Death Penalty [Archive]

ramenkage

03-03-2005, 05:03 AM

im for the death penalty
along with reforms in the court system that makes it more difficult for appeals and also shorten a convicts time on death row
this will save tax payers money

just out of curiosity, why do people think death is the easy way out? has anyone ever had first hand experience?

as for the feeling no better, you dont feel any better if the convict is living a peaceful life in prison either. from what i see and hear, prison is a nice place; cable tv, gym, great medical benifits. capital punishment for me isnt revenge, it exist show others the consequences of crime

kivol

03-04-2005, 01:58 AM

you know they stay on death row usually for 10 years or some where around there. so i think its really expensive to give them the hot that kills them or something i have no idea. ummm. yes but having sex with guys uah no thanks. and isn't that good.
why do i think it is the easy way out. for those who are on death row and aren't completly insane, usually become somewhat better people. so like how could you say lets kill the dumb bastard.

also why is it if you kill some1 important you are more likely to go on death row then if you kill some1 not imporant.

also do you people think we should be able to put them on death rowif they are under 21 or 18 juvies.

ramenkage

03-04-2005, 02:40 AM

why do i think it is the easy way out. for those who are on death row and aren't completly insane, usually become somewhat better people. so like how could you say lets kill the dumb bastard.
2/3 of prison inmates return

also why is it if you kill some1 important you are more likely to go on death row then if you kill some1 not imporant.
can you prove that?

also why is it if you kill some1 important you are more likely to go on death row then if you kill some1 not imporant.
yes, i dont buy that people cant think for themselves when they are under a certain age. everyone is responisble for his own actions, thats life

kivol

03-04-2005, 07:47 PM

republican.....

also the cost of putting some1 to death is 2 million dollars to keep them in jail 800,000 not as much. so i think its better to keep them in jail.

16 year thinks as straight as a 35 year old with ADD.

also vets stoped usually those kind of drugs on animals because they thought they were suffering put we continue to do it.

europe thinks were werid on this issue because were suppose to have high morals and yet we like to kill those who have killed.

oh and did you know that idaho has a firing squad. i don't really know what they do. i think it is for those who want to kill some1 the ilegal way. like a 1000 people are on the list and 5 get to be on the squad. and one gets real bullets.

there is something wrong with this country and we need to fix it

Schoulayer

03-04-2005, 09:25 PM

republican.....

also the cost of putting some1 to death is 2 million dollars to keep them in jail 800,000 not as much. so i think its better to keep them in jail.

The death penalty itself isn't a bad thing, its how we do the death penalty. I'm for the death penalty provided there's reform. For one they shouldn't be waiting around for 10 years playing the appeal game. Just let them have the one trial, and a year to prepare themselves. I think it could be a great taxpayer money saver if we cut through the BS.

Personally I'd reserve the death penalty for the most heinous murderers

narratorxx

03-04-2005, 10:31 PM

also the cost of putting some1 to death is 2 million dollars to keep them in jail 800,000 not as much. so i think its better to keep them in jail.

where'd you get this figure? how is it cheaper to pay for food, guards, jail space (it's limited), etc than to kill a person? it makes absolutely no sense. it costs more to keep inmates (aside from the food, guards, etc, there is the court fees when they appeal--lawyers, judges, bailiffs, jury, etc), than it is to kill them--period.

republican.....
what does that have to do with this, that's a generalization...i'm the most liberal person i know, i'm leaning for the death penalty

as for europe, that is their sentiment...but they're penalties are worse, they don't use the death penalty as a deterrent, but they keep people in jail longer for smaller infractions than the US does...

there's this article i read--called the prison industry--basically people are making money from people in prison...since so many people are getting locked up, there needs to be more prisons--which require construction work, landscaping, etc...then guards get paid, wardens, doctors--both psychiatrists and medical, then you have to outfit the place...industrial-size laundries; tvs; protective windows, gears etc;...then prisoner's make cheap labor, contractors make the bulk of the money--the prisoners do little menial stuff, like the stereotypical license plate making...they do telemarketing...and basically sweatshop type work...

in the end it costs more to keep them in jail, than to kill them...

personally i'm still mixed on the issue of the death penalty...i used to be for it, even if there are situations where an innocent man is killed. but i heard an argument against it, basically: if an innocent man is put to death under the death penalty, then it's like society is the murderer--we're all guilty if killing an innocent...if you can deal with that and still be for the death penalty then whatever, that's your thing...but it made me not so sure about the death penalty..

i can only be for it now, if there's undeniable evidence against them...which means better juries, better courts, better investigations--reforming the justice system...and then reforming the laws in general--i don't think people should get locked up for having weed on them, especially if it's just for personal use, whether it's recreational or medicinal...

the only people i don't give a f*** about are sexual offenders, kill 'em all...including priests, hell, especially priests

and for the thought of people reforming--fat chance man, i mean there are some that are genuine, but still a murder is a murder, a rape is a rape...just because they're sorry, doesn't mean a damn thing...either way, i'm sorry, but i think that's a bit naive

of course, something will come from the killer's death, it is cathartic for the victim's families...and for society in general

kivol

03-05-2005, 12:58 AM

the republican thing, just the some of the things he said sounded like my boss who is a strong republican.

lol ok i got this info from a teacher of mine, who got the info from a speaker. if you look why it cost more you will see. they do a lot more investigating and there are huge costs in that. they wait like ten years. and they do a lot of appealing for those who think they can get out, and there are probably a lot of other costs. (so the cost of kill the crimial isn't just the shot or w/e they use, don't be
i just think kill wont really help. if you kill your rapist, your families/friends murderer your family/friend wont come back and you wont loose those memories. calf has 670 people on death row and haven't killed one person in 20 years. and there are other states just like calf.
crimials don't give a shit about the punishment (besides the serial killers, and others who are completly insane.) its the heat of the moment.

also 50% of them are african american, i find this racist. the total population of african americans in the us is not 50% its more like 15%(some where around there)

so...

ramenkage

03-05-2005, 02:20 AM

the republican thing, just the some of the things he said sounded like my boss who is a strong republican.
you cant divide the world into republican and democrats...
you said

lol ok i got this info from a teacher of mine, who got the info from a speaker. if you look why it cost more you will see. they do a lot more investigating and there are huge costs in that. they wait like ten years. and they do a lot of appealing for those who think they can get out, and there are probably a lot of other costs. (so the cost of kill the crimial isn't just the shot or w/e they use, don't be im not saying that it is cheaper to execute someone. its not. and i pointed out in the first post that the death penalty needs reform. no appeals. please read my post before countering it. and also the cost of death row is so high because they considered the appeals, did they calculate the appeal cost for the life inmate?

i just think kill wont really help. if you kill your rapist, your families/friends murderer your family/friend wont come back and you wont loose those memories. calf has 670 people on death row and haven't killed one person in 20 years. and there are other states just like calf.
crimials don't give a shit about the punishment (besides the serial killers, and others who are completly insane.) its the heat of the moment.
again i must reinstate that capital punishment is to set consequences so that others dont commit the same crime. i will ask you how does it help if you keep someone imprisoned for life?
the time spent on death row is too long reform it, and as i said before, take away the appeal and everything will be solved

also 50% of them are african american, i find this racist. the total population of african americans in the us is not 50% its more like 15%(some where around there)
its not racist, its the truth...more minorites commit crimes than whites. its not a racial issue its an economic issue. be careful when you make assumptions

narratorxx

03-05-2005, 03:21 AM

its not racist, its the truth...more minorites commit crimes than whites. its not a racial issue its an economic issue. be careful when you make assumptions

yep...kiv, you're over-simplifying too much

madbunny

03-05-2005, 04:01 AM

It's not about money.

I think some crimes are so abhorrent that there CAN be no forgiveness.
(Someone mentioned sex crimes... I might agree to some extent)
Similarly, I think that if a minor commits a crime, with full knowlege of what he is doing then he should also get the death penalty. (Example I heard on the radio today: Teens torturing and killing witnesses to gang offences knowing full well that at a teen they will get a lighter sentance.)

As a country, we seem to have no problem bombing the crap out of other places, and I don't see anyone doing ID checks on Afghanis, or Iraqis. (sp?) Heck, we've got kids driving tanks that aren't old enough to legally purchase a handgun or a beer in most states.

ramenkage

03-05-2005, 04:18 AM

As a country, we seem to have no problem bombing the crap out of other places, and I don't see anyone doing ID checks on Afghanis, or Iraqis. (sp?) Heck, we've got kids driving tanks that aren't old enough to legally purchase a handgun or a beer in most states.
i didnt quite understand that
can you elaborate?

kivol

03-05-2005, 05:47 AM

yeah you lost my on that last paragraph. lol i am not alone on this confusion. yeah i agree certain crimes. i don't think the average fat joe should be put on death row just because he killed his wife. but if he raped her and then cut her up. then maybe. if he did that to his wife, neighbor and his neighbors kids or something then he should be put to death. the guy who bombed that building and killed 100 people including 30 kids, he should be killed. i understand sometimes but just not some1 of them

eze67

03-07-2005, 10:02 PM

i believe that it is okay.
the only crime you can get death for is murder in the first degree with a agrivating circumstance.(serial killing, killing a cop, stabing/shooting the person tons of times ect.)
i think that all murder that is planed(not acidental/self defence) should warrant the death penalty.
as for the way they do it, i think that they should have one apeal as they do.
the way they could save money excuting them would be to just have an executioner like in the old days that just puts a gun to there head and pulls the trigger.
of course the executioner should not be liable for killing the criminal.

kivol

03-09-2005, 08:05 PM

well what if the innocent guy gets caught. and he tries both times and fails to prove his innocents but really is innocent. so you think its still ok. that is probably another reason they give them more time.

ramenkage

03-10-2005, 12:10 AM

so you think that staying in prison for life is a better alternative for the guy?
some would say that containment is psychologially a worst punishment. then wouldnt it be crueler to hold an innocent man?

kivol

03-10-2005, 02:52 AM

wait are you saying it would be crueler to put him in prison for life? than putting him to death? i don't understand. i personally don't have any idea what prison is like and don't hope to find out. so killing him right now just seems worse to me

ramenkage

03-11-2005, 04:05 AM

wait are you saying it would be crueler to put him in prison for life? than putting him to death? i don't understand
yeah, some argue that life in prison is more painful than death
i dont go by that belief, but most anti-death penalty people do =/

Chih1ro

03-11-2005, 04:19 AM

I think people should have a choice whether or not they are willing to get the death penalty or stay in prison for the rest of their lives. I may prefer death over getting ass****ed for the rest of my life. However I don't think it makes sense to punish murder by execution. It just seems hypocritical to me.

madbunny

03-12-2005, 03:34 AM

Sorry for the delay, been busy.

What I meant was that when we blow the hell out of some bunker somewhere, where we don't bother checking out how old the people in that bunker are.
A lot of places around the world use very young soldiers, at the least you can assume that there are sub 18yr olds serving in foreign armies.

q.e.d: as a country, we have no problem killing minors.

ramenkage

03-12-2005, 04:27 AM

q.e.d: as a country, we have no problem killing minors.
nor do they...at least we aim for enemy soldiers and not civilians

madbunny

03-12-2005, 05:33 PM

nor do they...at least we aim for enemy soldiers and not civilians

Agreed.
My point was that there are circumstances where as a whole we have no problem killing minors, so that the new laws prohibiting the death sentance of other minors seems like more of a moral statement than a practical one.

Pipp-ORK

03-17-2005, 04:47 AM

Gooooo heinzbitte!! ^___^ Seriously, though, if they did a (serious) crime (stealing pencils don't count. O_O) then they SHOULD be given a death penalty.

Kurosaki Rukia

03-17-2005, 05:16 PM

i believe people as humans should not decide the fate of others even when someone commits murder.. no execution should be done as no one can judge a person but only god..
the worst that should be done is a life sentence in prison.

joogla

04-12-2005, 02:59 AM

I think the death penalty is a hefty stick to deter violent crimes and murder but its also a double edged ZanpaKutou. There have many people exonerated for a crime after the fact. Our legal system is not perfect and I do not pretend it is and because of that we as a society cannot be certain that a convicted criminal is truely guilty, he must merely be convicted by a jury of 12 of his peers. We are all human and to impose death on another human based on a human choice is just not too bright i think.

madbunny

04-12-2005, 05:01 AM

Don't forget that all that fancy philosophy tends to fly out the window when it's YOUR Wife/Mother/Son/Father that was brutally murdered by someone.
I can understand that there might be flaws in the system, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to exact my vengence. Try to picture yourself in that situation, and still wanting the person that did it to sit in jail, drinking coffee and reading the bible. Not me, F. That.

Ichigo97

04-12-2005, 08:16 AM

I don't go for death penalty unless it is very very heinous. Crimes that involve grave homicide, parricide and other stuffs that are brutal :(. I prefer life sentence... Peace :)

kinonai

04-13-2005, 01:24 AM

Killing anyone for any reason is murder. Now, I'm not saying that the death penalty is wrong, but just that we are a bunch of hypocrites. That's all...

Sahiden

04-14-2005, 01:27 PM

Death penalty is good for nothing...
If you let yourself be led by emotions, you die by your own hand. (Been there, 'almost' done that)
You can't just kill someone just because he did that too.
That's childish... Like kicking someone in the nuts because he called you a loser.
If you kill a murderer. You'll only lower yourself to his level. If you do so, he would already have won the mental struggle. If you can think of a way to hurt him more.. Then you win. But killing him won't hurt him. Because then he'll get away with it anyway.
Lifelong sentence=death sentence in slow motion. But more humane than killing him. If you only then would be able to humiliate him and driving him to suicide... Then you can call that a revenge.
(Nothing hurts more than mental pain, especially decay spiral is extremely painful. Then he goes suicidical and he will have suffered 100 times more than ones he killed.
That's the way it is, ruining someone's life is more satisfying than killing him.
since it takes longer)

Therefor, for the sake of cruelty I am against Death penalty.

Schoulayer

04-15-2005, 04:45 PM

Death penalty is good for nothing...
If you let yourself be led by emotions, you die by your own hand. (Been there, 'almost' done that)
You can't just kill someone just because he did that too.

That really depends on the situation. If I saw somebody kill a friend or family member of mine - and were to get life in prison, I would be reluctantly satisfied with that. But if they somehow escaped the law because of insufficient evidence they would die by my hands.

Murdering a murderer does not make you morally the same as somebody who murders innocent people. Its that simple.

Killing anyone for any reason is murder. Now, I'm not saying that the death penalty is wrong, but just that we are a bunch of hypocrites. That's all...

And murder can be justified depending on certain circumstances. If you killed somebody because they were about to kill you, does that make you the same as somebody who killed some random lady walking with her baby? NO.

If you kill somebody because they're getting away with the murder of a loved one does that make you guilty? NO.

I think the death penalty should be reserved for the more heinous cases. Lets say two gangsters were in a gunfight, one kills the other, that person should get life. However, somebody who steals babys and eats them - that person should get DEATH. Thats not a human being, its an animal.

Porkchop Express

04-15-2005, 05:47 PM

This maybe a tad extreme.

http://www.spreadthecheese.com/pages/chipper.html

Sgt.Reaper

05-11-2005, 04:36 PM

I belive if u take a another persons life you dont deserve to live. Then you have all of humanety by killing your own kind.

(Exception kills someone in self defense)

Lifelong sentence=death sentence in slow motion. But more humane than killing him.

Would you really want that tour tax money goes to buying food and keeping a murderer alive? I if kill someone the I belive you no longer have any human rights you sacrificed them when you took the other persons life.

You can't just kill someone just because he did that too.
That's childish... Like kicking someone in the nuts because he called you a loser.
If you kill a murderer. You'll only lower yourself to his level. If you do so, he would already have won the mental struggle.
Our reson for being here is to drive humanety forward. A murderer dont help us reach that goal. There fore a person like that have sunk below the level of being called a human. There is no place for such in our society.

Kiechi

05-14-2005, 08:39 AM

I think pedos deserve the death penalty.

Chizuru-chibi

05-15-2005, 06:53 AM

Hiya.

Um.. I think that nobody has the right to decide to put end of someone's life. Even if he/she've killed somebody, I think is best and worse for him/her, letting them in prision forever, until he/she dies, without freedom or see the sun's light. Or give it to them that penalty in which they've to do hard work! (I dunno how to say it in english T.T)..

Kiechi

05-15-2005, 09:27 AM

montoven

05-15-2005, 05:02 PM

fry em. it cuts down on the crime rate .

should be legal to carry pistol as well.
criminals think twice if death is involved

Porkchop Express

05-15-2005, 05:07 PM

I still like the wood chipper of death solution... its fairly humane and based on the crime there are so many different ways they can be sentenced to go in... Such vibrant colours!?! I'd pay to watch the wood chipper of death. They could round up all the shoplifters on a Sunday morning and chipper all their hands off in the town hall square.

montoven

05-15-2005, 05:34 PM

can we put an after burner on it ?
flamming woodchipper of death.

aya724

05-15-2005, 05:46 PM

Porkchop Express

05-15-2005, 05:49 PM

can we put an after burner on it ?
flamming woodchipper of death.

I love you...I have no choice but to build this... I already have a wood chipper! and an afterburner!... Did I mention that I love you.

montoven

05-16-2005, 12:42 AM

I personally prefer locking someone up for life rather than the death penalty.. I mean, if you've done something to *deserve* being done away with, getting locked up is something you can't avoid when you factor in the safety of the general public. But hey, who died and made anyone god on this earth? (ok, so we were still debating wheter god existed or not, but that point aside...) I know that the death penalty exists in alot of countries and is *justified* by the court of law or whatever, but from a human rights point of view, I don't think it's up to someone else to decide the end of your life for you.

... not that being behind bars for the rest of your life is could be any better, but still...

If someone kills does he not remove his victoms human rights pretty completly
therefore playing god ? this is a circular argument which has been going on for quite some time now.

set up the flamming wood chipper in the center of the prison explain to the criminal that scince he deprived someone of thier rights his were now void.
shoot him straight down the middle of the cell block.
the heat will warm the prison cutting cost there,
and while the rest of the prisoners sweep up what dust may be left they can ponder thier fate.

Sahiden

09-06-2005, 09:47 PM

There is no Death penalty is Belgium and there isn't that much crime here. There isn't even a punishment like life-long imprisonment here.

JAPPO312

09-06-2005, 09:59 PM

lucky.. I live in Canada where there is no death penalty - well at least not here. I think killing someone in jail is so stupid unless they killed hundreds of people.

General Cox

09-06-2005, 11:45 PM

i dont believe in tit for tat, if you do this then you are just being as bad as the criminal.

We dont have the death penalty in Britain and everything works fine, see, nobody has knicked my computer yet :P

SumpfFuchs

09-07-2005, 12:35 AM

Who are we to choose whether someone lives or dies?

General Cox

09-07-2005, 12:46 AM

lol yeah, send them into a ring with a tiger, give them a sword too, then at least its the tiger that has the choice :P

tbh that many offenders goiung back into prisons tells you there is something wrong with the people coming out of prison, i mean can you imagine being locked up for 2 years solid and then all of a sudden being back outside? That must be really weird

vittorio301

09-07-2005, 04:50 AM

mmm...this is a hard one...maybe in Canada and In Europe the education is different or the way ppl think...that makes crime less there....and in the US its just one friggin big cess pool of freaks....yeah..thats the answer....so many ppl come here from other countries that were kicked out cuz they did severe things and we get the loons (just playing...really..i dont understand why crime is so high in the US)

but i think the death penalty shouldnt be inforced..its better to torture them over and over....they feel pain.....and nvr die. Death is to clean, to pure, to easy for those rapers, killers,

I know torturing sounds ....extreme..but what do u do..let them go? rape and kill again?
kill them?

i dont think theres an answer....so lets Torture! Hurray!

sorry.......i just despise rapers and killers who have no respect .

Sahiden

09-07-2005, 07:04 AM

Wouldn't that go back to ancient times...
(He stole something: Chop off his hands.)

It's not a solution, it wouldn't solve the problem.
Death penalty doesn't solve anything either.
Imprisonment doesn't solve a problem either.
So should we just put all criminals into a mental hospital under maximum security measures?
It might work.....

General Cox

09-07-2005, 09:29 AM

ooo i remember what they do in middle eastern countries, if you steal from someone they chop oiff a finger, so that you know who is a thief, its not the death penalty but its still pretty bad

Still wouldnt want it though, erm your innocent actually (cellotapes finger back on) er sorry bout that

just too many mistakes :/

Sahiden

09-07-2005, 05:23 PM

Mistakes are exactly why death penalty was abandoned in many countries... Killing an innocent person really sucks.

Tokoyami

09-07-2005, 10:02 PM

I dont think someone should be put to death by another. Unless that person killed another for no reason.

But i can think of a few valid reasons to kill someone.

Lunar

09-11-2005, 01:04 AM

doing very bad crimes, like murder, rape, etc , they should get the death pentaly, no questions ask. but killing inncocent people not right.

Tokoyami

09-11-2005, 11:32 PM

Rape should get imprisonment i think, not death.

I think you should only be put to death if you put someone else to theirs.

General Cox

09-12-2005, 01:22 AM

i think you should people who hack into bleach portal to death >_>

Pipp-ORK

09-19-2005, 06:01 AM

You do something wrong, and you pay for it. It's the only way to enforce the law in today's societies. Personally, I think punishments should be a lot worse. Death penalty isn't so bad when you compare it to torture. Any forest gump can kill someone and then "atone" for it, but that doesn't make it any less significant, does it? If these people were so "sorry" they would've thought of the conquences before they comitted the action, and it wouldn't have happened in the first place. Going to prison for X number of years is no better than a time out in the corner, people need to be disiplined in a stronger manner. And giving prisoners everything they want before death isn't punishment, it's privillege. They should be tortured publically, and then put to death. "Crime shall be met with punishment", simple as that.
:eek13: Wow. You're really passionate, aren't you? Here's another quote that could be taken into consideration, "Judge not and you shall not be judged". In other words, who gave you the right to decide when one should be killed, and in what manner? We're all human beings, and, while some may consider themselves more important than others, none of us are Gods. While I agree that law should be strongly enforced, I don't agree with how you think it should be done. Why treat violence with even more violence? You'd just be creating a cycle, so what is the point? No matter what you do or how cruel you are, crimes will always be comitted. It's what makes us human; there's really nothing you can do about it.

Tokoyami

09-20-2005, 01:00 AM

I dont like the fact that we kill people at all, either legally or unlegally.

But if it must be done, i think only those who killed for no reason should be put to death.

Darien Narumi

09-20-2005, 04:25 AM

Kuta~

09-20-2005, 12:47 PM

wow....thats......NICE!!!!

I think the Death penalty is both good and bad......to be honest though i wouldnt choose death over imprisonment...I'd Throw the murderer/rapist or whatever in the same cell where he can rot for the rest of his days with no contact with anything but the 10ft thick lead walls surrounding him...oh...and piss on his food to...that seems good enough to me... :LOL:

Tokoyami

09-21-2005, 01:04 AM

Killing the criminal only frees him from a life of misery.

For chaotic murderers, instead of an instant death penalty, they should be chained to a prison cell and force-fed bird feces until they finally die.

^WTF.......

I think the Death penalty is both good and bad......to be honest though i wouldnt choose death over imprisonment...I'd Throw the murderer/rapist or whatever in the same cell where he can rot for the rest of his days with no contact with anything but the 10ft thick lead walls surrounding him...oh...and piss on his food to...that seems good enough to me...

^ and WTF........

Pipp-ORK

09-21-2005, 06:39 PM

I agree with Tokoyami. The idea sucks, someone shouldn't be killed for a crime, no matter how severe. Punished, yes, but not killed. Chances are, if they didn't feel genuinely sorry about what they've done, they're insane. In which they should be placed in a hospital. O.o

Tokoyami

09-21-2005, 07:04 PM

a question i have, what gives anyone the right to decide what a person should be killed for. I mean thats a big decision.....what gives the person who kills convicts on death row peace at mind. How can that person sleep at night?

Zattara2222

09-29-2005, 07:37 PM

But how does the person that is on death row sleaps at night after all the things he did............ an eye for an eye

Pipp-ORK

09-29-2005, 07:44 PM

Insanity! X_X Most killers are phsyco, so I guess killing someone (from their point of view) is equalivant to something trivial..

Sahiden

09-29-2005, 08:21 PM

That's not true. A psychopath is unable to judge other people's feelings. He thinks he is the only person in the world who can feel. So killing other's is nothing to them. Because those others are empty shells to them.

Zattara2222

09-29-2005, 08:38 PM

psychopath or not it doesnt matter they killed and they have to pay......... sometimes death is much better than living for them........ but there are exceptions when death penalty shouldnt be applyed.......

Sahiden

09-29-2005, 09:05 PM

Nope, I had to quit the post halfway, personal bussiness see.
It is diffirent, killing isn't trivial for a psychopath, because usually he knows he's killing people but it doesn't hurt him. (It's like a total lockout of feelings)
This makes a bizarre new feeling, the feeling of joy over being immune to sadness of others. This dilemma usually drives them totally insane.

But in the end, there always is a backfire on this. Unless they are 100% psycho.

Tokoyami

09-29-2005, 09:20 PM

NykylaiHellray

09-30-2005, 09:15 AM

YES

y? because I hate the fact that pedophiles and murderers in good old england are getting away with killing little girls and taking many innocent lives.

Some years ago two 13 year old boys tied a 7 year old to a train track (u dont need me to explain the rest). They where put in a a childrens prision, and now there is talk of them being freed.
WHY THE F FREE THEM

I envy some of you american states, as death pentaly should be reinstated in england.

Also if killing somone makes you god, well make me fuc****g god, as i will send them first class to the river stykes.

Tokoyami

09-30-2005, 10:34 AM

http://www.forums.bleachportal.net/forum/image.php?u=6092&dateline=1126348610<----wtf....

i dont think anyone has the right to decide if someone should die. But then again, i believe everyone has the right to act somewhere outside there rights in some situations.

ssmercurys

10-02-2005, 02:45 PM

ssjharsh

10-05-2005, 05:00 AM

I believe in the right circumstances this should be completely legal. America is too lax on some criminals, im sorry but if you killed 3 times and got out of jail all 3 times, there is something WRONG!! You belong there obviously...I am all for the death penalty.

That does sound right, if the purpose of prison was to punish and exclude from society. However, the American punitive system is based on the idea that people can be reformed, and re-enter society as a fully functioning citizen. Though this may be an idealistic view, it is what is held as true, and if we are to follow that rule, then how can we punish someone to death? Does that not mean that we are breaking the rule that people can change? Also, dunno if you were just exaggerating, but if someone did kill 3 people and was convicted for 3 murder charges, he or she would be serving life without parole, which is probably worse than death (also cheaper for the state, since they do not have to pay for lawyers to fight the multiple legal loopholes defense attorneys may try to use).

koreasamurai

11-01-2005, 01:17 AM

no act in the world should never be used for anothers death. If a person killed someone, why kill them 2? it adds another person in the world killed. they're r much better solutions but ppl choose to ignore them and go make imprudent, impulsive decisions.

XyperDragon

11-01-2005, 09:52 AM

I Belief Death Penalty should be there. After Certain Pointers are met though...

Ethereal Blade

11-02-2005, 05:41 PM

I think death penalty should be allowed. I don't believe that someone who can kill someone and change to a point where they never will commit a crime like that again. I believe it even less so if that person killed was someone the killer once loved. For someone to kill someone they loved without thinking, without caring and against the victim's wishes, then there must be something wrong with them. Unless a person wants someone to kill them and left a legal document or some other evidence stating so, then the death penalty should be used.
if you can kill someone and act perfectly fine about it, not be uspet, not suffer in any way from doing it, not be psychologically damaged by the act, then you're not at all human. Therefore, mercy, human rights etc do not exist for you. And death would be the best course of action. Obviously, sticking something cold hearted in prison isn't a punishment. They don't bloody care about the victim so there's no point in keeping them there. The most they probably regret is getting caught in the process!
forget lawyers, forget rights, they really don't deserve it.

Jinx20

11-02-2005, 06:25 PM

Interesting topic, im currently a law student in South Africa, the death penalty has been abolished for +/- 12 years now. Our constitution is the primary source of law in S.A and in it is a Bill of Rights, one of the first rights is that of the right to life. Our judical system consists of mainly reconsilation, and reformative justice, whether this has a positive effect is questionable. The point of the matter is that humans by nature are violent and vengful, so on an individual level 80% of people would want to see the murderer of some1 close to them killed. Personally I cant say if I for or against the death penalty, but comin back to human nature, if some1 killed some1 close to me or hurt and animal infront of me I would ram a red hot steel rod through their eyes and out the back of their heads! like I said human nature.

a sexy penguin

11-02-2005, 06:37 PM

i live in texas and death penalty is some thing done very cruely, like freazing ppl then chopping them. *barf*

p.s i've seen it done before not a good sight, thats why i dont really like texas.

Jinx20

11-02-2005, 06:55 PM

U mean like freeze them to death and then cut them up into pieces?

Uzhul

11-02-2005, 07:51 PM

Death penalty should be saved for murderers. The family of the victim should get 1 hour alone with the murderer, and then he'll be sorry, especially if you give the family a choice of weapon! The murderer would be sorry then. By the way, I believe that when you compromise someone's human rights, you waive your own, and nothing anyone does to you is immoral, coz if humans can't live together then we go extinct soon, that simple.

_strangechild_

11-02-2005, 07:58 PM

But.. the problem with the death penalty is that sometimes you don't really know if they are the real killer or if they deserve such a harsh sentence. I personally wouldn't want to kill the murderer if I were a victim's family, either.

koreasamurai

11-08-2005, 07:18 PM

so we should just kill more ppl? every person should have control of there life to live

Neve

12-04-2005, 09:23 AM

In my opinion, the death penalty is too harsh. By killing a murderer, you are making yourself a murderer, and so you are just as bad as they are. There is also the chance that the victim is innocent, and once you have killed someone, there is no way to bring them back.

captain_soifon

12-05-2005, 10:47 AM

well as a catholic i believe that life is sacred and that we should forgive people, now im not saying that we should let a murderer go but we shouldn't kill him and also what will be gained from killing someone? an eye for an eye? revenge? we are civil enough to see through this if it was an eye for an eye it would be chaotic also research has found that the death penalty wasnt a good deterrent

thief.13

12-05-2005, 10:51 AM

and sometimes death is not the best punishment.
"Death is too good for them"
so i think murderers get to be punished more if they're just allowed to rot in prison for their whole lives, instead of killing them off.

cetamora

12-05-2005, 10:57 AM

I saw Sophie Scholl today and urk! Guillotines are not nice. I don't think anyone should have to experience something like that.

Shaehl

12-05-2005, 03:21 PM

The way I see it, prison is too nice nowadays. Cable TV, computers, workout rooms, etc. Hell, a lot of the time they even get an education, which so many law abiding citizens can't even afford. Plus, us taxpayers have to pay for them to live in that state of relative comfort. I say, reserve the death penalty for the worst of offenses, but don't get rid of it.

maximoose666

12-05-2005, 08:20 PM

akin_t

12-05-2005, 08:27 PM

The death penalty would be a great weapon against murderers and paedophiles if it wasn't for the fact that you might take an innocent man's life. That would be murder endorsed by the state. And there are too many miscarriages of justice nowadays...

Too true. It's sad though, there isn't any perfect justice system. I don't think the death penalty should be abolished there are some people that just can't be rectified, it should be reserved for them

FascionViktem5k

12-06-2005, 04:31 AM

i think it should exist.. but it should be a slow and painful death... i understand that whole thing about "no unjust and inhumane punishments" ... but some people just deserve it... (ps: if your against death penalty they might not let you be a part of a jury... well in america anyway)

ok yeah people are people and just because they killed someone doesn't mean they should die too... but to me.. it does... and i think whatever you did should be done to you... (it's gonna happen in hell anyway but y'know... in case it doesn't...)

my thing is... if you have no regard for another person's life and you take it.. your life should be taken... no one has the right to take another person's life... so if you do.. then in the process you just gave up your own life... (and by the way.. no one dies instantly... it takes some time for all the functions to stop... so even if your like shot in the head... your not officially dead for another minute or so... which is horrible .. so whoever did the shooting should be painfully punished..)

janti

12-06-2005, 04:53 AM

Shaehl

12-06-2005, 11:49 AM

So you say absolutely no one in the whole world has the right to take another persons life? Doesn't that mean that you don't have the right to take the life of a murderer.

Death penalty = murder. Simple as that.

It's not murder if they are already dead. I agree with Fascion, when a criminal murders someone, he forfeits the right to his own life. From that point on, his right to live in our society doesn't exist.

Neve

12-06-2005, 06:43 PM

In my opinion, taking a the life of someone, whatever crime they have commited, is wrong. Maybe they do forefit the right to live in our society, at least for a time, but saying that they are should be killed for it is far too drastic. It is the prison sentance which we should use to remove people from society. There is also the fact that many people have been killed through mistakes, which is unforgivably unjust, and which nobody who is pro death penalty has yet been able to form a case against.

On a psychological note, it is very interesting that the people who are pro death penalty, are also anti abortion, and I, who am pro abortion, am anti death penalty? Just a thought.

maximoose666

12-06-2005, 06:51 PM

In my opinion, taking a the life of someone, whatever crime they have commited, is wrong. Maybe they do forefit the right to live in our society, at least for a time, but saying that they are should be killed for it is far too drastic. It is the prison sentance which we should use to remove people from society. There is also the fact that many people have been killed through mistakes, which is unforgivably unjust, and which nobody who is pro death penalty has yet been able to form a case against.
Hear, Hear. And it's interesting and touching to note how often families of murder victims show forgiveness towards the killer - and how rarely they want to see them dead.

On a psychological note, it is very interesting that the people who are pro death penalty, are also anti abortion, and I, who am pro abortion, am anti death penalty? Just a thought.
I'm anti abortion and anti death penalty, what about the next person?

Neve

12-06-2005, 07:08 PM

didn't you say.....that it would be a brilliant weapon against murderers and paedophiles though?

captain_soifon

12-06-2005, 07:18 PM

maximoose666

12-06-2005, 08:31 PM

didn't you say.....that it would be a brilliant weapon against murderers and paedophiles though?
Yes. On reflection I was wrong, although it would have some use as a deterrent, provided it was never actually enforced.

FascionViktem5k

12-07-2005, 12:12 AM

but if we kill them then how are we different from them?

i'm still in the process of forming my opinions here.. their not perfect yet alright!??! lol! j/k! .. i guess we're not.. but then again.. why did they murder? and even if we put them in jail... we're running out of space in there.. and sometimes they've let people go just to make room.... and how many prison breaks have there been? a lot.. i think we're safer if they weren't in jail but were dead.. that way we KNOW they can't kill again... cuz even in jail/prison they can kill... somehow.. they'll find a way!!!

and i'm sort of anti-abortion (it depends on the case, but i'm mostly anti-abortion) and i'm pro-death penalty.... i'm a weird one huh?

Neve

12-07-2005, 05:31 PM

I don't believe the fact that we don't have enough jails is a reason to kill people. If there have been prison breaks, then we need more security. Killing is not the answer. We know that they cannot kill again, but we don't know for sure whether they would have wanted to kill again, whether they had repented, or whether they had even killed anybody in the first place! I do agree with moose's point about a deterrant. The best solution would be to be able to induce the fear of the death penalty, without actually killing anyone. I can't really see how you would do that though...

According to statistics I looked up on the net, most people who are pro death penalty are anti abortion...strange...

FascionViktem5k

12-07-2005, 09:43 PM

According to statistics I looked up on the net, most people who are pro death penalty are anti abortion...strange...

well of course!!! those are the conservatives... trigger happy trailer trash that don't know sh*t!! *coughBushcough*

but the thing is there is no other deterrent than the death penalty.. and even then there's still murder... and you can't be like "death penalty" and then secretly go "hehe we lied' .. people will know your not killing these people... and we're talking about the people who we can prove did murder and blah blah... we're there is no curcumstantial evidence and we can kinda prove it but not really.. no.. i'm talking about those guys that we KNOW they did it! *coughOJcough*
i think an effective deterrent would be torture... but then again you never know.. some people might like it... crazy freaks...

thief.13

12-07-2005, 09:46 PM

i think those people are self-righteous pricks.
life is life whether the person is good or bad. agreeing to death penalty and saying you're anti-abortion sounds very hypocritical to me.

maximoose666

12-07-2005, 09:50 PM

think those people are self-righteous pricks.
life is life whether the person is good or bad. agreeing to death penalty and saying you're anti-abortion sounds very hypocritical to me.

Hear, Hear. The term I use for them is 'Neo-Con'

FascionViktem5k

12-07-2005, 09:59 PM

Hear, Hear. The term I use for them is 'Neo-Con'

did somebody say Bush? *coughcough*

captain_soifon

12-08-2005, 01:45 AM

hmm? whats a neo-con?

xyouxarexuglyx2

12-08-2005, 02:08 AM

I support the death penalty if the person didn't like...become a good person or something...

p.s. Did that guy get executed? I forgot, but it was a LONG time ago with the guy who killed his wife and his premature son. It used to be ALL over the news like everyday.

p.s.s. Stan "Tookie" Williams's (The founder of the Crips) execution is scheduled on December 13. I think he SHOULDN'T get executed, because he is a changed man. He should NOT be executed, but maybe he should still stay in prison. If you agree with me, go to..
http://www.savetookie.org

captain_soifon

12-08-2005, 04:31 AM

o btw that viet guy from aus got hanged couple days ago in singapore

Shinomori

12-08-2005, 01:35 PM

Death penalty is good, but we should take their organs and bleed them dry.

So much is going to waste. :D

/end sarcasm

But seriously, the death penalty is good. You can't trust criminals to be rehabilitated.

Neve

12-08-2005, 04:17 PM

You also can't trust the death penalty not to kill people who were innocent originally, and when someone's dead, you can't bring them back

Shinomori

12-08-2005, 07:30 PM

Yeah. Like THE VICTIMS OF THE PEOPLE WE'RE KILLING. The American legal process is DESIGNED to keep innocent people alive. That's why there's so many appeals. Look up the Lafferty brothers. They were two fundamentalist Mormons who killed a woman and her child. One of them has life in prison, the other has been sentenced to death. He was sentenced on May 8th, 1985. It has been TWENTY YEARS since then. HE's not dead yet. We don't kill innocents. If they are innocent, let them prove themselves to the jury.

We kill criminals. And the world is a better place for it. Take a life to save ten.

Neve

12-08-2005, 08:44 PM

It's one thing for a murderer to kill someone innocent, it is completely different for the legal system itself to kill an innocent person. You'd be surprised how many families of victims actually want to keep the person who murdered alive. By killing someone who has killed, you are commiting murder and therefore making yourself no better than them.

We don't kill innocents.

By lying like that, you have almost completely broken down your argument. Innocent people HAVE been murdered by the legal system itself, and the number of mistakes about whether people are innocent or guilty is mounting higher every year. While it is designed to keep innocent people alive, it is not by any means a perfect design. The only way to stop innocents being murdered by the legal system is to stop murdering anyone who kills. Also, very few of the criminals who are being murdered by the legal system are psychotics who kill for fun. Most of them believed that they had a reason for commiting a crime, or repented greatly straight after commiting the crime or after seeing the family of the victim. In most cases, you are not saving any lives by taking a life.

FascionViktem5k

12-09-2005, 12:30 AM

the number of innocents has decreased because of better science the length of time everything takes.. and besides do you know how many people are acquited with murder and are left to roam the streets again?! a lot... if a jury and judge both agree that a person is now guilty .. especially in today's society.. then he most likely is... mistakes are few and far between now.. like in the Micheal Jackson case.. the only thing they could prove was that he had alcohol near children... and it's not illegal in the state he was tried... you need to have a lot of proof (and no differences in testimony from witnesses... which is also what happened with that case..)

so ... yeah.. um... wat? we should keep the death penalty.. and besides.. they don't feel anything.. they are numbed and then an injection is put in that makes their insides explod... their already out so they will never feel it (unlike their victims..)

captain_soifon

12-09-2005, 12:34 AM

no.. that viet guy got hanged in singapore, he had to suffocate for about 2 minutes or so then his neck cracks.. so and so

FascionViktem5k

12-09-2005, 12:38 AM

no.. that viet guy got hanged in singapore, he had to suffocate for about 2 minutes or so then his neck cracks.. so and so

oh i was talking about America.. sorry! should have specified!!!! yeah.. they have 'lethal injection' in this country... sorry... now it should make more sense

MissShizuka

12-09-2005, 02:04 AM

I didn't read the whole thread but I think I got the gist of it. I'm against death penalty because, sure, you can kill a murderer with lethal injections or something, but it's still killing. It's just like what they did so you can't really say you did what was right. Killing a murderer is the same as killing a person. What if they have a family? At least if they're in for life, their family can see them. What do you think the family would feel like. You can kill a murderer, but you can't undo a murder.

Amu

12-09-2005, 02:10 AM

If you deserve to die, THEN DIE FOR GOD'S SAKE!!

Neve

12-09-2005, 06:46 AM

[quore=fascionviktem5k]like in the Micheal Jackson case[/quote]
That example works against you, my friend. Michel Jackson was not found guilty because he had a brilliant lawyer, while those who were accusing him did not. It seems to me that that was not a fair trial anyway. On the other hand, when an immigrant is accused of murder then can often not afford a lawyer at all, while those who are accusing him can afford a lawyer who can win the case for them reguardless of whether the accused is innocent or guilty. This is when mistakes occur.

Hits

12-09-2005, 06:57 AM

John Locke(an english philosophper in the 17th century) wrote a satire about the situation with the poor and hunry Irish people and how the government should resolve the problem....anyways, he said the answer to the problem was to eat them. That way they can at least have a purpose in life and end their suffering.....which to me makes A LOT of sense.

I believe every person has a purpose, a duty to contribute to this world. If they go against that and take someone else's life away, it seems to me they have fufilled their purpose and is no longer needed or able to contribute to this world and therefore we have no need for them. Why no just do to them what they have done to others and end their worthless lives? I mean, if they don't have a purpose except to feel guilt all day and waste our tax dollars, there is really no need for them to live. I'm not saying that we should kill everyone who are not living up to the standards they were meant to live and just wasting their lives, that'd be too inhumane.

Shinomori

12-09-2005, 01:47 PM

"All over the country, news stories bemoan and hype the countdown to execution number 1,000. But where are the stories regarding the ripple effects of the heinous crimes that these murderers were executed for committing? Who is counting the victims?

A conservative estimate puts the number of victims of these 1,000 murderers at 1,895."

Take a life to save two.

xyouxarexuglyx2

12-09-2005, 02:46 PM

The 3 guys who killed my grandpa in Vietnam got executed by a firing squad.

p.s. This may be a little off topic, but recently, a mentally ill guy was on an airplane, reached into his backpack and yelled and said that he had a bomb. The security guy shot him and he died, and it turns out he didn't really have a bomb, but they are investigating it.

Neve

12-09-2005, 03:57 PM

Why no just do to them what they have done to others and end their worthless lives?
Because that is exactly the kind of attitude that is driving this society onto the rocks. "Oh well, if they did it it must be right so let's go out there and do it ourselves!". By killing people we are just encouraging murderers that it is OK to kill people, and it devalues murder in their eyes.
A conservative estimate puts the number of victims of these 1,000 murderers at 1,895."
I am sure he does. I put the estimate at '1'. It doesn't mean anything. You can estimate whatever you like and it doesn't mean anything. You can conduct scientific research studies and draw graphs and find conclusive evidence and it still doesn't mean anything unless it comes from a completely unbiased source, if such a source exists. I doubt your estimate comes from an unbiased source.

Hits

12-09-2005, 09:39 PM

Oops, I was only talking about Capital Punishment in result of a murder conviction...that should be the only case when Capital Punishment is even considered. I know in some places, people get killed for the craziest things. I believe that conservatives are all for capital punishment. I am in no way a conservative but I do think it is the way to go. Like I said, they have no purpose in our society anymore except to waste our parent's tax dollars. They've lost people's respect when they killed and there is no need to be linient on them. Why let them rot away in isolation when an execution would be much simpler?

Because that is exactly the kind of attitude that is driving this society onto the rocks. "Oh well, if they did it it must be right so let's go out there and do it ourselves!". By killing people we are just encouraging murderers that it is OK to kill people, and it devalues murder in their eyes.

I don't think we would be encouraging killers. If anything, we are discouraging them. "If you murder, this is what happens to you." So many pacifists think they deserve another chance at life but hell, they don't. They had many chances to decide not to kill, but they've done it anyways.

FascionViktem5k

12-09-2005, 10:55 PM

i don't think that if you killed to defend yourself that you should die.... if it was planned and articulated.. or you just walked by somebody and snapped and killed them... well.. we have self-control why don't they? i've wanted to kill my boss many times... have i done it? no.. i quite.. if you are unable to control your urge that one time, what about the next time? and yes i know about therapy.. but therapy only works for about 2/3ds of the people that get it... that other 1/3 is still unphased... maybe they should try and fix them and if it doesn't work.. kill em.. and for those guys that planned their murder... f*ck em... they had time and energy and all that crap to plan and take the life of someone.. that shouldn't be awarded with "we'll help you get better" no.. these people don't have a value on life, they'll never get better... we're better off without them.. and so is their family (if they have one) ... it'll just make the family suffer more knowing that their family member will never leave that cell of his/her... i dunno.. i just don't think you should be allowed to live when you didn't let that other person live...

maximoose666

12-09-2005, 11:02 PM

just don't think you should be allowed to live when you didn't let that other person live...
Fair point, but I disagree for two reasons. Firstly, what if the person you killed forgave you? It would be an amazing thing to do to forgive your murderer, but I think some people are capable of doing it.
Secondly, there is the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right". I don't think it's acceptable to add the death of a murderer to the death of his victim simply on grounds of retribution. Unless the murderer is to offend again, then what practical good does it do?

FascionViktem5k

12-10-2005, 08:14 PM

fair enough... and to answer your question... i have no idea... yeah.. sorry... lol!

Krayfish

12-10-2005, 10:14 PM

I new so I am learnin how this stuff works.

so heres my first try.

So many pacifists think they deserve another chance at life but hell, they don't.

Im sorry to dissapoint but yeah im a pascifist. I beleive that people can be forgiven. Nothing is always good or perfect and there are horrible aspects of life, and in this case death, but you cant just say "kill the bastard". I dont think i have a right or a "god given right" (sorrry, im not religous, maybe humanist) to kill some 'to cap them in the head' and take a life. I wouldn't want some 1 else thinking they could kill me. I would never kill another being, but wat if i did by accident of in defense of me or my family. should i die for protecting the ones i love, would you want to be executed to save your mum and dad and siblings?? Ok if i did end up in death row, (dont no how, i live in the uk) i would not want to be killed by the state. is the state endorsing murder?? I beleive it is human nature to stay alive for as long as possible and i would regret my deed till my dying day, the day of my execution. to be honest, i would be scared of dying. And what if an innocent man dies?? we all know that the legal system is not perfect and there are mistakes. to kill an innocent man surely deserves the death peanalty as it is murder.

i no this is all dissjointed but it all just kinda flooded out, i suffer from verbal dihoerra sorry.

Baron

12-11-2005, 10:33 AM

...i also think the death penalty is the easy way out for crimmals. also you will feel no better because of the death of this individual...

That's exactly why I'm not a fan of the death penalty. There are other, more brutal ways one can punish someone.

Krayfish

12-11-2005, 11:00 AM

KIvol,Baron like u i agree to parts

The easy way out may not be right as to die without fear etc, i assume is quite hard. But i do think that killing people will not make the sufferer of the crime, the victim feel any better and that there are amazing people who forgive.

EXAMPLE- from wat i can remeber

here in england, there was a woman in the news who was raped by a man. she had his child and brought it up in her own family. in hospital with her newborn in her arms she appeeled, through the media to the rapist and forgave him.

meanwhile the guy was on the run, and was scared of the police determined to staay alive. He saw her forgivness and as he felt forgiven he could die a better man. So as the police found him he commited suicide, a forgievn man.

there are probably lots of holes in this argument but ive gotta go.

Shinomori

12-12-2005, 08:30 PM

I am sure he does. I put the estimate at '1'. It doesn't mean anything. You can estimate whatever you like and it doesn't mean anything. You can conduct scientific research studies and draw graphs and find conclusive evidence and it still doesn't mean anything unless it comes from a completely unbiased source, if such a source exists. I doubt your estimate comes from an unbiased source.

Your argument is SO weak. Find me another number that makes sense. When you consider most criminals kill more than one person before they are caught, 1895 seems a fairly reasonable number to me.

And a totally unbiased source does NOT exist. So why even HAVE facts? Why don't I just say "you're an idiot" and it will be true because NOTHING YOU SAY MEANS ANYTHING since apparently facts don't exist? OR you can just accept reality. If they didn't kill anyone, they wouldn't be convicted. Whether they are guilty or not in reality, there is sufficient evidence to prove that person has committed a crime. Who are YOU to be able, without even SEEING the evidence, to determine whether or not a person has killed another?

You cannot prove most people killed are innocent, while I can prove that the majority are killers who should be put to death as the price of their crime. Prove me otherwise if you wish, although I highly doubt you can.

And killing criminals purifies our society, it does not drive it downward. What is so great about criminals that they deserve to live while innocent children are slaughtered by their hands? Nothing. They have no benefits to society. All they do is kill for no reason. So why not get rid of them? Because it's "inhumane"? What's inhumane is the killing of innocents! So why are these criminals to be allowed to live? Because you have some qualm of conscience that tells you killing is bad? These criminals had no consience, so do not give them any. To do so is unmerited and unnecessary. Only by the ultimate punishment will they be cleansed from society.

FascionViktem5k

12-12-2005, 10:52 PM

so like i said.. by killing someone they give up thier own right to live... yes no maybe?! why are there popups while i'm typing!?!?!?! WTF?!?!

Shinomori

12-12-2005, 11:28 PM

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Thank you.

captain_soifon

12-13-2005, 02:44 AM

so like i said.. by killing someone they give up thier own right to live... yes no maybe?! why are there popups while i'm typing!?!?!?! WTF?!?!
no, u got spyware most likely =p

Shinomori

12-13-2005, 03:28 AM

It's my omgleetwtfhax. :D

Really.

And by that I mean run McAfee or something. :D

Neve

12-13-2005, 08:11 AM

Your argument is SO weak
Ditto
And a totally unbiased source does NOT exist. So why even HAVE facts? Why don't I just say "you're an idiot" and it will be true because NOTHING YOU SAY MEANS ANYTHING since apparently facts don't exist? OR you can just accept reality. If they didn't kill anyone, they wouldn't be convicted. Whether they are guilty or not in reality, there is sufficient evidence to prove that person has committed a crime.
I'm not saying that facts don't exist. I'm saying that if you want to find the facts, you have to look at many estimates from either side of the bias in order to find out the real number. A single estimate from a single biased source tells you very little on its own.
Who are YOU to be able, without even SEEING the evidence, to determine whether or not a person has killed another?
WHY? Have YOU seen the evidence? NO.
You cannot prove most people killed are innocent, while I can prove that the majority are killers who should be put to death as the price of their crime. Prove me otherwise if you wish, although I highly doubt you can.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my argument. I apologise. I did not say that most people killed were innocent. I said that some people killed are innocent. Even those few would be worth removing the death penalty for - are you saying that their lives are worthless? You may say that murderers kill people, but it is very different when it is the justice system itself which is killing innocents.
Nothing. They have no benefits to society.
You're treating them as if they were animals, with no emotion. They're people too! Just because they have gone wrong somewhere doesn't mean that they can't pull their lives back together again, and many of them can.
What's inhumane is the killing of innocents!
Damn right! So why does the justice system do it?

maximoose666

12-13-2005, 11:56 AM

@itsovernow: hear, hear. Very nicely put indeed.

These criminals had no consience, so do not give them any
Are you really saying that no murderers had a conscience? I don't support their actions, but do you expect people to believe that throughout their crime they never felt a shred of remorse?

by killing someone they give up thier own right to live

Why?

Shinomori

12-13-2005, 08:17 PM

FascionViktem5k

12-13-2005, 10:31 PM

We don't execute innocents. They are no longer innocent if a jury has proven them guilty. If they have appealed, and have failed at their appeals, this shows that they are guilty. If they appeal, and are innocent, they are let go. Prisoners are given the ability to challenge their convictions, and only those who fail EVERY TIME are killed. If they lose every time, it should be painfully obvious that they are guilty. The innocent are not executed, the guilty are. Due to the nature of our judicial system, the innocent are given every option to be released.
How are we to execute innocent people if they go free? Those in prison are guilty, as they have been determined so and have not since proven their innocence.

but we also have to see that many countries don't have that.. so what about them? cuz in some of them once your proven guilty.. then your guilty...

and i say they give up their own right to live because they took a life... i honestly don't think anyone has the right to take another's life... i look at it as.. "who do you think you are?" kinda thing... i know the justice system is the same. it takes the life.. but he/she already took one.. or two.. or three... are you going to tell me that they should live? wat about John Wayne Gracie?(SP?) ... he raped and murdered 17 young boys... and by young i mean as in, in their teens but not quite on the sixteenth birthday....and he buried them in his house and in his basement... wat, he should live? hell no... and that's exactly what everybody said.. and he was given lethal injection... and he's now dead.. i really don't believe that you can take a life (voluntarily) and in return be spared with yours.. wat kind of society let's murders off nicely? in prison they get free meals, free tv, beds, room mates, work out areas, etc... if some dude killed me willfully and had planned it.. i would not want him in prison... i would want him to rot in hell.. if hell exists that is...

akin_t

12-14-2005, 03:32 PM

I think this is my first post on this thread, I'm not really sure though.

Anywho, I don't support the death penalty at all. I know it would seem unreasonable for me to say this, given Fascion's example of John Wayne Gracy. Nonetheless, you have to ask yourself what we gain by killing someone? to be honest, you can't gain satisfaction by allowing the state to kill someone who has offended you (by killing family members or such), I, and I'm sure alot of other people, can only be satisfied if I'm the one doing it myself, but after that, what then?

Some may argue that: they live off our tax dollars, they don't deserve to live after killing somone. Look, your tax dollars would be taken from you regardless. Secondly, how do you decide whether someone has the right to live or not?

FascionViktem5k

12-14-2005, 08:07 PM

i guess this will just be a never ending debate on how do we decide who lives and who dies? oh well.. i'm still for it.. just so long as they have been proven guilty without a doubt... but thats just me...
we can agree to disagree right?!

akin_t

12-14-2005, 09:07 PM

Yeah I guess so, but I still stand by saying no one really gains anything, not even peace of mind, by killing anyone else (unless of coruse the person isn't behind bars and is wanting to kill you)

Fect

12-15-2005, 02:29 AM

The government wants to reserve this power because of a new "politics set."

Political Power no longer functions along the traditional forms of government, representation and reform, equality and rights. All politics has shifted power to allow life to be the object of the "soviergn." Life is protected only to the extent which it submits itself to the whims of this invisible soviergn. The power they have to preserve life with is a power which can expose life to death.

All life is now in the hands of the powerful, hidden behind facades which we cannot see through. While the government is the soviergn that controls your life, you are put into question as one who can help the government or not. You are divided between that which is valuable and that which is not. For those who are not valued, the soviergn will take action. Others can take this form as well, our own friends can sometimes act as a soviergn, choosing to dispose of us when they please.

The death penalty is one power that the soviergn wields to hold non-valuable life, and dispose of it when it chooses. This "gas chamber" of the soviergn's "concentration camp" is one of many that allows the soviergn to choose whom it wants or does not. Those whom are not wanted are just like the non-aryans of Germany. You are used until you are no longer useful and then are to be killed. Even Hitler was planning to have the non-aryans of his nation killed. Thus, those who are not useful are hidden behind the barbed wire of an ever expanding camp.

maximoose666

12-15-2005, 01:32 PM

[The innocent are not executed, the guilty are.
There have been too many miscariages of justice for me to support that.

@fect: wth?

akin_t

12-15-2005, 02:16 PM

@fect: wth?

He makes sense moose, you just have to read deeper into what he's saying, that's all.

As for the death penalty, my question is why not just sentence them to jail for life? I mean, that is a more civilized way to behave, you don't just take the lives of others just because they are unruly and have no regard for law.

I mean Tookie Williams, got executed not too long ago; IMO he would have been granted clemency had he owned up to those crimes; Nevertheless, this just proves that people can change. I'm sure alot of other convicted criminals have made U-turns in thier lives; however, they couldn't care to write books or publicly denounce gangs and such and so thier change went without exoneration and they were silenced/executed nonetheless.

Fect

12-15-2005, 10:33 PM

Ty, Akin.

However, I did answer your question in my above post. The soviergn wants control. The death penalty is one of these ways that keeps the power of the people in check, as they can decide life or death, if you get out of line.

I don't know why they did execute him, though. He was on the return from damnation in hell and was trying to lead a virtuous life.

FascionViktem5k

12-15-2005, 11:41 PM

I don't know why they did execute him, though. He was on the return from damnation in hell and was trying to lead a virtuous life.

probably because they thought it was just for show? perhaps? maybe? who knows.. the judicial system is crazy anyway.. and Fect does make sense.. you just have to think about it.. yes i know.. thinking hurts sometimes.. but when you need to think you need to think! lol! i guess he has a point too... there were just too many big words.. and i'm still thinking over it.. i think it'll take about a day or two to fully integrate what he said.. (pathetic.. i'm a college student and i can't even think! lol)

akin_t

12-15-2005, 11:48 PM

Yeah the victim's mother was really out to see this guy die (can't really blame her); you'd think she'll cool down after 25 years.

haven't caught on in a while fascion; and yeah maybe they thought it was just for show, but c'mon I mean who put's in a show for 25 years? (and yes I know it was less than 25 years but who knows when he turned around?)

FascionViktem5k

12-15-2005, 11:52 PM

hey i dunno these things! i'm just trying to answer Fect's question! with a not so good answer... you know i don't do well with big words! psh!

akin_t

12-15-2005, 11:55 PM

lol, what are you talking about? I wasn't refuting your post

maximoose666

12-16-2005, 12:19 AM

He makes sense moose, you just have to read deeper into what he's saying, that's all.
Sorry. *hangs head in shame*.
Having read through Fect's post again, I can respond to some of it.
Those whom are not wanted are just like the non-aryans of Germany. You are used until you are no longer useful and then are to be killed.
All though the aryans of Hitler's germany were revered, it is wrong to group all the non-aryans as an underclass. Those who were worked to death were generally communists or opponents of Hitler's regime; as were Jews earlier in the war. Jews were exterminated later in the war not because they were no longer useful but because of the NSDAP's crazy racial ideologies. Non-aryans (Goebbels and Hitler both fall more or less into this category) who were not in some way contrary to Nazi ideology were allowed the same freedoms as aryans - and took their place in the German folk
So it isn't fair to give Hitler's Germany as an example of the "'sovereign's" cavalier attitude to the lives of its subjects - abuses of human rights were practiced by the Nazis for very specific reasons.
All life is now in the hands of the powerful, hidden behind facades which we cannot see through. While the government is the soviergn that controls your life, you are put into question as one who can help the government or not.
That is chilling. But I like to think it's not true. I hate most forms of government, and am against the death penalty; yet to say that the government "controls your life" is going a little far. The fact is, in the UK where I live, and in Canada and the USA, you can always leave. You have freedom of movement, so if you wish to go beyond the control of the goverment, you need only travel to a less developed regime in a less developed part of the world. It's true that you may need a visa or passport, which is indeed provided by the government. But this is only a small hurdle to overcome, and while technically a government controls its borders, passport applications are seldom refused.
So yes, Fect, the govenment has a large measure of control over our lives.
But it isn't as bad as you make out.

FascionViktem5k

12-18-2005, 05:13 AM

lol, what are you talking about? I wasn't refuting your post

i know that... i was just explaining my crappy answer... and explaining why it was crappy... psh... lol!

moose... i agree... i think governments do have control over our lives.. it's just chilling to look at it as TOTAL control over our lives.. i like to think i am able to make some free decisions... (like buying that pink shirt... or not... oh snap!)

maximoose666

12-18-2005, 10:28 PM

Fect's right, though, isn't he? I'd never thought of it that way. We really don't have any control... of course, in the UK there's no death penalty, but the government still has just as much control when you come to think of it. But I suppose the power of life and death is a step too far; government's shouldn't have it.

FascionViktem5k

12-19-2005, 09:40 PM

But the fact is that they do have that power... and the people won't do anything about it.. why? cuz they like it... they don't want to think for themsevles... well that would be the masses anyway.. those few individuals who do think for themselves and don't agree with the government are too few.. there is nothing that like.. three ppl can do... but whatever.. if people finally realize exactly how much power the gov has maybe they'll do something about it.. but .. until then.. just sit back and watch as they are controlled and manipulated..

maximoose666

12-20-2005, 02:14 PM

But the fact is that they do have that power.
I live in the UK where it got abolished lol.
But that does prove that governments stubbornly in favour of the death penalty can change. Not under Bush, but perhaps some day it'll also be abolished in the uS.

Shinomori

12-20-2005, 08:08 PM

All life is now in the hands of the powerful, hidden behind facades which we cannot see through. While the government is the soviergn that controls your life, you are put into question as one who can help the government or not. You are divided between that which is valuable and that which is not. For those who are not valued, the soviergn will take action. Others can take this form as well, our own friends can sometimes act as a soviergn, choosing to dispose of us when they please.

Maybe in Canada, but not in America. We have this thing...y'know, democracy and such. Where all people have power...guess that's just the difference. :doindadom

maximoose666

12-20-2005, 09:35 PM

Maybe in Canada, but not in America. We have this thing...y'know, democracy and such. Where all people have power...guess that's just the difference.
Your government controls its borders, doesn't it? you can't leave the US without passing 'security checks'.
George Bush authorised Intelligence to listen in to your private telephone conversations without a court order.

Your vaunted 'American Democracy' doesn't count for much when the people you elect ignore the rights of their subjects and rule as they see fit. Even your basic freedom of movement is restricted. Did you vote for that?

FascionViktem5k

12-22-2005, 05:27 AM

even though i'm not fully a United States citizen i still know what a democracy is.. and the US doesn't have it... they have both a democracy and a republicans.... people don't have anything.. they elect others who then goes and elects a leader for them... so technically... that person who is elected to be the voice of a selected few... can go against what the people are saying and vote for the other person... and a lot of people don't care... why? i dunno! all i know is that when i become a citizen... well.. i probably won't vote... cuz it's not me voting.. it's someone else speaking for me... and i don't like that... and Bush did get it validated...it's called the Patriot Act... Congress signed it with it's approval.... yeah... lol!

mooks

12-27-2005, 02:19 PM

My best friend is from Saudi Arabia, and he tells me that in Riyadh they execute publicly, for everyone to see. The criminal is beheaded by a jewel encrusted gold sword given by the king. crazy, huh?

America just had it's 1000th execution anniversary since it's reinstatement of the capital punishment. Funny how people call it an 'anniversary'

Anyways check out this link for more info
http://www.1000executions.org/punishingcapital.html

it's pretty crazy how the country is really split on this issue. Personally i'm against it. two wrongs don't make a right.

Fect

12-27-2005, 08:20 PM

Maybe in Canada, but not in America. We have this thing...y'know, democracy and such. Where all people have power...guess that's just the difference. :doindadom

All the people have power? It's a meritocracy, where you are advanced based on talent?

NO. It is in the hands of the few but wealthy rich who can sway people just by promising this or that. Money is power. The people don't control money- heck, they don't even control their own land (you have to pay taxes or your land is taken). It's the same way in Canada. $=power.

Those few wealthy have all the power and are the ones who control the population behind the masks. We can't stop them. You admit yourself to the system just by being a part of it (democracy). You're classed based on your value to the soviergn.

And besides, Canada has a democracy too-

:doindadom

FascionViktem5k

12-29-2005, 05:50 AM

thank you Fect... you said it soo..... lovely-like... if that's a word.... well it is now!!

mooks

12-29-2005, 04:33 PM

All the people have power? It's a meritocracy, where you are advanced based on talent?

:doindadom

I like the way u put it, Fect! Meritocracy! That's a new word that should be coined.

There are cooperations that are beyond the scope of the American Government. And some actually have an influence in some of the decisions made by senators and government officials. And that is seriously scary.

Fect

12-29-2005, 05:48 PM

Unfourtunately, just like Marx's Communism, meritocracy is just an ideal that is strived for but never achieved.

FascionViktem5k

12-29-2005, 10:34 PM

why don't we just get used to the fact that we can never have a perfect world and we can never have a perfect government.... we're sooo... idealistic when in reality we make mistakes everyday.... i know i do... and i don't have these high expectations of governments and corporations and blah blah... i just think that it's too high of a standard that we put on governments when it's obvious they will never achieve it yet we still beleive that they are perfect.... why do we do that?

SLVR

12-29-2005, 11:05 PM

I love the death penalty. But dont like hoe they use it. It takes to long to kill someone when they issue it. No piont in to making them sit on death row for 20 years and then get executed itd not constitutional

FascionViktem5k

12-31-2005, 06:37 AM

i like that idea... by the time they get executed they've probably already like "repented" and stuff... then again we give them all that time to prove themselves innocent if they really are.... yup yup... so i guess all that time must stay... oh well...

SLVR

12-31-2005, 07:24 AM

I agree with ya. To bad when yer on death row they make yer parol elijability longer than yerr execution date :LOL:

FascionViktem5k

12-31-2005, 09:17 AM

man does that suck...

Vampyrelord

03-07-2006, 04:38 PM

This question is hardly original, I know, but it's certainly a very important issue, and I would like to see how people feel about it.

I shall open the debate with the stance held by some human rights activists:

The death penalty is cruel and barbaric and solves nothing.

Wanderweiss

03-07-2006, 05:14 PM

In no way shape or form is the death penalty moral. But i'll ask...are the crimes the people commit not just as immoral? Why let a murderer live a full life in prison, wasting our tax dollars to keep him well fed when we can just off him? Man, the punishment fits the crime. If you don't want to die, then don't kill people, its a pretty easy philosophy isn't it?

brolijc

03-07-2006, 05:22 PM

yes i agree completely to what GrungeHamster said. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, i think that can pretty much explains the world of law. some serious cases like rape for example, doesn't give you the death penalty, but to me, rape cases are just as bad as murder, even though they aren't given the death penalty they should be given a life sentence

akin_t

03-07-2006, 05:43 PM

Rape cases as bad as murder? Heh, I beg to differ.

While rape is a terrible thing it doesn't compare to murder at all. When someone is murdered they cease to live, there's hardly anything better than being alive.

As for the death penalty, I'm ambivalent towards that issue but for the sake of debate I'll I have to say it's wrong.

How do we decide who deserves to die? An eye for an eye and the world would go blind. That law holds no water, people should learn to forgive, it's hard but it's the better way for a society to live.

Dradam

03-07-2006, 06:17 PM

Personally i do not believe we should have the right to take a persons life.
If a man kills another man, and we kill the murderer are we not then ourselves murderers? so shouldn't we be given the death penalty for murdering someone...?

Neve

03-07-2006, 07:15 PM

Quiet Demon

03-07-2006, 07:31 PM

While in observance of someone who was actually in for life, he stated more than a few times that after the first 12 years, he began begging for the death penalty. He said the reason being is that when you're in for so long and you know you'll never see freedom or family again, you'd rather just die soon and get it over with.
Also from a purely financial standpoint, each prisoner each year cost appx $30,000 whereas the DP costs about 6,000 - 10,000 of your and my money and as cruel as it may seem, that's a large factor to the govt.

Neve

03-07-2006, 07:41 PM

Your example would be euthanasia - completely different issue. We're talking about people in general who are being killed for crimes they comitted and the death penalty is against their will.

I don't think you can take money into consideration - no amount of money is worth a human life.

Shaehl

03-07-2006, 07:49 PM

I support the death penalty. In a perfect world, we could all forgive, forget and live in perpetual happiness. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. People can't be allowed to get away with things like murder. It is not wrong to end the life of one who takes the life of an innoccent.

There is a fundamental difference between killing a murder and killing an innoccent. When a murderer kills, he does it to further his own selfish desires or to feed his hatred.

When the justice system kills, it does it to:
A) protect society from an individual unfit to function in said society.
B) protect society from similar events occuring in the future by letting it be known that such atrocities will not be tolerated.
C) punish the criminal.

The way I see it, when someone murders an innoccent, they are essentially giving up any right they have to their own life. If the prison system wasn't little more than a way for thugs and criminals to live their lives in relative comfort, free of any responsibility, I might not support the death penatly. But as it is now, it is the only viable option. In many prisons, the inmates live more luxurious lives than the vast majority of the law abiding poor. Even worse, we're using tax dollars to pay for these murders and rapists to continue doing so. It's unacceptable.

Neve

03-07-2006, 08:10 PM

Murderers cannot all be seen as simply evil individuals who have no purpose in their own lives other than to kill. Indeed, many people are executed on the basis of one or two murders, which they have not simply done for fun.

When the justice system kills, it is indeed trying to protect society. It fails in doing this. When a study was done in California, where they executed one person a month, murder rates annually increased 10%. If the justice system wants to protect society, perhaps it should stop killing and have a look at the decrease in homicides.

There is also the issue of miscarrages of justice. When an innocent is killed by the state, it is completely inexcusable - there is no possible defence for it, and it simply encourages murderers, while destroying that person's family etc. I believe the death penalty should be abolished if only to protect innocents from being murdered.

Tokoyami

03-07-2006, 08:17 PM

You should really use the search function before making a thread - this is a duplicate of another thread that was created ages ago, but its still active. Link http://forums.bleachportal.net/showthread.php?t=883&highlight=death+penalty

While I'm here I may as well say that I believe the death penalty is most definitely not the way to solve any crimes. Taking another person's life lowers yourself to their level, regardless of their crimes.

Yea i was gonna say this thread was created a while back.

Not all murderers are evil crazy people. I dont think u can have the right to kill someone. And like Itsovernow stated in her latest post (i assume ure a girl cus of your avatar), sometimes the system kills the wrong person.

Take this scenario into consideration. If someone shot your mom, or someone you loved dearly, (picture your own person), for me it would be one of my parents. If someone shot that person in front of you for one reason or another, you wouldnt be compelled to shoot them back?

Quiet Demon

03-07-2006, 09:59 PM

Though I personally support the death penalty, I can also see why it is evil. However I also see it as a necessary evil to remove those too dangerous to participate in society like Shaehl said.
Unfortunately, Itsovernow, the government does see it as a matter of money. They only see prisoner numbers and operational costs per inmate. They try to disquise that fact, but it doesn't change it.
I have a bit of interaction with the prison system and I can say that it is a thouroughly screwed up system in drastic need of revise, from the highest penalty to the lowest.

Shaehl

03-07-2006, 10:03 PM

Yea i was gonna say this thread was created a while back.
Not all murderers are evil crazy people. I dont think u can have the right to kill someone. And like Itsovernow stated in her latest post (i assume ure a girl cus of your avatar), sometimes the system kills the wrong person.
Take this scenario into consideration. If someone shot your mom, or someone you loved dearly, (picture your own person), for me it would be one of my parents. If someone shot that person in front of you for one reason or another, you wouldnt be compelled to shoot them back?

Wouldn't it be self-defence in that scenario?

akin_t

03-07-2006, 10:14 PM

Wouldn't it be self-defence in that scenario?

Not neccesarily, your loved one has already been shot, shooting the murderer won't bring them back.

We'll be compelled to shoot because we want to exact revenge, simple and short.

Draffut

03-07-2006, 10:14 PM

The Death Penalty is to good for murderers. any penatly should be 10 times the crime the person commited. I can tell you right now, you would see a DRASTIC drop in things like homicide and rape.

I remember resding a book in economics that said we should fasten a spear onto the steering wheel of all cars, aimed strait for the drivers heart. This would make the roads WAYY safer, despite the apparent danger. I belive this strategy can be used in all aspects of life.

BlackHawkLV

03-07-2006, 10:40 PM

The death penalty should be painfull, for example, on an electrical chair. Person should sit there for few min then when electricity is released, human body develops strong resistance to electricity, thus giving person long and painfull death.
At least then noone would comit crime, out of fear of beeing cought. Nowdays they just sit in prison for few years, relaxing, and then comes out even bader then before.

Sorian

03-07-2006, 10:59 PM

Murders, rapers, and child molestors all should get the death penalty. It is moral if used on them. Now when I say murderers I mean real murderers, not someone who got involentary man slaughter for punching someone. He is not a murderer he just gets jail time.

Centro

03-07-2006, 11:05 PM

Revenge is never a good thing .... Agree or Disagree?

I think the death penalty brings revenge into the justice system.

SoundWave

03-07-2006, 11:07 PM

I don't think it's moral.. but what can ya do this world aint perfect, so i say equal trade.. People who have commited several murders should be punished with death.. And you shouldn't just sentence someone to death in a hurry, it will have to be with enough evidence so that you can be 100% sure..

brolijc

03-08-2006, 01:35 AM

akin_t: you said that rape is not as bad as murdering someone. the victims who got raped, they are humiliated in such a way that it causes a side effect onto them. some of them might become mentaly unstable, and in the worse case scenario, they suicide, if it links to this doesn't it make it similiar to murder. especially if the rapist had diseases like AIDs or HIV then the victim would have to live a toturable life for the rest of his/her life. also, by doing this not only they themselves will get affected, but people around them, like their family members, they will drift further and further away from their family members and friends, worse still, if the victim got pregnant because of the criminal, if the child is borned then most probably the victim will toture the child during the childhood. and that child will grow up into another mentaly unstable person, thus causing more lives to be affected

now back to the topic. Death penalty is a must to punish those that commit really serious crimes. lets use this verse as an example, even though i'm not a Christian at all. "Do unto others, what you want others to do unto you"
or in the Chinese saying there is "Good will be repayed with good and evil will be repayed with evil"

akin_t

03-08-2006, 02:24 AM

akin_t: you said that rape is not as bad as murdering someone. the victims who got raped, they are humiliated in such a way that it causes a side effect onto them. some of them might become mentaly unstable, and in the worse case scenario, they suicide, if it links to this doesn't it make it similiar to murder. especially if the rapist had diseases like AIDs or HIV then the victim would have to live a toturable life for the rest of his/her life. also, by doing this not only they themselves will get affected, but people around them, like their family members, they will drift further and further away from their family members and friends, worse still, if the victim got pregnant because of the criminal, if the child is borned then most probably the victim will toture the child during the childhood. and that child will grow up into another mentaly unstable person, thus causing more lives to be affected

Rape victims still have their lives, that is far more important than esteem, sanity, health and the other reattainable things that you mentioned.

While life would become very hard for them; I bet you, they would rather be raped than murdered ... most people will.

The post rape trauma that victims might suffer are not always permanent (well besides AIDS and other incurable STDs, then again, what are the odds?); things get better if you want them to.

saycheese

03-08-2006, 02:42 AM

some places a woman's life is practically gone if she lost her viginity. not to mention the physical and psycological torture she has endured. too top it all off, a nice trauma to plague her every once in awhile. and many things are more important than death anyway, ie dignity. given the chance, alot of people would rather die with dignity than rape and live on.
anyway i say death penalty should be present, as barbaric & inhumane as it is. it takes away many problems and burdens.

edit: wooo, i forgot to read debate title. do i think death penalty is moral? no.