A friend sent me this link. It's an interview with an executioner from a Saudi television station.

I found it to be truly bizarre.

http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1322#

That's one cold-blooded individual.

This guy gets on like he lives in 1412 our time.I cant stand these countrys and people who do things in the name of God.

That's one cold-blooded individual.
he's just doing his job. he said one thing i like.
if the heart is compassionate, the hands fail. it doesn't make him cold hearted. it makes him a professional.

There are those who would advocate that we do the same type of thing in the US, since it would be a better deterrent than our current methods of execution. Of course though, the Constitution would prevent that from ever happening. God I love that document.

It would be a better deterrent to lock people up permanently,than to execute them.This killing people,whether they be scum or not,dosent seem to deter the next guy who comes along.

That's one cold-blooded individual.

Good lord, he sounds like Sanson. Except worse.

It would be a better deterrent to lock people up permanently,than to execute them.This killing people,whether they be scum or not,dosent seem to deter the next guy who comes along.
it's punishment. it's not for the next guy, for the entertainment of the crowd, or to give you something to rally against. rest assured that the condemned will never kill again.

A state or Government killing someone,brings that State or Government down to the crinimals level,the only difference being,they hide behind the law and god.

This guy gets on like he lives in 1412 our time.I cant stand these countrys and people who do things in the name of God.
Allah be praised

I missed this...I had thought LBC was the Arab MTV. Nonetheless, Memri seems to have a pattern of making Arabs or Muslims look bad. Regardless of that, this executioner is a serial killer.

It would be a better deterrent to lock people up permanently, than to execute them. This killing people, whether they be scum or not, doesn't seem to deter the next guy who comes along.

They need to be locked up in an isolation style of prison for life, no one talks to you, not even your jailers, 1/2 an hour of walking outside your cell everyday, no contact with anybody but once a year as it happens to the heads of the movement "Shining Path", in América del Sur. Execution of criminals is the easy way out for what they have done.

It would be a better deterrent to lock people up permanently,than to execute them.

I completely disagree. A dead murderer never murders again. That's one hell of a deterrent, I'd say.

Execution of criminals is the easy way out for what they have done.

Perhaps, but aren't we then keeping people alive out of revenge and a hope that they will suffer endlessly? Seems rather cold-hearted to me.

But beyond the ethical concerns, there are plenty of other things that bear heavily upon the execution vs. life in prison question.

What about the massive costs of incarceration? What about the fact that our prisons are extremely overcrowded already? Shall we build even more cages for our dangerous/violent criminals so we can make them suffer in ever greater numbers? And who's going to pay for that? Don't forget that our tax dollars go to feed and clothe and house and provide medical treatment for all these criminals (I can't afford healthcare coverage for myself and I'm just one of millions who go without), and as lifers age their healthcare costs will only increase. Is it really wise for us to keep murderers healthy when rapidly growing numbers of honest, hardworking citizens can't even afford to buy their own meds, let alone carry adequate healthcare insurance? Is it ethical?

What about the possibility of additional violence/criminal activity while incarcerated (to jailers, other inmates, visitors, lawyers, clergy, etc.)? What about the fact that murders/crimes can be ordered from inside prisons? What about the chance that a lifer might escape and kill again? It happens, don't kid yourself.

Nope. For these reasons and many more, I believe convicted violent felons are much better off dead. And so are we.

Thats all well and good. Look how many executed prisoners over the years were proven NOT to have commited the said crime, once new forensic methods were found. No point pardoning them, their still dead.

This guy gets on like he lives in 1412 our time.I cant stand these countrys and people who do things in the name of God.

Hello, I'm new... just wanted to say...

GOD is not the problem! It is how people use HIS name in VAIN to justify their acts!

Too bad most don't follow his greatest message... LOVE ONE ANOTHER!

Thats all well and good. Look how many executed prisoners over the years were proven NOT to have commited the said crime, once new forensic methods were found.

A person has to meet a lengthy list of criteria before he/she is put to death for their crimes.

There are many safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. These safeguards are:


1. Capital punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death penalty is prescribed by law at the time of its commission.

2. Persons below eighteen years of a age, pregnant women , new mothers or persons who have become insane shall not be sentenced to death.

3. Capital punishment may be imposed only when guilt is determined by clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts.

4. Capital punishment may be carried out only after a final judgment rendered by a competent court allowing all possible safeguards to the defendant, including adequate legal assistance.

5. Anyone sentenced to death shall receive the right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction.

6. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentenced.

7. Capital punishment shall not be carried out pending any appeal, recourse procedure or proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentenced.

8. Also capital punishment shall be carried out so as to inflict the minimum possible suffering.


However, your point about new forensic and technological advances is a very good one. With these new procedures/equipment/etc., the chance of convicting an innocent person these days is virtually nonexistent. Finally, when there is a possibility that someone who was framed/wrongly convicted decades ago and is finally coming up for execution, The Innocence Project (and/or other similar groups) takes over to ensure that only the guilty are put to death.

So.... no need to worry yourself about that problem, any more. :)

A state or Government killing someone,brings that State or Government down to the crinimals level,the only difference being,they hide behind the law and god.

that is retarded.. so if a criminal punches a cop, he can't punch back because it "drops the gov't down to the criminals level"??? LOL I would call it "resisting arrest".. in which the cop has EVERY RIGHT to rough up the guy a little bit.. IMO

And plus... you can't hide behind "God" in a death penalty.. because God and State are seperated... at least in THIS country.

Thats all well and good. Look how many executed prisoners over the years

Do you have a number for us?

were proven NOT to have commited the said crime, once new forensic methods were found. No point pardoning them, their still dead.



Nothing is perfect... F. de Marzipan just spelled it out for you.. but i'd like to see the percentage of people who got the death penalty and were later found to be innocent. I am guessing it is a very minute percentage... and nowadays its even harder to give an innocent the death penalty.

But all in all.. that's a pretty weak argument.

Cops are trained to act in a professional manner, a criminal punching a cop gets whacked back, fair enough.
What about the criminal who gets punched first, the crinimal is charged with resisting arrest and the cop who hit him, he gets extra beer from his cop buddies in the police club after pumping even more weights down the gym.
Dont lecture me Decka, the United States has more than its fair share of police brutality.

'God and State are seperate.
Really.
Dont forget 'In God we trust'.
No figures for innocents being executed, nobodys looking into this subject.
My original point, because some old guys get together and write a law, dosent make it right for a State to kill someone.

Cops are trained to act in a professional manner, a criminal punching a cop gets whacked back, fair enough.
What about the criminal who gets punched first, the crinimal is charged with resisting arrest and the cop who hit him, he gets extra beer from his cop buddies in the police club after pumping even more weights down the gym.
Dont lecture me Decka, the United States has more than its fair share of police brutality.

'God and State are seperate.
Really.
Dont forget 'In God we trust'.
No figures for innocents being executed, nobodys looking into this subject.
My original point, because some old guys get together and write a law, dosent make it right for a State to kill someone.

I am mixed on the death penalty.. i think in certain instances it works and on certain instances its tragic.

I'm certainly not trying to "lecture" you paul.. but don't label the American police force as a bunch of brutal, rule-by-the-fist dictators... you will see your exceptions but the key to the whole argument is that the police force does not teach or endorse "cops punching first"... it's not what they are instructed to do.. so if you or FT want to label cops as overly physical.. you can do that with certain INDIVIDUAL cops.. but not the association as a whole.

way to try to add a story about cops giving each other beers for hitting people.. i assume you were in the american police force and can tell us you've seen this first hand??? do tell...

And your "in God we trust" attempt is complete BS... noone forces anyone to go to church. It's just a symbol of our culture, which happens to be heavily christian, and is what certain people completely fail to see.

To answer your last little "line"... maybe those old guys know more than you think they do, or more than you do in general.

I completely disagree. A dead murderer never murders again. That's one hell of a deterrent, I'd say.
That's the best argument for the death penalty. I personally feel it is the only pro-death penalty argument that can not be debated. It is a solid fact that they will never murder again.

As for the rest well....

Perhaps, but aren't we then keeping people alive out of revenge and a hope that they will suffer endlessly? Seems rather cold-hearted to me. Cold hearted. You want to remove their last breath and you are arguing that a life imprisonment is cold hearted?

What about the massive costs of incarceration?
What about the massive cost of execution?

What about the fact that our prisons are extremely overcrowded already? Merely an indicator of a need for social reform and legal reform and law making within your culture. Not a reason to start "killing" inmates.

Shall we build even more cages for our dangerous/violent criminals so we can make them suffer in ever greater numbers? Ah no, clean out the ones who are there for petty and "debatable" crimes.

And who's going to pay for that? Because your social system sucks you are already paying for it through the nose. Right wingers just don't get that. But a lack of equality leads to crime. Apparently that concept is rocket science to most and thus can not be grasped.

Don't forget that our tax dollars go to feed and clothe and house and provide medical treatment for all these criminals (I can't afford healthcare coverage for myself and I'm just one of millions who go without), and as lifers age their healthcare costs will only increase. Is it really wise for us to keep murderers healthy when rapidly growing numbers of honest, hardworking citizens can't even afford to buy their own meds, let alone carry adequate healthcare insurance? Is it ethical? Your argument screams for social reform not execution.

What about the possibility of additional violence/criminal activity while incarcerated (to jailers, other inmates, visitors, lawyers, clergy, etc.)? What about the fact that murders/crimes can be ordered from inside prisons? Yeah, about that... well here we come back to psychology and how to control a mass and twisted population. If the understanding of the human mind and what constitutes true punishment was applied to prison then control would be easier. But no...fools want to take away their tv... and family visits and everything else positive. They see it as coddling when in fact every perk can be used as a measure of behaviour control. But the stupid public at large would have a melt down as they can not see the larger picture..
What about the chance that a lifer might escape and kill again? It happens, don't kid yourself. You can't use a possible escape as a valid argument to kill another human being. Because like it or not, they are human. Improve security.

Nope. For these reasons and many more, I believe convicted violent felons are much better off dead. And so are we. You treat your chicks better. Perhaps if the scum of society had been treated as well as your chicks, they would not be out raping and pillaging. I guarantee it would at least reduce the numbers greatly.

I am mixed on the death penalty.. i think in certain instances it works and on certain instances its tragic.

I'm certainly not trying to "lecture" you paul.. but don't label the American police force as a bunch of brutal, rule-by-the-fist dictators... you will see your exceptions but the key to the whole argument is that the police force does not teach or endorse "cops punching first"... it's not what they are instructed to do.. so if you or FT want to label cops as overly physical.. you can do that with certain INDIVIDUAL cops.. but not the association as a whole.

way to try to add a story about cops giving each other beers for hitting people.. i assume you were in the american police force and can tell us you've seen this first hand??? do tell...

And your "in God we trust" attempt is complete BS... noone forces anyone to go to church. It's just a symbol of our culture, which happens to be heavily christian, and is what certain people completely fail to see.

To answer your last little "line"... maybe those old guys know more than you think they do, or more than you do in general.
Firstly Decka, Im not labelling ALL cops as brutal, nomatter where you go theres bad cops, not just in the US. What I have noticed from reality TV is that US Police are very heavy handed in making arrests, it seems that it takes at least 3 300lb cops to arrest anyone, then again, I only get a window of observation.
The extra beer thing, is a gigure of speech, as these heavy handed cops seem to get off on being 'macho men'.
You say 'In God we Trust' is a symbol of American Culture, dosent that make God part of the American way of life; Politics, Judiciary everything.
The last dig you got in about the old guys:
America and Europe both have a similar problem in this area.
Old Men passing laws and Judgements on the population, which is generally a different generation from them, In Americas context, these people are out of touch with reality, out of touch with modern day America.

I completely disagree. A dead murderer never murders again. That's one hell of a deterrent, I'd say.

This is known as special deterence. I believe paul was referring to general deterrence, which is trying to discourage the general public from committing the crime by making the public fearful.

That's the best argument for the death penalty. I personally feel it is the only pro-death penalty argument that can not be debated. It is a solid fact that they will never murder again...


Sal brings up great points against the death penalty. Like Decka, I am split when it comes to the death penalty. I only believe the death penalty should be used against the most horrendous criminals. When I see murderers killing children, it only reaffirms my support for the death penalty. However, when I see DNA evidence freeing those who were convicted of murder, it makes me think more about the effectiveness of the deah penalty. In addition, I would like to see our prison system become less of a place of punishment and more of place for rehabilatation.

that is retarded.. so if a criminal punches a cop, he can't punch back because it "drops the gov't down to the criminals level"??? LOL I would call it "resisting arrest".. in which the cop has EVERY RIGHT to rough up the guy a little bit.. IMOThere is a huge difference between how a cop deals with a criminal and how a society does. A cop relies on training and reflex because he has only an instant to react. A society has all the time of human history to evolve a system of justice, while a jury has the length of a trial to deliberate and pass sentence. Only an uncritical sophist would consider the two situations even remotely analogous.

A cop relies on training and reflex because he has only an instant to react. A society has all the time of human history to evolve a system of justice, while a jury has the length of a trial to deliberate and pass sentence. Only an uncritical sophist would consider the two situations even remotely analogous.

Actually, Decka comes off as being much more of a *simpleminded sophist* than merely an *uncritical* one.

:corn:

A robot walks into a bar.

Says the robot, “Give me two iPods please.”

Says the guy behind the counter, “We only serve uncritical sophist people.”

Says the robot, “Oh, that’s fine, I’m only passing through. And all humans must die. Not just those on death row. ALL HUMANS MUST DIE!!”

Do robots ever get drunk?

Cold hearted. You want to remove their last breath and you are arguing that a life imprisonment is cold hearted?

Yes. The kind of life inprisonment they've earned and deserve is entirely cold-hearted (should you deserve any different for murdering someone in cold blood? I say no.). What they get is slightly less cold-hearted (the days of Cool Hand Luke are long gone), but cold-hearted nonetheless.

Let's say you've got a dog. Would you lock it in a small cage for 23 hours a day? Every day, for decades?

Speaking only for myself, if I were to be given a choice between a humane death for a terrible crime I did, or spending the rest of my life locked in a tiny box surrounded by other violent, dangerous, nasty people who'd committed similar ugly crimes and who'd just as soon kill me if they didn't like the way I sneezed or something equally stupid, I'd choose the quick painless way out. No question.

Maybe I'm just not that masochistic. :)

What about the massive cost of execution?

Executions are relatively inexpensive (they could be even moreso if carried out less humanely; not that I necessarily advocate this, I'm just sayin', if the cost of the execution is yoru main concern, we could put the executee in a filled bathtub and toss him a toaster...). It's the endless appeals that create the massive cost. If it were up to me, our appeals system would be revised to give convicted violent felons either five appeals or five years, whichever comes first. After that, it's time to go. Tomorrow morning. Bye now.

[Overcrowded prisons are] Merely an indicator of a need for social reform and legal reform and law making within your culture.

This may well be true. Do you have any sure-fire, quick-acting suggestions for revising our social systems?

Ah no, clean out the ones who are there for petty and "debatable" crimes.

I'm on board 100% for clearing our prisons of perpetrators of "victimless" crimes (such as possession of marijuana and the like). However, in almost every case, a non-vilolent/"petty" criminal is housed in competely different and far less secure housing. Violent criminals, such as those housed in, say, Pelican Bay, could never be housed in anything short of a supermax prison. And our supermaxes are busting at the seams.

[B]Return of the Madhouse (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Return_Madhouse.html)
Supermax prisons are becoming the high-tech equivalent of the nineteenth-century snake pit
by Sasha Abramsky
American Prospect magazine, February 11, 2002

Last summer, some 600 inmates in the notorious supermaximum-security unit at California's Pelican Bay State Prison stopped eating. They were protesting the conditions in which the state says it must hold its most difficult prisoners: locked up for 23 hours out of every 24 in a barren concrete cell measuring 7 1/2 by 11 feet. One wall of these cells is perforated steel; inmates can squint out through the holes, but there's nothing to see outside either. In Pelican Bay's supermax unit, as in most supermax prisons around the country, the cells are arranged in lines radiating out like spokes from a control hub, so that no prisoner can see another human being-except for those who are double-bunked. Last year, the average population of the Pelican Bay supermax unit was 1,200 inmates, and on average, 288 men shared their tiny space with a "cellie." Since 1995, 12 double-bunked prisoners in the Pelican Bay supermax unit have been murdered by their cell mates. But near-total isolation is the more typical condition.

Meals are slid to the inmates through a slot in the steel wall. Some prisoners are kept in isolation even for the one hour per day that they're allowed out to exercise; all are shackled whenever they are taken out of their cells. And many are forced to live this way for years on end.

Such extreme deprivation, the food strikers said, literally drives people crazy. Many experts agree. But the protest died out after two weeks, according to the jailhouse lawyer who organized it; and though a state senator promised that he would look into the strikers' complaints, so far conditions at Pelican Bay remain unchanged.

All told, more than 8,000 prisoners in California and at least 42,000 around the country, by the conservative estimate of the Corrections Yearbook, are currently held in similar conditions of extreme confinement. As of 2000, Texas alone boasted 16 supermax prisons and supermax units, housing some 10,000 inmates. In Florida, more than 7,000 inmates were double-bunked in such facilities and the corrections department was lobbying to build another one (at an estimated cost of nearly $50 million) to house an additional 1,000 offenders.

So, do we build more supermaxes or house violent, non-rehabitatable criminals in minimum-security local county jails?

Because your social system sucks you are already paying for it through the nose.

Freedom costs. A lot.

Right wingers just don't get that.

I wouldn't know; I'm about 70% liberal/progressive. The death penalty and the matter of illegal immigration are my big "conservative" issues. Although, the times, they are a'changing. Many conservatives are moving slightly left, these days. But anyway...

But a lack of equality leads to crime. Apparently that concept is rocket science to most and thus can not be grasped.

Again, I can't speak for conservatives/rightwingers. I can say that I pretty much agree; a lack of equality can often lead to a life of crime. What solutions can you suggest for this problem? How do we instantly make everyone equal in everyone's eyes?

Your argument screams for social reform not execution.

No question that social reform is needed in this country. How shall we go about fixing everything? I'll assume this fix of yours will take more than a few years to work out the kinks. What shall we do with violent criminals in the meantime, you know, until life in the US is completely serene, safe, and secure? ;)

Yeah, about that... well here we come back to psychology and how to control a mass and twisted population. If the understanding of the human mind and what constitutes true punishment was applied to prison then control would be easier.

I'm guessing that the professionals in the field of incarceration have given plenty of thought to how best to control extremely violent people who kill their bunkmates (an average of more than one a year at Pelican Bay alone). Short of building new supermaxes and housing only one inmate to a cell, what do you suggest?

But no...fools want to take away their tv... and family visits and everything else positive.

I would only remove such luxuries if the inmate proved he/she was completely incapable of following the rules and not killing his/her bunkmate. Short of that, I'd put violent felons on chain gangs and make them work (hard labor, and I mean HARD) for their keep. Why should I pay for heat, A/C, food, clothing, magazines, satellite TV, healthcare, etc., etc., for people who murder others and who offer absolutely no social benefit to society? It makes no sense at all. They, more than any average citizen, should be paying more and paying harder for the terrible things they've done. Why should honest, law-abiding taxpayers be made responsible for making life (relatively) comfortable for horrible, violent, deadly people?

You can't use a possible escape as a valid argument to kill another human being.

No. I base my execution argument on the fact that a person committed a heinous, violent crime and, according to the laws of their state, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death.

Because like it or not, they are human.

Back to the question about your dog: would you leave it locked in a tiny cage 23 hours a day for decades? Doubtful. Should we really treat humans that way?

Improve security.

I'm all ears. Please tell us how the supermax designers/managers/incarceration professionals have it all wrong.

You treat your chicks better.

My chicks don't kill people. :)

Perhaps if the scum of society had been treated as well as your chicks, they would not be out raping and pillaging. I guarantee it would at least reduce the numbers greatly.

You're most assuredly correct. So, how do we go about legislating the proper treatment and raising of children? Do we institute a test for people who are preggers? Set up regular visits to the homes of new parents, to ensure that they're doing things right? How many years shall we keep up these visits? Short of such an outrageous governmental intrusion into our lives (which is, admittedly, absurd), what other suggestions can you offer?

Marzipan I take it your against the Death Penalty.

Marzipan I take it your against the Death Penalty.ROTFL!!

Keep up the good work there, paul. :thumbs:

Yes. The kind of life inprisonment they've earned and deserve is entirely cold-hearted (should you deserve any different for murdering someone in cold blood? I say no.). What they get is slightly less cold-hearted (the days of Cool Hand Luke are long gone), but cold-hearted nonetheless.

Let's say you've got a dog. Would you lock it in a small cage for 23 hours a day? Every day, for decades?
A dog is an innocent. But we are not speaking here of innocents or dogs. We speak here of humans who have committed heinous crimes. You say kill, I say keep.

Speaking only for myself, if I were to be given a choice between a humane death for a terrible crime I did, or spending the rest of my life locked in a tiny box surrounded by other violent, dangerous, nasty people who'd committed similar ugly crimes and who'd just as soon kill me if they didn't like the way I sneezed or something equally stupid, I'd choose the quick painless way out. No question.
Most would choose whatever they considered to be the easier way for them. I do not advocate that they be given a choice. They live and face whatever they have done everyday for the rest of their life. They end their days like the rest of us…cancer, heart attack or due to the violence of their environment etc.

Maybe I'm just not that masochistic. :)
Just over-flowing with the milk of human kindness. :D
Or perhaps you just want the shortest and fastest and easiest way to deal with a complex problem. Kill ‘em…there…back to my chicks.

Executions are relatively inexpensive (they could be even moreso if carried out less humanely; not that I necessarily advocate this, I'm just sayin', if the cost of the execution is yoru main concern, we could put the executee in a filled bathtub and toss him a toaster...). It's the endless appeals that create the massive cost. If it were up to me, our appeals system would be revised to give convicted violent felons either five appeals or five years, whichever comes first. After that, it's time to go. Tomorrow morning. Bye now.

I like the bathtub/toaster execution but perhaps a hairdryer would be more apropos, given the bathtub scenario. My main concern is not the cost. My main concern is that I am not 100% convinced that the death penalty is societies’ best answer to heinous crime. Executions are expensive precisely for the reason you have stated: appeals. And so it stands at this time. Therefore you can not argue that it is cheaper to execute. By your own words you admit that is not so.

This may well be true. Do you have any sure-fire, quick-acting suggestions for revising our social systems? Hell no. Must I have in order to be against the death penalty? Is that the prerequisite?




I'm on board 100% for clearing our prisons of perpetrators of "victimless" crimes (such as possession of marijuana and the like). See now, here we go... almost at the same point. :)

So, do we build more supermaxes or house violent, non-rehabitatable criminals in minimum-security local county jails?Neither, I propose there must be a better way. Both of your proposals are unacceptable.


Freedom costs. A lot. Precisely.



I wouldn't know; I'm about 70% liberal/progressive. The death penalty and the matter of illegal immigration are my big "conservative" issues. Although, the times, they are a'changing. Many conservatives are moving slightly left, these days. But anyway... Actually I am well aware that you are more moderate. Just wanted to yank the chain a bit. See if any bones fell.

Again, I can't speak for conservatives/rightwingers. I can say that I pretty much agree; a lack of equality can often lead to a life of crime. What solutions can you suggest for this problem? How do we instantly make everyone equal in everyone's eyes? Can't and you know it.


No question that social reform is needed in this country. How shall we go about fixing everything? I'll assume this fix of yours will take more than a few years to work out the kinks. What shall we do with violent criminals in the meantime, you know, until life in the US is completely serene, safe, and secure? ;) We go about fixing things one step at a time. This mess was not created in a day and will not be solved in a day. But I hold out hope, that it can be greatly improved and one day reduced to a level where there is an acceptable social equilibrium that reduces the number of socio/psycho paths that we create.

I'm guessing that the professionals in the field of incarceration have given plenty of thought to how best to control extremely violent people who kill their bunkmates (an average of more than one a year at Pelican Bay alone). Short of building new supermaxes and housing only one inmate to a cell, what do you suggest? I'm sure professionals have. I doubt if your average politician will endorse such solutions if your average voter can not grasp why it would be better in the long run. And lets face it, average IQ is not all that high. And therein lies a lot of the problem.

I would only remove such luxuries if the inmate proved he/she was completely incapable of following the rules and not killing his/her bunkmate. Short of that, I'd put violent felons on chain gangs and make them work (hard labor, and I mean HARD) for their keep. Sounds good. I can live with that. They could live with that.

Why should I pay for heat, A/C, food, clothing, magazines, satellite TV, healthcare, etc., etc., for people who murder others and who offer absolutely no social benefit to society? It makes no sense at all. They, more than any average citizen, should be paying more and paying harder for the terrible things they've done. Why should honest, law-abiding taxpayers be made responsible for making life (relatively) comfortable for horrible, violent, deadly people?Because we live in a civilized culture and that is the price we will pay to remain so. Otherwise, we keep slipping backwards. And the further back we slip, the worse it will be because violence begets violence. Killing rather than seeking a solution is merely a Band-Aid and the wound underneath still festers and rots.



Back to the question about your dog: would you leave it locked in a tiny cage 23 hours a day for decades? Doubtful. Should we really treat humans that way?
No we should not. Surely your view is not so narrow that there can only be two horrendously bad solutions?

My chicks don't kill people. :)

Careful, things can mutate!

You're most assuredly correct. So, how do we go about legislating the proper treatment and raising of children? Do we institute a test for people who are preggers? Set up regular visits to the homes of new parents, to ensure that they're doing things right? How many years shall we keep up these visits? Short of such an outrageous governmental intrusion into our lives (which is, admittedly, absurd), what other suggestions can you offer?You’re a bright lady… I bet you could come up with three proposals all by yourself.
As for me, you still have not convinced me that I will be a safer, freer, materially richer, more humane individual by supporting inmate execution.

If we're going to execute, use a gator pit. There's lots of gators, and they all like to eat. Let those deserving of the death penalty become gator shit.

The bizarre video did not work for me. Damn you, random Arab webmaster!

Tut Tut Tut. Any civilised society shouldnt have to stoop to killing, as a criminal deterrent. The State is supposed to be above that, surely.

Tut Tut Tut. Any civilised society shouldnt have to stoop to killing, as a criminal deterrent. The State is supposed to be above that, surely.
how is a State going to be above anything that humans do, it can't be more than the sum of it's parts...humans.

if the voters want gator pit executions bad enough, it will happen. if the voters want summer camp like prisons and short sentences, that will happen too. our Constitution is amendable, but the voice of reason prevails.

Does the State not try and set standards all us humans are supposed to attain, isntthatwhat laws do.

Tut Tut Tut. Any civilised society shouldnt have to stoop to killing, as a criminal deterrent. The State is supposed to be above that, surely.
Thousands of years of human history have shown that execution is not an effective crime deterrent.

Makes you wonder why the Nation which is supposed to lead the free world uses it so much.

Thousands of years of human history have shown that execution is not an effective crime deterrent.

Except for the executed.

Could be we should go back to the prison islands. No guards except naval patrols, build a raft and get your ass blown out of the water. Only basic food stuffs provided. They farm, fish or starve.
Medical attention by raising a flag of distress.
No t.v., radio, etc. No visitation.
No more prisons, only local county jails for temporary quarters.
Could be international.

Except for the executed.

Could be we should go back to the prison islands. No guards except naval patrols, build a raft and get your ass blown out of the water. Only basic food stuffs provided. They farm, fish or starve.
Medical attention by raising a flag of distress.
No t.v., radio, etc. No visitation.
No more prisons, only local county jails for temporary quarters.
Could be international.

No, no, no. We get them all together and just throw them in a ring and let em kill eachother, on pay per view. Straight up like the Roman Colosseum.

how is a State going to be above anything that humans do, it can't be more than the sum of it's parts...humans.
Yes but, the state can sink to it's lowest common denominator or rise to it's highest possible enlightenment. The results will be totally polarized. On the one end barbaric behavior on the other evolved civilized behavior. In between lies a mix of the two.

if the voters want gator pit executions bad enough, it will happen. if the voters want summer camp like prisons and short sentences, that will happen too. our Constitution is amendable, but the voice of reason prevails
The voice of reason is usually a small cry in the wind. It certainly does not prevail!

No, no, no. We get them all together and just throw them in a ring and let em kill eachother, on pay per view. Straight up like the Roman Colosseum.

Could put cameras on the prison island. Talk about survival t.v.

Except for the executed.

Could be we should go back to the prison islands. No guards except naval patrols, build a raft and get your ass blown out of the water. Only basic food stuffs provided. They farm, fish or starve.
Medical attention by raising a flag of distress.
No t.v., radio, etc. No visitation.
No more prisons, only local county jails for temporary quarters.
Could be international.

Duuuuuude! that was just a movie-sure, a kick ass movie...but still!

Yes but, the state can sink to it's lowest common denominator or rise to it's highest possible enlightenment. The results will be totally polarized. On the one end barbaric behavior on the other evolved civilized behavior. In between lies a mix of the two.

how can the State call itself civilized if it doesn't perform it's most basic function-protecting it's citizens?

how can the State call itself civilized if it doesn't perform it's most basic function-protecting it's citizens?

The State must protect it's citizenry. The state must be able to defend itself until the attacker is no longer a threat. Once the threat has been handled, it is over. No more, no less.

Hmm. A State, any State, should set the example, even to the most vile in its society, Ive always thought that The US fights fire with fire when it comes to Administrating Justice.

Hmm. A State, any State, should set the example, even to the most vile in its society, Ive always thought that The US fights fire with fire when it comes to Administrating Justice.
Apparently some would rather a blow torch.