|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:01 pm
it should happen for bad out laws
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:26 pm
atlm it should happen for bad out laws Would you mind defining what crimes should be punishable by death? Every outlaw is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:47 am
The death penalty is something to console those closest to the victim of the crime. So they can sleep well at night knowing that the person who killed their sweet little [insert name here] got what they deserved.
It seems almost ironic that we go around looking for the most "humane" ways to kill people. With lethal injection, criminals still feel the pain of their body failing, but the first injection just soothes their nerves so it looks as though they feel nothing. Scientifically speaking beheading might be the best way to kill. It is very likely that by the time the brain is able to register pain, the person is already dead. However since a dead person has never been able to confirm this theory, and beheading makes such a mess, we retain lethal injection. After all, we can't see that the person dying is going through pain. So everything is fine and dandy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:04 am
I guess it is all in the matter of opinon. Take Charles Manson, he brainwashed tons of peole, convinced others to kill for him, and he was arested when the death penatly was illigal. Its all about the crime, why the did it, and the evidence against them. I think we should keep it, and yeah, some people need it for an end to the pain they felt.
Oh and on a side note, the gass chamber thing, not being used anymore, I think MO still has one, and uses it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:05 am
in some cases, i dont see why we even try to find the most humane ways to kill ppl. in many cases the victim went through lots of pain and suffering, so we reward the killer with a painless (or close to painless) death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:46 pm
shadow_alchemist92 in some cases, i dont see why we even try to find the most humane ways to kill ppl. in many cases the victim went through lots of pain and suffering, so we reward the killer with a painless (or close to painless) death.
Society would literally be creating killers to deal with killers. A sick and twisted person could torture those receiving the death penalty for the rest of their lives, and never be reprimanded for it.
Or could that even be the case in the "justice" system today?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:58 pm
TempestRising That brings up a very interesting question. Should the murderer suffer the same death of his or her victim? If so, who would be appointed to carry out the execution. Could there be someone willing to administer death in such a manor on a daily basis? I imagine that there would be at least a small amount of psychological torment when you know you are responsible taking the life of another human being.
Society would literally be creating killers to deal with killers. A sick and twisted person could torture those receiving the death penalty for the rest of their lives, and never be reprimanded for it.
Or could that even be the case in the "justice" system today? I think it would be best if we stick to our standard methods of execution, such as lethal injection, the gas chamber, etcetera, etcetera. Or if we want something new, we could always adopt the Russian method of execution: a bullet to the back of the head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:04 pm
Der Freischuetz I think it would be best if we stick to our standard methods of execution, such as lethal injection, the gas chamber, etcetera, etcetera. Or if we want something new, we could always adopt the Russian method of execution: a bullet to the back of the head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:09 pm
TempestRising For all I know the Russian method might be the most humane (for the same reason as beheading). However there is still the problem of the person who is forced to pull the trigger. They are for all intensive purposes a government sanctioned killer. Doesn't that seem wrong in the least bit? I'm the type who believes that killing a guilty person is okay, because they're doing a service. If the person to be executed was accused and convicted of the crime, then executing the guilty should be of no concern. The Guilty has proven to the State that they cannot be trusted, and the State will punish them for it. Currently people for firing squads are drawn at random, but we could always look for volunteers. I'd assume most Southerners would be more than willing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:44 pm
Der Freischuetz Currently people for firing squads are drawn at random, but we could always look for volunteers. I'd assume most Southerners would be more than willing...
Think about it. The people who murder the guilty are committing murder. If they were to have a full legal proceeding, they should truly, be convicted fo murder. What is it that gives the Judicial system any more power to condemn someone to death than the murderer who committed the crime?
I can't force myself to believe that having 12 people on a jury decide to kill you makes it any better than someone else. If that is really the case than logically I should be able to go out with a group of 12 or more and kill whoever we decide should die. It just doesn't seem reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:53 am
Der Freischuetz I'm the type who believes that killing a guilty person is okay, because they're doing a service. If the person to be executed was accused and convicted of the crime, then executing the guilty should be of no concern. The Guilty has proven to the State that they cannot be trusted, and the State will punish them for it. Currently people for firing squads are drawn at random, but we could always look for volunteers. I'd assume most Southerners would be more than willing... id definately volunteer for that position (and im southern, but that may just be a coincidence) it sounds like a pretty good solution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:13 pm
I believe quite simply that there are people who need to die, particularly in the most inhumane ways possible. I look at life in prison as worse than death, and that for the very worst it should be a very painful death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:52 pm
Even if someone has murdered another person, I don't believe in having the death penalty. If someone is murdered, and the suspect is sent to jail after being found guilty, you don't just kill them. You ask them why they did it and show them why they were wrong. If you kill someone who's killed someone, the victims death is null. It seems as though it meant nothing, if by thinking that killing that suffering soul who killed them will make up for the great life they might have had ahead of them. It is best to make the person who murdered, attone for his wrongful act. Make the difference he made in the world, worth that of what the life of the person they killed could have been. Kill the spiders to save the butterflies. It seems rational at first, until you realize you've become a spider yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:31 am
My Deep Sadness Even if someone has murdered another person, I don't believe in having the death penalty. If someone is murdered, and the suspect is sent to jail after being found guilty, you don't just kill them. You ask them why they did it and show them why they were wrong. If you kill someone who's killed someone, the victims death is null. It seems as though it meant nothing, if by thinking that killing that suffering soul who killed them will make up for the great life they might have had ahead of them. It is best to make the person who murdered, attone for his wrongful act. Make the difference he made in the world, worth that of what the life of the person they killed could have been. Kill the spiders to save the butterflies. It seems rational at first, until you realize you've become a spider yourself. Tell me, how many criminals actually attone for their crime, especially murderers? None. What is the point of keeping them alive if they won't learn from their mistake? They'll simply take up room that could be free for another criminal. I see no reason to keep such criminals alive. They proved that Society could not trust them, and Society should react accordingly. Forget the "butterfiles and spiders" analogy. (That you took from Trigun.) There is no reason to save both the innocent and the guilty murderer. Getting rid of a bad citizen doesn't make you a "spider." All that's being done is removing a corrupt citizen. Oh Gawd, I sanction killing the bad people! That makes me just as bad as the murderers! Please, I'm a rational thinker, I'd never kill anyone unless I was a soldier at war or an executioner, and either way I wouldn't give a s**t about who I was killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
