The Death Penalty

JACKAZZTJM · Post by **JACKAZZTJM** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:15 pm

CAPS IS HOW I ROLL I THINK WE SHOULD HANG MURDERES BY THEIR ANKLES AND LET ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT BEAT TO DEATH WITH STICKS LIKE A HUMAN PINATA

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:18 pm

JACKAZZTJM wrote:CAPS IS HOW I ROLL I THINK WE SHOULD HANG MURDERES BY THEIR ANKLES AND LET ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT BEAT TO DEATH WITH STICKS LIKE A HUMAN PINATA

Oh, that's very humane of you. Barbarian.

JACKAZZTJM · Post by **JACKAZZTJM** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:27 pm

OK I GOT IT BREAK THE LEGS OF THE MURDERER PUT HIM IN A ROOM WITH ME AND THE WIERD ONE GIVE US CLUBS AND SOME MIDGETS WE;LL HAVE BLASTY

The Weird One · Post by **The Weird One** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:33 pm

I say, let them be beaten on a daily basis at least. ie give a select group of overly-aggressive prisoners clubs and tell them to have fun.

The Weird One · Post by **The Weird One** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:38 pm

[quote="Snorri1234]The death penalty costs more than locking someone up for life, and many convicted criminals take up the space for 15 years anyway.[/quote]

explain . . . in detail

Fieryo · Post by **Fieryo** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:50 pm

The Weird One wrote:I say, let them be beaten on a daily basis at least. ie give a select group of overly-aggressive prisoners clubs and tell them to have fun.

That's a purely emotionally based reaction, not one of objectivity and reason. And while I can understand that stance, I would not want our legal system nor our foundations of society to be based on something as whimsical or petulant as human emotion.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:55 pm

As for the 7 people who voted that the death penalty is useful as a deterrent, think again... statistics show otherwise.

The Weird One · Post by **The Weird One** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:56 pm

Fieryo wrote:
The Weird One wrote:I say, let them be beaten on a daily basis at least. ie give a select group of overly-aggressive prisoners clubs and tell them to have fun.
That's a purely emotionally based reaction, not one of objectivity and reason. And while I can understand that stance, I would not want our legal system nor our foundations of society to be based on something as whimsical or petulant as human emotion.

you make a good point. but my reasoning behind it is:

1.) it's free!

2.) I'd get a kick out of it.

apey · Post by **apey** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:42 am

JACKAZZTJM wrote:OK I GOT IT BREAK THE LEGS OF THE MURDERER PUT HIM IN A ROOM WITH ME AND THE WIERD ONE GIVE US CLUBS AND SOME MIDGETS WE;LL HAVE BLASTY

WTF I can't come I may be a chick but gimme some liquor and push me around I can get mighty angry

Ariel* · Post by Ariel* » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:05 am

If God is the only one with the right to decide when people should die, can anyone explain this, please

gen 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,for God made man in his own image.
This pretty much explains itself.

I know there is a chance the person might be innocent, but it's a small one! And it hasn't happened since like the 70's that we know of.
Though I am for death penalty I do believe there should be plenty of evidence for this to happen, perhaps evidence from DNA testing should be required.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:52 am

The Weird One wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:The death penalty costs more than locking someone up for life, and many convicted criminals take up the space for 15 years anyway.
explain . . . in detail

The purpose of the justice-system is not to convict innocent people. So they've give suspects a whole list of options to defend themselves. Obviously, with something so serious and irreverisble as capital punishment, the amount of appeals for a suspect is immense. This will ofcourse lead to a lot of administrative costs and will also delay the actual sentence for a very long time. There is currently a deathrow inmate in Texas who has been sitting there for over 30 years. Seriously, he was sentenced to death in 1975, and is now due for his 4th trial. He was 20 at the time...

The problem with all this ofcourse, is that from an economical viewpoint the death penalty is bad. It just costs more than putting someone in for life.Financial info.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:11 am

Ariel* wrote:If God is the only one with the right to decide when people should die, can anyone explain this, please

gen 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,for God made man in his own image.
This pretty much explains itself.

I know there is a chance the person might be innocent, but it's a small one! And it hasn't happened since like the 70's that we know of.
Though I am for death penalty I do believe there should be plenty of evidence for this to happen, perhaps evidence from DNA testing should be required.

K, first, jesus came and made the OT redundant. Thanks to His incarnation, You can ignore the bits of the OT you don't agree with.

Second:
Everyone ignored my earlier, devastating point.
Which was: You can't kill one guy on DNA evidence, and lock another guy up for murder for life because there wasn't any DNA evidence, because then you are killing one man for being unlucky, or for being worse at murdering than the other fella.
Either convicted murderers get murdered themselves, ro they don't.
And obviously when your country occupies the 'best international executors' list with countries like iran and congo, something is not right.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:14 am

heavycola wrote: K, first, jesus came and made the OT redundant. Thanks to His incarnation, You can ignore the bits of the OT you don't agree with.

Yeah, I always thought that was awesome.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:22 pm

Plus, no god anyway.

reminisco · Post by **reminisco** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:27 pm

here's my one primary issue with banning the death penalty, and the argument that it is NOT a deterrent.

it is a deterrent to someone like me, in the following hypothetical circumstance.

someone murders my brother in cold blood. i am livid. but i have faith in the justice system to meet out justice for my brother. i do everything i can to assist the system.

if there is no guarantee of at least the POSSIBILITY of the gov't handling that justice on my behalf, than i should have the right to claim that justice on my own.

as i recall, that was the basis of the death penalty in the first place. to prevent vendettas, and separate the act of murder from that of killing.

it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got. and if the State won't execute the murderer of my brother, i should be afforded the right to end his wasted life for him.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:36 pm

reminisco wrote:here's my one primary issue with banning the death penalty, and the argument that it is NOT a deterrent.

It just isn't. Basically, if you decide not to murder someone because you might get killed by the government, you'd probably also be deterred if you got life in prison.

it is a deterrent to someone like me, in the following hypothetical circumstance.

someone murders my brother in cold blood. i am livid. but i have faith in the justice system to meet out justice for my brother. i do everything i can to assist the system.

if there is no guarantee of at least the POSSIBILITY of the gov't handling that justice on my behalf, than i should have the right to claim that justice on my own.

Why should you have that right? Do you only consider it justice when the guy gets executed after 10 years? Or does life in prison also work?

as i recall, that was the basis of the death penalty in the first place. to prevent vendettas, and separate the act of murder from that of killing.

It probably also had something to do with punishing people for crimes and making an example out of them. I'd rate "preventing personal vendettas" really low on the list of reasons.

it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got. and if the State won't execute the murderer of my brother, i should be afforded the right to end his wasted life for him.

Why should you have that right?

reminisco · Post by **reminisco** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:38 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
Why should you have that right?

eye for a motherfucking eye.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:39 pm

reminisco wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
Why should you have that right?

eye for a motherfucking eye.

That's not very rational.

The Weird One · Post by **The Weird One** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:29 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
reminisco wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
Why should you have that right?

eye for a motherfucking eye.
That's not very rational.

neither would this: say they let sadam get off with just life in prison after killing off how many people whose lives were HIS responsibility to protect (seeing as they lived in a nation under his control)?

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:32 pm

The Weird One wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
reminisco wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
Why should you have that right?

eye for a motherfucking eye.
That's not very rational.
neither would this: say they let sadam get off with just life in prison after killing off how many people whose lives were HIS responsibility to protect (seeing as they lived in a nation under his control)?

We sure taught him a lesson, didn't we?

Why kill him? We had him in custody. He wasn't going to hurt anyone anymore.

The Weird One · Post by **The Weird One** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:34 pm

so you want him to go through no pain after all of the suffering that he caused!?!?!?

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:35 pm

heavycola wrote:
Ariel* wrote:If God is the only one with the right to decide when people should die, can anyone explain this, please

gen 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,for God made man in his own image.
This pretty much explains itself.

I know there is a chance the person might be innocent, but it's a small one! And it hasn't happened since like the 70's that we know of.
Though I am for death penalty I do believe there should be plenty of evidence for this to happen, perhaps evidence from DNA testing should be required.
K, first, jesus came and made the OT redundant. Thanks to His incarnation, You can ignore the bits of the OT you don't agree with.

Second:
Everyone ignored my earlier, devastating point.
Which was: You can't kill one guy on DNA evidence, and lock another guy up for murder for life because there wasn't any DNA evidence, because then you are killing one man for being unlucky, or for being worse at murdering than the other fella.
Either convicted murderers get murdered themselves, ro they don't.
And obviously when your country occupies the 'best international executors' list with countries like iran and congo, something is not right.

I only ignored it because it was both better and more entertaining than my argument...

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:37 pm

Neoteny wrote:
The Weird One wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
reminisco wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
Why should you have that right?

eye for a motherfucking eye.
That's not very rational.
neither would this: say they let sadam get off with just life in prison after killing off how many people whose lives were HIS responsibility to protect (seeing as they lived in a nation under his control)?
We sure taught him a lesson, didn't we?

Why kill him? We had him in custody. He wasn't going to hurt anyone anymore.

I just remembered a debate I heard on the radio when it was still up in the air what they would do with him. This one person with a heavy southern drawl called in and said that they should make him the CEO of McDonald's...that way he'd see how wonderful it is to live in Amyyhricuh.

The Weird One · Post by **The Weird One** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:42 pm

That just went completely over my head.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:44 pm

Frigidus wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
The Weird One wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
reminisco wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
Why should you have that right?

eye for a motherfucking eye.
That's not very rational.
neither would this: say they let sadam get off with just life in prison after killing off how many people whose lives were HIS responsibility to protect (seeing as they lived in a nation under his control)?
We sure taught him a lesson, didn't we?

Why kill him? We had him in custody. He wasn't going to hurt anyone anymore.
I just remembered a debate I heard on the radio when it was still up in the air what they would do with him. This one person with a heavy southern drawl called in and said that they should make him the CEO of McDonald's...that way he'd see how wonderful it is to live in Amyyhricuh.

Hooray for the South!

The Death Penalty

Should the death penalty be banned?