|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Cutesmasher
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:55 pm
Thought this might be a good one to discuss. mrgreen Capital punishment is used in most of the United States. Groups such as Amnesty International decry this practice as inhumane. Methods used today to execute death row prisoners vary by state. The most common are lethal injection, and the electric chair. Less common methods are hanging (an option in Washington state), and firing squad (Utah). The gas chamber, which had been used for most of the 20th century, has mostly disappeared due to it being regarded as inhumane following the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris at California's San Quentin prison. More details about Harris' death are here -- no pictures, but it is a graphic text description of his death by suffocation in a gas chamber, you have been warned: http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/harris.htmlEven if you don't live in America, I'd like to know how you feel about this. As for myself: I used to be very much against capital punishment. But over time, I've come to the personal realization that some people just can't be rehabilitated and made 'normal' people. They'll never make amends, and their criminal mindset are so deeply ingrained into their psyche that it's dangerous to think they can be released back into society. The death penalty is the ultimate recourse. So...yeah, I'm for it. I think it has a place. So how about you, hmmmm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:51 am
its pretty simple in my opinion. "you kill someone, we'll kill you back" -Ron White. i couldnt have said it better mehself
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:21 pm
I just wish the death penalty was more efficient. These days, with things such as DNA evidence, we should be able to make sure that the convicted is guilty. Once their guilt is certain, and the death penalty has been passed, they should be executed within a week, completely forgoing the appeals process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:58 pm
yea, like, with the death penalty how it is, its more along the lines of the sit-in-jail-til-you-die-of-old-age penalty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:21 pm
We caught you red-handed, with the murder weapon, and plenty of clear prints and stains about the murder scene. Also, we have the letters, phone calls, and other gestures which you made, and your personal testimony, that you were the one who did this, and did so deliberately. Because of all of this, we plan to kill you, but sadly, due to relig- *cough* -sorry, moral restraints, we will have to cage you and leave you to rot for longer than you are expected to naturally survive. Don't worry, maybe we'll change our minds one day and let you sit in the chair a little early... *laughter*
/sarcasm mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:35 pm
A friend of mine suggeted executing all of the current lifers in jail to make some room. Since, y'know, it's not like they'll be going anywhere else...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:27 pm
The problem with that idea though is judges and juries are not guarenteed to always be right. It's not uncommon years later to find out somebody who was sentenced to life in prison or death was not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:01 am
Der Freischuetz A friend of mine suggeted executing all of the current lifers in jail to make some room. Since, y'know, it's not like they'll be going anywhere else... Yeah, what Bluecherry said, that's the same kind of problem I have with this kinda 'kill em all & let God sort em out' justice. No one's saying that the lifers or the prisoners on Death Row are saints -- but putting them to death immediately is akin to the 'good old days' of lynching. sad There's always the risk of putting to death an innocent person. Appeals are needed to prove, beyond any doubt, that they were the one who wielded the knife or struck the killing blow to their victim. Are 10 years of appeals kind of long? Well, sure. But considering the penalty involved, the proof needs to be airtight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Cutesmasher
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:04 am
Also, all that time brings about new methods of collecting evidence that could not be done before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:07 am
The appeals process has become way too long when it comes to proving beyond "a shadow of a doubt" the guilt of the accused. These days it's usually just delaing the inevitable. That's why I suggested that with the technology we have these days to find evidence that in a case where the death penalty could be involved, if the accused is in fact guilty, then the accused should be executed as quickly as possible. The appeals process simply slows things down and adds to the expense of a case, which so many people complain about.
The death penalty wouldn't be so expensive if it didn't take so damn long for the execution to actually take place. I'm not exactly sure what the point of life sentencing is, anyway. It's not like the accused can do anything while they're in jail. Plus, with just having the life sentence as the highest penalty, the jails will continue to overcrowd. Many prisoners will never realize that they were wrong, so what's the point of keeping them around?
(I'm just insensitive, that's all.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:09 pm
maybe some innocents are killed unjustly, however, and this may seem cruel, but id rather have 5% of those sentenced to death be innocent, then not deliver jusice when it's deservd. however, thats about the point where it becomes mostly a moral argument, whether you think what i do or if you think we should abolish the death penalty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:55 am
You'd rather sacrifice innocent people then have lots of guilty people still around? Is that your idea of justice? What is the point of punishing these people in the first place?-- they violated other people's rights and are now going to have to take consequences for their actions to make things even on the victim's behalf. Justice is to make up for when a person has had their rights violated. If you sanction killing off innocent people, that's sanctioning violating some people's rights which is exactly what justice is supposed to be about making up for. If You say it's ok to kill innocent people, you are now flying in the face of exactly what the entire justice system exists for in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:26 pm
like i said, thats the point where it becomes more opinion than facts. many ppl would say im cruel for saying that, but thats what i think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:51 pm
I never said "cruel," I'm saying it rather defeats the purpose is all. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:21 pm
well, i think the message "if you kill someone else, you'll be next" gets the point across. and once ppl accept that, therell be less murders, so less innocents will be executed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
