Death Penalty? Is it ever okay to kill?

[nekobekko]

In the USA there is this guy who was convicted of killing his wife and unborne baby. He was sentanced to death. I have been thinking a lot about whether death is ever justified. Do you beleve in the Death Penalty? Do you beleve in killing for self defence? What circumstances make it valid to take another's life?

[Kerii]

Scott Peterson you mean?
I got tired of that after one month. I mean, I had the option to watch news about the world crumbling from overzealous and lying leaders, or the option to watch an episode of Unsolved Mysteries. :p

Anyways, back on topic. I can't really say I agree or disagree with the death penalty because I don't really know the conditions under which one can be administered. Though recent events would have it seem like pre-meditated murder of two or more people.
In which case, I don't really care. Make him work in a prison for the rest of his life or kill him.

Now if it's a serial killer, blow his brains out on sight, kill that bastard. :p

And killing for self defense... are you nuts?! Of course!
I wouldn't want that psycho waking up while I call the police and try to kill me again!
I'd at least tie him/her up or lock him/her in a closet or something. :p

[nick64]

I say, it depends on the situation, but for a mass murderer who is (very) likely to strike again, death penalty will suit his punishment.

A person acting in self defence shouldn't deserve death, s/he wouldn't have thought to attempt murder at the first place and it just doesn't make any sense.

Death penalty ONLY works for a select few (war criminals, killers), though may be inhumane in some respects, it's a way to control today's society.

[armax1980]

Death penalty can be quite useful when done right, they help keep prison population low. Remember, we're the ones who are paying for a criminal's food and shelter.So why not kill some of them and use our tax money for better things like education and health care.

I believe in killing for self defense, remember the old saying "Kill them before they kill you!!!".

[nekobekko]

A person acting in self defence shouldn't deserve death, s/he wouldn't have thought to attempt murder at the first place and it just doesn't make any sense.
I am sorry if I misled you. For self defence, I mean in general; I don't mean 'do people who kill in self defence deserve death'
In general my question is when is it okay to kill or is death penalty okay. sorry :p

And killing for self defense... are you nuts?! Of course! You'd be supprised how many don't beleve in it. I think Cyrano is one of them, but I am not sure.

[Kerii]

I'm no psychologist but... I think there's something wrong when your survival instincts tell you that your life isn't worth as much as someone who's trying to kill you. :p

Of course, they're simply words.
If attacked, I seriously doubt anyone wouldn't fight back for fear of death.

[nekobekko]

I'm no psychologist but... I think there's something wrong when your survival instincts tell you that your life isn't worth as much as someone who's trying to kill you. :p


I have never thought of that; It is a good point

[tsuyoshiro]

Death...I don't think it's that much of a punishment for those who have killed and killed again, more of a quick release. Life in a shabby prison seems much more of a punishment. Sure, it helps keep prisoner count low, but as for the level of punishment I believe it isn't as severe as what some people deserve.

[BurningSoul]

I believe and eye for an eye.

[NightviSion]

Well, to maintain order in society I'll say death penalty is a must for any deliberate kill(if proven guilty) no question about it. and of course, shattering his blood in public will have the biggest impact :D . for two reasons,
1. everyone who's willing of killing somebody, will think twice before committing this crime.
2. it will prevent other murderous cases that will mostly come from revenge, either from family members of the murdered one or the murderer.

And of course, if someone is aiming a gun at your face and is wiiling to kill you... well you have the green light to go and kill him if you can for self-defense :D

[citaro]

The death penalty is a very sticky subject - some say it's a fitting punishment for a terrible crime. To this end, I think a lifetime in prison may be more of a punishment. This way, a prisoner can think of the crimes they have commited and experience remorse. But then, what if the murderer is, how should I say... wacky in the brain? They could feel nothing but resent at the system that "unfairly" punished the killing that was, in their mind, justified. Regardless, the prison system needs work before it can serve to be an effective deterrent. It should be that prisoners are put to work all day, breaking rocks and cleaning highways - none of this lounging about watching cable television. They broke the social contract that our society is based on- naturally some of their rights under said society should be forfeit. But that's a whole other can of worms.
Another point against the death penalty is the chance that the accused may be innocent. With the advent of DNA testing, there have been many accused set free because of vindicating evidence from DNA tests.
In the end, I don't think that the death penalty is a proper punishment for any crime, but at this point, prison isn't that great of a punishment either, due to all of the amenities that are present there. The way I see it, if I were a juror, I could not, in good conscience, give someone the death penalty.
As for self-defense, I think it all comes down to our social contract again. If someone threatens my life, they forfeit their own safety. I wouldn't want to, and again, I probably wouldn't have a clean conscience over it, but when push comes to shove...

[lucky644]

In the USA there is this guy who was convicted of killing his wife and unborne baby. He was sentanced to death. I have been thinking a lot about whether death is ever justified. Do you beleve in the Death Penalty? Do you beleve in killing for self defence? What circumstances make it valid to take another's life?

Yes, the death penalty is good.

[Renthrak]

Death really has no place as a punishment. The entire purpose of 'punishing' someone is to educate them as to the severity of their misdeed so that they will not repeat it.

'Punishing' someone because 'they did something bad, so something bad should happen to them' is not 'punishment' at all, but rather revenge, which is completely different. The motivation for revenge lies not in the target, but the person seeking revenge.

That being said, 'punishment' and 'revenge' aside, death is the most efficient and effective means of dealing with certain types of criminals. Of course, for the sake of morality, the criteria ought to be 'proven guilty beyond ALL doubt' as opposed to 'reasonable doubt'.

The criminal justice system, at least in the United States, is far too lenient in my opinion. Every day, the news carries at least one story of someone who committed a vicious crime like rape or murder, and it turns out that they already had a criminal record a kilometer long.

I ask you, if it was already known that they were going to continue to commit crimes, as a lengthy record indicates, then why exactly were they walking around freely to be able to commit another crime?

If someone has a record of stealing cars, breaking into houses, getting into fights, being involved with drugs, etc, then the most efficient method of dealing with them is execution. Did they commit one terrible crime? No. However, the cumulative damage to society shouldn't be overlooked. If someone makes a habit of disregarding the rights of other people, it is only a matter of time until the right to live is also disregarded.

Committing crimes is a choice. Nobody becomes a car thief or a rapist against their will. As a society, we have no obligation to be lenient with those that refuse to abide by the laws of that society, and willfully harm others, be it financially, psychologically, or physically.

We currently lack the means by which to reliably rehabilitate a criminal and change them into an acceptable member of society. Sometimes it happens, usually it doesn't. Either way, it has nothing to do with the system, but rather the individual. Lacking a means to repair the person so that they will not harm society again, those that have shown that they will do so repeatedly must be removed from the society. Due to the apalling volume of such individuals, prison terms, permanent or not, fail to solve the problem.

The unwavering and inflexible belief in the inherent sanctity of human life, regardless of circumstance, is one of the primary contributors to the unpleasant state of the world.

If someone had shot George Bush, for example, a great many people would still be alive. History is full of such examples, where an individual that harms society is only punished long after the damage is done, or even escaping punishment entirely.

[thugg]

Sure, why not. It's not like you're not going to die sometime anyway. Might as well not cost me my tax money to keep you alive.

Keep in mind, this is coming from someone that's very likely to one day, be on death-row.

[krotch]

I think it's fine, as long as it can be proven without a doubt. As in, you have a video tape clearly showing him kill whoever or multiple eye witnesses.

Not something along the lines of, "we found a knife with his finger prints and a butt hair at the scene."

The law does make mistakes and there have been cases of ppl serving time in prison and later released due to, "whoops, our bad."

[TheException]

I like what Renthrak said, you make great points.

I am against death penalty, because I believe no one has the right to decide on one's life. It's as simple as that. Whether someone is "fit" or not fo the the society is an opinion. Killing a criminal because he has killed is like killing a disabled kid because he is worthless (hehe Knives, if you here me :p ). It just suck to see that some people can decide on another's life.

However I understand the feelings of those who were victims of criminals like that, and i believe they would want to kill that person. What i believe however, is killing that person makes them no better. Killing someone who killed is in no way nobler. It's murder in both cases (at least to me). And if people have to die because they killed, i also wish the judges who decide on death penalty would die, too.

Killing for self-defense is, for me different that killing for "potential recidive" of the criminal in question. It's like deciding his future, it's like giving up hope...which is the last resort. While killing for self-defense is ok, Deat penalty is just bullshit. It's just fear people need to get over with.

Besides 15% cases are judged wrongly. Imagine how many innocent people got killed already. Stupid. Death penalty is just stupid, and it has nothing to do with self-defense.

[oink37]

Stop this non-sense about "they will think about it before committing a crime". You don't see that pattern in the countries that are using death penalty, do you ??
Many people don't think in terms of "what will happen next ?" but more like "what do I want now". Come on, don't tell me you can't see it around you, all these people whose will is so easily swayed.

Death penalty is about revenge, as there is no mean to have "absolute" conviction for a lot of criminals. How many times have we heard about flawed DNA tests, or police setting up evidences ? Hell, there even has been a case where a scientist in charge of these analyses was caught altering the results according to her own beliefs : they had to go through all the trial she testified
http://www.law-forensic.com/cfr_fish_5.htm

As for the ones seeing it as an economic tool... I think this is stooping very low to place one life in balance with your GDP or something... As said before, there are many cases where you can't tell for sure. It's easy to call for death when you don't have to watch it and press the switch, isn't it ?

Don't you agree that a society should be lead by the common interests of the people founding it ? I don't see that happening for death penalty.

Finally I'll warn against making death penalty a "banal fact". The more tools for violence you're hosting in your society, the more "institutionalize" them, the more they can be used against you. If you think your country can't go out of control and kill for strange ideology open your history books. The more commonplace killing seems , the more easier it is to divert the killings towards other goals.

As for this post being offensive, I plead guilty :D

[BigChef]

my 2 cent on this: It is never right to kill someone else, even if the gov. allows it..... and if anyone disagrees with me i well fight you to the death :p

[krotch]

How about zero death penalty, but a more cruel penalty.

You kill someone, you know are missing a leg or something. Rape someone, you get castrated or get your penis cut off.

Course again, it has to be proven without a doubt, as I mentioned before.

[Desmonthes]

uh oh, another war is going on :p
and in my opinion death penalty is a must have, maybe it'll be removed in another 20 year or never ?

[bart69]

lol, we have death penalty if found sumggling drugs over certain limit ...

After reading your comments, I think non death penalty is not just because we can't decide on people's life.

For serial killers or killers, it'd be a good way of torturing them in prison for life better than letting them go. Death, is just a quick way to hell.

Shattering blood infront of the public will warn people yes, but it may excite or even encourage the sadists or masochists :p

[krinje]

Interesting...

Yes, I think a death penalty in certain circumstances is warranted when you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a severe enough crime. Serial killers, serial rapists, mass murderers (if they don't kill themselves) are not going to give anything back to society.

TheException: I don't think this is the same as the "Disabled Kiddies" thread at all. The disabled kiddies haven't done anything wrong, and in fact, are incapable of doing so. Violent criminals have broken the rules of society in a severe way.

for defending yourself with lethal force, I think that's a given. Like kerii says, if you have any survival instincts, you'll defend yourself however possible. Of course, you'd better be prepared to defend your actions afterwards. If it can be shown that you acted excessively then you're going to go to jail.

[Mad-B_Man]

How about zero death penalty, but a more cruel penalty.

You kill someone, you know are missing a leg or something. Rape someone, you get castrated or get your penis cut off.

Course again, it has to be proven without a doubt, as I mentioned before.

This is a good Idea, but is really sick when actually done. I've seen a guy got his hand cut off in a vid once (No, I'm not into that kind of stuff, the school was just crazy enough to show it. They even showed an autopsy). I don't know what he did, but it probably wasn't murder. Making people suffer is more sinful than killing, IMO

As much as I hate the death penalty, it needs to be there to deal with the killers, War criminals, ETC. But death for having drugs? Now that's insane. A few years back, 2 Thai men were "Hanged" in Singapore becuase of that.

But the people who need to die the most are the people who enjoy the death penalty. If you followed the Peterson case, you would know that people celebrated outside the court when they heard the jury recommended the death penalty. He deserves it if he really did it, but they had problems finding hard evidence and they even changed a jurry member out with a guy who probably had media influence on the case. But to celebrate when you know that another life will be taken? They really need to burn in hell, no matter how bad the guy was. A life is still a life.

[antchuck]

Life sentence is harsh enough, I believe. And the thing that makes someone fear of committing crime is not only the punishment. More important factor is the inevitability of punishment. Most of the people committing crimes think they can get away with it or don

[krotch]

I can't see a life sentence being harsh. Free food, free gym, free cable, free phone calls, free clothes, etc. There are ppl who actually commit crimes just to go to jail.

I say change prison. We'll feed you, but that's it. Once you're done eating, you're back to your cell to just sit there. There will be no books, no tv, no bed, etc. Just you, a room, and a toilet. Oh, you also get a pair of shorts and a t-shirt to wear. Room temps will be kept at a constant 70F degrees. Why should taxpayer's money be put into making a prisoner's life a little better? I want to see a prison built more like the dog pound.

[Kerii]

About the chopping off body parts thing:
Don't we already have enough empty handicapped parking spaces? :p
I mean come on... there's not a single place where I can park right in front of the store/restaurant anymore. :p :D

As for you guys saying death penalty for smuggling drugs is insane, why don't you think for a second where the money goes. What that money is used to buy, and what the purchased "items" get used for? You treat the problem at the source. You cut the drug trafficking, you cut the drug money, you cut the number of psychos who wind up with automatic rifles. Frankly a few years in prison for selling drugs isn't much of a deterent for some people if it only affects other people.


I can't see a life sentence being harsh. Free food, free gym, free cable, free phone calls, free clothes, etc. There are ppl who actually commit crimes just to go to jail.

I say change prison. We'll feed you, but that's it. Once you're done eating, you're back to your cell to just sit there. There will be no books, no tv, no bed, etc. Just you, a room, and a toilet. Oh, you also get a pair of shorts and a t-shirt to wear. Room temps will be kept at a constant 70F degrees. Why should taxpayer's money be put into making a prisoner's life a little better? I want to see a prison built more like the dog pound.People go insane if put through that though. :p

And insane people are much more likely to lash out at those poor underpaid security guards. :p

At least manual labor with a 15 cent an hour wage takes their mind off things.

[Kitee]

I think the death penalty is just too much. Killing someone for killing another person is not reasonable. Having a life sentence for these people will be enough as they spend year after year to think of their own actions.
But keeping these people in prison is also harse on taxpayers also. We wouldn't want to play tax for useless people in jail. It could be spent on something better.

[krotch]

I forgot all about manual labor. I think manual labor that doesn't benefit the community would be the best. It'll make the prisoners wonder WTF they are doing.

I want you to dig a hole here and use that dirt to fill in the hole of this other prisoner's hole that he's digging.

[Mad-B_Man]

As for you guys saying death penalty for smuggling drugs is insane, why don't you think for a second where the money goes. What that money is used to buy, and what the purchased "items" get used for? You treat the problem at the source. You cut the drug trafficking, you cut the drug money, you cut the number of psychos who wind up with automatic rifles. Frankly a few years in prison for selling drugs isn't much of a deterent for some people if it only affects other people.

That I agree, but in this case they weren't smugglers, just ordanary users. I don't think the Thai goverment would work so hard to try to help them if they were smugllers. Look at what Taksin did to the smugglers and major trafficers. What was the body count? 2000 durggers, police and civi's?

[Kerii]

You know it's funny. After all the posts against the death penalty, I've yet to hear a decent reason with logical backing about why it's bad. :p

I've got a new idea:
We dig a moat around Ohio, severing it from the US, salvage the cities down to the bone, infest the coasts with hippos, and then dump all prisoners from all prisons onto the new island, and let them live like animals.
If they don't care to obey the rules of society, they can go and live in the wild. :p :D
That I agree, but in this case they weren't smugglers, just ordanary users. I don't think the Thai goverment would work so hard to try to help them if they were smugllers. Look at what Taksin did to the smugglers and major trafficers. What was the body count? 2000 durggers, police and civi's?Only ordinary users? Well, I must say that's a bit harsh, but hey, they were the ones who created the demand in the first place. They are essentially the root of the problem.

[antchuck]

I can't see a life sentence being harsh. Free food, free gym, free cable, free phone calls, free clothes, etc. There are ppl who actually commit crimes just to go to jail.

I say change prison. We'll feed you, but that's it. Once you're done eating, you're back to your cell to just sit there. There will be no books, no tv, no bed, etc. Just you, a room, and a toilet. Oh, you also get a pair of shorts and a t-shirt to wear. Room temps will be kept at a constant 70F degrees. Why should taxpayer's money be put into making a prisoner's life a little better? I want to see a prison built more like the dog pound.

Free cable? where are prisons like this? In which country? I want to go there :D!
Prisons in Poland are more like the ones you want them to be: with the most important difference being you are not alone in your cell. There are 15 other people, while there is only place for 8 of them. And it

[krotch]

The United States of America. Our prison cells will hold either 2 - 4 ppl, depending on how the prison cell is built. They'll make them nice and roomy for ya.

[Kerii]

Free cable? where are prisons like this? In which country? I want to go there :D!
Prisons in Poland are more like the ones you want them to be: with the most important difference being you are not alone in your cell. There are 15 other people, while there is only place for 8 of them. And it’s like a jungle in there. If you don't have connections or you are sentenced for sexual crime (rape, pedophilism) you will have it really though (many of those guys commit suicides or go crazy).The more you talk, the more interesting your prison system sounds, lol. :p

What better a punishment than self induced suicide with a rusty spoon? :p

Still... that sounds a bit crazy. I don't want to torture them, I just want them dead. :p :D

[krotch]

Oh crap. I missed out on something. You'll have it really tough for pedophile crimes. Well, what if she wanted it?

Places not to go.....Poland.

[DrWise]

Well, i think Poland is the standard. Never seen a prison in Africa (Ivory Coast) ? I was there (not for being caught but to retrieve our driver who has forgotten his drving license).

Here is the description for a temp prison (some were there for almost a week) :
- a 4x5 cell for at least 50 people (included 3 lying dead for days), so no space to sit at all.
- no food, no water (your relatives have to bring them to you), no toilet
- of course, before being thrown there, you were really hardly beaten (at least my driver could not walk for a week)

I heard the long sentence prison cells are even worse : no bed, shape bulges on the surface of the wall and ground so that you would always sleep with pain.
Of course you can always bride the prison keepers there for a better cell and life :D. So in short, if you are just a little thief...

No death sentence there, but if you were caught by the police alive, you can consider yourself really lucky (especially if you are just a damn little thief)...

[antchuck]

Oh crap. I missed out on something. You'll have it really tough for pedophile crimes. Well, what if she wanted it?

Places not to go.....Poland.

Yep, don't come if you're a pedophile - we do not welcome such people. Heck, don't come if all you want is to visit our prison, whatever the reason.

[krotch]

Remind me to not go to Africa either. See, those are the type of prisons the US should have, minus the bribing. I'm sure less ppl would commit crimes.

[NightviSion]

The ppl who's against death penalty or saying its too cruel of a system are either talkin' bullshit or they themselvs have a previous criminal status :p :D

[oink37]

The ppl who's against death penalty or saying its too cruel of a system are either talkin' bullshit or they themselvs have a previous criminal status :p :D

Exactly, Remind me where you're living again ?

http://img80.exs.cx/img80/5192/jacktherippers4rl.jpg

[justaride]

You know it's funny. After all the posts against the death penalty, I've yet to hear a decent reason with logical backing about why it's bad. :p

First of all the death penalty costs taxpayers more money not less. This has been proven time and time again. The appeal process for the death penalty in U.S. can last from 10-20 years. When you factor in the governments lawyer costs to fight the appeals the death penalty ends up costing taxpayers 3 times as much as a life sentence.


Finally I'll warn against making death penalty a "banal fact". The more tools for violence you're hosting in your society, the more "institutionalize" them, the more they can be used against you. If you think your country can't go out of control and kill for strange ideology open your history books. The more commonplace killing seems , the more easier it is to divert the killings towards other goals.

Oink is right. The fact is countries that have the death penalty have a much higher murder rate than countries that don't. Studies have shown that when a country goes from not having the death penalty to having the death penalty those countries immediately see a rise in their murder rate. Countries that have done away with the death penalty have immediately seen a drop in their murder rate. When country has the death penalty they are sending a message to their citizens that revenge is good and proper. Any society that condones revenge is a violent one.


I say change prison. We'll feed you, but that's it. Once you're done eating, you're back to your cell to just sit there. There will be no books, no tv, no bed, etc. Just you, a room, and a toilet. Oh, you also get a pair of shorts and a t-shirt to wear. Room temps will be kept at a constant 70F degrees. Why should taxpayer's money be put into making a prisoner's life a little better? I want to see a prison built more like the dog pound.

The prisoners are given those things based a simple reward system for being good compliant prisoners. The U.S. tried having extremely harsh prisons and it didn't work. Google "Attica state prison" sometime if you don't believe me.

[ChibiFirli]

I don't really see any reason for death-penalty. If you do something that hurts me in any way, there are only two things I'll try to do: 1 reverse the damage (at your expense), 2 make sure you won't do it again. Death is not needed for any of those two. Besides, as was mentioned before, it does give autorities more power, wich will probably lead to abuse of power (people are that way).
Punishment out of revenge/hate doesn't really help anyone. Criminals will be looked down upon, leads to us caring less about their conditions -> more power to police and jailkeepers
Most important point: rights should be there for everyone (freedom restriction is only enforced to keep criminals from violating other people's rights). If you start to have rights to kill/hurt/maim people just because of how thay act, I'll frame you for murder and hurt you really bad :P (and nobody will care 'cause you're a vicous criminal).
Eye for an eye tactics (killing someone because he killed someone else) can also lead to a lot of violence. In effect: my brother kills your sister, you have the right to kill him because he killed your sister and hurt you in that way, I'll kill you because you killed my brother (I had nothing to do with the murder of your sister so why should you hurt me?). Leads to another point, with death sentence you hurt the family of the killer, and they had nothing to do with it.
In conclusion:
death penalty
doesn't make anything better (except it satisfies people's lust for vengeance)
gives autorities to much power
hurts innocent people (family)

[Lisa Hayes]

Death Penalty is usually enforced (in our country) to scare offenders.
Time and again, this implementation has been rebuttaled by the church (for obvious reasons... )

Personally, if the convict deserves it, go ahead.
The harshest verdict i know of is life imprisonment without parole. A fitting punishment for a lunatic convict...

[Redsuns]

Well the ends justify the means. Sometimes the only way to pay a life is someone's life too. Well, it will hurt both parties(the victim and the prosecuted) but it's the law of nature. Anyway, corporal punishment has been present for years so I don't think it will just vanish away; it's not that people are bloodthirsty or violent, this is just made to make example and help others atone for their sins.

[nick64]

I am sorry if I misled you. For self defence, I mean in general; I don't mean 'do people who kill in self defence deserve death'
In general my question is when is it okay to kill or is death penalty okay. sorry :p


ah ok, sorry about that

Death Penalty (imo) is suitable for those 'evil' people who really deserve death for what they have done. It is to protect society after all, when they're dead they won't come back, unlike prison in which they have that possibility to break out or be released to commit more evil deeds.
Prison only protects society temporarily, whereas Death Penalty is a more 'permanent' solution.

True, it may be inhumane and that each life should be cherised (etc, reminds me of Trigun, god i loved that anime), but there's no other realistic way of dealing with these people. But i say it again, the death penalty should only be used depending on the situation.

[brakespear]

No, never.

a) I don't trust any legal system enough to get even 70% of convictions correct in the first place.

b) It's not much of a punishment - it's a bit quick after all.

c) It's not much of a deterrent.

d) Isn't it a bit, you know, archaic? Slap somebody on the sacrificial stone in order to pretty up the crime stats? Not even druids do that anymore (much :D )

[ChibiFirli]

I agree with death being the best option for some criminals. As they won't redeem themselves anyway and are a burden to society. But I still don't want to give anyone that kind of power :p. And you cannot make me believe that it won't be misused. No matter how many extra safeties you build in up to the point of making daeth penalty near impossible to be used as punishment, someone will find a way to abuse it.
As today it's still quite easy to get someone "legally" murdered. Place some evidence, make up the gaps by bribing jury and judge. Dispose of and dishonor your oponent while getting away with some criminal act. (It is somewhat more difficult than these two sentences seem to imply, but it's still too easy anyway)

[Cyrano]

Why not torture? It's much crueler than the death penalty. Not to mention oh so much fun.

In all seriousness, I'm willing to bet if people knew they'd be tortured if they committed crimes, people wouldn't be pulling nearly as much shit as they do today. Death is quick, and pretty much painless now. Torture hurts. A lot. Not to mention that you live through it.

[Kerii]

I like how Solid Snake (Metal Gear Solid) put it:

"Some people just need killing." :p :D

Why not torture? It's much crueler than the death penalty. Not to mention oh so much fun.

In all seriousness, I'm willing to bet if people knew they'd be tortured if they committed crimes, people wouldn't be pulling nearly as much shit as they do today. Death is quick, and pretty much painless now. Torture hurts. A lot. Not to mention that you live through it.I hear chakra torture is becoming quite popular these days. And live boiling is making a roaring (pun intended) comeback. :D

[Cyrano]

I hope Solid Snake didn't actually say that... considering that's not even a cohesive sentence. While I'm sure there are some people this world would be better without, *cough* BUSH *cough* I don't think that killing is going to solve the problem. Violence begets violence.

[Kerii]

Never kill the leader of a pack of idiots, or you'll have hell to pay. :p

And yes, Solid Snake did say that. It was of course the domestic dubbed version.
The original quote probably sounded a lot better. :p

[hitokiri battousai]

Yes,the death penalty is very much needed in my opinion. I believe in the "eye for an eye" theory and think that if you wrongfully killed somebody, well then you should have your life taken away. For death is the ultimate punishment. You can have someone locked up in a cell for life but in the end they will still have their most important thing, their life. I can go on and on why I think many people deserve to die but I'm much too tired as of right now and if I told you why exactly i believe this, then i would be letting you know too much.

[oink37]

Yes,the death penalty is very much needed in my opinion. I believe in the "eye for an eye" theory and think that if you wrongfully killed somebody, well then you should have your life taken away. For death is the ultimate punishment. You can have someone locked up in a cell for life but in the end they will still have their most important thing, their life. I can go on and on why I think many people deserve to die but I'm much too tired as of right now and if I told you why exactly i believe this, then i would be letting you know too much.

Is justice really about punishing and revenge of the offended party ?

[DrWise]

Let's say : do not think death sentence as a revenge, but rather as a prevention for further crimes : one murderer less is always good for the society. Why bother keeping them and feeding them for free ??? They might escape or be released and then repeat their crimes (if you do once, there is a high probability that you might do twice).

[brakespear]

Yes,the death penalty is very much needed in my opinion. I believe in the "eye for an eye" theory and think that if you wrongfully killed somebody, well then you should have your life taken away. For death is the ultimate punishment. You can have someone locked up in a cell for life but in the end they will still have their most important thing, their life. I can go on and on why I think many people deserve to die but I'm much too tired as of right now and if I told you why exactly i believe this, then i would be letting you know too much.
Do you believe in an 'eye for an eye' except for extenuating circumstances or is it a blanket policy?

[antchuck]

Let's say : do not think death sentence as a revenge, but rather as a prevention for further crimes : one murderer less is always good for the society. Why bother keeping them and feeding them for free ??? They might escape or be released and then repeat their crimes (if you do once, there is a high probability that you might do twice).

Two things:
Why[..]feeding them for free? - I don't believe it's just to kill someone because it's cheaper.
They might escape and repeat their crimes - this one makes more sense. Now we kill someone because we fear him. That's understandable. It's the same reason for witch policemen can shoot escaping prisoner. Yet killing someone because there is a possibilty that he escapes? It's like shooting your dog because he might bite. And I don't believe that doing something once makes someone more prone to do it again. The probability for something like this isn't high enough to justify death sentence. The thing changes when someone does the same crime twice. Yet, I still object.

[oink37]

Let's say : do not think death sentence as a revenge, but rather as a prevention for further crimes : one murderer less is always good for the society. Why bother keeping them and feeding them for free ??? They might escape or be released and then repeat their crimes (if you do once, there is a high probability that you might do twice).

Unfortunately you're killing people, so there is quite a high responsability coming with this, don't you think ?
It seems alright when you say hey, let's kill this asshole who went on a killing spree the other day!

But there is a small problem here : you're supposing you've got the "right" guy.

Since death penalty is enforced by the state and not by individuals you cannot say "If I'm absolutely sure it's him, I can kill him"

So the rule has to apply to everyone : would you trust every asshole in your country to check the fact and not to send any unlucky guy to the grave "just in case" ? (the justice is not a field immune to assholes, last time I checked)

To apply death penalty in a "fair" manner imply infallibility, not only is it not the case, but it's really random given the "popular jury".

Morally I can't see how you could defend such a flawed system.
As for the economics it would be nice if justaride who posted about the death penalty costing more than life sentence could give his sources.

But even if it costs more, I don't think I want the state or every joe on the street having that kind of power. You're underestimating what kind of bloodlust can run in an entire society, I'm not giving you the "nazi" part (it's overused and misused for so long) but think Rosenberg then.

(oh and for the "they won't do it again part" : life sentence has the same effect, you have to enforce it and that's up to the judge, like it would be to the judge to enforce death penalty anyway)

[brakespear]

They might escape or be released and then repeat their crimes (if you do once, there is a high probability that you might do twice).
If they escape that is surely a matter of tightening of security for their keepers. As for release - I don't believe in the death penalty but I do believe that if you kill in cold blood you don't come out of prison ever.

As for the economics - I couldn't comment although soap to wash the blood off your soul is always cheap...

[TheException]

What about the 15% estimated of errors? 15% innocent people are dying unfairly. What about that? Is there any way you can compensate for that? Is there any way you can undo your mistake. At least with jail you can set them free and give them financial support or something to try and compensate....but if they're dead because they didn't have the right lawyer?
Death penalty is just bullshit. I do wish death to some of the most unforgiveful criminals, however i do not think i have the right to be the one killing them.

And yes krinje, I admit my corrolary to disabled kiddies was inappropriate. Thanks for pointing that out. :)

I wish death to all judges who decide on death penalty. I wish death to anyone who voted "yes" to death penalty. Voting "i don't know" is ok, i don't know either. But i know killing is not the right way to fight against killing.

EDIT: recidive migh happen, but you have to give people a second chance. I believe everyon had a second at some point in his life, whether it's because we lied, or because we were clumsy or because of anything else. People didn't just ditch us because things happened once. Or twice. We need to give them more chances....maybe be not in society, instead in jail or any other more appropriate way of punishement. Death is just like trying to stop a war by waging a war....

or maybe i'm too idealistic....

[pawlee]

I am against the death penalty for moral/religious reasons: killing is wrong. Self-defense and Punishment are simply responses to this immorality at different stages of the deed (before or after).

Beforehand (self-defense):
I believe that those who attempt or desire to kill should be stopped, with non-lethal force if possible (like negotiating with hostage-takers, or disabling rather than murdering an assailant). However, if lethal resistance is unavoidable, then someone must die. Thus, it should be the person/people seeking to do wrong (as with David vs. Goliath).

Afterward (punishment):
I agree with TheException's comments completely. Obviously, my beliefs preclude capital punishment. Humans lack the wisdom to understand God's plan for the world. Therefore we should avoid performing irreversible acts, especially those that directly counteract creation.

[pawlee]

I would also like to dispute the economic arguments (both in favor and against capital punishment) with two points:

Firstly, in the United States, article III of the Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) states the primary purpose of the court system as Law and Equity, or justice. All Americans are entitled to legal representation (at the government's expense) in order to ensure a fair trial. Cost must always remain a subordinate concern, and hence cannot be used as a valid justification for any trial outcome.

Secondly, using cost-benefit analysis (http://slate.msn.com/id/2101297/) Steven Landsburg (a well known economist and author (http://www.landsburg.com/)) demonstrated that virus programmers are actually more suited to receive the death penalty than murderers, even serial killers. It is not simply a comparison of the cost of execution to the cost of life imprisonment. The opportunity costs that are avoided by eliminating the criminal must also be considered.

You are a trooper to have read all this :)

[Fallen Angel]

I beleive anyone that is found guilty on charges of rape and muder should be put to death, and also anyone having life in prison should be put to death, all the do is suck up our tax money just so they can survive, lastly the length of time the sentence to be carried out should be at most a month, and the means which the sentence is actually carried out should be more cruel and it should also be public, death by lethal injection or something like that does not accomplish the purpose that the death sentense is suppose to accomplish.

[NightviSion]

Unfortunately you're killing people, so there is quite a high responsability coming with this, don't you think ?
It seems alright when you say hey, let's kill this asshole who went on a killing spree the other day!

But there is a small problem here : you're supposing you've got the "right" guy.
Lets hear what kind of punishment/justification do you want for those criminal bastards?? (though I see your complexity is coming from whether the guilty one is just another victim). I don't believe in someone clean will be caught up that easily in doing such acts, which rarely happens of course. and at this point, I don't even know if you agree on given a death sentence to someone deliberately shooting an innocent one in public. (pls. tell me that this one deserves a jail sentence and not death!!)

If every criminal were just sentenced to jail, do you think the amount of crime(mainly killing) will be reduced!! hell not!!...it will just encourage other criminal to have their way in committing more crimes.
every criminal will say, hey I doesn't make a difference if I kill/steal/rape or not...my head will still touch air.....this last statement reminds me of an old saying in my own language ;p

pawlee & TheException Don't forget that not everyone is pure hearted, and deliberately killing someone is the most vicious act that can't be tolerated. Thus, there is no second chance, because this is a sign unpurity, mainly evil. and there is no other way to deal with them.

[pawlee]

Fallen Angel, what do you think is the purpose of the death sentence?

I had to look up the meaning of "recidivate", which TheException mentioned as a possible reason for one's belief in the death penalty. A person may recidivate to criminal behavior. However, the enforcement of capital punishment is society recidivating to a counterproductive practice.

[TheException]

"pure heart" is relative. If you are religious, then it should make sense that if one is truly "evil", God would take care of him. The reason why god lets us be is because of forgiveness. Any priest will tell you that confessing your sins, whichever they are, can lead to paradise. Hence crime is not so bad, as long as confess with true intentions. Anyone going to paradise is not evil. Here goes for your argument about "evil" people. I'm not too religious, however, i believe some things make sense in religions and this is one of the things i've learned from them.

[pawlee]

I agree that murder is a clear sign of immorality. IMO, all humans are innately immoral. That is why laws and punitive systems are required.

NightviSion, as you say "murder cannot be tolerated." That is why a civilized society must not do it (that is, enforce the death penalty).

[Hokutomaru]

Well Scott Peterson killed a PREGNANT WOMAN which was his wife, so he deserves to die.

[mahouneko]

The better question should be how do we make the Death Penalty so excruciatingly painful that no one will dare to break the law. It IS pretty obvious to most people that the important factor in any killing has to be the motive. Was it premeditated? If it was, then they deserve the death penalty. Most serial killings and massacres are premeditated. I could care less about insane people. I think the whole insanity argument is bullshit. Now that we have a filter to screen out such cases, we consider only those deserving of the Death Penalty.

It is pointless to make a "painless" execution because that doesn't affect how the rest of the population will react. Make it excruciatingly painful such that people will have to think twice before committing murder.

[tzuendaniel]

Death penalty: If they actually meant to kill (premeditated), then kill them.
Sorry if it sounds cruel, but people who kill intentionally will probably kill again, so it's better to take them out and make the world at least a little bit better.
After all, if they can't control themselves now, what makes one think that they'll be able to control their own actions in the future?

As for the question of killing for self-defense: if someone tried to kill me, I would of course aim for critical areas or areas that cause the most pain, since then I'll be out of the fight that much faster, but I wouldn't go for the kill.

[pawlee]

Mahatma Ghandi is an excellent role model for this discussion. Pro-capital punishment people may see his life as pointless or tragic, spending all his effort peacefully resisting oppression only to be assassinated. However, Ghandi believed that it is one's own actions that are important.

In the end, we can only control our own behavior (and even this takes great discipline). If I can live my life without executing anyone, that makes me happy.

[Fallen Angel]

pawlee, I beleive the purpose for death sentence is to kill people that are a threat to society and to fill people with fear in order to prevent further heinous crime. But to accomplish that the punisment should be more cruel as I stated before. The only other way to prevent or reduce heinous crimes is to torture someone which is most disturbing.

[nekobekko]

Wow. There have been a lot of great and well thought responses so far. I enjoyed reading them; thanks to all.

In my opinion, I think I disagree with the death penalty. If even one innocent person is killed by capital punishment, then the system is invalid. Also, killing a criminal doesn't solve anything.
As for self defence, I agree with pawlee, I think that one must use only what is nescisarry to defend, or stop the assult. If this means that the only solution is to defend in a matter that may lead to death, then this is valid.
To the matter of torture that many advocate, I strongly disagree. Criminals may be savage, but they are still human. I have seen horrible suffering in my life and I cannot wish in upon anybody, not even the worst of us.

[soutaku]

I do believe that the Death Punishment is right, but it is also good for a criminal to serve their punishment if only they go to jail for life. That is because that they should repent for what they have done by staying in a jail cell and get whatever by their in mates so that they have a horrible time.

[Kongming]

Well it does bring a little bit of ease to the family/friends of the victim so I would have to agree with the death penalty.

I don't want to get too heated in this one... sorry.

[Kitee]

It really depends that it would make the victim's parents ease their pain.
I really agree with the "being totally 100% accurate" in the people they kill. If they kill someone who is innocent, and found out later that he was innocent, there is no way to compensate for that.

[antchuck]

Wow - over 70 posts in less then 20 hours. How about making a poll out of this? There won't be as many new arguments as earlier (naturally), so we could at least know, what the majority thinks about it.

I

[nekobekko]

Well it does bring a little bit of ease to the family/friends of the victim so I would have to agree with the death penalty.

I don't want to get too heated in this one... sorry.
In accuality, interviews with relatives of the victoms very often state that they thought that the death of the killer would bring some bit of ease or relief, but in fact it didn't.
Wow - over 70 posts in less then 20 hours. How about making a poll out of this? There won't be as many new arguments as earlier (naturally), so we could at least know, what the majority thinks about it. It it possible to add it to this thread or would a new one have to be made?

[NightviSion]

nekobekko If you want to add a poll to this thread, just edit your first post and you'll get the option for adding a poll (bear in mind, you can't edit the poll after creating it).

[narcissus]

1. It doesn't discourage crime. The USA has the death penalty and still has the highest murder rate in the developed world. The US murder rate is much higher than in any country I know of that doesn't have the death penalty. I think the death penalty is simply another thing that gives a violent tone to society and therefore encourages killing.

2. Killing murderers in order to comfort the victim's family is a bad idea for two reasons. One, because it adds to the tone of violence in society. Two, because it takes us back hundreds of years, to when justice was carried out by relatives of the victim. It was a huge advance in Europe when the state took over justice and considered the crime to be against society, rather than against the victim's family. This made society much more orderly.

3. Mistakes are made. Innocent people are sometimes executed. This is not okay.

4. I don't have an absolute objection to the death penalty. I just think it's counterproductive and that one mistaken execution totally negates any benefit it might have.

5. My main criticism of the US justice system is that too many people are in jail. Not only is it expensive, but it's just like sending them to crime school. Sentences should be shorter and sharper. Prison doesn't have to be pleasant, but it should be brief. Solitary confinement to allow prisoners to reflect on their crimes, and to protect them from each other, sounds like a good idea to me. And there should be lots of smarmy social workers around to keep an eye on people after they get out. Long sentences and the death penalty don't discourage criminals, they only discourage the people who are smart enough not to commit crimes in the first place. The only people who should be in jail for any length of time are those who have committed violence.

6. Killing in self-defence is fine. I imagine it's difficult to adjust your level of response in the heat of the moment. I actually feel sorry for police officers who are criticised with 20/20 hindsight for killing suspects they thought were armed but weren't.

[greattenchimasaki]

i believe the death penalty is good to use on the most evil people! just like that crazy woman that been in news lately!

the woman is freaking crazy she killed a pregnat woman for her baby then cut the baby out of the woman stomach/womb! to top it off the woman keep the new baby and took the baby to different state to her home town then was telling evry one in that town "this my baby i just had it!" the same day!

can in one tell me! how can anyone have soul and still do this aweful thing to anyone!

if she dont deserver the death penalty then ur crazy! just my opinion!

[tofuman80]

Well, when you think about it, the death penalty, or for that matter, crime itself can be totally eliminated if all crimes were prevented. I mean, sentencing a person to death because he/she killed someone would end up with 2 ppl dead, and another handfull of ppl really upset or shaken. If the government could upset the starting of a crime in the beginning, then everything would be so much better ^_^ (of course, thats never gonna happen, but idealistically it would work right?)

[Kerii]

nekobekko If you want to add a poll to this thread, just edit your first post and you'll get the option for adding a poll (bear in mind, you can't edit the poll after creating it).Wha? There's no such option, you're talkin' crazy man!

Adding a poll to an existing thread is done by clicking on the Thread Tools menu on the blue bar right above the first post of the page. :p

As for the "doesn't deter crime rates" stuff... you're comparing places like Texas to Washington? :rolleyes:

Edit: I should probably clarify this. Every state in the Union is different, sometimes drastically, especially comparing urban and rural, with their gigantic rifts in lifestyles and commerce. The less urbanized states are more likely to have high crime rates than those that are urbanized. The states that have capital punishment are hard pressed to enforce it because of their crime rates, not the other way around.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/MurderRateGraph.gif

What I see on that chart is a correlation between POVERTY and murder rates. :p

Japan on the other hand, has 1/6 the US's muder rate, and they DO allow the death penalty. (One of three democracies in the world that still have it.)
And don't count them out simply because they live on a tiny island, their population is over 1/2 that of the US. Yes, that's 125+ million people on that little strip of land.

[hitokiri battousai]

You lose all your humanity the second you take somebodies life, even for good. I read a great quote that goes like this i believe, "The worst crimes are not commited by the body, but by the mind. For the act of wanting and planning to kill is the worst because it will probably lead to a murder." Im pretty sure thats how it goes.

[nekobekko]

nekobekko If you want to add a poll to this thread, just edit your first post and you'll get the option for adding a poll (bear in mind, you can't edit the poll after creating it).
I couldn't find the option...
hmmm, I don't know :confused:

The USA has the death penalty and still has the highest murder rate in the developed world.

3. Mistakes are made. Innocent people are sometimes executed. This is not okay.

I imagine it's difficult to adjust your level of response in the heat of the moment
These are good points. Many countries view the USA's stance on capital punishment as barbaric. It is sad when innocent people are executed. Perhaps the USA can find more effective means of controling crime.

[Cyrano]

There is no such thing as "justice." If you read All Quiet On the Western Front, you'll see what I mean. Towards the end of the book is a realization. "In war, there are no winners. Just lots of dead bodies." That is truth. Killing solves nothing.

Most people believe the reason for higher death rates in the U.S. is actually due to the heterogenity of its people. Most other countries have much lower homicide rates, but they also have very high homogenity. One might say it's harder to breed hate when you're amongst your own.

[tofuman80]

So you're saying if we all walk and talk the same, then we won't kill each other?

[Cyrano]

No. I'm saying that it statistically occurs less.

[tofuman80]

...well i guess that could be right...why kill someone when you have nothing against them anyways right?

[nekobekko]

@Kerii Thanks for the help, I put up a poll.

I have added a poll. Please choose which option best discribes you view on Death Penalty.

You lose all your humanity the second you take somebodies life, even for good
Can you elaborate? Even in self-defence? What if somebody is trying to kill a child? If you shoot them and they die, do you still loose you humanity?

[tofuman80]

well first of all, when a person is trying to kill a child, you don't just go and randomly pull out a gun and shoot the bastard right?

[Cyrano]

Hard to prove they were trying to kill a child if you kill them.

[tofuman80]

amen to that...

[nekobekko]

well first of all, when a person is trying to kill a child, you don't just go and randomly pull out a gun and shoot the bastard right?
I know people who would. Not nescissarlly to kill the bastard, just to 'put a cap in their punk ass'
If I had a gun and I saw a person trying to kill a child, I would probablly randomly pull it out and shoot them. If they were armed, I would aim for the heart or head. Otherwise, mabey a warning shooting.

Hard to prove they were trying to kill a child if you kill them.
If you are sure, like they stab the child and are gonna do it again.
what about rape? I woud shoot the bastard then, just to stop it.

Sorry everybody for swearing soooo much, but some topics make me anxious :o

[justaride]

What I see on that chart is a correlation between POVERTY and murder rates. :p

Japan on the other hand, has 1/6 the US's muder rate, and they DO allow the death penalty. (One of three democracies in the world that still have it.)
And don't count them out simply because they live on a tiny island, their population is over 1/2 that of the US. Yes, that's 125+ million people on that little strip of land.

I agree that poverty is the number one cause of crime, but just looking at that chart you can see a correlation between the death penalty and murder rates.
1. of the 12 non-DP states only 2 (16%) have rates above the national average
2. 18 of 38 (47%) of DP states have rates above the national average
3. 8 of the 10 states with the lowest murder rates are non-DP states
4. the 10 states with the highest murder rates are all DP states

Japan is an exception mainly because it doesn't allow handguns. Being an island makes it alot easier keep guns out of the country.

I would be very interested to know exactly how many people have been executed in Japan. I would bet they've had fewer executions in the last 5 years then the state of Texas has had in the last 6 months.

[Cyrano]

If they stab the child, it's pretty likely the child isn't going to survive (and if they do, I could only imagine the psychological ramifications), and if you shoot that person, it's unlikely you'll ever be able to extrapolate what their motivation was for their action (or true motivation), and then take action to prevent it from happening again.

[Fluffball_au]

incarceration would be best

let the murderers think about what they did for the duration of their stay, or for the rest of their lives

might cost the government more money to keep him/her alive :o

[Cyrano]

You do realize that MOST people on death row die before their sentence is ever carried out right?

[nekobekko]

If they stab the child, it's pretty likely the child isn't going to survive (and if they do, I could only imagine the psychological ramifications), and if you shoot that person, it's unlikely you'll ever be able to extrapolate what their motivation was for their action (or true motivation), and then take action to prevent it from happening again.
so if a psycho killer had a knife and starts to lunge at a child and you have a gun, what would you do? would you just let the child die in order ot extrapolate what the killer's motivation is?

I have to say that I wouldn't. Children are the most important things in this world in my opinion. They are our future.

[tofuman80]

what i don't understand is why the government puts people in jail for life. i mean, what will they learn if there is no way for them to come out to the real world anyways? Not only that, all the taxpayers will have all their money sucked right out of their pockets just to feed the guy....

[Kerii]

Costs around $24,000 per person per year last time I checked the numbers.

Plenty people I know don't even make that much at their JOB.

[Cyrano]

Lord forbid, but maybe you could make prison less accomodating? You know, a place where people REALLY don't want to go?

As for a person lunging at a child, if I were put in that situation, I'd shoot him somewhere so that he'd most likely survive being shot. (i.e., leg, arm) Or, if I were a particularly good shot, I'd shoot his knife away.

[Kerii]

Japan is an exception mainly because it doesn't allow handguns. Being an island makes it alot easier keep guns out of the country.Guns don't kill people... [finish quote here]. :p

[nekobekko]

Costs around $24,000 per person per year last time I checked the numbers.

Plenty people I know don't even make that much at their JOB.
Your good with the figures, thanks for the info.

As for a person lunging at a child, if I were put in that situation, I'd shoot him somewhere so that he'd most likely survive being shot. (i.e., leg, arm) Or, if I were a particularly good shot, I'd shoot his knife away.
This sounds very reasonable. My intent would not be to kill the person, but to protect the child.

Guns don't kill people... [finish quote here].
How does it go? 'Guns don't kill people... I kill people' ? :p (bumper sticker)
seriously though, I think the less guns makes at least a somewhat reduced number of crime(though it is deffenatlly not the main reasnon), due to less crimes of opertunity, like convenience store roberies and crimes of rage. But I am not sure.

[Knifes]

Holy crap... about a hundred posts in a like day!! ...wow looks like HF finally getting back to what it used to be :)

Well anyway back to original question... first of all, I believe in the death penalty to deter crime although torture would also be another good one too. But you have admit there are other things that are worse than death to a keep a person in line... things like honor (if there is any), family, wealth, etc. Destroying one's pride is pretty bad... but it might be too harsh at times by just keeping them alive with that crushed pride. So what do we do to people to stop other people from killing more people...capital punishment... the convicted person is responsible... and the law will put that responsibility on you whether you like it or not... there

[justaride]

Not having guns probably doesn't effect the crime rate, but it does effect the murder rate. England is another island country without handguns, they have a fairly high crime rate but very few murders. Guns make murder easy. There's a reason why you've never heard the phrase "drive-by stabbing"

Guns don't kill people...bullets do - Chris Rock

[Kerii]

There are plenty of things that operate like guns that don't require a special license. :p
A ban on guns just means more murderers using other instruments to perform their crimes.

It just means the 67% rate of homicides committed with guns become 67% (or less) with power tools or something else. :p
Modified nail gun? High powered industrial stapler?
And all in all, they're much cheaper than "conventional" guns too. :p

http://img145.exs.cx/img145/6373/pulsa700e3oz.jpg
Cordless battery powered nail gun. Fires up to two nails per second, 23 round erm... nail magazine, and even has a safety. :p :D
For only about $160 USD.
The price is a little high, but the cost of ammo really pays for itself. ;)

http://prudhoe.codeword.com/mnpctech/nail%20gun.jpg
YOU WANT SOME O' THIS?!?!?! PUT THE MONEY IN THE BAG!!!!! :p :D

[starscalling]

so misinformed
try banning guns means only the criminals have the guns -_-

[nekobekko]

And all in all, they're much cheaper than "conventional" guns too. :p

Cordless battery powered nail gun. Fires up to two nails per second, 23 round erm... nail magazine, and even has a safety. :p :D
For only about $160 USD.

I live near the USA National Capital, Washington DC. Here you can get guns for $20 or less. I think they are called 'Saturday night Specials" or something. A year or so ago Japan had the same problem. Pepole were smuggeling Russian pistols into the country and selling them for cheap.

[NightviSion]

Guns & Crime.......here's an article from eNote that treats this issue http://www.enotes.com/guns-crime

[Kerii]

Not as bad as in the US where you can go to Michigan and get a free gun from a bank when you open an account. :p :D

Bowling for Columbine anyone? :p
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60024975

[justaride]

so misinformed
try banning guns means only the criminals have the guns -_-

if you're refering to me, I'm not misinformed and I never said banning guns would work anywhere other than on an island.

But anyone who thinks that Japan and England have low murder rates just by coincidence is straight up delusional.

[crystalnox]

But banning them still does help to a certain extent to bring down the number of death cases..but getting shot in the heart by a gun certainly is a lot less painful than other methods murderers use..you know, sudden death. I'm for the death penalty, sometimes, its a waste of money to carry on letting mental patients (only the murderers) carry on living on earth.. :)

[pawlee]

Yes, that movie was quite disturbing! However, people are inherently naughty. Thus, I believe the true discussion lies in whether or not execution is justified. People will find ways to commit heinous crimes in any society, with nail guns, machetes, even toothpicks (all the way back to Cain and Abel).

In this case, you cannot fight fire with fire. It is unjustifiable to kill in order to prevent killing. If a society says killing is forbidden, it can't execute people!

[nekobekko]

so misinformed
try banning guns means only the criminals have the guns -_-
I am not sure who you are refering to, but I oppose banning guns. Better laws about how guns can be sold are a good idea though. I don't know where but there is a state that allows some felons to still buy guns, but not buy body armour. I understand that it is so cops can kill them easier if need be, but still. Why not make it so they can't buying either?

[oink37]

NightVision

Lets hear what kind of punishment/justification do you want for those criminal bastards?? (though I see your complexity is coming from whether the guilty one is just another victim). I don't believe in someone clean will be caught up that easily in doing such acts, which rarely happens of course. and at this point, I don't even know if you agree on given a death sentence to someone deliberately shooting an innocent one in public. (pls. tell me that this one deserves a jail sentence and not death!!)

If every criminal were just sentenced to jail, do you think the amount of crime(mainly killing) will be reduced!! hell not!!...it will just encourage other criminal to have their way in committing more crimes.
every criminal will say, hey I doesn't make a difference if I kill/steal/rape or not...my head will still touch air.....this last statement reminds me of an old saying in my own language ;p

pawlee & TheException Don't forget that not everyone is pure hearted, and deliberately killing someone is the most vicious act that can't be tolerated. Thus, there is no second chance, because this is a sign unpurity, mainly evil. and there is no other way to deal with them.

Punishement : As i said it's not about punishement or divine retribution or whatever.

In other words what is the purpose of the state concerning public safety/justice ?
My view is it's there to ensure the treaths I can meet on my life as a citizen are the lowest possible (however there are many other interest involved, like putting a minimum burden on the lawful citizen and preventing Orwell-like aggravation, but it's off topic here).
In that perspective prison is adequate. No killing involved. Ensuring safety does not mean you have to kill anyone. You can see it as an "inactivation", once it's jailed, it doesn't impact society anymore (except for the financial part but I'll leave the numbers to the experts in the forum)

A murder can't anyway really lead to compensation, maybe some families still want the guy to be fried dead, but after the rage passes out, the hole will still be there.

Concerning the probability of "proving" an innocent guilty you don't seem really aware of the bias your fellow citizen can have. That is, someone with a criminal past coming from the getthos will not be judged the same way as your average WASP, don't forget everyone in the court is humane, they are subject to their own prejudices. Concerning that, there was a link in my first post, I suggest you read this story... It really shows how far you can go to make what you think prevail over the law and fairness.
http://www.law-forensic.com/cfr_fish_5.htm

As for the kill the one who deliberately killed inncocent part : It's not that I really care morally if you kill him (see the very end of my post), it's just that the law should be the same for everyone to prevent abuses from the authority. We're supposed to be all equal, and you simply can't alter the law in a way that would allow you to make an exception for the "worst" cases. The court can become quite a fence when lawyers move in, a well-defined law is sometimes the only barrier available.

Concerning the incidence of death penalty on crime rate :
1) I've already stated my point of view in the former posts, to continue this discussion someone has to put out statistics

Kerii

Japan on the other hand, has 1/6 the US's muder rate, and they DO allow the death penalty. (One of three democracies in the world that still have it.)
And don't count them out simply because they live on a tiny island, their population is over 1/2 that of the US. Yes, that's 125+ million people on that little strip of land.

2) [Japan is clearly an exception concerning crime rates : do you really believe that death penalty is the reason no one steals your wallet ? nobody would get death penalty for that offense anyway. It's doubtful such a distant and unrealistic perpective of death is triggering the well-known public safety in Japan (I'm not going to steal this umbrella because i'm going to be sentenced to death, yeah, sure....). ] Forget this part, I can't read...

I think it could be tricky to prove or unprove the effects of death penalty since many cultural conformisms can play in the field of "I can / I can't do it". (this still apply IMO)


hitokiri battousai

You lose all your humanity the second you take somebodies life, even for good. I read a great quote that goes like this i believe, "The worst crimes are not commited by the body, but by the mind. For the act of wanting and planning to kill is the worst because it will probably lead to a murder." Im pretty sure thats how it goes.

It's off-topic but since each citizen is contributing to state*, each one is responsible for the misdeeds of his own state. Many times in the past, and still now, stability** was put before one right to live by the "industrialized world". As my own state has meddled in lots of dirty stories, my humanity is gone. Indirectly lots of people are already soiled. This can seem far-fetched, it's not for the ones who are the victims of these schemes.

This was the ray of hope of the day :D

*(be it by paying taxes or just by giving away the part of his freedom that allows the state to exist)
** be it for political or commercial purpose (see the past of France in Africa or the more recent funding of Talibans by the US)

[Kerii]

Umm... we're talking about murder rates? Not crime rates? :rolleyes: :p

As in... things that relate to the death penalty? :p

[oink37]

Umm... we're talking about murder rates? Not crime rates? :rolleyes: :p

As in... things that relate to the death penalty? :p

Whoops reading glitch... :D
I shall partially crop that section then

[dragonbreath]

I say execute them all, i dont care about mutch and i have very little faith in goverments doing whats right, and i dont have faith in this so called bleeding heart liberal cr^& that runs roughtshot over our lives, but i do hold faith in eye for a eye tooth for a tooth justice.

Where i come from there is a serial killer who held a position of extream trust and used it to kill a lot of ppl without detection for a long time, he was caught sentanced to life.
After a short while he hung himself in prison, many ppl including the families feel he escaped justice being served, if he had been excuted for what he did justice would have been served.

That was a extream example but it equally applies to someone who takes a life in any criminal act.

ppl can argue the moral rationals against execution, but where is the morals rationals in ppl who take a life in a criminal act, they dont deserve to be treated as one of us, and they dont deserve our time and effort in arguing why they should remain alive for what they did.

As for the argument mistakes are being made, well innocent ppl are getting killed on a daily basis, i rather have the situation where a few mistakes are being made by the law, than what we have now. But with the science we have now for determining guilt, mistakes are extreamly less likely than what they where in the past.

[Crys]

The death penalty is NOT a deterrent, but I still believe in the old eye for an eye value. If you intentionally kill someone (for the sake of killing someone), you should be put to death, as you've already shown what your purpose in this world is. Incarceration costs taxpayers lots of money per year. People guilty of capital murder should be put to death quickly, and not get to live the next ten years on death row. Even if I had wanted to see Scott Peterson go to prison for life, it would cost too much to bunk him for life, and he just isn't worth it. Waste him.

[Knifes]

The death penalty is NOT a deterrent, but I still believe in the old eye for an eye value. If you intentionally kill someone (for the sake of killing someone), you should be put to death, as you've already shown what your purpose in this world is. Incarceration costs taxpayers lots of money per year. People guilty of capital murder should be put to death quickly, and not get to live the next ten years on death row. Even if I had wanted to see Scott Peterson go to prison for life, it would cost too much to bunk him for life, and he just isn't worth it. Waste him.

uhh.. so why isn' it a deterent... it's supposedly one of the ultimate prices you pay for a bad deed. You're not supposed kill someone cause its morally wrong... but if there was ever a circumstance that someone would actaully consider it... the law acts as a another reason not to kill... so hence a deterent...

As for the rest of argument... I with ya all the way... if you're on death row no point in living a depressed life -Quick and easy.. with a bullet/electricity that would definitly cost less than a five bucks-

[Crys]

uhh.. so why isn' it a deterent... it's supposedly one of the ultimate prices you pay for a bad deed. You're not supposed kill someone cause its morally wrong... but if there was ever a circumstance that someone would actaully consider it... the law acts as a another reason not to kill... so hence a deterent...

People who commit violent acts usually don't even consider the death penalty as a form of punishment for their crimes. They commit the crime, get caught, and get sentenced. Logically speaking, the death penalty SHOULD be a deterrent (although people who commit capital murder usually aren't considering their legal prospects post-crime), but statistics show that the death penalty doesn't really deter crime, and if it does, the deterrence rate is negligible, at best.

[Knifes]

People who commit violent acts usually don't even consider the death penalty as a form of punishment for their crimes. They commit the crime, get caught, and get sentenced. Logically speaking, the death penalty SHOULD be a deterrent (although people who commit capital murder usually aren't considering their legal prospects post-crime), but statistics show that the death penalty doesn't really deter crime, and if it does, the deterrence rate is negligible, at best.

Uhh... what statistics... and how would you poll someone for that...

In any case if you just poll the convicts you would obviously get those kind of results. You can't count/poll how many people were actually "deterred" because of the law... But I believe that since the law is there... it deters... people anyway...

[ChibiFirli]

so misinformed
try banning guns means only the criminals have the guns -_-

I don't know where your from, judging from your opinion, a country where they do allow guns. In my country, there exists a group of people called "criminals without guns". I've heard a story about a person trying to rob a drugdealer with a knife (dealer scared him away with a fake gun :P). Less people with guns, less need for criminals to have guns.
Apart from that, a lot of murders happen in the heat of emotion, so restricting guns makes it harder to kill someone before that heat is over.

As for death penalty: you all may have good reasons to kill someone (though I must admid I don't agree with most of them), but I still haven't heard any good reason why we should even consider giving someone that kind of power.

[Crys]

Uhh... what statistics... and how would you poll someone for that...

In any case if you just poll the convicts you would obviously get those kind of results. You can't count/poll how many people were actually "deterred" because of the law... But I believe that since the law is there... it deters... people anyway...

You can't poll for something like that, but you have to understand that people who commit crimes don't think in terms of "what's the biggest crime I commit without getting the death penalty?"

People who commit crimes will commit crimes based on their upbringing, social demographic, and personal nature toward violence.

For example, say a person commits a violent crime in a death penalty-free area that nets them 50 years in prison. For a crime of THAT magnitude, it's rather foolish to say that the criminal would not have committed the crime had the death penalty been a threat. Besides, in cases when the death penalty IS a possibility, it's usually used. If a person committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, and the prosecutor is seeking the death penalty, the jury will recommend death. You also have to take into account that a lot of people are against the death penalty, and in jury rooms, these people will refuse death no matter what, which only serves to lessen the effect of the threat brought on by the death penalty.

The death penalty WOULD be a deterrent if it were a guarantee for a violent crime. If people were routinely and swiftly put to death for simple murder, THAT would deter a few people, but in it's current state, the death penalty system is as good as life in prison.

[Knifes]

You can't poll for something like that, but you have to understand that people who commit crimes don't think in terms of "what's the biggest crime I commit without getting the death penalty?"

People who commit crimes will commit crimes based on their upbringing, social demographic, and personal nature toward violence.

For example, say a person commits a violent crime in a death penalty-free area that nets them 50 years in prison. For a crime of THAT magnitude, it's rather foolish to say that the criminal would not have committed the crime had the death penalty been a threat. Besides, in cases when the death penalty IS a possibility, it's usually used. If a person committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, and the prosecutor is seeking the death penalty, the jury will recommend death. You also have to take into account that a lot of people are against the death penalty, and in jury rooms, these people will refuse death no matter what, which only serves to lessen the effect of the threat brought on by the death penalty.

The death penalty WOULD be a deterrent if it were a guarantee for a violent crime. If people were routinely and swiftly put to death for simple murder, THAT would deter a few people, but in it's current state, the death penalty system is as good as life in prison.

ummm... no kidding...? Obviously the deterrent isn't working to that extent... take a look at the US... it has capital punishment and criminals still do murder. All I'm saying is that the law will deter some people from committing the crime... whether its one, two three people or more... if the law directly prevents a crime by example from being committed, then its a deterrent. And even though there are some people who acknowledge the law... it's thier choice whether they abide by the law or not...

[pawlee]

I've seen a few comments in pro-capital punishment posts to the effect of "murderers aren't the same as regular people" (for example, dragonbreath wrote: "they dont deserve to be treated as one of us").

This brings to mind the golden rule. If you were to kill another in the heat of the moment, would you want to enforce the death penalty?

[Cyrano]

First of all, the death penalty increases violent crimes, if statistics have anything to say about it. There was a chart referenced earlier that directly correlates this. Secondly, guns cause more problems than they have ever solved. They're responsible for the most oppression, tyranny, and death in this world, ever. Guns have killed more than any other weapon that has ever existed. They also require little skill to use, and are very effective.

Because of this, guns are a problem. If they were removed from the hands of citizens, homicides instantly and drastically go down. To even out this, anyone who is allowed to have a gun (soldiers, police) would be subject to stringent regulation, thereby limiting the amount of use, and also providing large criminal penalties ON THE OFFICER'S SIDE if they do something wrong (i.e., shooting someone without very just cause). In other words, you balance the system so that those with weapons will not become tyrannical. The government could also require psychological evaluations and other tests to ensure safety.

[brakespear]

if the law directly prevents a crime by example from being committed, then its a deterrent. And even though there are some people who acknowledge the law... it's thier choice whether they abide by the law or not...
Yeah, that's why so many of us steered clear of suprnova and the others....

[Kerii]

Oh it's not a deterrent? You wanted to take a poll? Here's a quick one:

Lets assume there's someone you really hate for whatever reason. They piss you off so much sometimes you wish you could just kill them. But, assuming you haven't yet, what's stopped you? Life in prison? Death?

Or has it made you think of alternatives to harming them, like slashing their tires?



If you answered yes to ANY of the above, then the deterrent factor works.

[ChibiFirli]

Court, prison, ...
We don't have death penalty here, those two above are deterrent enough for me. I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.

[Kerii]

Court, prison, ...
We don't have death penalty here, those two above are deterrent enough for me. I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.You'd be surprised how many people try and get an appeal after being sentenced to death. Even if the most they can win is the rest of their life in prison.

[brakespear]

Oh it's not a deterrent? You wanted to take a poll? Here's a quick one:

Lets assume there's someone you really hate for whatever reason. They piss you off so much sometimes you wish you could just kill them. But, assuming you haven't yet, what's stopped you? Life in prison? Death?

Or has it made you think of alternatives to harming them, like slashing their tires?



If you answered yes to ANY of the above, then the deterrent factor works.
Personally...no, it's the fact that killing anybody is wrong, even if it's state-sponsored...if killing people is wrong then how does killing people make it better?

[Kerii]

Personally...no, it's the fact that killing anybody is wrong, even if it's state-sponsored...if killing people is wrong then how does killing people make it better?Well, I never said it would make it better (you mean for the murder victim's families I assume?).

So far I've not said anything about the ramifications of the death penalty. It's not my area. :p

But if you really want my 2 cents:
Because the prisons are already overcrowded enough as is.
You'd be amazed at what kind of people they're releaseing these days.
And I most definitely don't want some lunatic released on good behavior, even if it was 30 years good behavior.

[brakespear]

Well, I never said it would make it better (you mean for the murder victim's families I assume?).

So far I've not said anything about the ramifications of the death penalty. It's not my area. :p

But if you really want my 2 cents:
Because the prisons are already overcrowded enough as is.
You'd be amazed at what kind of people they're releaseing these days.
And I most definitely don't want some lunatic released on good behavior, even if it was 30 years good behavior.
I agree entirely....maybe too many people are being locked up for more trivial crimes (drugs possesion, fraud,, non-violent stuff) who could be put to work in the community instead,,,

[ranman1313]

I am against the death penalty, not because of i believe it is immoral but because the economic problems of putting someone to death. After a person goes through the courts and everything else to be put to death it would cost the government more than actually imprisioning them for life.

[Cyrano]

A problem with the death penalty that most people don't seem to understand is that life isn't fair. The death penalty works on this "eye for an eye" constituency, which is essentially the same as burning witches or murdering blacks. It's attempting to justify something as being "absolutely wrong." Unfortunately, people don't understand that life isn't fair. Killing one person isn't going to make the person they killed come back. It isn't going to ease the pain of having a loved one taken away from you. There is nothing to be gained from killing and while no one can refute that, people still do it so they can have their unjust "justice."

[Kerii]

So we should toss them in jail for the rest of their lives, and then 30 years down the road when everybody (except the murder victim's family) forgets about it, release them and let them kill more people?

Just give them a free $24,000 a year lifestyle for 30 years and then say bye bye?

I think not.

"Eye for an eye"?
Which country's death penalty are you referring to?
Because the US's death penalty is administered on the basis of preventing further atrocities from being committed by the criminal.

[Kitee]

So we should toss them in jail for the rest of their lives, and then 30 years down the road when everybody (except the murder victim's family) forgets about it, release them and let them kill more people?

After 30 years of "doing the same things over and over and over" again. They would most likely not do what they've done in the past seeing that they'll spend another 30 years if they have done so.

[Cyrano]

So we should toss them in jail for the rest of their lives, and then 30 years down the road when everybody (except the murder victim's family) forgets about it, release them and let them kill more people?

Just give them a free $24,000 a year lifestyle for 30 years and then say bye bye?

I think not.

"Eye for an eye"?
Which country's death penalty are you referring to?
Because the US's death penalty is administered on the basis of preventing further atrocities from being committed by the criminal.
Yes. Put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Again, make prison less accomodating.

Also, a person who gets the death penalty is essentially sentenced to life imprisonment, so I don't know how someone getting only 30 years in prison has any relevance to the subject matter. (Murder is 25 to life, and generally a conviction means you're getting life. Plea bargaining is generally the only way to make it lower than that.)

The US's death penalty is not based on prevention. That's a load of bullshit and everyone knows it. If you ask any person who intentionally kills someone what they were thinking about when they killed the person, I PROMISE you it has nothing to do with whether or not they would get the death penalty. Maybe in retrospect that might be an answer, but at that moment? No way. It's not even within the realm of possibility.

In other words, if a person wants to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it, and no death penalty is going to stop them. The death penalty is a way to appeal to those who feel they did not have justice served. The problem is that killing someone isn't really justice, it's just continuing the cycle of hate. Every great philosopher has it, as a matter of good practice, that violence, and especially murder, solves nothing, no matter the reason. Most even say that violence typically prolongs the problem. (Don't believe me? Jesus, Buddha, Dalai Lama, take your pick. You will never find them saying killing is justified. Ever.)

[Kerii]

Yeah, and you can see plainly what believing in those religious figures leads to. :p

Maybe in a perfect world religion would work out, but people are too stupid and will simply abuse it, as can be seen on the news everyday.
Except on TV, all murders are "justified", depending on which continent you're viewing from.

[Crys]

Yes. Put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Again, make prison less accomodating.

Also, a person who gets the death penalty is essentially sentenced to life imprisonment, so I don't know how someone getting only 30 years in prison has any relevance to the subject matter. (Murder is 25 to life, and generally a conviction means you're getting life. Plea bargaining is generally the only way to make it lower than that.)

The US's death penalty is not based on prevention. That's a load of bullshit and everyone knows it. If you ask any person who intentionally kills someone what they were thinking about when they killed the person, I PROMISE you it has nothing to do with whether or not they would get the death penalty. Maybe in retrospect that might be an answer, but at that moment? No way. It's not even within the realm of possibility.

In other words, if a person wants to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it, and no death penalty is going to stop them. The death penalty is a way to appeal to those who feel they did not have justice served. The problem is that killing someone isn't really justice, it's just continuing the cycle of hate. Every great philosopher has it, as a matter of good practice, that violence, and especially murder, solves nothing, no matter the reason. Most even say that violence typically prolongs the problem. (Don't believe me? Jesus, Buddha, Dalai Lama, take your pick. You will never find them saying killing is justified. Ever.)

Life in prison with hard labor sounds like a great plan. Make prison the deterrent, not the death penalty. Prison would be a great idea if it wasn't such a burden on the taxpayers.

But Jesus didn't have to deal daily with hardened criminals who would commit violent crimes with no regrets in a high society that looked down at any kind of violence.

Whether violence solves anything or not is beside the point, though. We STILL have to deal with criminals and murderers. We're not going to let them run around killing each other, so we either keep them locked up or dispose of them. Keeping them locked up means that the good people of society who pay taxes have to pay to help support these people whom society deemed unworthy to mingle with the common man.

Our prisons are overcrowded as it is. Are we just going to build more prisons so we can keep on feeding hardened criminals?

[Toolix]

I believe that it is morally wrong to take revenge for murder, in the form of the death penalty. It's easy to pull out a few statistics and say that countries without the penalty have a lower crime rate, but America isn't your average country.
You probably know that from an early age they've had to deal with more gun violence and crime then any other country in the world, and if you take a way a punishment and replace it with a lesser sentence... surely that will encourage more violence? As someone

[Knifes]

Court, prison, ...
We don't have death penalty here, those two above are deterrent enough for me. I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.

I'm going with Firli with this one. Enlighten me, what does life in prison teach us besides being a deterrent... to keep people cooped up in prison and be an example that your bad? That's not my idea of retribution... And besides... hard labor? That's also not fulfilling my purpose here on this puny planet of ours...

if you ask me, death sounds pretty good when you can

[Toolix]

Enlighten me, what does life in prison teach us besides being a deterrent...
lol, prison is the university of criminals, many people go in there knowing nothing and come out with criminal connections and knowledge :p Usually prison only deters the inexperienced and na

[Knifes]

[QUOTE=Toolix]lol, prison is the university of criminals, many people go in there knowing nothing and come out with criminal connections and knowledge :p Usually prison only deters the inexperienced and na

[Desmonthes]

:eek:to me a death penalty (if i ever have one :p) is better than having to be in prison for 50 year

[Cyrano]

To begin. Jesus dealt with hardened criminals every day. Most people he talked to had committed crimes in some way, many of them violent. He reformed many through his words alone.

Crime will not solve crime. Here's a solution. Torture. Yes, it may sound inhumane, but torture works far better as a deterrent. Why do you think organized crime manages to stay organized? I promise you it has nothing to do with fear of dying. It has to do with fear of what happens if you manage to stay alive after betraying the organization.

They use fear, and in my opinion, that should be the deterrent used. You **** up, you get ****ed up. Fits in nicely with those people who want an eye for an eye. Ever heard the term you'd be surprised what you can live through? Apply that theory to the criminal justice system. I'd find the justice system more just if it actually PUNISHED criminals instead of just put them in a place to stew for a couple years. Don't say the justice system punishes people with the death penalty either. It's not a real punishment anyways. Even if they don't die they're gonna rot in a cell for the rest of their life. Either way, the death penalty applies. It's just the manner. I prefer for them to die slowly, instead of instantly.

[kakunou]

Violence as a way of achieving (racial) justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'd rather not really say my personal viewpoint on this, since it seems like the rest of you are having enough fun going back and forth. I just wanted to point out the quote above, sans the point of racism that was trying to be made, and if you let "violence" equate "execution" or something. It still applies somewhat, I believe. I'll say this, though - that Scott Peterson guy deserves to die.

Interesting but useless fact from Natsumi's sleepy brain: A person is more likely to die on death row than to actually be executed in the state of California; the last execution, held in 2002, was put off for nearly 20 years.

[ChibiFirli]

I don't like torture either, though I must admit it's a better deterrent. I don't like any of the methods that do serious and/or unrepairable damage. The justice system isn't failproof enough. And I'm not only talking about mistakes, you can frame people, media can influence trials, and sometimes people just need a scapegoat. That's not counting people who just love to see other people's misery (in the middle ages, hanging used to be a spectacle, this does increase the number of hangings).
And I'll mention it again: if you don't care about the wellbeing of criminals, you give police and jailkeepers the right to do with them as they wish. Creating more violence, maybe even to people who just got arrested and aren't even proven guilty.

[Cyrano]

How about this? How about we just keep the possibility of the death penalty around so that all you right wing whackjobs will be able to have your little cross-burnings, and in reality, no death penalty will ever be executed by the states? This way, everyone gets to keep their "fear" of the death penalty, and no one dies because of it.

[mahouneko]

I think the whole "against cruel and unusual" punishment in the US Constitution is a load of BS. If the government really wants to have an orderly society, it has to understand that it must install very hard rules and stick with it. The whole Human Rights thing should not apply to murderers who premeditate and those who massacre others. The argument of "a brutal execution defeats the whole purpose of having Human Rights" is valid, SO BE IT. Without brutal and excruciatingly painful and tortuous executions, criminals have NOTHING to fear. The way things are, they see Prisons as a safe haven for the unemployed. I mean seriously, the facilities of a modern-day US Prison is comparable to a FIVE STAR HOTEL. Do you not understand the bitter irony of it? We're wasting money in maintaining facilities that actually ENCOURAGE crime itself.

[Kerii]

I think the whole "against cruel and unusual" punishment in the US Constitution is a load of BS. If the government really wants to have an orderly society, it has to understand that it must install very hard rules and stick with it. The whole Human Rights thing should not apply to murderers who premeditate and those who massacre others. The argument of "a brutal execution defeats the whole purpose of having Human Rights" is valid, SO BE IT. Without brutal and excruciatingly painful and tortuous executions, criminals have NOTHING to fear. The way things are, they see Prisons as a safe haven for the unemployed. I mean seriously, the facilities of a modern-day US Prison is comparable to a FIVE STAR HOTEL. Do you not understand the bitter irony of it? We're wasting money in maintaining facilities that actually ENCOURAGE crime itself.I wonder what would happen if someone actually just came out and admitted it outright during their trial that they killed someone simply to get a free ride. :p

[mahouneko]

I think that someone HAS admitted to doing that. I read about it once but wasn't sure how long ago it was. I think it was about 5-7 years ago or something. I could be wrong.

[Kerii]

You were reading about that stuff when you were 13-15? :p

[Para]

Remember you people aren't here to force opinions on eachother.

Several ways you can view this in which some people have said but I'll just say them again just incase.

Probably a common Canadian view, in which is usually represented by the four Rs: retribution, restitution, rehabilitation and restraint. You look to jail the offender, give compensation to the victims, make the offender serve time, hope that they learn a lesson then let them back into society with probation.

No Death penalty: You don't look like a hypocrite. What so good about killing a murderer yourself when you just killed someone? You could turn the offender back into a contributing member of society and set a good example for others. Besides, thou shall not kill.

For Death Penalty: Save taxpayers money, eliminate a possible threat to society. Sometimes people won't change so its better just killing them.

My personal view: I don't truly support death penalty. Especially on the first offence. If a person does break the same law several times then that person could be understood as not being able to change then MAYBE death penalty can be a justifiable cause in my opinion. However I rather have a feeling in which I can actually accomplish things without violence first. Usually when someone does something, the main thing I ever wonder and ask is "why?" Whether their reason is good or not doesn't mean they won't get jailed. Its about how severe the penalty is.

A person kills because he enjoys killing. If you try to convince he/she is wrong first but refuses to change his/her opinion then I guess death penalty is justifiable. However if a person killed someone by accident and feels remorse then you could convince that person that it was wrong and such and should not ever kill again.

Really giving a cold blooded killer a death penalty is somewhat an easy way out.

[Knifes]

I always wondered if that were possible... just another choice besides living in the streets ya know... heck, you would get medical attention too and not pay a dime for it... though it'd more boring than living it out in the streets of NYC...

And five star hotel? ...wow... could you get anymore exaggeration?

Knifes2.0: how 'bout six stars?

EDIT: ya know sometimes the best ways out is the most easy way out, Para..

[hitokiri battousai]

No matter the reason why you kill somebody, even if it is in self-defense or to save somebody; it is still murder and in my opinion you will still lose your humanity. But, i believe that it may be possble to regain your humanity, how you may do that i dont know. The trick about killing somebody is that you cant decide to undo it after the person is dead.

[nekobekko]

I always wondered if that were possible... just another choice besides living in the streets ya know... heck, you would get medical attention too and not pay a dime for it... though it'd more boring than living it out in the streets of NYC...

Brings up a good point about poverty. Lots of people whould favor jail over the living conditions that they are in.

No matter the reason why you kill somebody, even if it is in self-defense or to save somebody; it is still murder and in my opinion you will still lose your humanity. In my opinion, to stand by and watch while an innocent person is being murdered and doing nothing would cause you to loose you humanity. Again I state that I favor using force to defend somebody else, but only what is nescisarry. But if I have to give my humanity up in order to save a child, then so be it. I'd gladly give what I have to save somebody.
Another quote: 'the only thing nescisarry for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing'

[hitokiri battousai]

I would quote Nekobekko but I dont know how. But i agree with you, I would def. sacrifice my humanity to help even just one innocent person. But if you think about it, what good is your humanity. If you ask me, its overrated.

[nekobekko]

I would quote Nekobekko but I dont know how. But i agree with you, I would def. sacrifice my humanity to help even just one innocent person. But if you think about it, what good is your humanity. If you ask me, its overrated.
A rollercoaster of emotions. huh... confusing sometimes.
to quote you can click on the quote button on the bottom of a person's post. or you can put "QUOTE=person's name" in brackets (use brackets instead of quotation marks) and then type their quote and then put "/QUOTE" in brackets to end it.

[hitokiri battousai]

Thanks, now i finally feel like i can do something everybody else has been doing lol. But ya if you think about it, what good is your humanity in a inhumane world?

[nekobekko]

Thanks, now i finally feel like i can do something everybody else has been doing lol. But ya if you think about it, what good is your humanity in a inhumane world?
It depends on your definition of 'humanity'

[tofuman80]

To defend the good of humanity, and eliminate the bad....if only it could be possible...

[nekobekko]

To defend the good of humanity, and eliminate the bad....if only it could be possible...
Some believe that humanity consists of both good and bad. I guess I agree to some extent. I don't think there is anybody who is blameless nor is there sombody that is totally void of good. But mabey I am wrong on the latter :D

[Toolix]

uhh... come out? This is life here... nothing much like the ten-year or fifty years... And if you're in there for life... what kind of knowledge can you actaully put to good use?
People have been known to come out on parole after 8-9 years for murder with a life sentence, so in all that time they'll have met a few criminals etc. and (obviously not always) be more dangerous when they're free again. Plus I was talking about Prison as a deterrent in general anyway. :p

[Cyrano]

I think anyone who debates that killing somebody who kills is right, is rather idiotic. You cannot solve a problem with the problem.

[tofuman80]

I think anyone who debates that killing somebody who kills is right, is rather idiotic. You cannot solve a problem with the problem.

So tell me, how do we go about solving this problem then?

[Cyrano]

I don't know. I never said I had all the answers. I just know it doesn't lie within the problem.

(I actually should say I might know, but the thing is that I cannot create something unified enough that someone won't ***** at. In other words, I can't make it absolute enough. Despite the fact that almost all civilized nations have removed the death penalty as a punishment, people keep it around, mostly, in my opinion, because of where it originally comes from. Ritualistic killing is a very old practice, and as a result, it may be a very long time before people figure out that we don't live in the stone age anymore.)

[nekobekko]

@tofuman80
There is no solution. There are remedies though. I believe education and acceptance are important ways to go about it.

[Cyrano]

Also, another thing I'm curious about. Why is bullshit not censored, but b-itch (*****) is? (Though the greater question would be why bother censoring stuff anyways, considering there's a huge amount of porn being thrown about on the servers, I'm not quite sure why words need to be restricted.)

[nekobekko]

Also, another thing I'm curious about. Why is bullshit not censored, but b-itch (*****) is? (Though the greater question would be why bother censoring stuff anyways, considering there's a huge amount of porn being thrown about on the servers, I'm not quite sure why words need to be restricted.)
the 'b' word is very discriminatory twords women. Also, I don't want porn and foul language shoveled in my face every second. This site is for anime as well you know.

[Cyrano]

Yeah, but b-itch is still considered less offensive than the word bullshit, if you go by something like TV's censor list. Bullshit will be censored, but b-itch won't. (and again, I don't understand. What the hell happened to freedom of speech anyways? Oh yeah, I forgot, we're not allowed to have that as long as we live in a land too afraid to admit it's not perfect.)

[nekobekko]

Yeah, but b-itch is still considered less offensive than the word bullshit, if you go by something like TV's censor list. Bullshit will be censored, but b-itch won't. I guess your right. Perhaps it hasn't been added to the no no list yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
After 45 votes we have our first neutral vote.....

[Cyrano]

Problem is, b-itch is on a pretty low level. It's around damn or crap. So what's the deal?

Why not just let people say what they want to anyways? It isn't like it's brain surgery to bypass the filter anyway. Is it really worth keeping 50 lines of extraneous code so people won't say words that anyone on this board already knows anyway?

[hitokiri battousai]

Why has this gone from the death penalty to profanity??? Whos "idiotic" idea was this. You know my motto, "Fight fire with fire".

[Cyrano]

Because arguing about the death penalty with people you cannot punch is trite.

[hitokiri battousai]

yes well, alas this is a thread for the death penalty. and punching somebody in an argument is just idiotic and rather imature.

[Kitee]

It's not fun to keep reading post after post of offensive words.
But those who usually write like that can bypass the censored words somehow like putting a dash in between the words or change a letter to *.
You can choose not to download hentai torrents, but you cannot choose to not read a post after you've seen that it's crammed with swear words and such.

[nekobekko]

Because arguing about the death penalty with people you cannot punch is trite.
Warning!!! Flame War Erupting

[Cyrano]

hitokiri. I pose to you a question. Is there any point in debating something that has no answer that is satisfactory to all parties, nor will it ever?

You see, dabbling in the realm of philosophy is problematic because it does not give any precise answers. It gives guidelines with which one can follow to hopefully lead a better life. However, death is something that is completely unknown. If people actually knew that death was a happy, fun place, the death penalty wouldn't be used at all, it'd be considered a GOOD thing. However, death is actually seen with a sense of mystery. This is why death eludes answer. Because death itself does not give any answers, nor does take any. Death simply is. As a result, whether death comes by others or naturally, it will occur. So, the question is not how, but why, should a person have to die by the hands of a person, if they would die anyways naturally? This then becomes the dilemma. Can you justify killing? Not really, nor you can justify natural death, because death simply is. So, no matter the answer to the question, there will always be dissenting viewpoints. Thus, there is no point in arguing something without any real answer.

Language on the other hand, has very real answers, and serves a much more cogent, and useful purpose. Being able to curse is something useful for many purposes, besides the initial one of simply being its initial meaning, and as a result, should likely be unrestricted considering the anonymity of the forum, and the content directly related to the forum. Also, what is so wrong with curse words? The only thing they show is that we're human, and I know that while everyone hates to show their humanity, I still think that we should be allowed to be imperfect if we wish.

[Kitee]

Warning!!! Flame War Erupting
Hahaha
Cyrano is part of the Stubborn Ranters you know.
It's only natural. :D :D :D :D

[Cyrano]

What the hell is the stubborn ranters, and how did I become affiliated with it? I haven't even heard of it.

[Kitee]

What the hell is the stubborn ranters, and how did I become affiliated with it? I haven't even heard of it.
Hm.. you should really consult Knifes or TheException about this matter. Although I'm part of this, I can't really give you a well explained "arguable" answer like they can. :)

[Cyrano]

Why exactly did they decide to "include" me in their lovely little group, considering I don't even know what the hell it is?

[hitokiri battousai]

But you see Cryano, death can be justified. Imagine one of your own family members or good friend wrongfully killed by a bored psychotic person. Would you not wnat them to die in return? If anyone did that to me, i would seek vengeance on my own. I personally would not wait for the criminal to be cought and tried, I would go and hunt them down personally. And there is nothing worng with discussing profanity, BUT this is NOT a profanity thread. If you wish to discuss profanity then start a profanity thread.

[Amphibious Ray]

I did research on this for a debate before, and even now, I'm neutral on the subject. It has been proven that the death penalty does not deter crime at all. (Interesting eh?) And besides, I've always found a in the art of torture. :cool: JK JK

[Kitee]

Why exactly did they decide to "include" me in their lovely little group, considering I don't even know what the hell it is?
Well.
We basically include any ranters that are stubborn. Simple as that.
Well.. anyways, I'll stop now, so that this won't stray too far away from the topic.

[nekobekko]

I did research on this for a debate before, and even now, I'm neutral on the subject. It has been proven that the death penalty does not deter crime at all. (Interesting eh?) And besides, I've always found a in the art of torture. :cool: JK JK
It is rare to find somebody that is neutral on this topic. 45 people voted before the first netural vote
I wonder why there are less neutral people?

[Cyrano]

That's not justification, it's just what you called it. Revenge. You may feel better, but the problem will not be solved. If you have any knowledge of philosophy, even at a base level, you know that problems are not solved by trying to use the problem as a solution. However, I'm willing to bet that you have little to no knowledge of philosophy, history, or anything else, and will never learn this, because you're arrogant. As long as you're arrogant, you'll have hatred, and as long as you have hatred, you'll never be able to truly understand anything. Hate blinds you. Love lets you see.

I don't really consider myself stubborn HereAtThere, I just don't see anyone with compelling arguments to the contrary of some of my ideas.

Neutrality means you're afraid your decision will be the wrong one.

[TheException]

WOW this thread has gone crazy!!!...i wish i had plentiful internet where i am right now...i would rant as usual....
The Stubborn Ranters is a the group of people who ALWAYS argue on HF. If you browse all philosophical/debate threads on Hongfire, you will always see the same names appear over again: the stubborn ranters.

Cyrano, if you look at our discussions on ask god a question/philosophy in life threads...i think all of us can be considered somewhat stubborn. This is by no means negative.

Coming back to this thread though, for once i must agree with Cyrano. This is good arguments you have here.

And hitokiri battousai : correction: fire cannot be fought with fire. Fire breeds more fire. Water fights fire better than anything else, and fire certainly can't fight fire. Hatred cannot fight hatred. Love is the what cools hatred down. Love is our most powerful weapon.

[Crys]

Some people commit crimes in America when they feel that their "honor" has been violated, like in inner-city communities; "You call my sister a whore, I shoot you in the face". These problems need to be rectified within the problematic communities. How should we go about fixing this? The death penalty is not the answer here.

Some people commit cries in America simply out of desperation, i.e. "I'm starving and need money and I have nobody else to turn to, so I'll knock over a bank for what little cash I can grab". The death penalty may not apply here (unless desperation causes them to take hostages and start killing people).

Some people commit crimes because they are not right in the head. As much as some people may call for the death penalty, there are institutions for the criminally insane, or just plain mental institutions located all over the country for these kinds of people where they can receive the kinds of attention to their illnesses that they require.

Some people, however, commit crimes because of unrepentantly violent tendencies. THESE people are who the death penalty is intended for. It's not intended as a deterrent, but as a form of capital punishment and as a means of forever keeping them from going out into society and repeating the actions that brought the death penalty upon them. Although it's not intended as a deterrent, deterrency is one of the latent functions of the death penalty. People who fit under this category should be put to death. Life in prison for a 25-year old who lives to be 65 years old amounts to roughly $1 million straight from the taxpayers' pockets. Besides, some of us have heard stories of families who have begged the judge to go easy on their wrongdoer ("Killing him won't bring my dead child back"), only to be shocked when they have to testify in front of the next victim's family at the repeat offender's next trial.

The death penalty is just that: A penalty of death. Its purpose is to remove the undesirable element from society in such a way that the aforementioned element's existence will no longer be a menace to the common citizen's well-being.

And to Cyrano: Yes, Jesus dealt with hardened criminals, who, as the Bible says, usually fell prostrate before him in repentance. How many hardened criminals who are given the death penalty do that these days?

[hitokiri battousai]

Cryano i am most likely much more intelligent than you will ever be. In fact I love history and philosoohy and have taken quite a few college courses on those subjects. And if you ask me it is YOU the one whom is arrogant because you will argue with anyone about anything. Im sure if somebaody told you that the word moo started with an "M" you would disagree. And as far as what Theexception said about fighting fire with fire, i do agree with him in many ways. But in this type of world, it is very hard to solve anything by any other means.

[Cyrano]

And to Cyrano: Yes, Jesus dealt with hardened criminals, who, as the Bible says, usually fell prostrate before him in repentance. How many hardened criminals who are given the death penalty do that these days?
How many criminals had the chance? If they did, do you think they would be forgiven?


Cryano i am most likely much more intelligent than you will ever be. In fact I love history and philosoohy and have taken quite a few college courses on those subjects. And if you ask me it is YOU the one whom is arrogant because you will argue with anyone about anything. Im sure if somebaody told you that the word moo started with an "M" you would disagree. And as far as what Theexception said about fighting fire with fire, i do agree with him in many ways. But in this type of world, it is very hard to solve anything by any other means. Glad you're more intelligent than me. I'm also glad that you taking a few college courses on the subject matter makes you an expert in those fields. I suppose if I could understand what the hell you're talking about (your sentence structure really IS that bad), I might debate with you further. But not only are you no longer arguing anything (I think), you're also making shit up in a rather poor attempt to defend yourself. (In reference to the moo thing, which makes you a moron to think anyone would debate something so incredibly stupid.) Quit spending time asserting yourself and actually look at what was said. I know that you've got a lot of hate hitokiri, mostly because of your overly defensive nature. You can't understand if you never open your eyes.

[Para]

Don't make me slap a few of you guys silly.
Everyone has their own frigging opinion whether right or wrong. Yes you could try to debate it but don't resort to flame and flame baiting.

Crys basically elaborated what I said on the death penalty for his first 3 parts. The 4th part I would incline to believe that you would try to understand those "urges and tendancies" first before issuing the death penalty.

[Cyrano]

Why not use flaming? It, in my opinion, reflects a person's character moreso than anything else. When someone is attacked there are many ways to react, so why not? It reflects them in a truer sense.

Also, Para, we already know everyone has their opinion. Don't start preaching to the choir.

[Amphibious Ray]

It is rare to find somebody that is neutral on this topic. 45 people voted before the first netural vote
I wonder why there are less neutral people?

That's because I voted torture lol. But anywho, an issue as controversial as this is bound to have a lot of opinion. And neutral is usually a) the guy doesn't know wth is going on; b) the guy finds it too difficult to come to a conclusion; c) The facts don't support their opinion.

I'm a b and c, sometimes a. ;)

[Knifes]

Why not use flaming? It, in my opinion, reflects a person's character moreso than anything else. When someone is attacked there are many ways to react, so why not? It reflects them in a truer sense.

Also, Para, we already know everyone has their opinion. Don't start preaching to the choir.

Dude, here's an unspoken rule back in my other forum... don't talk back to the mods besides Para is just doing a mod's job...

And flaming and curses? What the heck are you talking about? Freedom of speech doesn't totally apply here at HF. If you havn't known, this a private site, which can ban you. Flaming only causes people to also get mad, as nothing and no one else will learn aything from doing so. And techinically you started it with this post to the batousai...so chill out will ya?


That's not justification, it's just what you called it. Revenge. You may feel better, but the problem will not be solved. If you have any knowledge of philosophy, even at a base level, you know that problems are not solved by trying to use the problem as a solution. However, I'm willing to bet that you have little to no knowledge of philosophy, history, or anything else, and will never learn this, because you're arrogant. As long as you're arrogant, you'll have hatred, and as long as you have hatred, you'll never be able to truly understand anything. Hate blinds you. Love lets you see.

[HFJuon]

There are those who argue that the death penalty deters crime by presenting the ultimate consequence for one's actions. There probably is some truth to that.

But ultimately I weigh that against the value of studying those who would otherwise be put to death. Is it not more beneficial to society to replace the death penalty with an exile penalty? What I mean by that is the person essentially becomes exiled from society. No rights of any kind. A tool for research to better treat the causes & behaviors of crime.

Case in point, the Scott Petterson trial. Is it not better for mankind to convict Petterson with an exile penalty than a death penalty? We can probe his mind & analyze his thought process to no end. We can build a substantial case profile to
determine what made him do it & how we as a society made be able to deter such people in the future.

[Toolix]

As long as you're arrogant, you'll have hatred, and as long as you have hatred, you'll never be able to truly understand anything. Hate blinds you. Love lets you see.
Arrogance leads to hatred... hatred leads to anger... anger leads to the DARK SIDE!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[antchuck]

It is rare to find somebody that is neutral on this topic. 45 people voted before the first netural vote
I wonder why there are less neutral people?

I suppose most neutral people just don't vote at all.


But ultimately I weigh that against the value of studying those who would otherwise be put to death. Is it not more beneficial to society to replace the death penalty with an exile penalty? What I mean by that is the person essentially becomes exiled from society. No rights of any kind. A tool for research to better treat the causes & behaviors of crime.

You want to turn them into labratory rats? Isn't that just another form of torture? And what to do with such people once this "research" is done. (It wouldn't take so much time to finish, would it?)

I find idea of stripping criminals of their right intresting. (Like : No lawyer for you next time!*)

*I'm not being serious right now

[Para]

Why not use flaming? It, in my opinion, reflects a person's character moreso than anything else. When someone is attacked there are many ways to react, so why not? It reflects them in a truer sense.

Also, Para, we already know everyone has their opinion. Don't start preaching to the choir.

Why no flaming? Knifes said it but let me say it again. Its against the rules and that's final. So don't start or I'll slap you silly like you were a zero post junior member.

Preaching to the choir? I am just repeating what hong would say because some people here don't seem to understand that.

[Cyrano]

You learn nothing from a dead man. You cannot justify killing, but if you want to continue to believe so, that's fine. When you're ready you'll figure it out on your own. Problem is I'm mostly debating with teenagers who have no sense of how important life is because they've lived so little of it. There is an amazing amount of knowledge to be had, even from the craziest murderer. That knowledge is far more important than a person satisfying their need for vengeance. So please, don't try to make me believe killing somebody is justified.

Knifes, I'll talk back to whoever I want to. The mods aren't special gods who allow me to exist, nor are the admins. I respect them, but it doesn't mean I don't have the right to question them. I do not have to agree with those who blindly agree with someone else because of their status, nor do I have to agree with the admins or mods. If the worse they can do is ban my account, then I must say I'm not phased at all. Accounts are a dime a dozen. Considering you don't even NEED an account to download torrents, there's even less importance in having them. (And don't tell me, "Well you need one for hentai." I don't watch that shit.)

[ChibiFirli]

You want to turn them into labratory rats? Isn't that just another form of torture? And what to do with such people once this "research" is done. (It wouldn't take so much time to finish, would it?)

I find idea of stripping criminals of their right intresting. (Like : No lawyer for you next time!*)

*I'm not being serious right now

I think you can research their behaviour in non-invasive ways, so it wouldn't be torture. Would probably take several years, maybe even 20 or 30 years. And after that...proces them into dogfood? :D Seriously, maybe you can cure the psychological condition that caused them to do wrong in the first place (Yay, to re-education-centers :D) and set them free :P.
Anyway, knowledge (and acting upon it) prevents hazards better than anything else, so improving knowledge doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

edit: so, posting right before me... :P, did I give you permission for that? *looks at frowning at cyrano* and change your birthdate before anyone finds out you're a teenager as well :P

[HFJuon]

Yes. I do want to turn them into lab rats. They still have the opportunity to exercise some degree of freedom with life being the biggest of them all. What do I do when I'm finished with them? Well that's obvious. I'm never finished with them until I've cured them. So when the criminal psychologist review board deemed it was ok to end the exile they would be allowed to return to society under the supervision & monitoring of the state.

Think Clockwork Orange only not so intrusive or extensively brutal. Clockwork Orange was more interested in the cure than the cause. My version would be far more interested in the cause. We need to know what happened in Scott Peterson's life to cause him to care so little for his wife. Was it the school he attended, the courses he took, the teachers who taught him, his freinds, peers, acquaitances, movies he saw, video games he played, books he read, or other media influences? was it social groups he belonged to. Basically every & all aspects of his life would be under a microscope.

I thought of the same thing with Abu Prison scandal. I as a concerned citizen of the world want to every & all aspects of the people's life who committed those attrocities.
I want the same questions asked. That is how we learn. We do pattern matching against criminals & their behavior to find common links.

This is like the whole MFI charging for fan-sub debate. Choice 1) The person is put to death or the anime is no longer subbed. Choice 2) The person remains a live & the anime can still be subbed. In choice 2) obviously the freedoms of both the person & the subber are considerably curtailed.

I take the position that some freedom is better than no freedom ;)

[Kitee]

Cyrano: How can you brand people arrogant when You yourself is arrogant?
Whenever you can't seem to back yourself up, you just brand them names.
Take closed minded for example. I believe everone on the philosophy thread was branded closed minded by you. Or do you actually just feel the happiness to argue with everyone on everything? As i agree with Hitokiri, you would definitely argue when someone says that Moo starts with a m. You would most probaby say that it's not m, It's M.

[Toolix]

The best solution for a proper alternative for the Death Penalty is to round up all suitable criminals who are sentenced to death and put them in the Army!
If we use them as a front-line human shield against an enemy they'll die anyway, but will provide cover for the actual army to safely kill off the enemy :D
Therefore, being productive members of Army, and not wasted in prison :p

[greattenchimasaki]

The best solution for a proper alternative for the Death Penalty is to round up all suitable criminals who are sentenced to death and put them in the Army!
If we use them as a front-line human shield against an enemy they'll die anyway, but will provide cover for the actual army to safely kill off the enemy :D
Therefore, being productive members of Army, and not wasted in prison :p

good idea! they should do that!

[Knifes]

Knifes, I'll talk back to whoever I want to. The mods aren't special gods who allow me to exist, nor are the admins. I respect them, but it doesn't mean I don't have the right to question them. I do not have to agree with those who blindly agree with someone else because of their status, nor do I have to agree with the admins or mods. If the worse they can do is ban my account, then I must say I'm not phased at all. Accounts are a dime a dozen. Considering you don't even NEED an account to download torrents, there's even less importance in having them. (And don't tell me, "Well you need one for hentai." I don't watch that shit.)

uhh... okay... if you don't want to listen to me, HereAtThere, or Para... then just know we fully warned ya beforehand okay? And when banning, I believe that your ip adress is banned too... and so thus you can't d/l even if you wanted to... (ip tracking thingie) ...even as guest on that computer you're using...

[Cyrano]

Yep. Banning my proxy's IP will do a lot of good. Not to mention that my actual IP and even routing numbers are dynamic. Honestly Knifes, know what you're talking about before you speak. You cannot "ban" a person who knows the loopholes. I know every one of them.

HereAtThere, I could use tons of facts to support just about any argument, and I could easily prove that crime rates are lower without the death penalty. That doesn't matter though. Anyone can create an excuse as to why the death penalty has use. The problem is they can't back it up with any facts that are anything more than superficial. It costs us 24,000 dollars a year to keep prisoners in the U.S. It also costs us trillions to keep up an overly large army, but are we cutting back? Hell no! We're spending more than ever before. Let's not forget the fact that if deficit continues to grow at its current rate that the U.S. will collapse by 2008. Keep prisoners locked up is, by comparison to ANY other governmentally supplied fund, VERY VERY VERY low budget.

[Toolix]

:eek: Maybe you should leave the 'warnings' to the Mods, Knifes :D As people always get a bit heated on a subject as serious as this. So there's no need for anyone to start provoking people.

[Knifes]

:eek: Maybe you should leave the 'warnings' to the Mods, Knifes :D As people always get a bit heated on a subject as serious as this. So there's no need for anyone to start provoking people.

Point taken...

So anywho...


The best solution for a proper alternative for the Death Penalty is to round up all suitable criminals who are sentenced to death and put them in the Army!
If we use them as a front-line human shield against an enemy they'll die anyway, but will provide cover for the actual army to safely kill off the enemy :D
Therefore, being productive members of Army, and not wasted in prison :p

I believe they'd be more a of hassle... with more than half of them mobbing to run away they wouldn't stand to stand into incoming bullets ya know... :D :D :D

A giant steel wall would do better... it would aslo be cheaper :) so in the end, we're back to square one :)

[HFJuon]

Cyrano, I'm not sure what your point is but you sound foolish when you suggest the US economy will collapse by 2008. It's clear you do not understand how a deficit works.
A government does not go into default until it's debt exceeds it's GDP. The US is nowhere near that. Likewise the majority of the deficit is money the US owes itself. As long as it maintains the ability to pay the interest owed on US Treasuries it can continue to grow the deficit.

But let's even consider the worst case scenario & the US government defaults. What happens? It simply announces to the world, "sorry" but we're going to seek bankruptcy protection in our courts. Yep. That's right. When a foreign govt/indiv buys a US Treasury it does so with the understanding that the contract of that note is bound by US law only. So the govt declares bankruptcy, the US Treasuries become worthless & it opens the next day ready for business with a clean slate.

What will the rest of the world do? Impose trade sanctions? Attack the US?
None of these options are feasible or realistic. A superpower remains in power until
it can be defeated in battle or internally. It's not going to happen through a balance sheet.

I know that was off topic, but it needed to be said. As for the death penalty I can provide you plently of statistics that prove a correlation between lower crime rates & the death penalty. The TDOJ has a crap load of them, but what does it prove? Nothing. Just because it can be used as a deterrant against violent crimes doesn't mean it should. It's wrong to take away a persons freedom to live regardless of cost.
The benefits of an exile penalty would more than equal that of the cost of doing away with the death penalty.

It's important to mention that an exile penalty would not strip a person of their legal rights to appeals for their case. It's important that right remain intact so that the innocent can be proven guilty. There is a long list of cases where mistakes happen
in the prosecution of suspects. They would essentially be given a choice between death or exile. If they choose exile they would be expected to waive certain rights to facilitate treatment & analysis.

[nekobekko]

Something that I don't beleve has been brought up yet. Should there be any consideration for the family and loved ones of the one who is to be executed?
They may be innocent, but they will still loose a family member if they are executed.


Is it not more beneficial to society to replace the death penalty with an exile penalty? What I mean by that is the person essentially becomes exiled from society. No rights of any kind. A tool for research to better treat the causes & behaviors of crime.
Interesting, sort of like Australia used to be? Could be a good idea, Australlia turned out great in my opinion. Where would the people live? How would they be studied?

[Cyrano]

I'll trust what you said HFJuon. You made some good points. (Assuming however, that the market continues to elevate and crash at its current rates, essentially a similar "Black Tuesday" would occur at some point in 2008 due to a lack of trust towards the U.S. dollar. However, this is a speculative analysis based on analyses of governmental rises and fall, and trust of the U.S. economy. Also, if oil continues to increase consistently in usage throughout the next 10 years, oil will run out, and thus, America will be in a very tight spot if it hasn't come up with an alternative source of energy. This is mostly because America is built almost entirely on oil at this point.) Don't forget though that I can also come up with statistics that say that crime is lower in places without the death penalty, so it isn't really argueable from a statistical standpoint.

As for exile, I'm curious as to what you mean. (What exactly "exile" entails.) If you elaborated, I might be able to debate the point further.

[hitokiri battousai]

You are right that on a satistical stand point it is not a very good idea. But, it does save us money, because its alot cheaper to...get rid of the trash than it is to house and feed them for life. I dont like the fact that the money i worked my behind off for is going partially to help house murderers for life.

[Amphibious Ray]

You are right that on a satistical stand point it is not a very good idea. But, it does save us money, because its alot cheaper to...get rid of the trash than it is to house and feed them for life. I dont like the fact that the money i worked my behind off for is going partially to help house murderers for life.

Not true. Lawyers are always hired for these men before the ruling is final, and the cost for judges, and the fact that they appeal, etc. is actually as, if not more costly than life imprisonment.

[ChibiFirli]

Can anyone explain the difference between execution and premeditated murder? (except the fact that more people agree to the death of one person by execution)

And for fun let's consider some bordercases :D

Let's say there's a guy who raped someone, out of revenge the father of the girl who was raped, plans and executes the murder of the guy. Should the father be killed? If not, how can you ever know in any case that the murderer doesn't have a valid motive, and what is a valid motive? And still, this means it is sometimes right to kill, even if not to save your own life? I mean right as in just, not right as in understandable. Everything is understandable.

Your own mother killed your best friends in a fit of rage. Should she be executed?

You killed someone you thought was a burglar but happens to be your sister who was sneaking in at night after spending some time with her boyfriend.

Mass murder was committed, no murderer can be found, a suspect is found guilty though there is no direct evidence, only circumstancial and one witness, should he be executed?

This was more fun than keeping the discussion so theoretical, and makes some points mentioned before somewhat more vivid. And I did use you and family members on purpose, always consider that this can happen to you.

[Amphibious Ray]

Well, that's why there are different classifications: first degree murder, 2nd degree, etc. Those that are premeditated and manslaughter are different things. As for vigilante, that's more like first degree. IMO, if the intention is not there, the sentence should be lighter.

But let me bring something else on the table. What about mercy killing? Is it better for someone to live a life of agony (illnesses, severe birth defects) or to just kill them out of pity?

[Kitee]

, essentially a similar "Black Tuesday" would occur at some point in 2008 due to a lack of trust towards the U.S. dollar.
The Black Tuesday was actually affected world wide basically because people didn't know too much about stocks in that time and the nations were dumb to shut down World Trade.

Also, if oil continues to increase consistently in usage throughout the next 10 years, oil will run out, and thus, America will be in a very tight spot if it hasn't come up with an alternative source of energy. Thus the reason for Iraq?
Don't forget though that I can also come up with statistics that say that crime is lower in places without the death penalty, so it isn't really argueable from a statistical standpoint.
You've said this in your previous post already, why say it again?
Anyways, Americans can own guns, not like most of the rest of the world. So don't you think crime rates are expectedly high compared to places?

[Kerii]

And for fun let's consider some bordercases :D

Let's say there's a guy who raped someone, out of revenge the father of the girl who was raped, plans and executes the murder of the guy. Should the father be killed? If not, how can you ever know in any case that the murderer doesn't have a valid motive, and what is a valid motive? And still, this means it is sometimes right to kill, even if not to save your own life? I mean right as in just, not right as in understandable. Everything is understandable.

Your own mother killed your best friends in a fit of rage. Should she be executed?

You killed someone you thought was a burglar but happens to be your sister who was sneaking in at night after spending some time with her boyfriend.

Mass murder was committed, no murderer can be found, a suspect is found guilty though there is no direct evidence, only circumstancial and one witness, should he be executed?Borderline cases? Hardly. :p

1. Pre-meditated. One victim. Life sentence.

2. Not premeditated.

3. Not premeditated.

4. Well, he wouldn't be found guilty in the first place. It's impossible with the paltry evidence you listed.

[Knifes]

Can anyone explain the difference between execution and premeditated murder? (except the fact that more people agree to the death of one person by execution)

And for fun let's consider some bordercases :D

Let's say there's a guy who raped someone, out of revenge the father of the girl who was raped, plans and executes the murder of the guy. Should the father be killed? If not, how can you ever know in any case that the murderer doesn't have a valid motive, and what is a valid motive? And still, this means it is sometimes right to kill, even if not to save your own life? I mean right as in just, not right as in understandable. Everything is understandable.

Your own mother killed your best friends in a fit of rage. Should she be executed?

You killed someone you thought was a burglar but happens to be your sister who was sneaking in at night after spending some time with her boyfriend.

Mass murder was committed, no murderer can be found, a suspect is found guilty though there is no direct evidence, only circumstancial and one witness, should he be executed?

This was more fun than keeping the discussion so theoretical, and makes some points mentioned before somewhat more vivid. And I did use you and family members on purpose, always consider that this can happen to you.

Well all of these happened before... and since I heard about it, I'll give ya my opinion and what the law in the US did about it...

1.) Law: Killing is Killing... He should of told the law...so he could prove his daughter was raped (which is sometimes really hard) Revenge was bad in this case so unfortunately everyone loses... Death for him... (besides there are better ways of getting revenge than death anyway... ruin the raper's life) Premeditated: depends how long until the killing... short: no... long: most likely

2.) Law: Killing is killing yet again... That is unless of course the best friends were trying to kill her daughter and the mother was acting in self defense for her daughter... If for any other trivial reason, than death... Premeditated: No


3.) Ack, I forgot what happened... I heard about though... a brother was talking her parents at night and the sister up for whatever reason thought someone was strangling her parents... getting the family gun, she shot her mother and brother to death. So anyway I think out of guilt and pity from the jury... it wasn't so bad... Premeditated: No


4.) Law: Innocent until proven... but the media also has a play in this is sway public opinion... Premeditated: not applicable...

[Night Wind]

my opinion: killing is wrong. any and all, for any reason.
A life for a life is based on that eye for a eye mentality, so wut are we 4 years old? i think it will be a sign that humanity is maturing when we out grow such a petty philosophy

[Amphibious Ray]

^What about mercy killing? It doesn't fall under that mentality if you want to end someone's suffering...

[dxl]

it's depends on person to person, due to the difference in DNA
but death is too simple as a puniment
it's not solving problems

it's the easiest way to resolve problems from surfaces for the governmeners
less money, less care, Less love overall

plus... read my moto :eek:

[Cyrano]

The Black Tuesday was actually affected world wide basically because people didn't know too much about stocks in that time and the nations were dumb to shut down World Trade.
Thus the reason for Iraq?
You've said this in your previous post already, why say it again?
Anyways, Americans can own guns, not like most of the rest of the world. So don't you think crime rates are expectedly high compared to places?
The U.S. dollar is what almost all currencies are backed against. From Euro to Yen. If the U.S. dollar is not trusted, the U.S. economy fails. If the U.S. economy fails, international economies, dependent on the U.S., fail. Yes, crime rates are disproportionate in the U.S. due to being able to own weapons, but it's not the only reason. It is, however, one of the largest reasons.

[nekobekko]

^What about mercy killing? It doesn't fall under that mentality if you want to end someone's suffering...
I suppose its depending on the wishes of the person who is to be mercy killed. If for instance they spoke with their family and said that they wanted to be let off of life support in the event of terminal injury, then the family's decision to let them die is made in good will, which is justifible in many people's eyes. Conversely, a reason that mercy killing is not allowed is because of life insurance fraud. If you poison somebody and they fall into a terminal coma, you can say 'pull the plug' and they die, and then collect insurance an inheritance money. So the issue is probablly less of a moral one then a legal/technical/theoretical one.
What do you think?

[Leechasd]

But to end ones life you would have to be absolutly sure what your making is the right deicision and not based on assumption or as nekobekko mentioned (collect insurance and inheritance money). If they are truely are suffering it would be best to ease his/her suffering so he/she may I presume pass on in afterlife without so much pain following him/her.

[Amphibious Ray]

I asked because there was a similar case like this before. This father had a daughter who had cerebral palsy (disorders impairing control of movement, caused by seizures or mental impairment) at birth. So in her 12 years of existence, she underwent numerous operations ie. relive pain from hip dislocation, etc. So her father told the court he "protected her from torture, mutilation, forced feeding just so that some poor little child can survive a few more days." Of course the court decided that it wasn't his place (as a father) to determine what is best for his daughter, and that it should be left to the neurological institute. Consequently, he received a 10 year sentence in jail. (I'm not sure if it was 10 years, could be more. That's because we don't have the death penalty.)

You might've noticed that I typed this up with a lot bias because I support what the father did. I mean, we have abortions, so how can they support what the father did was wrong?

And here a quote I found that relates more to this topic from a Canadian journalist: "There is no consistent stand for life -- its value is not absolute, but dependent on situation and circumstance. We kill unborn children for convenience, and we dabble with giving doctors the right to kill patients so as to protect a false understanding of human dignity. When life is assessed with such a fickle spirit, why not kill those who are inconvenient?"

EDIT: I didn't hear of any insurance money in this case, so lets assume there was none. So do you agree with the court ruling?

[Cyrano]

There's no consistent stand for life because no one wants to actually admit that they might not be perfect. Yes, no matter what decision you make, you're stepping on somebody's toes. But I'd still be willing to bet that the majority will say that killing is not right.

[nekobekko]

Is letting somebody die naturally killing? It's a sticky question....

[hitokiri battousai]

Is letting somebody die naturally killing? It's a sticky question....


In my opinion, no. I think this because you did not actually kill them, even though you did not help them stay alive, you still did not cause whatever it was that killed them.

[ChibiFirli]

Borderline cases? Hardly. :p

1. Pre-meditated. One victim. Life sentence.

2. Not premeditated.

3. Not premeditated.

4. Well, he wouldn't be found guilty in the first place. It's impossible with the paltry evidence you listed.

Yes they are :p, your conviction of them is based on their motives, wich you know 'cause I gave them. There is no way to be certain about them.



Is letting somebody die naturally killing? It's a sticky question....

depends on what you see as killing, for example if someone is drowning and you happen to be a lifeguard and you don't go and save him, you didn't technically kill him, you just let him die. I think most people don't see this as the right thing to do, and label it as killing. I thought there was a law about it, killing by negligence or something likewise.
In cases of pulling the plug on braindead victims... if I'm braindead I could be dead as well, so with me you can pull the plug. So it wouldn't actually be killing, just helping me with committing suicide (hmm, that could be considered killing :p). With people who wouldn't want you to pull the plug, I would consider that killing. Just my personal opinion though. Yes, this doesn't solve the case where you don't know what the person would want. Also you can consider braindead persons as being already dead, and pull the plug anyway, regardless of what they wanted, in wich case it would just be ignoring the post-mortem wishes of a dead person.
It kinda depends on your personnal vision.

Again I succeeded in giving no real opinion :D (I'm getting better every day:p)

[hitokiri battousai]

Again I succeeded in giving no real opinion :D (I'm getting better every day:p)



Like somebody else we all know :p

And i agree with what you have said.

[Adust Wanderer]

for example if someone is drowning and you happen to be a lifeguard and you don't go and save him, you didn't technically kill him, you just let him die. I think most people don't see this as the right thing to do, and label it as killing. I thought there was a law about it, killing by negligence or something likewise.


What if there were two people drowning and only one lifeguard and no one around. Would the lifeguard save the one with higher percentage of survival, or the one with lower percentage?

[Kitee]

What if there were two people drowning and only one lifeguard and no one around. Would the lifeguard save the one with higher percentage of survival, or the one with lower percentage?
The life guard should save the person with higher percentage of survival first.
After that, he should at least try to save the other person. Albeit that other person's % of survival is lower, there is still a chance that person might be saved. If the life guard tried his best, then it isn't considered killing.

[ChibiFirli]

The life guard should save the person with higher percentage of survival first.
After that, he should at least try to save the other person. Albeit that other person's % of survival is lower, there is still a chance that person might be saved. If the life guard tried his best, then it isn't considered killing.

yep, preferably the one that hasn't sunk to the bottom yet :p (it's also somewhat faster if you don't have to dive to your target if they drown at a similar distance)
I guess most lifeguards would still feel bad about it, you want to save lives when you become one, right? Luckily this doesn't happen very often, to be more exact, I've seen a person drown (more like panic and doing his best to start drowning :p) just once in my life. There were 2 lifeguards on guard and I estimate about 4 people in the pool who were also lifeguards on off-duty :p. Safe pool :p.

[goddest]

You killed a man,you must pay for it,that's all

[ranman1313]

In my opinion torture is the best punishment. Many people who kill dont care about life so they might as well take someone elses while they're throwing away theirs. Death is only an easy way out for many people therefore death is not a severe enough punishment. Thats why torture should be a good method for putting fear in the hearts of criminals.

[hitokiri battousai]

In my opinion torture is the best punishment. Many people who kill dont care about life so they might as well take someone elses while they're throwing away theirs. Death is only an easy way out for many people therefore death is not a severe enough punishment. Thats why torture should be a good method for putting fear in the hearts of criminals.


True, but how would decide how long their torture would last and what it would be? And would you let them back in to society after you finished torturing them?

[ChibiFirli]

In my opinion torture is the best punishment. Many people who kill dont care about life so they might as well take someone elses while they're throwing away theirs. Death is only an easy way out for many people therefore death is not a severe enough punishment. Thats why torture should be a good method for putting fear in the hearts of criminals.

As you said...many, what about the others? They have to suffer as well (although they will probably think they deserve to suffer as they care about life and feel guilty about the life they took)

[nekobekko]

Yes they are :p, your conviction of them is based on their motives, wich you know 'cause I gave them. There is no way to be certain about them.
depends on what you see as killing, for example if someone is drowning and you happen to be a lifeguard and you don't go and save him, you didn't technically kill him, you just let him die. I think most people don't see this as the right thing to do, and label it as killing. I thought there was a law about it, killing by negligence or something likewise.

Another thing to consider is wheather it is within you power to save them or not. If you let the person drown though you could stop it is different from letting somebody die who can't be helped. Your point about motives is also an excellent point.

In my opinion torture is the best punishment. Many people who kill dont care about life so they might as well take someone elses while they're throwing away theirs. Death is only an easy way out for many people therefore death is not a severe enough punishment. Thats why torture should be a good method for putting fear in the hearts of criminals.
I would hate to see what happens when you make a mistake and torture an innocent person.

[hitokiri battousai]

I would hate to see what happens when you make a mistake and torture an innocent person.


Ya, that would be very unpleasent for the poor person.

[Knifes]

Is letting somebody die naturally killing? It's a sticky question....

The term here when a person(s) ignores somebody being killed is Depraved Indifference It's like the time in NYC where a woman was being raped and eventually killed. There were at least 100 bystanders from the street, onlookers from the apartments, and even some people who videotaped the experience without lifting a finger to protest or stop the crime. When the news hit, the reporters aptly gave NYC a really bad name. That's depraved indifference...

Should witnesses stop the crime and be apart of it? -They don't have to...
Will they die when helping? Possibly...
What's one person gonna do? Join in and other people might help out... or not...
Should that person feel guilt? If they won't, they aren't the people the supposedly the world wants...
Should the witnesses get jail-time for being indifferent? By law no... you technically didn't do anything but watch... but as a for a "good" moral standpoint... you should deserve to die yourself... (but hopefully you won't as suicide without a sacrifice is meaningless...my opinion)


What if there were two people drowning and only one lifeguard and no one around. Would the lifeguard save the one with higher percentage of survival, or the one with lower percentage?

Sounds like "i, robot" to me, ya know the movie with Will Smith. I gonna ruin the plotline, but I really don't care... if you didn't watch it by now, you're obviously not gonna watch in the near future nor remember this post. So here it is, a car with a little girl and guy fall off a bridge and into a raging river at night. And a passing robot jumps in to save to them... but low an behold, he can't bring up two of them as he has to let one die... he took the one with a better percentage to live (through calculations) ... the old guy instead of the little ten-year girl... and thus from the guilt, the guy hates robots and the movie goes on... (I obviously simplified everything)

Who you would you choose to save the middle-aged guy or the little girl... fully knowing that the guy had a better chance of surviving than the girl... I think it was something like 25% to like 8% (around there)...

I, personally, would take the girl...
oh btw... picking none when you have the chance to save to either of them when could aslo save yourself... is a bit cruel and being the term of depraved indifference.

wow... what a rant... :D

[Toolix]

Is letting somebody die naturally killing? It's a sticky question....
The amount of possible answers to this is impressive :p you should all start to study Law, like me :p Anyway it all depends on the context, if it we're a doctor making that decision then it's his duty of care to prevent death. This also ties in with Euthanasia, and 'Do you think it's OK to kill people if they want to die?' In the UK that's illegal so many people have to travel abroad to do it, but that's also illegal. Therefore many massive courtcases have been fighting for human rights.

[nekobekko]

@Knifes: This case also demonstrates the bystander effect. The more people who witness a crime or accedent, the less likely they will be to try to lend a hand. It is because it is easy for them to blend in and think that somebody else will lend their hand.

Ya, that would be very unpleasent for the poor person. hmmm, unpleasent? I don't think 'unpleasent' is a strong enough adjetive to discribe torture. Unpleasent is when you stub your toe or get clawed by a kitty, or mabey a papercut. When a mob of people tie a person to a pole and douse him with gasolene and set him on fire just to hear him wail in anguish, that is 'unpleasent'? :confused:

[hitokiri battousai]

hmmm, unpleasent? I don't think 'unpleasent' is a strong enough adjetive to discribe torture. Unpleasent is when you stub your toe or get clawed by a kitty, or mabey a papercut. When a mob of people tie a person to a pole and douse him with gasolene and set him on fire just to hear him wail in anguish, that is 'unpleasent'? :confused:

Well thats just a tad bit humorous, yes i know im a bit sadistic i know. :p And your right unpleasent is not a very good word to describe it, but I do not think that the mods here at HF would approve of what i would say to describe it. So ill just stick to unpleasent. But on a personal note, I believe torture should only be used as a source of revenge. If you think about it, torture would just anger the person more, making them more insane and more likely to commit more crimes. Thats why the death penalty is good, just all together get rid of the serious problem. I mean, who is going to torture a person for life, after a while it would just get monotonous.

[Kongming]

Are people still going over this topic? ><

[nekobekko]

But on a personal note, I believe torture should only be used as a source of revenge.
Wow you sure have some gung-ho morals. :p

[hitokiri battousai]

Wow you sure have some gung-ho morals. :p
Yes well this is true. See in my opinion like i stated torture doesnt solve anything, it can however help make you feel better if you torture the person that has seriously wronged you. An example would like if a person murdered all those whom were close to you, would you not want revenge? I would, so i would seek to torture them and then kill them to avenge those lost and to get out my anger. After did, i would be able to start mourning and then start to get over my grief. Thats the way i look at it.

[Knifes]

Yes well this is true. See in my opinion like i stated torture doesnt solve anything, it can however help make you feel better if you torture the person that has seriously wronged you. An example would like if a person murdered all those whom were close to you, would you not want revenge? I would, so i would seek to torture them and then kill them to avenge those lost and to get out my anger. After did, i would be able to start mourning and then start to get over my grief. Thats the way i look at it.

wow... if you ever read The Scarlet Letter you would know torture without killing is really effective... that is if that person feels guilt...

Besides ruining someone's social, financial, and family life is much more effective than a short burst of impulse. It all can easily be done without killing and under the law too. The only thing required is a deathly patience and stone-like determination...

[miko]

I didn't read this whole thread since it is too long but this is what I believe.

I belive crimes such as robbery/break and entering/assault/etc should be no death penalty, same with murder in situations where both parties knew and understood the risk (ie gangsters killing other criminals, both parties know the risk and shouldnt be punished to death)

But i believe For pedofiles and crimes against children/women should be punished to the full extent of law(death penalty).
To send a very strong message that they are wrong and so society will evolve to respect children and women.