The problem I have with killing someone found guilty of murder And child abuse is 1: they may have been wrongly found guilty 2: I don't feel comfortable with the state, or even worse a jury of cretins - dont forget juries are made up of the assholes and imbeciles you see on the street, the only thing that qualifies them to make the decision is that they are over 18 and have an address - deciding that someone should die. That is harly something that should be decided by a bunch of average joes picked at random. 3: it's damaging to society to have a policy where the mentally I'll, and let's face it most murderers and rapists are mentally I'll, be killed. 4: it in now way acts as a deterant, as is evidenced by the violent crime stats from places with capital pummishment 5: keping someone on death row and ultimately killing them costs far more than imprissoning them for the rest of their lives. So, as you can see, I have put a lot more thought in to my veiws than you have with your blood lust for retribution. Aren't you a Christian, brown-nose? It would be interesting to see how many Christians support the death penalty, I'm guessing thier "forgivness" and "thou shalt not kill" bollocks goes out the window when it doesn't support the conclusion they have already come to, typically.
1. The example was a 3-year old who was raped and murdered. I wanted to know if the reason mattered in that case. 2. Your example would not qualify someone for the death penalty as I have already stated above, so I am not sure the point. In addition, you are confusing the reason with the facts. The silly example you gave is not murder or a death penalty crime under any law. Do you want to give a relevant example or maybe just deal with the one on the table. Hard time finding a reason for that one? 3. Do you care to tell everyone if there is ANY reason that would impress you when asking someone why they raped and killed a 3-year old? 1. I have already said I would only put people to death where guilt/identity was not in question. 2. People are not killed at the time of sentencing. Even in the most aggressive US states, years of appeals are taken before anyone is put to death. Although, I will admit innocent people have been put to death - which is why I would apply a more stringent standard. 3. It is circular logic to say that anyone who kills is mentally ill and we should not punish mentally ill people - when they are the only ones to be punished. Yes, murderers are not well people. As long as they are alive, they should be treated for any illness. I fail to see why a crazy fuck who kills 10 people should be given some break because he is crazy. 4. It is most certainly a deterrent to the deceased criminal. I think the sporadic and uneven application of the death penalty have lessened its effectiveness as a general deterrent. Any basic law course makes it clear that deterrence of the criminal being sentenced is most certainly a factor in their sentencing. While it may be involuntary deterrence, it is nonetheless quite effective. 5. I agree the way we execute people in the United States is not very cost effective. We should have a better system with fewer people being sentenced and greater protections. I don't see that you have put more anything into your views. You know nothing about me or the time I have spent considering the death penalty. That you make those types of outlandish, untrue, and certainly unknowable statements says a lot about the rest of your argument. At least you closed with another swipe at my name. Does making silly insults with my name serve any purpose? I certainly don't care, so keep it up if you want, it reflects on you not me. There are very few things I find personally insulting - especially coming from people I don't know. As for my religious beliefs - I have none. I do not believe in God or any holy books of any kind. I think are all bunch of malarkey. But, unlike you, I actually have a true respect for those that choose to believe in God. I don't personally choose to believe, but I would defend their right to do so. p.s. I am pro death penalty, pro choice, and anti abortion.
I'm basically in agreement with Browntown on my views of capital punishment. For the most heinous crimes, I don't really have a problem with the death penalty. Toopac, I don't believe you understand how the death penalty works after reading this statement, "I hit her by accident in my car, I'm sorry but a dog ran in front of my car, I tried to avoid it and hit her. A Judge that is only interested in the act, would probably give him the death penalty, after all he did kill her." I really don't think the judge is going to give him the death penalty. Not sure about this source, but according to these statistics there were over 16,000 murders in the US in 2008. We executed a total of 37 murderers in 2008, and 42 in 2007. What that means is the death penalty is rarely applied - it's reserved mainly for aggravated murder - like a serial killer, raping and killing, etc. Stox, I'm not sure about #4. I've read the same, thought that must be true, but now I'm not sure. For those against the death penalty, they insist it's not a deterrant. For those that support it, they insist that it does deter, read about this study on the Washington Post. Rob Jones, you will be proud to know that Texas is #1...
LOL, exactly. Or anyone other than me (Rob Jones) "cos I'm nice" and don't want to be murdered I just cheer others on their way guilty or not... It doesn't save one, it saves many innocents, the point is 'one innocent' being killed is too many, at least in my book. And in your book by looking at your quote above Once they are proved innocent, how do they murder as you claim? are you going down the avenue of "so what if they are innocent", they could murder upon being found innocent and released - Like pre-crime? How do they murder again if they are found guilty? In your justice system for example judges do give life without parole, this would be the sentence if death is not available correct? So how can anyone murder another child or another man, woman? or save me if I were the next victim, if they were given life? They can only kill again if they have not been caught, or if their sentence was not life, you say: So how exactly did the death penalty help? The problem you describe is not related to the death penalty but to incompetent judges whom have the option to take them off the street for good, with or without the death sentence but don't. Or incompetent prison systems that can't keep prisoners in And yet you think these people can make decisions about another's life, when they can't even do their jobs properly? The big picture is they may have killed someone and they have been found guilty of killing someone, then the state kills them and the state is guilty of killing someone (including innocents) - So exactly how is the state better than the supposed killer? Other countries don't have the death penalty and they hardly have rampant murders. Not particularly, but the whole thing needs to be looked into including why they did do what they did (their reason), not that the sentence should be lighter nor that the answer is (not obvious) but because information even from these people helps to make children safer, evidence to prove whether or not they are indeed guilty needs to be properly considered as well i.e the whole thing including their reason or excuse. You can't negate these things because your 'outraged', otherwise we could just march possible sex offenders to the cell or to their death, because they are disgusting beasts because of their 'act' (real or imagined). So are they an alien species? Deterrent? to dead people? lol
If the evidence is beyond doubt (video, DNA linking them DIRECTLY with the crime - not just at the scene, or other means) then I say we send them to a science lab and do our testing on them, rather than on animals that simply don't deserve it. A pedophile's life is worth less than that of E-coli, and thus we could learn infinitely more about drug interactions, diseases, treatments, and such, through their unwilling volunteerism - making them worth a bit more to us that they would be dead. However, in the end, they still should die. To argue against the death penalty for the worst of the abusers is to argue against evolution of our species to this point. Throughout history we have always ganged up on the abusers, the malicious, and we have killed them. Although we may not have gotten them all, or gotten the wrong ones from time to time, we have created a much more peaceful society through this method of selection. If you have a strong, brutal, vile example of a human that can overpower each individual in the group, but the group can communicate and band together, no matter how hard the individual tries - he will lose to numbers. Serial killers, serial rapists, serial abusers, and serial molesters must be weeded out from our genetic lineage one way or another. I firmly believe that genetics predisposes us to who we are by about 50%, and environment does the other 50%. You eliminate the genetics, and the environment dies with it.
ahh, so brownfinger is for the death penalty only in cases where the judge and jury have actually seen the defendant commit the crime. Or just stop doing it. They have had long enough to develop a more "stringent standard". 1. you don't know what circular reasoning is. 2. Are you saying we should kill mentally ill people for being mentally ill? 3. Are you saying murderers and child rapists could possibly be mentally stable? You seem to want to claim my reasoning is flawed while admitting that murderers are "not well people". That makes no sense at all. I wondered how long it would take you to decend in to gobledegook. But they don't. It's all very well living in this fantasy land where the judicial system is flawless, but in the real world errors are made and the system is labourious. Even if you are for the death penalty in principle that alone you make you against it in practice. It's flawed and costly, not a system fit for determining who gets killed by the state.
What about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? He admits guilt, is happy he did it, and wondering if we could go ahead and kill him now... He almost got his wish with the military tribunal, but no. Now he is being whisked off to New York for a trial, and I've read the extra security costs ALONE for a one year trial will cost us 75 million.
lol i knew if i done it long enough it would get a responce... good job it did too, because ive run out of them now. i'll let you know if i think of any more.
Though it doesn't really phase me either way, I have no real objections to it. As for the whole innocent being executed thing...better to be executed than to live your life in jail, slowly going insane because you know you are innocent. I'd kill myself after a few years to end it.
The high courts and US law follow the same path I've stated. Murderers ARE subject to execution, and we do not suspend all executions of the guilty in fear that perhaps someone was misadjudicated. It is not considered "cruel and unusual" to permanently remove a convicted murderer's capacity to find and kill new victims. Convicted murderers cannot be paroled from a grave, nor are they likely to escape. That is why they are executed. For those that do not like the applicable statutes, the process of changing law is rather lengthy, so you might want to get started electing people to high office that are like-minded. As I've stated my position, which mirrors the law of the land, I'll not bother answering some replies that appear to be based more on reading comprehension issues or intentional trolling than on genuine attempts at rational interchange of thought. I'll retire from the discussion and let others express their own views. As a quick reminder, there aren't likely any Supreme Court justices following the thread in hopes of formulating an opinion, so discussion is all that is taking place here. Vilifying or insulting specific individuals here will not change that, nor improve anyone's standing in this forum.
That is not always the case. I read a lot of true crime books and are a fan of true crime shows, and many times, there are murderers that find a way to get out (or are let out) and murder again. The signs are almost always there that the person is a true psychopath and actually enjoys hurting people, so I say fry 'em and get it over with. With DNA and our technology these days, I find it less likely that we will send innocent people to the chair and we will probably end up saving more lives by getting rid of the truly inhuman.
DNA evidence is relied on far too much. DNA evidence can never prove someone committed a crime, it can only prove that two samples came from the same person. I do agree that some people pose a permanent risk to others, but that can only justify imprisoning them indefinitely, not killing them; or as you you so barbarically put it, "fry 'em". It does seem that those pro-death get some kind of perverse satisfaction from it.
But don't you see the problem is with the sentence? You are saying this happens now (I know it does), so how did the death penalty help, you have it, what good did it do? The problem is the judge was incompetent and the parole board? Yet these people are smart enough to end life? They do sometimes get out, but isn't the problem to do with lack of proper security? The death penalty was an option, it wasn't used, how has the death penalty helped in these cases? Wouldn't better security, better judges be the answer? What about second degree murderers, they can't be executed anyway? Can't they get out and kill again? or be paroled and kill?
Sweden and most civilized countries have no death penalty and they have nowhere near the number of serial killers, serial rapists or serial abusers as USA, how do you explain this one?
~ Determining the reason for the crime has everything to do with the sentence - your extreme example rapist / murderer on face value answers itself however in real life finding the exact reason for the act would be necessary for a prudent judge to chose death as a sentence. ~ Where an insane person is driven to commit murder by a third party who's interest is served by the death, a judges ruling against the death penalty would be done so by examining the reason for the crime. ~ Reason alone might better be used to determine a death sentence than just for those who have taken another's life but also for other to be determined circumstances deemed appropriate i.e. aggravated shop lifting.
Justice in my opinion is to give people there rights and the right you can give to a person or a group who was murdered is to kill his murder. If we do not apply death penalty for murder then criminals will murder more becuase the penalty they might get if they get is not enough to scare them and they might think if they will get jailed for whole life, he might try to escape or if its a group it might try to make there jailed person to escape or negotiate for them or etc.... Which make things more complicated and might cause more victims in the case. Most killing happens for money and you must know that there are people ready to kill for money so that there dearest people get it even so they know they might get killed, but as long as the money receive there dearest people hands, they may sacrifice even if they get killed, now imagine if there is no death panelty and how this would motivate these people ? You should not measure killing by a sick person only who kill, Killing does not happen from only a person, or a group. it might happen from a nation and it might be more complicated than you imagine, however the just you can make in all of cases is to take just for the murdered and protect others.
I've found statistics that I wanted to add: Use of capital punishment by nation Murders per capita by country Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have the least amount of murders per capita, and have capital punishment. In Saudi Arabia the most common method is by beheading with a sword, and the death penalty is for "violent and nonviolent offenses, including murder; apostasy; drug offenses; witchcraft; sexual misconduct." Columbia has the most murders per capita and their stated philosophy regarding capital punishment is that "The right to life is inviolable. There will be no death penalty." I know that to look at the rate of murders in a country and suggest it's solely influenced by whether they have capital punishment or not, would be a gross over-simplification - but I just thought these statistics were interesting.