Death Penalty - yay or nay?

I'm for a better version of the death penalty. What we have now sucks. People on death row live longer than most in jail.

There should be certain circumstances where they just take the person out back right after the death sentencing and shoot em in the head. Do you know how many millions that would save? Instead we spend millions on people who are supposed be killed, but never seem to.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Of course we've never had innocent people on Death Row. :roll:[/quote]

Once again you strive for perfection in a system where there can be none. :roll:
 
Nope, I never said it had to be perfect because I know the penal system will never be. But with "life in prison" you can get released if you're innocent. The death penalty offers no such safeguards.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Of course we've never had innocent people on Death Row. :roll:[/quote]

of course we've never let killers go free only to kill again because of some technicality in the trial. yeah, there's tons of people on death row who are innocent... let's just keep them alive in prison wasting everyone's time and money... :roll:
 
I agree.
The issue isn't inherently with the death penalty, it's with the process surrounding it. I certainly don't want to execute an innocent person, but in the cases where you *know* the person did it, willfully, with intent, while knowing what he was doing and the impact thereof, well, *bzzt* toast 'im.
Heard some analysts on FNC talking about what's his name, Peterson, and they said the odds of him actually getting the DP are slim-to-none. Either he'll sit there and keep appealing, or, more likely, get whacked by another inmate for what he did.
If we had to eliminate the DP, I'd be for the Coventry plan...Find an island somewhere, put up a huge reverse moat around it, and drop the baddies on the island. Do what you want.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='MrBadExample']Of course we've never had innocent people on Death Row. :roll:[/quote]

of course we've never let killers go free only to kill again because of some technicality in the trial. yeah, there's tons of people on death row who are innocent... let's just keep them alive in prison wasting everyone's time and money... :roll:[/quote]

Are you saying we should kill the innocent people on Death Row?

Our justice system was founded on the belief that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free than to incarcerate one innocent man. If I want the innocent people freed and the guilty ones locked up, is that wrong?
 
I thought it was 'better to imprison 100 innocents, than let one guilty go free.'

Just kidding. I think that was a concept in a sci-fi book I just read...
 
If we had to eliminate the DP, I'd be for the Coventry plan...Find an island somewhere, put up a huge reverse moat around it, and drop the baddies on the island. Do what you want.
Click to expand...

That is considered inhumane and even torturous by some. :roll:

I belive that jails should be punishment. The whole reform nonsense is garbage. You can't change people - they are who they are. If they are killers they will always be killers.

Jails should be 6' squared rooms with no windows and poor lighting. No work programs, no special benefits. You go outside for a while everyday and thats it. No magazines, no newspapers, no pictures, and only 1 letter a month.

Instead we have hotels where inmates just walk around freely and have opportunity to even harm or kill each other. Hooray for rehabilitation!! :roll:
 
Yeah we need the death penalty, for those truly horrific crimes.

If innocent people are getting sent to the chair - fix the problem, don't take away the punishment.

And what's up with that insanity defense. If he's really insane, just strap him in the chair and tell him it's a roller coaster.
 
i think the death penalty is the easy way out. If someone killed someone I loved, if I didnt do anything crazy in the begining, I would want him to suffer, not for just one moment, but for the rest of his life.
 
We need the death penalty because this country is so fucked up.

You can do some dumb "little crime" and get 10-20 years in jail, but you kill someone and they say "life" but something always happens so you get out a lot sooner.

Death is the only way that justice can be served. I think we use it too much, but if there is DNA and all kinds of proof that someone did a terrible crime then just kill them the next day and save the trouble.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i think the death penalty is the easy way out. If someone killed someone I loved, if I didnt do anything crazy in the begining, I would want him to suffer, not for just one moment, but for the rest of his life.[/quote]

Revenge doesn't solve anything. Besides, if you're advocating human suffering until death, I'm pretty sure that falls under "cruel and unusual punishment".
 
Personally I'd rather get the chair than spend my life in jail. Though an innocent person always has the chance to eventually overturn the verdict, if executed the best that we can do is say "oops". It's only use is punishment, it doesn't deter crime, and the risk of executing innocent people is too high. Also, as for focusing on punishment and not reform, what do you do when the person gets out of jail? All you managed to do was greatly increase the chance of them committing another crime and ending up back in jail. They will be a bigger drain on society. If you could reform them then they might even begin to benefit our society.
 
I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit that the way the death penalty is handled at this point in time means innocent people have been killed and some people die for crimes others would only get less than a life sentence for, depending on where the crime occured. That's wrong.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
If we had to eliminate the DP, I'd be for the Coventry plan...Find an island somewhere, put up a huge reverse moat around it, and drop the baddies on the island. Do what you want.
Click to expand...

That is considered inhumane and even torturous by some. :roll:
[/quote]

And yet these 'some' still flock like lemmings to watch the newest episode of Survivor or Five Idiots In a House....

I belive that jails should be punishment. The whole reform nonsense is garbage. You can't change people - they are who they are. If they are killers they will always be killers.
Click to expand...

I agree, mostly. Certain crimes or criminals are more 'one shot' but there certainly are the 'career criminals' who cannot be rehab'ed, and either need to be punished or spend their life, away from others, rectifying their actions.

[quote name='"Scrubking"']
Jails should be 6' squared rooms with no windows and poor lighting. No work programs, no special benefits. You go outside for a while everyday and thats it. No magazines, no newspapers, no pictures, and only 1 letter a month.

Instead we have hotels where inmates just walk around freely and have opportunity to even harm or kill each other. Hooray for rehabilitation!! :roll:
Click to expand...

I went to high school with a girl whose dad was in prison for, um, doing things with her he shouldn't have. Our senior year, he was getting out, and of course she was messed up by that, so her grades dropped. the irony is that while he was in prison, he took correspondence courses to 'better himself', was going to leave prison with a degree, while this girl's mom worked two jobs to try to save money to send her to a public in-state university next year.

Now, if Joe Habitual Child Molester kills Fred the Rapist/Murderer in prison, or vice versa, I won't be too broken up about it. Just don't let the survivor out.

David85: I was listening to Michael Medved the other day, and he talked about a case where a couple of Christian kids beat up a Satanist classmate. Because the beating up was considered a 'hate crime', instead of getting 1-3 years, they may get 10-15 years. There was another case in the same state with someone who committed manslaughter, I believe, and got something like 4 years. That's messed up. Why is the beating up [the kid was injured, but not permanently harmed] so much worse when the kids did it because of religion, instead of for kicks or to steal his shoes? I could almost argue it should be *less worse*,because at least that's a reason that can be argued. The difference in religions isn't worthy of a beating by any means, but I can 'understand' the conflict. But beating someone for 'kicks' or to take his shoes, to me, that would be worse.
We allegedly have freedom of speech, but apparently not freedom of thought. It should be entirely legal and supported for me to think 'My, this person is inferior to me because s/he's a *blank*.' That certainly is ignorant and prejudicial, but they're only words. If I *act* on those words, or let that opinion affect my dealings with that person, then that is definitely wrong. But it's still the action that is wrong, not the thoughts.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life..[/quote]

I disagree. I don't think the DP is inherently cruel and unusual punishment [obviously *how* it's done could change that]. The government meddles in and controls our lives in so many other ways, I don't have a problem with it executing certain classes of criminals after due process of law has occurred. That solves both problems--the person will be punished for his misdeed, and certainly won't do it again, thus helping to protect the society at large.

[quote name='elprincipe'] Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit that the way the death penalty is handled at this point in time means innocent people have been killed and some people die for crimes others would only get less than a life sentence for, depending on where the crime occured. That's wrong.[/quote]

Of course I do agree with this. I firmly believe that the *way* the DP has been enforced is inconsistent and almost haphazard, thus leading to its lack of efficacy as a deterrent.
But I don't think eliminating the DP is the answer.
 
I read somewhere that it actually costs the govt more to put someone to death, due to apeals and such, than it does to put them in jail for life.
Personally, I am against the death penalty because the person was innocent, you can't correct the mistake. People are human, and make mistakes. Especially if it is a high profile crime and there is a lot of public outcry to get the criminal, it puts a lot of pressure on the police to find someone.
 
I agree with the death penalty in theory. In reality, there's far too many problems, both with innocent people being sent to jail, and the fact that the death penalty is almost invariably applied only to the poor and to minorities, for me to consider it a good idea. If/when these problems can be fixed, then maybe the death penalty should be reconsidered.

Regarding the insanity defense: I've never really understood the insanity defense. Its not like insanity is a virus that anyone can catch at any time. "Oh, don't worry Mrs, Johnson - its only a minor bout of murderous insanity. It should clear up in 24-48 hours. Until then, get lots of rest and drink lots of fluids." People who are muderously insane tend to stay that way pretty much permanently. Now, if we happen to have a cure for the particular form of insanity that the person is suffering from, then OK, treat them and let them go. Otherwise, fry 'em (unless, of course, they're rich and white...)

The real problem is that too many people think of jail/death row as punishment, which it shouldn't be. As human beings, its impossible for us to even guess what sort of punishment a person 'deserves'. What we can do, though, is figure out a system to prevent further crimes from happening, and that's what the judicial system should be focused on. Its not a question of whether a murder 'deserves' to die, its a question of how likely they are to muder someone else. If its reasonable to expect them to kill again, fry 'em.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Jails should be 6' squared rooms with no windows and poor lighting. No work programs, no special benefits. You go outside for a while everyday and thats it. No magazines, no newspapers, no pictures, and only 1 letter a month.

Instead we have hotels where inmates just walk around freely and have opportunity to even harm or kill each other. Hooray for rehabilitation!! :roll:[/quote]

Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. I have known prison guards and have talked with them. My wife used to work for a Sheriff's Department and worked side by side with prison guards and administrators.

The reasons that they allow inmates to have cable tv, magazines, etc., is to keep their minds occupied and to keep them "happy." As soon as you take those benefits away, the inmates become increasingly hostile to the point where a prison guard's (and other inmates) life is in more danger than it was before. Treating inmates strictly as animals in cage only reinforces that behavior and causes a lot of problems.

When you have a jail with hundreds, if not thousands, of inmates, you give them what they need in order to keep order. Without these things, there would be no way to control the population and you would have chaos on your hands.

Whether it's "fair" that criminals get 3 meals a day, cable tv, etc., is not the issue. Prison personnel are just trying to keep order in a shaq-fu'ed up system.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?

[quote name='elprincipe']Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit that the way the death penalty is handled at this point in time means innocent people have been killed and some people die for crimes others would only get less than a life sentence for, depending on where the crime occured. That's wrong.[/quote]

Then the system should be fixed, but we don't outlaw punishments because we might make a mistake in their application. We have an adversarial court system with automatic appeals for death penalty cases, I think the chances of a mistake being made are incredibly slim, and getting slimmer by the day (with DNA evidence, improved surveillance, etc)

Inequalities in the system need to be fixed, but whether or not the rich can be brought to justice has little to do with whether the death penalty should be allowed as a punishment.
 
Also those amenities can be used as rewards and punishments. Without them, how would you punish a lifer? Add a couple of years to his sentence?

I remember reading a while back (sorry - no link), that most murderers only kill one person in their lifetime. It's a heat of passion crime that they never repeat. Should they rot in jail forever along with serial killers or be rehabilitated and released?

The insanity defense is very complicated and nothing at all like it's portrayed in TV and movies.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I agree with the death penalty in theory. In reality, there's far too many problems, both with innocent people being sent to jail, and the fact that the death penalty is almost invariably applied only to the poor and to minorities, for me to consider it a good idea. If/when these problems can be fixed, then maybe the death penalty should be reconsidered.

Regarding the insanity defense: I've never really understood the insanity defense. Its not like insanity is a virus that anyone can catch at any time. "Oh, don't worry Mrs, Johnson - its only a minor bout of murderous insanity. It should clear up in 24-48 hours. Until then, get lots of rest and drink lots of fluids." People who are muderously insane tend to stay that way pretty much permanently. Now, if we happen to have a cure for the particular form of insanity that the person is suffering from, then OK, treat them and let them go. Otherwise, fry 'em (unless, of course, they're rich and white...)

The real problem is that too many people think of jail/death row as punishment, which it shouldn't be. As human beings, its impossible for us to even guess what sort of punishment a person 'deserves'. What we can do, though, is figure out a system to prevent further crimes from happening, and that's what the judicial system should be focused on. Its not a question of whether a murder 'deserves' to die, its a question of how likely they are to muder someone else. If its reasonable to expect them to kill again, fry 'em.[/quote]

I wish we'd adopt this policy, focusing on rehab and not punishment. We can try to dole out punishment that last for 20 years, and when the guy gets out he cares even less about being arrested again and doesn't know how to live a legal and socially beneficial life even if he wanted to. Sure punishment is important, but not at the detriment of society. I don't agree with the death penalty, since I think your first argument (risk of innocent people being killed) outweighs the benefit of ridding ourselves of someone who can't be helped. I do not believe it can be fixed either, since to fix it you would have to find a way to make juries 100% accurate and that is impossible. And, while not factoring into my opinion, I personally find spending your life in prison a fate worse than death.

I think that the insanity defense is used too often by lawyers, but it isn't actually accepted by jurors enough. Most of the people who deserve to be found insane are not. Mental illness is something that can sometimes be cured, and it can make people act in ways that they normally wouldn't. But I don't see where they "let them go", those found insane are locked up in a mental institution, usually indefinately. They may be there for 5 years or for their whole life, whenever a psychiatrist, and whoever else is necessary, finds they are cured. It is flexible and, to an extent, bends to what is needed for the individual. Throwing a criminally insane person into prison is useless. Unless they are locked up for life, they'll be back on the street, still insane, after spending years locked up with hardened criminals. Most forms of mental illness, with the exception of those that physically damage the brain, can be treated, granted with varying degress of success. Those that cannot, they have the potential to be treatable in the future. But either way, if someone is to be imprisoned and eventually released, an insane person will recieve no benefit in jail, and will emerge even more dangerous. Punishment has no hope of working, since it wasn't a rational person committing the crime to begin with.
 
[quote name='camoor']Then the system should be fixed, but we don't outlaw punishments because we might make a mistake in their application. We have an adversarial court system with automatic appeals for death penalty cases, I think the chances of a mistake being made are incredibly slim, and getting slimmer by the day (with DNA evidence, improved surveillance, etc)

Inequalities in the system need to be fixed, but whether or not the rich can be brought to justice has little to do with whether the death penalty should be allowed as a punishment.[/quote]

Google "DNA released death row" to see some people who were proven innocent. Here's one link.

DNA testing is expensive and therefore not always done. People are convicted with much less sometimes. Here in Virginia a few years back, they executed a man and afterwards destroyed all the physical evidence rather than allow it to be DNA tested as some advocates wanted. How you can do that with a clear conscience is beyond me. With all the people who have been released due to DNA evidence in the last few years, it's almost certain that innocent men have been executed.

I'm not suggesting that the penal system has to be perfect. It will never be. But a life sentence allows you to correct a wrongful conviction. The death penalty does not.
 
Scrubking, your opinion on what jail is like is so incorrect, its amazing. Do you base your information on Elvis's 'Jail House Rock' or something?

Even if your fantasy in any was resembled what prison is like, your solution is pure idiocy. Study after study after study has proven conclusively that the best way to rehabilitate criminals and prevent them from commiting further crimes when they're released is education. The ONLY argument that you can make for your system would be a pseudo-religious 'but they deserve it!', and even then, I can pretty much guarantee you that your religious book of choice will specifically tell you that that's not your call to make.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I'm not suggesting that the penal system has to be perfect. It will never be. But a life sentence allows you to correct a wrongful conviction. The death penalty does not.[/quote]

I see your point, I just think that it's going to an excessive amount of wasted suffering on th part of everybody concerned to keep so many murderers/rapists in prison for life just because there is a chance that one of them may be innocent.

That's my position.
 
I think that before someone is sentenced to death, the case needs to be held to a much stricter level of proof than for a 'mere' jail sentence. The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. For a death-penalty case, it should be 'beyond an UNreasonable doubt'.

The Scott Peterson case is a pretty good example: the prosecution's case was actually pretty weak (to be honest, I'm kind of surprised that he was convicted at all...) I think he PROBABLY killed his wife, but there was very little/no direct evidence connecting him to the crime, only a lot of minor bits of evidence that hinted that he was involved.

For the death penalty to be applied, the killer should probably pretty much be caught standing over the dead body holding a bloody knife. A few carpet fibers and a drop of blood may be enough to sentence someone to jail with reasonable surity, but when you're talking about a matter of life and death, you need more than circumstantial evidence.
 
[quote name='Drocket']The Scott Peterson case is a pretty good example: the prosecution's case was actually pretty weak (to be honest, I'm kind of surprised that he was convicted at all...) I think he PROBABLY killed his wife, but there was very little/no direct evidence connecting him to the crime, only a lot of minor bits of evidence that hinted that he was involved.[/quote]

Is there any chance that you were on the OJ jury...

:wink:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I'm for a better version of the death penalty. What we have now sucks. People on death row live longer than most in jail.

There should be certain circumstances where they just take the person out back right after the death sentencing and shoot em in the head. Do you know how many millions that would save? Instead we spend millions on people who are supposed be killed, but never seem to.[/quote]\\

I totally agree. If there is concrete evidence, ie someone is caught on tape, and there are no doubts, kill them on the spot.
 
The death penalty will always be a contentious issue, no matter the circumstances. I think it's important to understand that both sides of the issue have valid cases and it basically comes down to personal preference.

In Canada, aside from military tribunals, we don't have the death penalty.
I like it way better because of the simple fact that no jury is perfect and mistakes may be made. Imprisonment for years is better then killing a perfectly innocent man.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='MrBadExample']I'm not suggesting that the penal system has to be perfect. It will never be. But a life sentence allows you to correct a wrongful conviction. The death penalty does not.[/quote]

I see your point, I just think that it's going to an excessive amount of wasted suffering on th part of everybody concerned to keep so many murderers/rapists in prison for life just because there is a chance that one of them may be innocent.

That's my position.[/quote]

And my position is I don't want to kill one innocent person just because all the others are guilty.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?[/quote]

A ridiculous analogy and you know it.

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']]Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit that the way the death penalty is handled at this point in time means innocent people have been killed and some people die for crimes others would only get less than a life sentence for, depending on where the crime occured. That's wrong.[/quote]

Then the system should be fixed, but we don't outlaw punishments because we might make a mistake in their application. We have an adversarial court system with automatic appeals for death penalty cases, I think the chances of a mistake being made are incredibly slim, and getting slimmer by the day (with DNA evidence, improved surveillance, etc)

Inequalities in the system need to be fixed, but whether or not the rich can be brought to justice has little to do with whether the death penalty should be allowed as a punishment.[/quote]

Once applied, you can't really do anything about the death penalty if you find exculpatory evidence later, can you? You've probably seen the link someone gave above this post to the innocent people killed by the government because they were convicted and then later evidence was found to exonerate them. Even if you think the government has a legitimate right to execute people, which I can understand some people do, there are just too many mistakes and too uneven application to be for the death penalty at this point in time, IMO of course.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?[/quote]

A ridiculous analogy and you know it.
[/quote]

It most certainly is not!

What do you think the government does when congress approves a war and the president launches it? Do you think they don't realize that we are authorizing our men and women to kill enemy men and women?
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?[/quote]

A ridiculous analogy and you know it.
[/quote]

It most certainly is not!

What do you think the government does when congress approves a war and the president launches it? Do you think they don't realize that we are authorizing our men and women to kill enemy men and women?[/quote]

That is hardly the same as executing someone who has been convicted of a crime, is it?
 
Nay. What's the guy gonna learn if he's dead? And if he got the death penalty, then the damage he's done won't be undone anytime soon. What we need to do is stick him in jail for 30 years and assign him to a cell with some fat guy named Bubba and really grease up said convict's soap. That'll teach 'em.
 
[quote name='False Hope']Nay. What's the guy gonna learn if he's dead? And if he got the death penalty, then the damage he's done won't be undone anytime soon. What we need to do is stick him in jail for 30 years and assign him to a cell with some fat guy named Bubba and really grease up said convict's soap. That'll teach 'em.[/quote]

I'll tell you what. If you want to lock him up for 30 years, then you can pay for it. If they fry him, I'll spring for the flowers on his grave.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?[/quote]

A ridiculous analogy and you know it.
[/quote]

It most certainly is not!

What do you think the government does when congress approves a war and the president launches it? Do you think they don't realize that we are authorizing our men and women to kill enemy men and women?[/quote]

That is hardly the same as executing someone who has been convicted of a crime, is it?[/quote]

Exactly my point. If the government can authorize the killing of Iraqi men and women who oppose "the american way of life" (or whatever we're fighting for in Iraq now), then they certainly have the right to execute a sadistic serial killer-rapist who actually deserves death.
 
Ok I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

My thing is this. I don't believe in the Death Penalty except in EXTREME circumstances. These circumstances include the chance said person could get out and kill again. If the case is pretty much a lock for "life" then I'm good with that.
Also people like Scrubking utterly disgust me with their thoughts. It's people like you that particularly piss me off. You complain about Welfare people leaching off the system and taking your tax $'s well what about these repeat offenders? When these people don't get an education they're just gonna committ a crime again and again trying to get money to survive. Am I saying that's all of them? NO way but for the one's that are like that I want them rehabilitated and paying back their debt to society by working instead of them staying in prison and that money becoming a sinkhole for some of my tax $'s. Think of all the money we could free up if we could cut like even $10 million from prison spending. Consider how much more money we spend on prison over education, is there something wrong here?
Seriously if we provided more funding for good textbooks and materials for teachers in urban schools maybe we'd see less of this shit, also a COMPLETE reform of HUD would help. I'm thinking the U.S. government or someone on their behalf could come to help Community Grassroots Organizations stamp drugs out of the neighborhood or at least as much as possible.
Now I have two issues to address, temporary insanity and mental distress. On the issue of temporary insanity you have to understand some people have been driven so far in situations or things just add up and at said moment they may SNAP and kill someone and be out of their right mind, however briefly. In terms of mental anguish this is a big one. What about all the guards that have to supervise someone being killed? Seriously I was listening to this story on the radio about how these people have nightmares from repeatidly watching people be killed. This stuff SERIOUSLY fucks up their head, I kid you not. I wish everyone that's so pro for it here would have to watch at least ONE execution if not a couple and see if it doesn't haunt your dreams.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?[/quote]

A ridiculous analogy and you know it.
[/quote]

It most certainly is not!

What do you think the government does when congress approves a war and the president launches it? Do you think they don't realize that we are authorizing our men and women to kill enemy men and women?[/quote]

That is hardly the same as executing someone who has been convicted of a crime, is it?[/quote]

Exactly my point. If the government can authorize the killing of Iraqi men and women who oppose "the american way of life" (or whatever we're fighting for in Iraq now), then they certainly have the right to execute a sadistic serial killer-rapist who actually deserves death.[/quote]

I'm not arguing about that right now in this thread, but at least I see you conceded the point.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='False Hope']Nay. What's the guy gonna learn if he's dead? And if he got the death penalty, then the damage he's done won't be undone anytime soon. What we need to do is stick him in jail for 30 years and assign him to a cell with some fat guy named Bubba and really grease up said convict's soap. That'll teach 'em.[/quote]

I'll tell you what. If you want to lock him up for 30 years, then you can pay for it. If they fry him, I'll spring for the flowers on his grave.[/quote]

That's what taxes are for... Now, if only we could convince the government to use it for that rather than something completely obsolete such as... studying the sex life of ants?
 
[quote name='False Hope'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='False Hope']Nay. What's the guy gonna learn if he's dead? And if he got the death penalty, then the damage he's done won't be undone anytime soon. What we need to do is stick him in jail for 30 years and assign him to a cell with some fat guy named Bubba and really grease up said convict's soap. That'll teach 'em.[/quote]

I'll tell you what. If you want to lock him up for 30 years, then you can pay for it. If they fry him, I'll spring for the flowers on his grave.[/quote]

That's what taxes are for... Now, if only we could convince the government to use it for that rather than something completely obsolete such as... studying the sex life of ants?[/quote]

Yes - because research grants (the quest for knowledge) are a big waste of money, while locking someone up because you want revenge is a great use of money. I guess we should have taken that money earmarked for getting to the moon, and spent it on developing a huge state-of-the-art torture device.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't think the government has the right to deprive someone of life.
[/quote]

Sure it does. What do you think is happening in Iraq?[/quote]

A ridiculous analogy and you know it.
[/quote]

It most certainly is not!

What do you think the government does when congress approves a war and the president launches it? Do you think they don't realize that we are authorizing our men and women to kill enemy men and women?[/quote]

That is hardly the same as executing someone who has been convicted of a crime, is it?[/quote]

Exactly my point. If the government can authorize the killing of Iraqi men and women who oppose "the american way of life" (or whatever we're fighting for in Iraq now), then they certainly have the right to execute a sadistic serial killer-rapist who actually deserves death.[/quote]

I'm not arguing about that right now in this thread, but at least I see you conceded the point.[/quote]

Now I'm really confused. What is your assertion, that the government shouldn't have the power to declare war?
 
All I have to say is that you should have put "Yea or Nay" in the poll.

Yay is incorrect, unless you are such a cruel and heartless bastard that you celebrate the death of a fellow human being.
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19']All I have to say is that you should have put "Yea or Nay" in the poll.

Yay is incorrect, unless you are such a cruel and heartless bastard that you celebrate the death of a fellow human being.[/quote]

No, "yay" is the right word. If someone did something disgusting enough to warrant the death penalty for his/her actions I'll pass out party hats at the execution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top