Jump to content

Home

Death Penalty


jon_hill987

Death Penalty?  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Death Penalty?

    • Yes
      8
    • No
      10


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Breton

And how does cruel punishment help the murder victims in any way? Do they magically come back to life if their murderer is killed? You lost me there.

 

 

 

Alright, a person is dead, killed. What's the point in taking another life? That makes two people dead, rather than one. Isn't that, like, twice as bad?

 

No, it does not help the murder victims. It simply prevents the person from getting off scot-free. It helps prevents the development of people who kill people at the slightest provocation, thinking there to be no punishment or consequences for their actions.

 

The person is dead, yes. Killed, yes. The murderer is not. The reason why he has to be killed is: to prevent him from killing more people. He has a violent nature, and therefore nobody can say that he will not kill more people. We Chinese have a saying here, meaning that one is killed/disposed of to save another hundred from death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I personally think we should just do a battle royale kinda thing with murderers and rapists. Send em off to antarica with weapons and just let em do whatever and kill eachother off. And the winner gets a something. *shrugs*

 

now it's time for me to sleep.

 

And then the survivor comes back to us in a boat made of bear skin, and seeking to have his revenge on us for causing his exile, starts shooting us, and we reel like someone getting robbed in a pleasant meadow.

 

Great idea man.

 

Seriously; I like it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well thats where compromise comes in, and the middle ground between those in favor of the death penalty and those for rehabilitation and release back into society is life inprisonment (the regular kind not my uber-nasty kind ) because that way nobody gets executed but the murderer doesnt get to live his life the way he did before the crime ever again.
So now you're in favour of non-tortuous life-imprisonment? :confused: Oh well, either way torture is amoral.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Druid Bremen

And then the survivor comes back to us in a boat made of bear skin, and seeking to have his revenge on us for causing his exile, starts shooting us, and we reel like someone getting robbed in a pleasant meadow.

nah man, he has that explosive collar on him, cept it's on his leg. So if he leaves the premises his leg blows off. Then he's crippled.

 

I know, the winner shall recieve a black and decker heater. We'll give the bastard a tent too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Druid Bremen

And then the survivor comes back to us in a boat made of bear skin

 

there are just two problems with that:

 

1: there are no bears in antarctica

 

2: there are no bears in antarctica

 

I realise that was the same as the first problem but it was such a big one it seemed worth saying it twice.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I personally think we should just do a battle royale kinda thing with murderers and rapists. Send em off to antarica with weapons and just let em do whatever and kill eachother off. And the winner gets a something. *shrugs*

 

 

I do like the idea of a penal colony though I don't think you should give them weapons. I don't think antarctica is the place to do it though. It would upset pingoo I mean the natral habitat, the last unspoilt wilderness. I think the moon is a better bet, they wouldn't get out of that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, lets watch the spammy posts... I know I set a bad example in another thread somewhere recently, but I'll flog myself later :cool:

 

 

In regards to the Death Penalty, I have some mixed feelings about this. It seems appropriate from victim's (or victim's family) point of view to execute someone who has commited murder, particularly in the process of doing something so worthless as stealing less than a $100 from a taco bell or or a McDonalds (both of which have occurred in Dallas, where I live, the latter involved the shooting of a teen behind the counter in the face).

 

But, then I start thinking about the problem in other perspectives. Crime in the United States seems to be treated like a response to a leaky roof... when the roof isn't leaking, it isn't a worry. But once it rains, you put buckets under the leaks... can't patch the leaks right now since it's raining outside.

 

Except its always raining with crime. Sooner or later, someone has to brave the weather and fix the roof. Instead of being reactive to crime, society should become more proactive and treat the majority of crime as a symptom of other processes.

 

It doesn't take a major study to see the correlation between violent crime and the absence of education. Indeed, when people do commit crimes, we're more interested in the punishment than the possibility of reform. While this seems logical on the surface: criminals don't deserve education advantages and to have tax-payer money wasted on their reforms... they made their own decisions after all; there still exists a deeper logic that is in opposition. Reforming and educating criminals might ensure that the crime rates are reduced.

 

Lets face it, unless someone has a life sentance (or a death sentance), then they will eventually get out of jail. They have to go somewhere afterwards... and that "somewhere" is the neighborhoods, towns and cities where they came from... where they have family or friends to help them. Our neighborhoods, towns and cities.

 

Would we rather have criminals released that have been punished by the system and have only the educations and experiences they went in with when they get out? Or would we rather have them return to societies with increased educations and trades in their back pockets that will enable them to have some economic advantage or ability to become productive members of our society instead of continued criminal members?

 

Now you might be wondering what this has to do with the Death Penalty, but I recall reading somewhere (the info could be wrong, but it seems intuitive) that the majority of death row inmates have histories of inprisonment.

 

I think the Death Penalty should be an option for the courts, but one that is rarely used. Unlike my home state of Texas, where it is so commonplace that we are compared to the worst despotic nations in executions. The real kicker: violent crime in this state has not shown a decline and may even have increased in spite of the records we set with the death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Guys, lets watch the spammy posts... I know I set a bad example in another thread somewhere recently, but I'll flog myself later :cool:

 

I was being serious. :\

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Unlike my home state of Texas, where it is so commonplace that we are compared to the worst despotic nations in executions. The real kicker: violent crime in this state has not shown a decline and may even have increased in spite of the records we set with the death penalty.

it has increased, by about 4% I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is MY to cents:

 

Why slay a killer? Will it bring the victims back? Won't slaying the killer make us as bad as HE is?

 

If you look in Genisis 4/13-15, when Kain killed Abel. God set the punishment to make Kain a vagabond. kain said "whoever finds me shal slay me?" god put some sort of mark on him saying that whoever kills kain shall "suffer vengance seven times over" that means god din''t want anyone killing Kain.

 

In another place, they were about to stone a woman and christ said "Those who had not sinned lat he cast the first stone." they all walked away one by one, each knowing they all sinned.

 

Killing and torturing them won't help. thats just revenge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...