Death Penalty

[King_Shadow89]

The State of Texas exercises the death penalty for capital punishment. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. I do think all needs to be punished, but not by the death penalty.
These are the reasons why I do not believe in the death penalty. First off, no one has the right to take another’s life no matter how bad he/she is. There are other ways to deal with crime without using the death penalty. Just use your imagination and you can come up with a punishment.

One way to punish the person is to shock him/her all the way to jail. Shocking should be only performed on a person who commits treason. This will satisfy the public and the government for the person’s ignorance and rebellion.
To punish a person who commits murder, I think he/she should be humiliated in public. This is how I would humiliate him/her. I would have the parents and family of those he/she killed beat him/her in public. After the relatives are finished with him/her, he/she would get striped of his/her clothes and hung by both of her/his arms up on a tree or a pole for four hours. Then take them to jail and sentence them to twenty years in prison.
This punishment that I am about to express is only meant for insane people. I think those who have a sick and disturbed mind should have a section of their brains taken out. The doctors used to do this with mental people. If you take a certain part of the brain out, he/she will become like a robot by following orders and nothing else. They cannot think or act by his/her selves. They are like robots that must be commanded. This makes them like pets. Plus you can use them for your own advantages, like yard work.
I know that is easier to give someone the death penalty because it is cheaper, but why kill him/her when you can make him/her suffer as the victim’s parents had to. Though many will disagree with me because the punishments I state are in humane. I still think the death penalty should not be practiced in Texas.
These are all the reasons why I do not agree with the death penalty. Also this is how I would punish people instead of the death penalty. I am against the death penalty.What do you all think about the death penalty?

[Meyrin]

Actually againts it. I think that every one has the right to live. Even the the person who commited murder or treason. Nobody has the right to kill another person just because they have the power to do it. I believe that only god can judge and decide a person's fate but if someone would ask me what kind of punnishement I would give murderers, traitors and etc... I would give them a lifetime sentence to jail.

[Twig Ee]

I think spending the rest of your days in a prison is more of a punishment

[Memento Mori]

I think the death penalty should be used. If someone you loved was murdered, would you NOT want the killer to be sent to the ultimate punishment? Are you saying that the cost of a life is not a life? If you're against it, maybe. Or maybe your just giving the politically correct answer? But, I would think before they sentence them to this death, they would need concrete evidence. Then kill them. And don't make them wait 15 years in jail. Make them wait 2 months or less. I don't want to have to pay for a criminal's food, clothing, etc. I know I'll have to, but I won't like it. O.o' The government is not killing people with no reason, if one is threatening the enviroment, causing fear and panic in the citizens, and they have killed someone or many, you simply kill them. This tells other criminals or future criminals we will not tolerate this sort of violence.

[Nephthys]

wait wait wait, so you think those who are menstally ill should have a peice of their brain removed? ummmm i can't bring myself to agree with that one. And no i don't agree with the death penalty. who are we to play god. the bible says " vengance is mine" said the lord although i couldn't tell you which script or verse or whatever. anyway back to the removal of brain. alot of ppl who are mentally ill were born that way, if you were born retarded do you want someone to remove your brain, mentally ill means that they genuinly can't control a certain aspect of their life causing them to do wrong. and removing their a poece of their brain would probaby kill them anyway. i dunno im not a brain surgeon.

[DaSOCOM]

Kill them and kill them quickly. I am tired of guys sitting on Death Row for 15 years before they finally get snuffed out. I say we need to invoke the death penalty more often. The less inmates we have, the lower my taxes are!

Peace,
DaSOCOM

[Perpetual Specter]

Kill them and kill them quickly. I am tired of guys sitting on Death Row for 15 years before they finally get snuffed out. I say we need to invoke the death penalty more often. The less inmates we have, the lower my taxes are!

Peace,
DaSOCOM

I have to agree with this.If they have been proven guilty in court and sentenced to the death penalty,then that's exactly what needs to be done.Keeping these prisoners in jail for that long cost the government and the citizens both money and over time that money builds up to a big amount.It would also sort of be easier on the prisoners because they could go ahead and get the whole thing over with instead of worrying about it for such a long time.Again,this is just my opinion.

[PanzerJager]

death penalty for capital punishment is a must given the frequency of repeat offenders.. also because of the fact that I pay for them to get food, clothing, and for the prison itself out of my taxes..

[dark wrath]

i also disagree with the death penalty too, i think the criminal should suffer as much or more than the victim, as for the insane one that brain thing is in humane and that is why i like it.

[International 4-8818]

Well, letting them rot in prison and make them think about what they have done is more of a punishment then being killed asap (well asap is not that correct to use since it takes years) but anyway, yeah, let them rot in prison.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I’m of two minds on the subject.

Part of me wants to say that IF we value the rights of the individual anywhere near as much as we (E.G. most of us, anyway) say we do, we should cure people in prisons instead of hardening them. Most are just mentally-sick people, and prisons don’t teach them anything positive. Granted, it will cost money at first, but it’ll decrease costs over time. Most of the people in prisons are repeat-offenders.

The rest of me wants to say that it would be nice if we, as a people, could just decide to take care of these things without malice, or any saber-rattling for justice. Just declare life sentencers to be unfit for society and take care of them. Keeping people locked up you never intend to let free is a waste of time.

I’m going to preemptive-strike on this point.


What we need to do is keep them locked up for life. Killing 'um is too easy on them.
Three Points:
1) What kind of [stuff] is this? What is the point of “punishing” people you will never let free to commit another crime?
2) How does keeping people locked up forever help anyone? What is it doing that a three rifle bullets in the back of the head at close range couldn’t do better, faster, cheaper, and with more finality?
3) How about you grow up? Retribution is for children. Adults should take care of problems, not scream bloody murder that person X is not suffering enough for action Y. Why is it any business of yours?

As I said in a thread a billion years ago, when the Internets were singular and weren’t a series of tubes: “How about we kill them so painfully it just feels like they went through a lifetime of suffering? That should satisfy everyone.”

[_CTA_]

A death penalty is worse then getting beat up everytime as a punihsment.

But IMO, death penalty is better than being locked up for the rest of the lives. It's better off dead than suffering and being lonely.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

A death penalty is worse then getting beat up everytime as a punihsment.

You are good at this.

[Eris]

I think the death penalty should be used. If someone you loved was murdered, would you NOT want the killer to be sent to the ultimate punishment? Are you saying that the cost of a life is not a life? If you're against it, maybe. Or maybe your just giving the politically correct answer?

You could conversely use the argument: If someone you love was falsely convicted to death, would you NOT want the death penalty abolished?

I'm not against the death penalty as a method, but I do think it's very hypocritical as it is designed today. The first change I'd like to see is the victim/victim's relatives pushing the button. If they can stand killing someone, they shouldn't be in the comfort behind a glass window, hiding behind the government: They should be in the same room swinging the proverbial axe.

Secondly, I seriously object to the idea of sentences of "punishments." They are supposed to protect society, and scare other people out of committing similar crimes, not satisfying the sadistic needs of the victims. They can beat their wife or something if they feel a need to be a jerk.

[bakakame]

YIf they can stand killing someone, they shouldn't be in the comfort behind a glass window, hiding behind the government: They should be in the same room swinging the proverbial axe.

I dunno, if said condemned chooses (depending on the location) to be killed via gas chamber, it would kinda suck to be in the same room.....:sweatdrop


“How about we kill them so painfully it just feels like they went through a lifetime of suffering? That should satisfy everyone.”

That's got my vote.

[DaSOCOM]

You could conversely use the argument: If someone you love was falsely convicted to death, would you NOT want the death penalty abolished?


Accidents happen, oh well. But I don't see the need to let a few mishaps overrun the operation of the punishment machine.

Peace,
DaSOCOM

[Eris]

I dunno, if said condemned chooses (depending on the location) to be killed via gas chamber, it would kinda suck to be in the same room.....:sweatdrop

In that case, naturally, they would be throwing the switch outside the chamber. But you get the point.


Accidents happen, oh well. But I don't see the need to let a few mishaps overrun the operation of the punishment machine.

Doesn't that mean that the government is a (mass) murderer that needs to be killed (for knowingly killing innocent people)?

[dragon_nataku]

I believe in "an eye for an eye." Yeah yeah, "an eye for an eye leaves the entire world blind," sure, whatever. If you kill someone, you deserve to die (and this is coming from someone who gets the urge to kill stupid people on a regular basis. Even if *I* kill someone, I'd still think I deserved to die).

As someone already said, they don't learn anything in prison. And society doesn't learn much, either. "Oh, if I kill someone, I get to go to jail and not work anymore, and will probably get out on parole in 20 years for good behaviour, then I can do it all over again!" That doesn't seem like much of a punishment to me, but that's just my opinion.

[*Lady_Kikyo*]

Kill them and kill them quickly. I am tired of guys sitting on Death Row for 15 years before they finally get snuffed out. I say we need to invoke the death penalty more often. The less inmates we have, the lower my taxes are!

Peace,
DaSOCOM


I completely and totally agree with DaSOCOM..for tax reasons. I also feel that the death penalty should be used more often simply for the reason of setting the example.. We have to show the citizens and crime commiters that is its NOT IN ANYWAY WHATS SO EVER OKAY TO TAKE ANOTHER LIFE.. if all we do is stick them in prison for the rest of their lives where they have roofs over their heads..3 square meals access to cigaretts and drugs (yes drugs..its all in inside scandle..but thats another topic).. and live the rest of their lives. No..its like telling them.."yeah its okay if you took his/her life.. all well do to you is slap your hand and keep you hidden away.." No sorry..but if you go and take someones life away then yours should be taken as well..period.

[TheAsterisk!]

I believe in "an eye for an eye." Yeah yeah, "an eye for an eye leaves the entire world blind," sure, whatever. If you kill someone, you deserve to die (and this is coming from someone who gets the urge to kill stupid people on a regular basis. Even if *I* kill someone, I'd still think I deserved to die).

As someone already said, they don't learn anything in prison. And society doesn't learn much, either. "Oh, if I kill someone, I get to go to jail and not work anymore, and will probably get out on parole in 20 years for good behaviour, then I can do it all over again!" That doesn't seem like much of a punishment to me, but that's just my opinion.
First, the whole "eye for an eye" mess doesn't carry its literal meaning; it merely means that the punishment should fit the crime, not necessarily be the crime.
The purpose of execution is to eliminate (with finality) a threat to society. This is to be reserved for a person with no chance of reform or redemption. Many convicts don't seem to care about that, but not all will. Sure, the government could spend more money on attempts to make these criminals decent, but not all will change. That is why death sentences are (and will remain) a feature of any sound legal system.*
And the state is not a mass murderer in such a sense as Eris has mused about; the rights and abilities/powers of governments and individuals are not the same.



*I suppose labotomies (spelling?) would work, too, but they've been deemed cruel, so...that's out.

[unspun]

I still think it would be in our best interest to send them off to be scientific experiments instead of wasting their lives and our tax dollars. Think of all of the things science could accomplish, if we could do experiments on humans, instead of dogs, cats, rabbits, rats etc..

I mean, for an example, I'm pregnant, looking up a medication to see if it's ok to take while pregnant, and I get results back like "When 30 mg were injected into a dog with a litter, there was no substantial evidence to conclude that the syrum showed up in the womb with the pups" or some crap like that. Basically, if I'm a DOG I know I'm ok, but you never know, because it wasn't tested on a human? Just an example on how we could benefit from it. If we're going to kill them anyways, you might as well make them useful.

[Eris]

I completely and totally agree with DaSOCOM..for tax reasons. I also feel that the death penalty should be used more often simply for the reason of setting the example.. We have to show the citizens and crime commiters that is its NOT IN ANYWAY WHATS SO EVER OKAY TO TAKE ANOTHER LIFE.

Isn't that, by the very definition hypocritical, seeing as how you systematically take lives? Shouldn't society be a role model, rather than exempt the rules it enforces on it's citizens?

Also, if deterrence is your goal, there is no point in actually determining who committed the crime. You could enforce good old roman decimation: If a crime is committed, one in every ten witnesses are killed to make a point. Also, the method could be more gruesome, more medieval if you like.

The reason I dislike the death penalty isn't primarily because of the killing, but the hypocrisy! First of all, primarily Christians seem to support it (which is wrong in so many ways, not just "thou shalt not kill", but the founder of the sect's explicit message of turning the other cheek), then there's the false sense of empathy: "We're gonna kill the guy, but if we make it gently it won't really be killing him", then there's the idea that two wrongs will make a right (it makes two wrongs), the list just keeps rolling.

There's actually very little scientific backing that punishment, as a method of deterrence actually is all that effective. Countries with death penalty and other harsh sentences generally have a higher crime rate than those without. You can divide criminals into three basic categories: Those who are stark raving mad (serial killers, et al.), spur of the moment, and those who are poor (with no compelling option to a life in crime) -- . Those who are insane aren't going to be deterred (because they're insane), the spur of the moment category are by definition not thinking things through so they're not going to be affected, and those who are poor don't really have much of a choice. If money was spent on preventing crime, by that I don't mean hiring more cops, but finding schizophrenics and sociopaths before it's tool ate, and enabling social mobility for poor people; crime would drop a lot more than more or hasher punishments. There still needs to be punishments, but the whole justice system needs serious refurbishment. Murderers are not cartoonish villains plotting evil for the sake of it while twisting their mustache.


And the state is not a mass murderer in such a sense as Eris has mused about; the rights and abilities/powers of governments and individuals are not the same.

But they are. In a democracy, government is an extension of the people, therefore not above -- rather below it. It is the people that bestow government with powers, not the other way around. Therefore, if it is not the government that is murderers, it is the people. So, let's put everyone in the chair!

[Aizmov]

I'm all for death penalty, serial murderers, rapists, terrorists, why would you let them continue on living if you know they'll return to causing more pain and suffering?

No one has the right to take other people's lives, but once he/she does he/she loses the right for his/her life.

[Eris]

I'm all for death penalty, serial murderers, rapists, terrorists, why would you let them continue on living if you know they'll return to causing more pain and suffering?

No one has the right to take other people's lives, but once he/she does he/she loses the right for his/her life.

But rapists don't take lives. And what about soldiers, they're the biggest serial killers of them all.

I'm generally against the notion of one having a revocable "right" to life, seeing as how membership of society isn't something you choose, but are forced to subscribe to by being born. If you could step outside of society at any given time and lead your own existence in the wilderness, then death penalty would have all merit. But as it is now, you don't have that choice.

[Regex]

Isn't that, by the very definition hypocritical, seeing as how you systematically take lives? Shouldn't society be a role model, rather than exempt the rules it enforces on it's citizens?You have, yet again, fallen prey to your own idealist way of thinking, rather than focus on reality.

The logic is so simple here. A community needs people in order for it to flourish. If someone is a danger to the members of a community, logically, removing one person from a community makes far more sense than continuing to endanger other members. Rehabilitation may be possible, but it is impossible to ensure. So to ensure that this person is no longer a danger to the community, you have two choices: imprisonment, or death. Considering the cost of imprisonment over years time, with absolutely no gain in the end, death is the financially logical choice.


Also, if deterrence is your goal, there is no point in actually determining who committed the crime. You could enforce good old roman decimation: If a crime is committed, one in every ten witnesses are killed to make a point. Also, the method could be more gruesome, more medieval if you like.I fail to see the logic in this. All this does is deter people from being at the scene of a crime. You will see far more unwitnessed crimes with a system like this.


The reason I dislike the death penalty isn't primarily because of the killing, but the hypocrisy!So you are saying that you shouldn't kill people who kill others? It's a more sound plan than say... Using spam to reduce spam.


First of all, primarily Christians seem to support it (which is wrong in so many ways, not just "thou shalt not kill", but the founder of the sect's explicit message of turning the other cheek),When it comes to Christianity, it's obvious that you are incredibly biased against it, and you fail to grasp the important concepts. Per your examples, turning the other cheek was not meant to say "Let someone kill you." It means "Let someone slap you." It's important to know the distinction. The purpose was to keep a conflict from escalating to the point of injury or death.

As with all belief systems and political stances, the issue with Christianity is not the system itself. It's the people who focus on the rules themselves instead of the reasons behind them. For this reason, the teachings of the Bible are not direct examples of how to deal with every last situation. Much like the U.S. Constitution, a judge needs to look at the reasons behind the rules, rather than blanketly applying the rules to everything.


then there's the false sense of empathy: "We're gonna kill the guy, but if we make it gently it won't really be killing him", then there's the idea that two wrongs will make a right (it makes two wrongs), the list just keeps rolling.I agree, trying to kill someone humanely makes very little sense.


There's actually very little scientific backing that punishment, as a method of deterrence actually is all that effective. Countries with death penalty and other harsh sentences generally have a higher crime rate than those without.I would argue that the higher penalties are in place because they were needed more in those countries. Like you said before, there are reasons people might commit crimes, and those should also be addressed. But the death penalty itself is not the problem.


If money was spent on preventing crime, by that I don't mean hiring more cops, but finding schizophrenics and sociopaths before it's tool ate, and enabling social mobility for poor people; crime would drop a lot more than more or hasher punishments. There still needs to be punishments, but the whole justice system needs serious refurbishment.This much, I completely agree with.


Murderers are not cartoonish villains plotting evil for the sake of it while twisting their mustache.Some are.


But they are. In a democracy, government is an extension of the people, therefore not above -- rather below it. It is the people that bestow government with powers, not the other way around. Therefore, if it is not the government that is murderers, it is the people. So, let's put everyone in the chair!Incorrect. A democracy is the people deciding the rules by (ideally) a popular vote. Since not everyone will agree, the idea is that the rules go in favor of how the majority of the people feel about it. As with ALL communities, since not everyone will agree, rules have to be in place to keep a system working. In the case of the U.S., and most other countries with similar styles of governments, it's more of a democratic republic. A governing body is in place, elected by the people, to set the rules for the country to be run. With this system, there ARE bodies in place with more authority than the general population. There are checks and balances there to keep them from getting too much power and say.. Killing people because they don't like their face.

[FullMetalAlchemist997]

We have to show the citizens and crime commiters that is its NOT IN ANYWAY WHATS SO EVER OKAY TO TAKE ANOTHER LIFE.. should be taken as well..period.

If we kill that person because they killed the other person, that's showing the people "Right, now WE can take a life because they TOOK ANOTHER PERSON'S." Which is exactly how vigilantes start. They are people who take the law into their own hands because they don't trust the system. I don't think we'll ever come with a criminal justice system that doesn't leak, and it won't satisfy anyone, the only way to do that would be turn everyone into robots and take away their free will.


To punish a person who commits murder, I think they should be humiliated in public. This is how I would humiliate them. I would have the parents and family of those he/she killed beat him/her in public.

No offense but this would be completely barabaric, not to mention that the relatives would hardly go along with this. Say Johnny murders Sue then Johnny must be publicly humiliated so Johnny's parents Jack and Bonnie and his sister Maryanne have to beat him. Jack, Bonnie and Maryanne aren't going to want to do this, it's very hard to hate a family member especially if they are convicted totally on circumstantial evidence, everyone's going to find a problem with that, including the family and it would be really hard to FORCE them to beat their relative it's just not in the human nature to go against a family member unless the evidence they did it solid and is placed in front of their face and there's no place to run too.


This punish that I am about to express is only meant for insane people. I think those who have a sick and curpt minds should have a section of their brains taken out.

@.@
Aside from the total ugliness and apparent lack of regard for a human's free will they'd have to decide wether to use it on clinically insane people or legally insane people. There's a huge margin seperating the two, and there are some many mental diseases ranging from schizophrenia to PTSD. (Not that PTSD usually makes a person kill someone I'm just saying the range is almost infinite).

[*Lady_Kikyo*]

[quote=FullMetalAlchemist997;1893979]If we kill that person because they killed the other person, that's showing the people "Right, now WE can take a life because they TOOK ANOTHER PERSON'S." Which is exactly how vigilantes start. They are people who take the law into their own hands because they don't trust the system. I don't think we'll ever come with a criminal justice system that doesn't leak, and it won't satisfy anyone, the only way to do that would be turn everyone into robots and take away their free will.quote]


Ether way its still wrong..and ppl who do take the law into thier own hands are still doing wrong. Period.. Yeah granted the justice system isnt perfect..nothing is and thats just a sad reality of it. Accept it and embrace it..thats life. But one undrstanding is that if you dont have the right (as in if youre not a member of that justice system.. if you dont have the athority to..) it is not okay for you to take another persons life. No matter how faulty the system is.(And Im not saying that as if you are apart of the justice system that you can go out and take anothers life..I ment that as in the Judge who rules the death penalty on a murder) The law is the law..end of story.

Oh and Eris said somthing about soliders..about them being killers too. You cannot compair what they do to a murder.. they (the soilders) are apart of the justice system. They dont go around killing just ANYONE they set out to defend our rights, they go and do away with the ppl that do us wrong. they are our protectors.(just like a judge..that does away with someone who committed a crime) They dont kill because they enjoy it..or because someone pissed them off (like some and most murders do) Dont ever compair them to the low lifes of murders in the the world. Its not the same. Not even remotly close. Most of the time they end up killing another person out of defence. You do have those rotten seeds that do kill for the hell of it, and because they can. That I wont denigh. But those are few..not all of our soilders are corrupt like that. And for those who are like that..the proper punishment for them is taken..they to are put on trial and treated like any other crime doer..when their wrongs are found out..they are not over looked.

[TheAsterisk!]

But they are. In a democracy, government is an extension of the people, therefore not above -- rather below it. It is the people that bestow government with powers, not the other way around. Therefore, if it is not the government that is murderers, it is the people. So, let's put everyone in the chair!
In a democracy (or republic), the government is above the people in terms of power and authority. The government is not an extension of the people; rather, it represents their interests and derives its powers from the consent of those under its rule. It's like a gaggle of the people's ambassadors meeting in one centralized location to run the state.
The people choose and direct the government, but are not the government itself.

[dragon_nataku]

If money was spent on preventing crime, by that I don't mean hiring more cops, but finding schizophrenics and sociopaths before it's tool ate

... wot? Schizophrenics? I suppose if they're hallucinating that or have the delusion that the entire world is full of zombies and therefore start killing everyone they meet, then your statement has merit. But from what you're saying I wonder if you even know what a schizophrenic is. As 1) a psychology major, and 2) someone with something similar to schizophrenia (schizoaffective disorder), I could tell you myself what one is, but I'll let the DSM IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers) (linked to wiki since you seem to like it so much) tell you what a schizophrenic is (the following quotes are from my personal copy of this book):

Diagnostic criteria for Schizophrenia

Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time durint a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated).

1) delusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions): "A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). "

2) hallucinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations) (such as hearing voices, touch sensations, smelling things that aren't real, etc., etc.)

3) disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence)

4) grossly disorganized or catatonic behaviour

5) negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alogia), or avolition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avolition)

I'd quote the whole thing, but that would make for a very long post. I think you have the common misconception that "psychotic" means "psychoPATHIC," which is obviously false. Psychotic generally means that one has hallucinations/delusions, while psychopathic individuals are the people that go around killing others.

Yes, some schizophrenics can be dangerous (like the paranoid type, because they generally think everyone is out to get them), but I take offense to your insinuation that ALL schizophrenics should be "found before it's too late." Lots of people with schizophrenia can lead generally normal lives. A lot of people who are viewed as "eccentric" often have schizophrenia or something related to it.

I suppose I, too, should be locked up because I sometimes hear voices and feel insects crawling on my skin that aren't really there. Because, you know, these things automatically make me dangerous to the public. ^9__9^;;

[Wio]

Well, to be honest, I think it would be nice if we could pay less taxes by killing convicted people off. In fact, I think that any sentence which will outlast the convicted person's life should become the death penalty.

I probably wouldn't like my loved one to be killed for something they didn't do. However, I wouldn't like them to be punished for anything they didn't do, and with such logic one would have to eliminate the entire justice system.

Anyway, the death penalty doesn't have to cost thousands of dollars either. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to kill someone that doesn't require suffering or thousands of dollars.

[Music Fiend]

I guess...I don't have a soft spot and sympathy for terrorist and murderers/rapist/horribly inhumane people/etc (bad Chris! -slaps.-) but I do believe in the death penalty and the implementation of it on disgusting, revolting, scummy individuals whom commit grave and society-harming crimes. I'm sorry, but I just don't seem to care much for a jerk who kills an entire family or viciously rapes a child. And that thought process is unlikely to change. You could give me the "What if your family member or you were put in jail for committing a horrific murder crime?" spin, but honestly, if I or a family member were THAT retarded...then well, so be it. If I or they got the death penalty, oh well. Death row keeps getting longer now of days anyways. Liberal courts won't let the people just get the punishment in plenty of cases. Now, there are instances of the people being wrongly charged and put on Death Row by a mistake or by prejudice on someones part, but that is less and less likely as the days go by.

[Saiyan Destroyer]

I'm pro-death, con-life you tell me.

[Asriel]

I think the death penalty should be used. If someone you loved was murdered, would you NOT want the killer to be sent to the ultimate punishment? Are you saying that the cost of a life is not a life? If you're against it, maybe. Or maybe your just giving the politically correct answer?



I agree. You guys are probably just giving the politically correct answer.If maybe jsut about everybody you cared about was killed by just one person. Wouldn't you want them to pay by giving up there life. Say it was 3 lives taken by one person. I say take his life even if it will be 1 for 3.

Sometimes rotting in prison may be better than having your life taken but I say also that that death penalty thing is starting to be used for just about everything now. I say it should be used for the main reasons that it used to be used for and thatit should also be used for killing people.Other than that,it shouldn't be really used as much as it is now.

[King_Shadow89]

I still think it would be in our best interest to send them off to be scientific experiments instead of wasting their lives and our tax dollars. Think of all of the things science could accomplish, if we could do experiments on humans, instead of dogs, cats, rabbits, rats etc..

I mean, for an example, I'm pregnant, looking up a medication to see if it's ok to take while pregnant, and I get results back like "When 30 mg were injected into a dog with a litter, there was no substantial evidence to conclude that the syrum showed up in the womb with the pups" or some crap like that. Basically, if I'm a DOG I know I'm ok, but you never know, because it wasn't tested on a human? Just an example on how we could benefit from it. If we're going to kill them anyways, you might as well make them useful.

WOW I can relate to this. But one problem with the whole experiment thing is that it might cost more money to do this. But what do I know, I am just an eight-teen year old guy. This Idea is better than the whole life in prison thing and the death penalty thing.

[Momonekochan]

I agree with a few of the other people on here I don't think it's right to take anothers life regardless if they took someones life. Life in prison is a more appropriate action. At least there they can think about what they have done and reflect on how by taking someones life they basicly threw away their own life.

[FullMetalAlchemist997]

Anyway, the death penalty doesn't have to cost thousands of dollars either. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to kill someone that doesn't require suffering or thousands of dollars.

There might be but the I'm guessing we either haven't found it yet or the the government is hiding it in Area 61 or some such neurotic paranoia. However to the first one that finds that they should get a Nobel Peace Prize or other medal commerating their scientific acheivement.


I agree with a few of the other people on here I don't think it's right to take anothers life regardless if they took someones life. Life in prison is a more appropriate action. At least there they can think about what they have done and reflect on how by taking someones life they basicly threw away their own life.

Obviously other people don't realize that inmates do make escape attempts, and when a lifer is taken to court for this action the judge can't do much but add to the sentence or take away probation and parole rights which is not much of a punishment. Either way killing them or letting them live can be just as wrong as the other. My stand is basically if they are clinically insane then something should be done to restrain them but since it's not their fault it happened they don't deserve death. But however in cases where Bobby Sane cold-heartedly plots to murder someone or Susan Hothead does it in the heat of the moment then I condone the penalty. So yes I'm not a straight yes or no sue me.

[Finvarra]

If you commit murder then yes, he/she sould die. I mean, you take a life you take your own life. Not everything should be for death. Like stealing. Why would you die for stealing? Simply cutting off one of there hands would be best.
So, I guess you could say im, So-So on the subject.

[Saiyan Destroyer]

Aside from jokes: I agree with the Death Penalty. If you can not function in society, you deserve to lose your right to society. If you take the life of another man, or woman, or child, you have willingly forefeited yours. Other states are trying to abolish the Death Penalty, Texas is putting in an Express Lane. Now I understand sometimes there are innocent men on Death Row. I don't agree that they should be taken outside and shot like dogs. I believe they have a 2 year waiting period before the sentence is carried out.

But I do agree at the same time with "Vengence is mine" Sayeth the Lord. I agree there. That's why I agree more with Texas now: If there's more than THREE CREDIBLE eye witnesses, you get to go on the Death Penalty Expressway.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

There might be but the I'm guessing we either haven't found it yet or the the government is hiding it in Area 61 or some such neurotic paranoia. However to the first one that finds that they should get a Nobel Peace Prize or other medal commerating their scientific acheivement.

Ummm... I can think of many. I guarantee, for example, that firing a three round burst of hollow points at the back of the convicts head at close range will not result in any pain. If you don't want a mess to clean up, it narrows the list a bit, but there are still plenty.

[Light Buster]

I'm not sure but it really depends...

[Nephthys]

I realize that this going to go into a whole another topic all together but bear with me here for a minute.
Something that kazerra posted made me think about this.
The whole if they steal simply cutting their hand off would surffice.
Well yeah, but we don't know everyones situation. The world isn't so simple as, "well you killed someone so your a completely evil person with no remorse and no soul."
It's not always so black and white. I mean we have soilders that kill on a daily basis, but are doing it to protect our freedoms and rights, should they recieve the death penalty?
What if a mother was forced to kill in order to protect her daughter, should she die?
As far as stealing. though I agree it's wrong. Think about if that person was starving.
Anyone who goes without food for long periods of time knows how painful it is.
(I know cause it's part of military training to go without food for a week.)
should that person loose a hand for trying to feed himself and his family?
About the mentally ill, I agree there are alot of mentally ill who function well in everyday task, who know the diffrence between right and wrong, and are perfectly capeable of taking care of themselves.
however it is also true that there are also people who genuinly (spell check) do not know the diffrence between right and wrong and cannot take care of themselves.
Do they really deserve the death penalty? Alot of people like this have been vivtims themselves, or rape, abuse, molestation, ect. Anyone who has been through these things knows that it has great psychological consequences.
I'm not saying that It's an excuse to run around killing others and stealing, but if rehabilitation is possible.
I do believe these people need treatment, I'm also not saying that they shouldn't be punished, cause killing and stealing is wrong.
I'm saying we need to think about the situations.

[emoswordie]

For me i dont want like that that is so haras..

[Wio]

Ummm... I can think of many. I guarantee, for example, that firing a three round burst of hollow points at the back of the convicts head at close range will not result in any pain. If you don't want a mess to clean up, it narrows the list a bit, but there are still plenty.
This was exactly what I was talking about. I just haven't done my research on swift and painless death.

[CapnJack]

I think that every one has the right to live. Even the the person who commited murder.

Your right, everyone should have a right to live. Even a child has a right to live...

So tell me why another human being should keep their gift of life after beating, raping, killing this child, and dumping her body somewhere for her family to find her decomposing weeks later. Basicly stealing her gift of life.

What if you were that child? Would your loved ones want them to "live" in a prison for the rest of their life even though your not living at all? Why should a corrupted individual get to live if they didnt let you?

Prisons really just let them be who they want to around others like them. They dont care where their at or what put them there. Not much of a punishment to me.

Im really sorry for being so graphic. I wanted to give an idea of how we look at the death penalty. Anyone who cant understand how much a true life is important, should be judged if there life is anymore important. If not, then your not worth keeping around.

As for god, and please know Im not trying to insult anybodys religious belief on god, but to me god judges people after they die not just when, why, or how they die.

Im going to post here only once. Im just posting my opinion not start trouble.

[King_Shadow89]

If we kill that person because they killed the other person, that's showing the people "Right, now WE can take a life because they TOOK ANOTHER PERSON'S." Which is exactly how vigilantes start. They are people who take the law into their own hands because they don't trust the system. I don't think we'll ever come with a criminal justice system that doesn't leak, and it won't satisfy anyone, the only way to do that would be turn everyone into robots and take away their free will.

[/color]

No offense but this would be completely barabaric, not to mention that the relatives would hardly go along with this. Say Johnny murders Sue then Johnny must be publicly humiliated so Johnny's parents Jack and Bonnie and his sister Maryanne have to beat him. Jack, Bonnie and Maryanne aren't going to want to do this, it's very hard to hate a family member especially if they are convicted totally on circumstantial evidence, everyone's going to find a problem with that, including the family and it would be really hard to FORCE them to beat their relative it's just not in the human nature to go against a family member unless the evidence they did it solid and is placed in front of their face and there's no place to run too.

[color=red][color=yellow]

@.@
Aside from the total ugliness and apparent lack of regard for a human's free will they'd have to decide wether to use it on clinically insane people or legally insane people. There's a huge margin seperating the two, and there are some many mental diseases ranging from schizophrenia to PTSD. (Not that PTSD usually makes a person kill someone I'm just saying the range is almost infinite).


Let me break it down go back to post one and reread it. I fixed my grammer and everything so it will be easy for people to under stand.

[unspun]

There might be but the I'm guessing we either haven't found it yet or the the government is hiding it in Area 61 or some such neurotic paranoia. However to the first one that finds that they should get a Nobel Peace Prize or other medal commerating their scientific acheivement.


Noose = $25

hangman's wood = $25

Watching your child's murderer break his neck as he is hung = priceless.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Noose = $25

hangman's wood = $25

Watching your child's murderer break his neck as he is hung = priceless.

Yeah, but most of the time (I forget the exact figure) the neck doesn't break and they just swing there and slowly asphyxiate. Which'd suck.

[bakakame]

Yeah, but most of the time (I forget the exact figure) the neck doesn't break and they just swing there and slowly asphyxiate. Which'd suck.

There's always anaesthetic....

Or just hype them up on any variety of narcotics until they can't even tell whats happening.

[CapnJack]

Yeah, but most of the time (I forget the exact figure) the neck doesn't break and they just swing there and slowly asphyxiate. Which'd suck.

Ah, you must have caught my post in the "worse way to die" thread then. ^^

[King_Shadow89]

Yeah, but most of the time (I forget the exact figure) the neck doesn't break and they just swing there and slowly asphyxiate. Which'd suck.
what are you talking about.

[hoshima haruna]

i am against the death penalty even though it is a punishment for killing someone else and that is a sin it would also be a sin to take that persons life. in other words the people who allow the death penalty are just as bad as the criminal

[starrenite]

I believe in "an eye for an eye." Yeah yeah, "an eye for an eye leaves the entire world blind," sure, whatever. If you kill someone, you deserve to die (and this is coming from someone who gets the urge to kill stupid people on a regular basis. Even if *I* kill someone, I'd still think I deserved to die).

As someone already said, they don't learn anything in prison. And society doesn't learn much, either. "Oh, if I kill someone, I get to go to jail and not work anymore, and will probably get out on parole in 20 years for good behaviour, then I can do it all over again!" That doesn't seem like much of a punishment to me, but that's just my opinion.I agree 100% with everything you've just said.

[setsunameyou]

Rem (Trigun) used to say that our ticket to the future is always empty, and that no one has the right to take off the life of other person. And I believe in it.

It's why I disagree with the death penalty. Even if the person has done horrible things he/she can always change.

Of course he/she desirves a punishment because what was done can't be erased, but death is a punishment that humans are not able to give, because we can make mistakes.

[Momokachan]

I believe very much in case-by-case use of the death penalty. There are a lot of sick people out there that potentially pose a threat to the rest of the people around them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the automatically mean we should send them to death.

However, I'm not saying the death penalty should be completely abolished. There are certain people that I fervently believe have nothing but evil to contribute to society, and that we would be better off without the threat of their being released or escaping. My specific examples here would be child molesters, serial murderers, et cetera.

I do think, though, that the death penalty is overused and inefficient. Fifteen years is too long to sit and think about the injection.

I'm surprised that no one has gone into the debate about whether or not lethal injection is humane or not. What do you guys think? Do you think the potential for inhumane suffering in the chemical mix is enough to warrant its banning?

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

There's always anaesthetic....

Or just hype them up on any variety of narcotics until they can't even tell whats happening.
Anesthetic probably wouldn't be powerful enough to mask all of the pain.

I dunno. A person on a good deal of narcotics probably would care less but they'd still care and feel some pain. If you want to kill people cheaply, and don't care too much about minor discomfort, simply stick a prisoner in an air tight room, and pump it full of carbon monoxide. The early symptoms are comparable to a flu, longer exposure results in unconsciousness and death.


what are you talking about.

The post I quoted.

[dragon_nataku]

I'm surprised that no one has gone into the debate about whether or not lethal injection is humane or not. What do you guys think? Do you think the potential for inhumane suffering in the chemical mix is enough to warrant its banning?

... wot? From what I've read (and granted, it isn't much...), it's pretty much the same method they use to put pets to sleep. First, they give them an overdose of anesthesia so they feel no pain, then they inject some other crap (sorry, I've forgotten what exactly are the components of this "crap," although I did know at one point) that does the actual killing. Although I believe in pets they just OD them on anesthesia most of the time. From what I've read, both in humans and in animals, it's a completely painless way to go, unless you count the pain from having a needle poked into your vein. ^<__<^;; You basically just fall asleep from the anesthesia, then die.

[Acnologia]

Against: If you kill someone for killing, you're no better than them.

[dream magician]

I don't think death penalties are really a superb punishment for those who had done something really wrong. I mean,surely you're going to gain justice, but,it will also be a loss for his/her family even if they are really proven guilty.
Killing someone in paying for his/her killing somebody is never an option to gain justice. It's like you're doing what he/she was aware of doing(killing somebody they begrudge),and not conscious of it at all.
At my point of view,i think there is nothing fair about it at all.

[bakakame]

I'd recomend watching a few episodes of "Gangland" on The History Channel for this topic. Mere life sentences won't stop some people from continuing their crimes.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I'd recomend watching a few episodes of "Gangland" on The History Channel for this topic. Mere life sentences won't stop some people from continuing their crimes.

Yeah, well I'd recommend watching a few episodes of "Reaper" on The CW for this topic. Mere death sentiences won't stop people from escaping from Hell and starting a killing spree by turning into bees or a dog or something.

[King_Shadow89]

Yeah, well I'd recommend watching a few episodes of "Reaper" on The CW for this topic. Mere death sentiences won't stop people from escaping from Hell and starting a killing spree by turning into bees or a dog or something.

What? What is this movie? Where can can I see this movie?

[yoko.......]

if you kill someone for greedy reasons then yes
if you kill someone for revenge that is fair and even then no
it really just depends really

[King_Shadow89]

if you kill someone for greedy reasons then yes
if you kill someone for revenge that is fair and even then no
it really just depends really


Either way death is not an option no matter how you look at it.

[Overlord Darth Fluffles]

Kill them! If one kill a friend or family GIVE THEM THE SAME. and eye for an eye i say. PLUS it's population control. Nothng wrong with that and PLUS why pay taxes to keep them alive when you can simply kill them off.


for those who try to counter me buy putting me in the position of death row, I'll tell you this, I WANT to die. So it wouldn't bug me.

All I can say.

[Nephthys]

Kill them! If one kill a friend or family GIVE THEM THE SAME. and eye for an eye i say. PLUS it's population control. Nothng wrong with that and PLUS why pay taxes to keep them alive when you can simply kill them off.


for those who try to counter me buy putting me in the position of death row, I'll tell you this, I WANT to die. So it wouldn't bug me.

All I can say.

You want to die? o.O I extend an invatation to you to join me in therapy .

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

What? What is this movie? Where can can I see this movie?
TV show. Tuesdays, 9:00p eastern on the CW (assuming you live in America).

[BiggSam]

Noose = $25

hangman's wood = $25

Watching your child's murderer break his neck as he is hung = priceless.


You know, for hanging there is a mathematical formula to get the right rope length for hanging to break the neck. Too short-asphyxiation, too long-the head pops off.

[King_Shadow89]

I stick with tourchering, its cheaper you know.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I stick with tourchering, its cheaper you know.


tourchering


tourchering

OH GAWD YOU'RE RIGHT IT BURNS MAKE IT STOP FOR THE LOVE OF PESCI AND ALL THAT IS HOLY MAKE IT STOP!!!

ADMIRAL ACKBAR WAS RIGHT ABOUT THIS TOPIC- IF ONLY I HAD LISTENED!!!

http://www.animeforum.com/image/1075647438e9a2c9b0.gif

[tishtashpoe]

I totally agree. There are rapists and pedo's that are let out in a matter of months, they are people who should never be let out. In england, we don't have it and the prisons are over crowded. The death penalty will reduce crime. There is no longer a thing about DNA. It can be done correctly. Basically murderists, pedo's and rapists should die. World would be better ^^

[Foxlockhart]

I say if you commit unaggravated, unprovoked or premeditated murder then there are only two options. Death by gallows or guillotine, held in public view, is the only way to make an example. And kill them soon after sentencing.
As for traitors, only if there actions would result in unnecessary death, not all traitors acts are potentially deadly. America, by the way, is probably the only nation that can not charge “high treason.”
If done properly hanging kills instantly. If overdone it pulls there head clean off. As for you “vengeance is mine” says the lord people I think god is more than willing to let us act as his executioners.
The prisons don’t have any effect but to make them worse, kill them and save room and money. I say there bodies should be used for compost so they could be put to use.
To cover people who say we should cure them I say that can’t be done. We should act preimtivly and beat it out of them early. For lesser crimes, lashings will work.
Once you kill an innocent person I don’t give a (insert obscene word of your choosing here) about your rights.
Now look I could be a blood thirsty monster if I wanted and demand that there teeth be pulled out, there eyes gouged out, tongue removed, hands and feet loped off have the bones in ther limbs separated so they have claw like appendages and then throw them back onto the street. But im a nice guy so I wont. Got a problem? Tough!
For sex offenders I say castrate them and make a law saying they must have a sign in there front yard saying that they are a convicted sex offender, there crime/s there punishment and with the number of the local police.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I say if you commit unaggravated, unprovoked or premeditated murder then there are only two options. Death by gallows or guillotine, held in public view, is the only way to make an example. And kill them soon after sentencing.
As for traitors, only if there actions would result in unnecessary death, not all traitors acts are potentially deadly. America, by the way, is probably the only nation that can not charge “high treason.”
If done properly hanging kills instantly. If overdone it pulls there head clean off. As for you “vengeance is mine” says the lord people I think god is more than willing to let us act as his executioners.
The prisons don’t have any effect but to make them worse, kill them and save room and money. I say there bodies should be used for compost so they could be put to use.
To cover people who say we should cure them I say that can’t be done. We should act preimtivly and beat it out of them early. For lesser crimes, lashings will work.
Once you kill an innocent person I don’t give a (insert obscene word of your choosing here) about your rights.
Now look I could be a blood thirsty monster if I wanted and demand that there teeth be pulled out, there eyes gouged out, tongue removed, hands and feet loped off have the bones in ther limbs separated so they have claw like appendages and then throw them back onto the street. But im a nice guy so I wont. Got a problem? Tough!
For sex offenders I say castrate them and make a law saying they must have a sign in there front yard saying that they are a convicted sex offender, there crime/s there punishment and with the number of the local police.


Two problems, and they are large ones. Namely, that your plan of action rests on an the assumption of judicial infallibility, and the assumption that criminals are both innately and incurably evil. If your system were implemented, and someone was falsely convicted and whipped and/or executed for crimes they didn't commit, what would make you any more morally upstanding then a criminal?

And, as a minor quibble, the reason hanging went out of fashion was it's propensity not to snap the neck every time, resulting in criminals being choked to death for hours.

Also:

To cover people who say we should cure them I say that can’t be done. We should act preimtivly and beat it out of them early. For lesser crimes, lashings will work.
Once you kill an innocent person I don’t give a (insert obscene word of your choosing here) about your rights.
Now look I could be a blood thirsty monster if I wanted and demand that there teeth be pulled out, there eyes gouged out, tongue removed, hands and feet loped off have the bones in ther limbs separated so they have claw like appendages and then throw them back onto the street. But im a nice guy so I wont. Got a problem? Tough!
So you are for lasting physical torture for first time offenders, but against maiming? And this makes you a nice guy by comparison? The line between "nice guy" and "blood thirsty monster" using your definition is both frighteningly narrow and absolute.

[Sanosuke23]

For, but conditionally.

Premeditated and repeated, yes. Spontaneous or Premeditated isolated occurence, there are alternatives.

Spontaneous multiple offences lead me to believe there may be something seriously wrong with a person, and an evaluation of their mental health is in order. If it's feasible to rehabilitate then no, if not then I'm afraid that death would be best for such a person.

[_Paradox_]

Well I disagree with the death penalty because it is a waste of time. It would be much better if capital offenders were dragged out into the street and shot.

[King_Shadow89]

if you kill someone for greedy reasons then yes
if you kill someone for revenge that is fair and even then no
it really just depends really

Aw screw the death penalty. Tourcher him/her if his/her crime was really bad.

[Snababo]

Statisticly the crime rate in States with the death penalty is higher then those without.

But there is one of my favorite quotes (can't remember who said it) "There are Lies, Damn Lies and Bloody Statistics" i.e. Statistics can say whatever you want them to say.

[Azrael91]

im okay with it.

[StabWound]

Lets show people that killing is bad by killing the people that kill people!

wait...what?

[Tayuya+]

I don't believe in the death penalty at all. I think it's cruel and inhumane. Also, don't you think spending your life in prison, with absolutely nothing to do and surrounded by inmates, is much worse?

My mom, who is a law student, brought up a very good point to me. She said, "If you saw a little girl and a man was pointing a gun up to her head, would you shoot the man?" Honestly, yes I would. To save the little girl I would. I would be living my life knowing I had killed a man, but at least I killed a wrongdoer instead of letting an innocent little toddler die.

[███]

I am against the death penalty. I just think that showing the world that someone did wrong by killing them isn't leaving a very good message. I also think that it's a whole life wasted, imagine what force you could apply to the person to help out the world. I mean use some force to make their life a living hell by devoting every living second they have to doing something that will benefit society.

Just some thoughts anyway. Or you could always just lock them into a cell alone with a big black man. Either leaves a satisfying feeling knowing that justice is being done.

[King_Shadow89]

Lets show people that killing is bad by killing the people that kill people!

wait...what?
And how do yuo plan on doing that?

[Hypergraphian]

My two cents worth. The world is already heavily populated enough as it is without the reintroduction of corrupt individuals into society. I side with the Death penalty and as cruel as this sounds, some people should be punished. Life sentences burden the government and tax payers and there is no guarantee that rehabilitation works. Plus, the more warped humans will take crime lightly without such a heavy punishment put in place.

[King_Shadow89]

My two cents worth. The world is already heavily populated enough as it is without the reintroduction of corrupt individuals into society. I side with the Death penalty and as cruel as this sounds, some people should be punished. Life sentences burden the government and tax payers and there is no guarantee that rehabilitation works. Plus, the more warped humans will take crime lightly without such a heavy punishment put in place.
Correction the world is no where around over populated. Go do a satlite servey and you will see what I am talking about. If you want to get tenical the goverment reserver most of the land for animals, food, and mmilitary things.

[Gizoku]

I'm against it. I dont think the judgment if a person should live or die should be in the hands of anyone but the one who's prosecuted.