DarkLight 0 Posted June 10, 2002 So, i was just wondering what all of you think about the death penalty. I've recently seen a study about this and it showed that most of the executed ppl are innocent, this made me think a little and i thought it would be interesting to hear your opinions. PLease don't bs to much in this thread, i'm serious about this. I'd like to say something about it too but i don't have enough time (got stupid exams, aaaaargh! Go ahead, post your opinion... (and let's not flame on Texas too much ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted June 10, 2002 I think its needed for mass murderers like Daumer and Bundy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 10, 2002 Hmm... it is a tough issue. If sombody killed anybody of the people that I love, I sure as hell would want revenge. But at the same time I think that we have to distance ourselves from that as a society. We have defined that killing is wrong. Therefor it is just as wrong if Ted Bundy does it as if the government does it. As civilized countries we have a penal system that has evolved away from the principle 'an eye for an eye'. Justice is not equal revenge. I also think that killing a human being is an enormous waste of resources. Let them work hard labour for the society. Let the criminals build roads, work in mines and do something useful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WKK Gimbal 0 Posted June 10, 2002 That's always been my philosophy too. They'll also learn more about the straight path by working hard and being useful every day, rather than living on a hotel with bars. And young lazy criminals who do crimes to break boredom are incredibly scared of hard work. Maybe it will teach them a lesson they'll remember. Mines, trawlers, steelworks, oilrigs, etc are all good places where they can be kept safe from escaping and do something useful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Postduifje 0 Posted June 10, 2002 I agree with Denoir. Also I think the punishment is suposed to better the one who's punished, this is not possible with death penalty. The punishment is not suposed to be a revenge for the victim, or an example for the society, it's suposed to teach the criminal. He has to know what he did wrong, and how he could have done it right. Killing him doesn't solve the problem. All people, even leathel psychopats, aren't evil by default. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted June 10, 2002 I believe in the death penalty some what.Like if someone kills over 2 people,they better kill him.But then i think,All america does is give them a shot to put them to sleep,and another shot to stop their heart,I mean that's too easy way to die,you took someone life and you go out easy.I say send those people to the north/south pole,or some cold place,build a huge jail,Soo if they do escape their probably die.Also put them at work doing something,like building toys for poor children or hard labor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
habdoel 0 Posted June 10, 2002 enyone heard of confrontating the victem with the criminal? trying to understand why he did it and his motivs, and do somthing about the crime together, instaed of putting them away in some jail, and let them back in normal life with a trauma and hate against the system, wich results in new voilent? or am i studiÄng too hard(not on english for sure)on criminologie(studiing crime) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kep Kelagin 1 Posted June 10, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ June 10 2002,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe in the death penalty some what.Like if someone kills over 2 people,they better kill him.But then i think,All america does is give them a shot to put them to sleep,and another shot to stop their heart,I mean that's too easy way to die,you took someone life and you go out easy.<span id='postcolor'> i dont think that the killing itself is the hard part of the punishment they get, but the years waiting before gettin executed is the hardest part, i think...And whats the difference between killing 1 or 2, or more people ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted June 10, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kip Kilagan™ @ June 10 2002,21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ June 10 2002,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe in the death penalty some what.Like if someone kills over 2 people,they better kill him.But then i think,All america does is give them a shot to put them to sleep,and another shot to stop their heart,I mean that's too easy way to die,you took someone life and you go out easy.<span id='postcolor'> i dont think that the killing itself is the hard part of the punishment they get, but the years waiting before gettin executed is the hardest part, i think...And whats the difference between killing 1 or 2, or more people ?<span id='postcolor'> We all know were dying,we are waiting for it.I bet alot of us wish we will go out that easy.You ever think about how you going die ? I wonder sometimes, is it going suck or is it going be great(go to sleep one night and die in my sleep).I don't have a death wish,but i don't wanna be  suffering. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kep Kelagin 1 Posted June 10, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ June 10 2002,21:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kip Kilagan™ @ June 10 2002,21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ June 10 2002,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe in the death penalty some what.Like if someone kills over 2 people,they better kill him.But then i think,All america does is give them a shot to put them to sleep,and another shot to stop their heart,I mean that's too easy way to die,you took someone life and you go out easy.<span id='postcolor'> i dont think that the killing itself is the hard part of the punishment they get, but the years waiting before gettin executed is the hardest part, i think...And whats the difference between killing 1 or 2, or more people ?<span id='postcolor'> We all know were dying,we are waiting for it.I bet alot of us wish we will go out that easy.You ever think about how you going die ? I wonder sometimes, is it going suck or is it going be great(go to sleep one night and die in my sleep).I don't have a death wish,but i don't wanna be  suffering.<span id='postcolor'> Well, how old are u then ? 80 ? if not, u shouldnt be bothered when u die, or in wich way... better think of what to do with your life, instaed on figuring out how it will end.. Afcourse we all gonna die, but for all those who are waiting for there death-sentence, its a bit more difficult. They know when and on what day they will day, and in wich way. Dont get me wrong, a lot of them have done terribl things to other people, and i sure dont want me to happen anything either, but i dont think that the death-penalty will solve annything... and besides, it wouldnt make us any better then the criminals themselves... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted June 10, 2002 There are some people that deserve the death penalty. Â A guy like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacey... they cant be reformed and they are a danger to society. The problem comes in when you get cases where the person is either innocent of the crimes or misconduct by a lawyer, the police, or a judge. Â I watched an A&E special where a guy that was the lookout/driver got the death penalty in Texas..whereas the guys that did the actual planning, robbery, and shooting got life sentences. Â The guy's lawyer was a drug addict, and actually in the process of being disbarred when the guy was on trial. Â In another case, the District Attourney held back info that proved the informant that was the key in a death sentence was never at the jail where the convicted man supposedly confessed to him. Unless the system is 100% perfect you cant justify the use of the Death Penalty. Â After all...if you execute 1000 men and even one is truly innocent, then the system is wrong. Â I just wish there could be exceptions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted June 10, 2002 It's not like I'm thinking about dying every minute/hour.It's just i wonder how i will go out,you telling me you never wonder ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kep Kelagin 1 Posted June 10, 2002 afcourse i sometimes wonder about how it will end as well, but what i was trying to say is that u cant compare dying a so called " normal " way with dying by the death-penalty.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted June 10, 2002 All i'm saying is it's too damn easy to die like that(give them 2 shots and he's dead).People with cancer with 6 months to live  wish they can commit suicide like that,Why can't they ? Because it's illegal to help someone kill themself,or something like that.Soo we give people that murder people 2 shots(one to put them asleep ,another one to stop their heart.) and he's dead.I say we go back to frying them ,or the shooting line,or hanging. --edit But i do believe a colder place would do some good for them,just keep them there for ever doing work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kep Kelagin 1 Posted June 10, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ June 10 2002,22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All i'm saying is it's too damn easy to die like that(give them 2 shots and he's dead).People with cancer with 6 months to live  wish they can commit suicide like that,Why can't they ? Because it's illegal to help someone kill themself,or something like that.Soo we give people that murder people 2 shots(one to put them asleep ,another one to stop their heart.) and he's dead.I say we go back to frying them ,or the shooting line,or hanging.<span id='postcolor'> Well, where i come from ( Netherlands ) , u can decide wheter u wanna end your lif or not, that is, when u have cancer, or anything like that, but that still is nothing compared with getting fryed or hanged... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sadico 1 Posted June 10, 2002 I'm against death penalty. I would rather hang on a pole than being in jail for 60 years, so why kill assasins? Also as you said before, there are lots of roads to build and lots of holes to drill. On the other hand, if a fucker killed my mother or my girlfriend or someone i love, i wouldn't want to wait for the judge to decide and then wait years till they finaly fry the guy. I would kill him myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted June 10, 2002 i'd say life without possibility of parole is the most cruel punishment for the crime. I really don't know if there is hell or not, so if there, is then execution is the most cruel punishment, but since i;m not sure i'd stick with life w/o possibility. getting stuck in a cell, with no hope seems to be a horrible thing. if they want out, they could ask for death penalty. and yes, death penalty does not prevent crime per se. but it shows other ppl that cost of crime is high and could deter that in future. if there is absolutely possitively no reasonable doubt that the person did it, then it should not be a problem. however, if the prosecution or police mad mistake and the innocent guy is executed, only to be corrected later, then the prosecutor/police needs to be sent to prison for their mistake. and i about foxers idea about antarctica prison. sometimes when prison riots break out, there are not enough guards to stop it, and if inmates get upperhand, then we would see mass execution of guards too..so not the best, but certainly worth look into. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kep Kelagin 1 Posted June 10, 2002 What about sending the judge and jury of that innocent guy as well to jail , rather then only the police who made an error...Sending them all wouldnt be any solution either...i think that a penalty like prison for life would be much better for the Bundy types out there, but deatch sentence really doesnt make any difference.. its just a cheap way of saving taxes money... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted June 10, 2002 my idea about US judicial system is that jurors are listening to both parties' arguments and decide the fate of accused, as the member of society. for defendant to recieve any sentence/verdict, DA has to argue why he is guilty, with support of evidence by police. so DA and police have obligation to be just. if they breach that, then they are the ones to be blamed. that's my thought...ok..not thought..just rambling... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nordin dk 0 Posted June 10, 2002 Haven't we had some decent wars over this subject already? "Killing is bad, so we're going to kill you" ...uhm... Civilised countries don't have the death penalty. For a reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted June 11, 2002 Anyone who commits premeditated murder, by violating another human beings right to Life, thereby forfeits their own right to Life. That simple. Its not about revenge. Its simply about removing a dangerous person who has made a conscious decision to kill other people. It can be accomplished mercifully, and in nearly all cases, it will be accomplished with much more mercy than was shown to the murderers victim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmy 0 Posted June 11, 2002 one side of me likes the death penalty, and the other one doesnt. I think, if someone is sentenced to the death penalty, the victim's family should have the option to personally beat the shit out of the killer as much as they want. thatd be pretty fun actually. Either that, or, if there is a way to do it, give the killer cancer or aids, by placing one of the cells in his body, and let him rot away. Or they could just make killers constantly do hard labor on roads, and make them where signs that said-Iv'e killed a human, fell free to hit me, throw somthing at me, or spit on me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Fox 0 Posted June 11, 2002 Ok, I never agreed with the death penalty and compleatly agree with denoir. For those insane murdurers that could never go back into society or contribute to it should die cause its a waste or resources to keep them alive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted June 11, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have defined that killing is wrong. Therefor it is just as wrong if Ted Bundy does it as if the government does it.<span id='postcolor'> Exactly. I agree with Denoir. The death penalty does not serve any purpose in a civilized society. It is meant as a deterrent but it does not scare criminals away from murdering. So what is the point of it? I would rather get an easy death, like lethal injection, than spend the rest of my life in a 10x12 foot cell with one hour out of it each day. I can't help but think that there is something profoundly wrong about governments killing their own citizens, no matter how bad they are. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted June 11, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nordin dk @ June 10 2002,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Haven't we had some decent wars over this subject already? "Killing is bad, so we're going to kill you" ...uhm... Civilised countries don't have the death penalty. Â For a reason.<span id='postcolor'> There has to be an arbitrator. Â Do you prosecute a police officer if a murderer charges him and he must shoot him which could end up in the criminal's death? If not, isn't that going against your belief? How do you guys account for recidivism among ultra-dangerous murderers? (75% of all crime here is committed by recidivist criminals). How do you account for the luxurious accomodations of prisons these days? Is sitting around watching cable and working out really that "awful" for these criminals? Not likely. There are people around here who commit crimes just before winter so that can get into the jails. I believe there is threshold for the death penalty and it should be used extremely conservatively and reserved only for the most dangerous murderers. Â I feel a universal decree against the death penalty is more dangerous for the citizens of a society in the long run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites