry. Everything else is pretty much a learned behavior and self enhancement whether it be in good or bad way.

On the other hand, there are people born into the world that have some "wiring" in their heads that just didn't turn out correctly. Those people aren't "evil", just screwed up in the head. What can we do with them before they kill someone? Not much I'm afraid.

[Robert]

Killing them is not a deterrent to them, but it will make other people think. What do you think would happen to the murder rate is murder was downgraded to a misdemeanor? my opinion is that it would go up.

And the death penalty also takes away the opportunity to kill other innocent people. At a lower cost (which would be much lower if the appeals did not take 10 years)

Since the appeals do take 10 years it's actually far more expensive.

And deterrents only work when the person takes the time to consider the consequences before they act. Which in the majority of murders isn't the case.

So it costs more, it doesn't work and it's wrong in the first place.

One more strike yer out :D

[sdg]

Nah, they need to be executed and their organs given to good people who need them. Then by executing them we would be SAVING the life of another....is that a problem?

I LIKE that one.

And I'm not for a tortuous or otherwise suffering death...just pfft yer done in the cheapest manner possible.

[Crashfest]

Waste of money. People considering committing Capital offences don't debate on whether they will get death or life with no chance of parole. They either don't expect to get caught or don't care.

A Capital case trial costs much more then a non-capital trial, and the cost of mandatory appeals etc. costs more than a life sentence.

It is also unfair. A wealthy defendant has a much better chance of avoiding a death sentence then an indigent defendant does.

Considering the number of people on death row that have been found innocent, it is likely that a number of innocent people have been executed.

[sdg]

It is also unfair. A wealthy defendant has a much better chance of avoiding a death sentence then an indigent defendant does.

You mean OJ might be actually be guilty? :wow:

[(diet)DrThunder]

It is also unfair. A wealthy defendant has a much better chance of avoiding a death sentence then an indigent defendant does.

Considering the number of people on death row that have been found innocent, it is likely that a number of innocent people have been executed.


I forgot about that one...I should have added it to the list.

[RoadRacerX]

There is no gov't institutionalized mandated aborting of fetuses. If there were, I would be against this too.

Nope, there isn't even a mandate that abortions are legal, other than a ruling by a judge in a famous case. But that hasn't stopped millions of convenience abortions every year, now has it? A fetus has a heart and a brain, yet you think it isn't really a life until it passes the birth canal. And you can say with great repugnance, "killing is morally wrong!" ('cept for babies in their mothers' wombs. That's aw-rite!)


No, they aren't.

According to who, Dave? You? Roe v. Wade? If we're talking case history, then why was Scott Peterson tried and convicted of 2nd degree murder against his unborn son? Just because the unborn child's death was not performed with his mother's blessing?

BTW, Scott Peterson sits on death row in CA right now. Good on ya, jury. Even though Arkle thinks Peterson shouldn't be executed because "killing is wrong!"


And yet, mistakes are still made. 'Very rare' isn't never, and one is too many.


What about the mother who has an abortion, and regrets it later. She made a mistake, and one is too many, right Dave? I'd say this happens a lot more than an innocent inmate getting executed, wouldn't you?



Yes I do. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.


Two wrongs according to you. Thankfully, the majority of Americans believe otherwise.



that is not the definition of 'deterrent.' As I mentioned earlier, they should be kept in jail permanently. The fact that some killers have been erroneously released from jail has nothing to do with capital punishment.


No? Then you'd have to agree that Willie Horton's case is a damned good example of a governors soft stance on punishment. If this killer had been kept in jail permanently OR executed, it would have prevented a murder and attempted murder. If a lethal injection (dying peacefully after going to sleep) is not enough of a deterrent for murder, I say hang 'em, firing squad, drop them into a tank of alligators on national TV. Find something that is a deterrent.

On October 26, 1974, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Horton and two accomplices robbed Joseph Fournier, a 17-year-old gas station attendant, stabbed him 19 times, and left him in a trash can. Fournier died from blood loss. Horton was convicted of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment, and incarcerated at the Concord Correctional Facility in Massachusetts.

On June 6, 1986, he was released as part of a weekend furlough program but did not return. On April 3, 1987 in Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton twice raped a local woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiancé. He then stole the car belonging to the man he had assaulted, but was later captured by police after a chase.

Willie Horton still lives and breathes in a Maryland prison today. He committed his crimes in Massachusetts, but Maryland didn't want to risk sending him back to that justice system. Some other liberal wacko like Dukakis might just set the bastard free again.

One is too many, right Dave?

[Cuddles de Sade]

as I was out for the better part of today and away from my computer I'm playing a wicked game of catch-up on all these threads...

I'm for the Death Penalty in theory (but only for rapists and pedophiles)...only if there could be a way to determine guilt or innocence with absolute certainty...as we have no absolute way, for now I'll have to stay with against in reality.

there have been far too many people found innocent with DNA testing later...even after they've been executed.

[RoadRacerX]

there have been far too many people found innocent with DNA testing later...even after they've been executed.

Name some of them, please.

[(diet)DrThunder]

This is a capital punishment thread Jay, not an abortion thread.

I'd be happy to argue the other stuff, but I can't make any sense of it. We aren't talking about soft stances on punishment, or abortion, or early release, or the hole on the ozone layer, or anything else...capital punishment...the death penalty.

Once again...with feeling. the Willie Horton issue is a case where he should not have been released. He should be kept in jail. the fact that he was released is the problem. "If he were dead, they wouldn't have been able to release him" is not a logical argument. After all, if my aunt had a weewee, she'd be my uncle.

[dtalbott]

Dave, there is only one sure way to make sure that a murderer never murders again.

[(diet)DrThunder]

Dave, there is only one sure way to make sure that a murderer never murders again.


Doesn't change any of my arguments, but that is a literal fact, yes.

[RoadRacerX]

This is a capital punishment thread Jay, not an abortion thread.

I'd be happy to argue the other stuff, but I can't make any sense of it. We aren't talking about soft stances on punishment, or abortion, or early release, or the hole on the ozone layer, or anything else...capital punishment...the death penalty.

Once again...with feeling. the Willie Horton issue is a case where he should not have been released. He should be kept in jail. the fact that he was released is the problem. "If he were dead, they wouldn't have been able to release him" is not a logical argument. After all, if my aunt had a weewee, she'd be my uncle.

Is that against dungeon rules? Fair enough, but I'm just trying to separate your two views that killing is wrong, and killing is okay.

You're anti-capital punishment, and "killing is wrong" is not a very compelling argument when you declare that you're alright with legal abortions, IMNSHO.

One is too many, right?

[dtalbott]

Doesn't change any of my arguments, but that is a literal fact, yes.

I'm not trying to change your mind.

They just need some guidelines for capital murder trials, like the following:

There must be physical evidence. No circumstantial junk, no eye-witness junk. Without physical evidence, punishment should be limited to life in prison.

What else?

[Cuddles de Sade]

Name some of them, please.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

...just a few...:rolleyes:

[(diet)DrThunder]

Is that against dungeon rules? Fair enough, but I'm just trying to separate your two views that killing is wrong, and killing is okay.

You're anti-capital punishment, and "killing is wrong" is not a very compelling argument when you declare that you're alright with legal abortions, IMNSHO.

One is too many, right?

If it makes you feel any better, the 'killing is wrong' part of my argument is only a small portion of why I'm anti-death penalty. Like I said before...plenty of people deserve to die. My main focus is on the institutional use of killing as punishment.

[RoadRacerX]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm

[Cuddles de Sade]

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm

which reinforces my point of without 100% proof either way, we shouldn't do it.

and btw...I'd hunt down and kill anyone who harmed my family, without hesitation, remorse or regret. and accept the consequences.:beer:

[dtalbott]

Dave, executions are not punishments.

Jay, there is a world of difference between abortions and executions.

[(diet)DrThunder]

Of course they are punishments...you've heard the phrase "punishable by death" right? By definition, it is a punishment.

[dtalbott]

Of course they are punishments...you've heard the phrase "punishable by death" right? By definition, it is a punishment.

Yeah, wrong choice of words. To me, you punish someone that you think made a mistake, learned from it, and won't do it again.

You execute a murderer because what he did was so wrong that you cannot take a chance, thinking he's learned and won't do it again, and let him go.

[pouchkangaroo]

How about instead of execution, we put them in an induced coma? We wouldn't be killing them. They couldn't cause any problems while in prison. And, their muscles would atrophy to the point where they wouldn't be much problem when they got out. Or is that too Demolition Man?
what a waste of tax payer's dollars! screw that :tut:

[R Acree]

what a waste of tax payer's dollars! screw that :tut:

Think of the money we would save on food. Vegetables don't eat much.:D

[pouchkangaroo]

I am for it. But I wonder what would it be like if the murderer happen to be your very own sibling? Still for or against? hmmmmm

[pouchkangaroo]

Think of the money we would save on food. Vegetables don't eat much.:D
sir, to my understandiing life support with tubes is not cheap !

[R Acree]

sir, to my understandiing life support with tubes is not cheap !

You don't do well with jokes, do you?

People make me pro-nuclear.

[pouchkangaroo]

You don't do well with jokes, do you?

People make me pro-nuclear.

yeh i need to relax and just have fun. Sorry i missed your joke that time.

[Super Dave]

Against.
1. No gov't should ever be given the power to kill its citizens, ever.
2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.
3. Mistakes are made.


Life in prison would kill a person convicted of a crime.

Killing in self defense is looked at as being self defense. How would you deal with that. Based on your statement, it's as wrong as murder.

Mistakes are always made. But that's why there is a process with a jury selected by those involved in the case and the opportunity for appeals.

I'm for it. It's not used often, but there are those who have done such deeds that even a sentence of death is beyond a reasonable sentence. One example would be Timothy McVey.

[RCjohn]

If that happened to my wife, I would want to hunt and kill the dude, no question...and who knows, I might even actually do it if it comes to that...who can know what they'd do?

But, morally it is still wrong to kill a person. If I did it, I'd be wrong.


You are over-simplifying the "kill a person" argument again.

It's your opinion that executing someone is morally wrong. Most people don't agree with that or at least most states don't. ;)

[pouchkangaroo]

It would not be a deterent if we need 100% proof. What ever happened to beyond reasonable doubt? We don't want to give the potential murderers out there to not think twice before proceeding. And what about those drunk drivers who killed. Just the other day here in Calgary five family members perished when a cement truck ploughed into back of their family car stopped at a red light and push the car some 300 meters pass the intersection. The truck driver refused to take breatherlyzer test. So he got dangerous driving offences, refusal to take the test sentence wise is much lighter than impaired driving causing deaths. Five family members going into town to do some Christmas shopping! Can you imagine?

[RCjohn]

Judge takes care of sentencing.


That depends.

[RCjohn]

Name some of them, please.

Yeah I would like to see that list too.

[Ptog]

For!!

[RCjohn]

I am for it. But I wonder what would it be like if the murderer happen to be your very own sibling? Still for or against? hmmmmm


If my brother murders someone and is properly convicted he should die. It would suck to lose a brother but if he's a murderer then he's trash.

[(diet)DrThunder]

You are over-simplifying the "kill a person" argument again.

It's your opinion that executing someone is morally wrong. Most people don't agree with that or at least most states don't. ;)

I"m not oversimplifying, I'm stating my opinion. Luckily for me, I"m not arguing for most people...just for myself :)

Besides, just because most people believe something to be true doesn't make it so...most people think it's a great idea to buy a $2000 TV with a credit card that charges 22% interest when they don't have enough money in savings to buy a pair of pants if they needed to.

In general, I'm not terribly impressed with what most people are up to these days...

[(diet)DrThunder]

If my brother murders someone and is properly convicted he should die. It would suck to lose a brother but if he's a murderer then he's trash.

This isn't the same as supporting the death penalty though. Like I said before...there is a wide chasm between 'a murderer deserves to die' and 'there should be a gov't sanctioned institutional killing of people as punishment for crimes.'



(by the way, I'm only repeating myself because I just know that I can't possibly be the only person here who thinks the way I do, so I'm stalling while reinforcements are brought in :D )

[Super Dave]

If my brother murders someone and is properly convicted he should die. It would suck to lose a brother but if he's a murderer then he's trash.
+1

Might be the nicest guy, but if that's what they did, there's a price to be paid.

[RCjohn]

In general, I'm not terribly impressed with what most people are up to these days...

I'm with ya there Brother. :)

[RCjohn]

(by the way, I'm only repeating myself because I just know that I can't possibly be the only person here who thinks the way I do, so I'm stalling while reinforcements are brought in :D )

:D

[HPPT]

Jay: you're just too easy. There is no sport in it anymore. I'll just watch. :D

[Putter]

Buncha homos.

[Cuddles de Sade]

Buncha homos.

Extra homo...:D

[Putter]

I wish Bradley was here. For real. :beer:

[45° Please]

Extra homo...:D

:D

[Cuddles de Sade]

I slay myself...

[RoadRacerX]

Jay: you're just too easy. There is no sport in it anymore. I'll just watch. :D

Took you 2 days to come up with that gem? You're slipping. :rolleyes:

BTW, if the death penalty wasn't a deterrence to murder, then why are Al Franken and Michael Moore still alive, and I'm not sitting on death row?

(Stole that one from Ann Coulter. Thanks Annie!) :D

[Gmaniac]

Against.

1. No gov't should ever be given the power to kill its citizens, ever.
2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.
3. Mistakes are made.
4. Keep this up and Papa will have a stroke.

For starters, I'm confused on #2. What about self-defense? (watch your footing...)

[(diet)DrThunder]

Please read the entire thread if you want to jump in (asked and answered). Thanks.

[yetidave]

(Stole that one from Ann Coulter. Thanks Annie!) :D

Evil cunt. But I guess that's a different thread.

[nig]

She's not worthy of a thread. I wish everyone (not here) would quit legitimizing that imbecile with all the attention.

[TSWebster]

Your black or white answer to "is it right or wrong to kill" is that killing is right as long as the reasons that make it right meet your criteria. The argument is simply over where to draw the line. And if morality is determined by society, in our society there is nothing immoral in a the state executing someone, as long as they have been provided all the protection the law allows.
Steve

Please read the entire thread if you want to jump in (asked and answered). Thanks.

[pouchkangaroo]

Evil cunt. This is in violation of Dungeon rules

[steeltoe]

She's not worthy of a thread. I wish everyone (not here) would quit legitimizing that imbecile with all the attention.

Oh you just wait buddy I've got one for you.

[pouchkangaroo]

She's not worthy of a thread. I wish everyone (not here) would quit legitimizing that imbecile with all the attention.
This ain't necessary either

[HPPT]

Took you 2 days to come up with that gem? You're slipping. :rolleyes:
No, it took your ass 2 days to find it. :Poke:

[RoadRacerX]

Tell the truth- you and Papa had a bet to see how long it'd take for me to bring abortion into this thread, huh? :crackup:



Did you overlook this? ;)

[HPPT]

Did you overlook this? ;)

Do you even know why I said you are too easy? At this point, I am beginning to wonder if you even got it.

[RoadRacerX]

Do you even know why I said you are too easy? At this point, I am beginning to wonder if you even got it.

I don't really care, but if it makes you all giddy and happy, glad I could help.

[HPPT]

I don't really care, but if it makes you all giddy and happy, glad I could help.

Don't get all butt-hurt. You brought me into your abortion rant with that remark you just quoted. I was only responding to that. :rolleyes:

[RoadRacerX]

Don't get all butt-hurt. You brought me into your abortion rant with that remark you just quoted. I was only responding to that. :rolleyes:

OK. :rolleyes:

[(diet)DrThunder]

Your black or white answer to "is it right or wrong to kill" is that killing is right as long as the reasons that make it right meet your criteria. The argument is simply over where to draw the line. And if morality is determined by society, in our society there is nothing immoral in a the state executing someone, as long as they have been provided all the protection the law allows.
Steve

I have to agree with you, except that I believe that morality is an individual thing, not to be determined by society. Obviously we are currently living in a society that approves of capital punishment. I personally find it morally reprehensible.

Also, my black and white answer really didn't have anything to do with morality...it was that I am against the institutional, sanctioned by the gov't use of death as a punishment for crime, under any circumstances. War, self defense, etc. have nothing to do with institutional killing as a method of punishement.

[TSWebster]

Is it the killing that you find objectional or the possibility of a mistake that bothers you?

I have to agree with you, except that I believe that morality is an individual thing, not to be determined by society. Obviously we are currently living in a society that approves of capital punishment. I personally find it morally reprehensible.

Also, my black and white answer really didn't have anything to do with morality...it was that I am against the institutional, sanctioned by the gov't use of death as a punishment for crime, under any circumstances. War, self defense, etc. have nothing to do with institutional killing as a method of punishement.

[Gmaniac]

Please read the entire thread if you want to jump in (asked and answered). Thanks.

Where is this directly addressed (self-defense)? Is this the answer you're referring to?

I was trying to simplify by leaving out a discussion of war, self defense, or public defense (like a cop shooting a guy who's endangering others, etc.).

[(diet)DrThunder]

Is it the killing that you find objectional or the possibility of a mistake that bothers you?

Both, but again, neither of those things is as bad as the concept of institutional gov't sanctioned use of death as a punishment for crime.

[(diet)DrThunder]

Where is this directly addressed (self-defense)? Is this the answer you're referring to?

That, and the multiple times I've talked about the problems with death as a punishment for crime. This has nothing to do with war or self defense. IMO if war is just, it is de facto self defense.

[cyclecop]

OK here goes,
Very pro death penalty. Here in NC the problem is that it is just a deterant. There are 166 people currently on death row in NC. We average about 3-6 executions per year, you do the math. If you are #167 you will die of natural causes before you are executed. It is a quality of prision life issue is why most defendants will take a life sentence plea. They can still sneak drugs, go out in the yard, have a butt-buddy, etc where things are a little more strick on death row. The death penalty would be great if it would be used.

[Gmaniac]

That, and the multiple times I've talked about the problems with death as a punishment for crime. This has nothing to do with war or self defense. IMO if war is just, it is de facto self defense.

I agree, but it does have something to do with the second reason that you yourself listed on page 1. By "simpifying", you are conveniently eliminating circumstances that display the hypocrisy of your reasoning.

And so that I understand your the rest of your position, you contend that, after careful deliberation, your moral compass is perfectly fine with concluding that "some people deserve to die", but you then take issue with the gov't actually carrying that out because it's "morally reprehensible"?

[(diet)DrThunder]

I agree, but it does have something to do with the second reason that you yourself listed on page 1. By "simpifying", you are conveniently eliminating circumstances that display the hypocrisy of your reasoning.

And so that I understand your the rest of your position, you contend that, after careful deliberation, your moral compass is perfectly fine with concluding that "some people deserve to die", but you then take issue with the gov't actually carrying that out because it's "morally reprehensible"?

Well, you're mixing and matching a little, but essentially, yes.

By "simplifying" I'm ...simplifying. We're talking about capital punishment...not shooting a drug dealer with a gun who's rushing a cop, or defending a helpless country against military aggression, etc. Did I really need to spend time explaining that these instances are not related to capital punishment, or are you just trying to find any possible avenue to disagree with me?

What the hell...I hate to think that I've caused such terrible confusion with my simplification, so here 'goes. Of your life is in immediate danger, it is not wrong to kill someone to avert that threat. If another person or people's life/lives are in immediate danger, it is not wrong to kill someone to avert that threat. If a military action that may result in the killing of people is necessary to counter the aggression of an opposing force, that action may be a just one depending on the circumstances surrounding the aggressor and it's actions.

I know my previous posts must have been confusing, what with failing to address these completely-unrelated-to-capital-punishment questions, so I hope that helps. :)

I did mention more than once that the fact that a person deserves to die doesn't make it right to kill them...especially if it's the govt/justice system doing the killing.

What the heck...if you like, ignore all references to "killing is wrong" from my arguments in this thread. The institutional use of death as a punishment for crime portion alone should be more than enough to convince anyone who could possibly be convinced.

Revenge and justice aren't inclusive.

[panthercity]

...If a military action that may result in the killing of people is necessary to counter the aggression of an opposing force...Whatif the opposing force is not being aggressive butt the government says "kill `em anyway"?

[HPPT]

Revenge and justice aren't inclusive.

Revenge is not so bad when justice is impossible. And when you have a rape or a murder, justice is impossible.

[RoadRacerX]

Whatif the opposing force is not being aggressive butt the government says "kill `em anyway"?


Aw hell.......

[panthercity]

A living hell, in fact...

[panthercity]

I'm gonna post until Papa's "butt-hurt" quote goes off the top.

[panthercity]

Well, it's gonna take at least one more...

[panthercity]

Come on "Eighter from Decatur"!

[panthercity]

Eight is your point! Your point is Eight!

[RoadRacerX]

A living hell, in fact...

Guess you don't consider firing at our planes, putting out contracts on our presidents, breaking imposed UN sanctions, and threatening to use WMD against the US and Israel aggressive. I do, buTt you know how easily I get all butt hurt and all.

[panthercity]

What's it take to get an 8 `round here?

[RoadRacerX]

I'm gonna post until Papa's "butt-hurt" quote goes off the top.

Can I help? After all, it was me that was butt-hurt.

[panthercity]

Oh Gr8! Have I gotta change my name to N8?

[panthercity]

8!

8!

8!

8!

8!

8!

8!

[panthercity]

I need some help here...

[HPPT]

I need some help here...

What are you trying to do? :confused:

[RoadRacerX]

Both, but again, neither of those things is as bad as the concept of institutional gov't sanctioned use of death as a punishment for crime.

You never really addressed my question other than your cop-out,"asked and answered". What if a woman was pressured into an abortion by her lover or family, and later regretted having it. That life was snuffed out, and it was a mistake. One is too many, right? I'd say this happens much more frequently than an innocent man being put to death.

As someone so aptly put it, there are convicted inmates sitting on death row for decades. That is more than enough time for the appeals process to run it's course. Tell me, what possible good would have come from keeping Timothy McVeigh alive? The remorseless serial killer John Gacy? What about Richard Ramirez, who still sits on CA death row, nearly 20 years after his conviction in 1988? Look at Richard Speck, who was filmed having a blast in prison, doing drugs, having sex, and generally making the best of things? Do you call that a deterrence? What in the world does society have to gain by keeping these remorseless, murdering people alive? If there's a failure with justice in our society, it's that the appeals process just takes too long. It should last no longer than 10 years, unless there is a confession. Then the sentence should be carried out immediately.

BTW, in the links I've looked at such as the innocence project, et al, I still haven't seen ONE case where an innocent person was executed. There have been plenty exonerated, and that is just proof that there needs to be an appeals process in place, which we have. There are many, many more circumstances where the guilty walk free than where we have an innocent convicted. Wouldn't you agree?

[Crackhead]

BTW, in the links I've looked at such as the innocence project, et al, I still haven't seen ONE case where an innocent person was executed.

Maybe because they are focusing their time and resources on saving the ones who are still alive. What's the use of clearing the dead when there are still people on death row?

[Slider82]

Maybe because they are focusing their time and resources on saving the ones who are still alive. What's the use of clearing the dead when there are still people on death row?

Believe it or not, there are people trying to prove that murderers who have been put to death for their crimes were innocent.

[(diet)DrThunder]

You never really addressed my question other than your cop-out,"asked and answered". What if a woman was pressured into an abortion by her lover or family, and later regretted having it. That life was snuffed out, and it was a mistake. One is too many, right? I'd say this happens much more frequently than an innocent man being put to death.

Adults are responsible for their own actions. If a woman is pressured into an unwanted abortion, that's her problem, and has nothing to do with...um...capital punishment. Why do I continue to argue this non-point?

As someone so aptly put it, there are convicted inmates sitting on death row for decades. That is more than enough time for the appeals process to run it's course. Tell me, what possible good would have come from keeping Timothy McVeigh alive? The remorseless serial killer John Gacy? What about Richard Ramirez, who still sits on CA death row, nearly 20 years after his conviction in 1988? Look at Richard Speck, who was filmed having a blast in prison, doing drugs, having sex, and generally making the best of things? Do you call that a deterrence? What in the world does society have to gain by keeping these remorseless, murdering people alive? If there's a failure with justice in our society, it's that the appeals process just takes too long. It should last no longer than 10 years, unless there is a confession. Then the sentence should be carried out immediately.

I assume you're making these comments as an aside, as none of this has anything whatsoever to do with any of the anti-capital punishment arguments I've made. The fact that inmates are on death row too long has nothing to do with capital punishment being right or wrong. The fact that Richard Speck was partying up in prison has nothing to do with capital punishment being right or wrong.

And (for at least the 4th time in this thread), capital punishment is not a deterrent...over time, states with capital punishment do not have lower murder rates than states without it. If you pick just the right time frame, it is possible to see some 'evidence' that it is a deterrent, but when you see the murder rates of all states over a long period of time, it's clearly not an effective deterrent.

Of course, whether it's a deterrent or not doesn't interest me, because obviously I don't think capital punishment is right as a concept, regardless fo its efectiveness...but people keep bringing it up, so I don't mind mentioning it.

There are many, many more circumstances where the guilty walk free than where we have an innocent convicted. Wouldn't you agree?

I would rather have 100,000 guilty go free than have the "justice" system kill one person, innocent or otherwise. I can't put it any more clearly than that.

[Slider82]

And (for at least the 4th time in this thread), capital punishment is not a deterrent

Just because you've said it 4 times doesn't make it true, capital punishment is a deterrent if only to the murderer who is no longer alive to commit more murders.

[(diet)DrThunder]

Well, that isn't actually a "deterrent," but it is a valid point.

re: the abortion thing JAy keeps bringing up. I was thinking abou this, so I wanted to ask you this. You have brought it up several times (this thread and others) in your arguments v. my stance against the death penalty. Let's say that miraculously, you convinced me that abortion in all its forms was wrong.

How is that going to help me come around to your idea that the death penalty is a good thing?

[Slider82]

Well, that isn't actually a "deterrent," but it is a valid point.

re: the abortion thing JAy keeps bringing up. I was thinking abou this, so I wanted to ask you this. You have brought it up several times (this thread and others) in your arguments v. my stance against the death penalty. Let's say that miraculously, you convinced me that abortion in all its forms was wrong.

How is that going to help me come around to your idea that the death penalty is a good thing?

The way this was written I can't tell if your question is to me or Jay, please clarify.

[RoadRacerX]

Well, that isn't actually a "deterrent," but it is a valid point.


I wonder if the Saudi citizens are deterred from stealing knowing that the Saudi justice system will lop their hand off. I really don't care if capital punishment is a deterrent to murder or not. I see it as justice with closure. An eye for an eye. After due process, of course.


re: the abortion thing JAy keeps bringing up. I was thinking abou this, so I wanted to ask you this. You have brought it up several times (this thread and others) in your arguments v. my stance against the death penalty. Let's say that miraculously, you convinced me that abortion in all its forms was wrong.

How is that going to help me come around to your idea that the death penalty is a good thing?

This is discussion, right Dave? I realize that our ideologies are polar opposites and that we will never agree on abortion, or the the death penalty for that matter. To me, there is something inherently vile and morally wrong about a woman, out of convenience, having a doctor reach into her womb and sucking out her living fetus. Yeah, it's a life. You saw your son's ultrasound. (see my point of Scott Peterson's TWO murder convictions) And to you, it is just as vile and morally wrong for a justice system to peacefully put to death by lethal injection, a sleeping convicted murderer. When I hear this from (mostly liberal) people, I just want to get their views on abortion as well. I like hearing people dance around trying to convince me that one type of killing (abortion) is OK, but one (execution) is morally wrong. I guess our fundamental difference on the subject is that you think that a fetus is not a life, and that anyone should be able to eradicate it like crabgrass. I don't understand why you are so vehemently against the execution of a person who by all rights deserves much worse, much sooner. Maybe you have a relative on death row. I dunno.

You start these peacenik, far-left threads for what reason if you're not trying to convince someone to follow your ideology? I tell ya, Dave. Just how in the world do ANY of your points about the death penalty help me come around to your idea that the death penalty is a bad thing? If you're keeping something close to your vest that will convince me, by all means let's hear it.

[RoadRacerX]

I would rather have 100,000 guilty go free than have the "justice" system kill one person, innocent or otherwise. I can't put it any more clearly than that.

Not me. Not by a long shot.

[(diet)DrThunder]

You start these peacenik, far-left threads for what reason if you're not trying to convince someone to follow your ideology? I tell ya, Dave. Just how in the world do ANY of your points about the death penalty help me come around to your idea that the death penalty is a bad thing? If you're keeping something close to your vest that will convince me, by all means let's hear it.

I think you missed my point there. What I meant was that I didn't see how the abortion thing was related to capital punishment, when my position is that the 'death' of a fetus isn't a problem...it seemed incongruous. You may not agree with my various arguments, but they are direct arguments to the subject at hand...that's all I was trying to say.

I think I muddled things up with my general statement that it was wrong to kill people. I think I'll retract that, and just say that my problem with the death penalty is entirely related to the concept of institutional killing of people by the state as a method of punishment for a crime. To me, that's the important part. I'm largely unencumbered by the whole 'a human life is sacred' thing, so I really shouldn't have included that in my early posts.

I don't know what you mean by me having something close to the vest...if I had a more compelling argument than the ones I've already used, I'd have used it.

[Slider82]

Not me. Not by a long shot.

+1

[RoadRacerX]

I think you missed my point there. What I meant was that I didn't see how the abortion thing was related to capital punishment, when my position is that the 'death' of a fetus isn't a problem...it seemed incongruous. You may not agree with my various arguments, but they are direct arguments to the subject at hand...that's all I was trying to say.


The reason I relate the two is that they are both death sentences of a sort. One of them is decided without a trial, jury, and due process of appeals, and the other one has all the rules in place. I am unable to compartmentalize the two the way you do.

[(diet)DrThunder]

The reason I relate the two is that they are both death sentences of a sort. One of them is decided without a trial, jury, and due process of appeals, and the other one has all the rules in place. I am unable to compartmentalize the two the way you do.

Fair enough.

[RCjohn]

Not me. Not by a long shot.

No shit. Me either. :eek:

The way I see it, OJ got off on "reasonable doubt". The rest should die. :D

[(diet)DrThunder]

WAy to go, New Jersey... (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071217/D8TJC8280.html)

[R Acree]

WAy to go, New Jersey... (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071217/D8TJC8280.html)

Took you long enough.:D

[joe617]

WAy to go, New Jersey... (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071217/D8TJC8280.html)

Pussies!!

[Crackhead]

Believe it or not, there are people trying to prove that murderers who have been put to death for their crimes were innocent.

I am sure there are, but I was referring to that organization that has had all the successes in getting death row inmates released. Barry Scheck and his people. From a report I saw a few years ago, I concluded that their mission was to save people before they are executed. I don't remember anything saying they were also investigating those that had already been killed.

[ToddW]

Pussies!!


:stupid:

[Rally 291]

If the real objection to the death penalty is the 'institution' carrying out the sentence, then let the public carry out the execution....problem solved.....

The defendant (inmate) will probably choose institutional execution over public by an almost 100% margin. It is the public that convicts them and provides the 'sentencing guidelines' for the judge who does the sentencing. I'm not sure where *I* see the problem of institution vs public, but if that's your stance, ok.

Personally, I'd be glad to provide the assistance and equipment to take care of defendants convicted by the court system. I'd probably even enjoy taking care of idiots who perpetrate unspeakable crimes againt children. Will it ever fix the children...no. But, will it prevent further occurances in the future....absolutely.

For me, its not about vengeance, but about having the ability to prevent the same or similar heinous crimes in the future.

Some people are beyond 'rehabilitation' and I don't think it should be the responsibility of the public to feed and water these people for years and years. If the death penalty is what the sentence is, then the death penalty should be what is carried out. With ONE chance at an appeal, of course.

NOT the perpetual set of appeals like what happens in today's society. :down:

Personally, I don't believe prisons do much in the way of 'rehab' at all. I believe that they are just big collections of criminals waiting for 'their day' so they can (most of them, anyway) get right back to what it was they were doing that got them in there in the first place, hence my perspective on rehabilitation.

BTW, yes, I have read this thread from the beginning, if that concerns anyone.

[(diet)DrThunder]

Having the public actually carry out the execution is irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that the state (in this case, the justice system) should not under any circumstances, have the power to decide that an individual should be killed as punishment for a crime.

If you're suggesting that the entire justice system be abolished, in favor of vigilante justice, I don't agree.

[fjrfencer]

Ok I skipped a few pages.

did anyone mention offing those who confessed?

What about Charlie Manson and the like. It was never proven he actually did the deed himself, but I don't see him contributing anything to society upon release.

My vote FOR

[R Acree]

Having the public actually carry out the execution is irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that the state (in this case, the justice system) should not under any circumstances, have the power to decide that an individual should be killed as punishment for a crime.

If you're suggesting that the entire justice system be abolished, in favor of vigilante justice, I don't agree.

How about spammers?

[Rally 291]

'The Institution' is made up of people, citizens, parents, brothers, sisters, etc. They are not some machine and should not be viewed as such.

If you feel that you can rehabilitate these hardcore offenders, perhaps that is a new business opportunity waiting to be unlocked.

Personally, the people who are sentenced to death in this country deserve their sentence and not my humble contribution of tax dollars to perpetuate their existence the rest of their lives. These are not people who did something 'minor' to get the death penalty, they are the worst of the worst and as far as I'm concerned, we can improve our gene pool by removing them from it.

[eggfooyoung]

For, with absolute proof. I think they should be killed exactly how they killed!:)

[joe617]

Having the public actually carry out the execution is irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that the state (in this case, the justice system) should not under any circumstances, have the power to decide that an individual should be killed as punishment for a crime.

But the state does not decide, a jury of peers do.

[joe617]

For, with absolute proof. I think they should be killed exactly how they killed!:)


Works for me!:up:

[(diet)DrThunder]

But the state does not decide, a jury of peers do.

Do you honestly have no idea what my view is, after about 40 posts, or are you just enjoying my rephrasing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

The justice system is a part of what can commonly be referred to as "the state." Death should not be a possible punishment to come as the result of...


...oh never mind. Jesus.

[joe617]

are you just enjoying my rephrasing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over

Yes..... I thought I put a :Poke: at the end of that post, sorry.

[R Acree]

Do you honestly have no idea what my view is, after about 40 posts, . And if I said execute the spammers, junk faxers and telemarketers?

[(diet)DrThunder]

Yes..... I thought I put a :Poke: at the end of that post, sorry.

In that case, you got me...


:D

[(diet)DrThunder]

And if I said execute the spammers, junk faxers and telemarketers?

I think I covered the difference between 'should be executed' and 'deserves to die.'

:)

[Rally 291]

Against.

1. No gov't should ever be given the power to kill its citizens, ever.
2. It's either wrong to kill people, or it isn't.
3. Mistakes are made.
4. Keep this up and Papa will have a stroke.

Dave, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

1. It is not the goverment carrying out the job. It is not even the government that passes sentence, but 12 'peers' that have heard the evidence for and against as well as one judge.

2. It isn't if they have done so to others. IMO, if you kill someone, you are violating their rights and therefore (in my book) you surrender your own.

3. Unfortunately, this has been true. Hopefully the advances in medical technology will minimize this in the future. I'd still rather lose one innocent person now and then to make sure ALL of the guilty ones are gone.

4. They have medication for that sort of thing......