This young woman was abducted and now apparently killed 5 months ago. We have had various threads regarding this particualar case, and i noticed that there are people who still say that the criminal who did this crime should not be excecuted. I myself have taken a strong dislike for executions the last year or so due to the way the penalty is dispensed so unfairly. Which brings me to the question i would really like answered.

How can any of you on the board honestly look at this crime and feel that the perpetrator of this crime should not be executed? For the life of me, i tried to see where incarceration would be enough but i just dont get it. Why would anyone rather a murderer with prior violent sexual assaults be given a chance to remain alive? I dont understand the thought process behind this reasoning. I mean, if a dog attacks someone, it gets put down the first time it injures someone. I dont see the difference between the two animals. Anyway, i just saw this news article this morning and my heart absolutely goes out to the family of this poor girl.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/04/17/missing.student/index.html

Hmmm...answers. That would be nice.

This is one of those cases I think where the answers are just not going to be very satisfying.

I don't think we should have the death penalty mostly for the same reason you mentioned HaVok, the uneveness of its application. I also don't think it should be used because I believe that fundamentally, its only purpose is to exact revenge for the commission of a heinous crime. It won't bring the victim back, and there is no solid evidence to suggest that it deters other people from committing future crimes. It does prevent the executed person from committing future crimes, but so would imprisonment.

Back to the issue of the disparities in the actual application of the death penalty. There are some questions you have to ask yourself about this case, and why you believe this guy deserves to die.

Why do we give out the death penalty for one murder and not another?

Would you feel that the perpetrator deserved the death penalty if his victim was a 45 year-old, skanky, crack-whore, instead of a pretty, 22 year-old, white, college girl?

Are you in favor of the death penalty in this case because of the perpetrator's criminal past? If so, are we not punishing him again for his past crimes, crimes which he has already paid the duly ordained punishment, that we as a society prescribed for these crimes? Is part of your anger not more properly directed at those who allowed him to be released from prison?

Did the last name of the suspect in this case have anything to do with your desire to see him executed? It might influence some people.

There are several reasons I'm against the death penalty.

1. Statistics show that it is not applied evenly to members of our society based on the race of the victim and of the perpetrator.

2. If you discover that you have made a mistake in the application of the death penalty, there is no way to reverse your decision.

3. It solves no problem, it just makes us feel good.

4. How can you ever be absolutely certain that you are executing the right person? DNA evidence is the "Holy Grail" right now in criminology, but can you interpret DNA test results, or are we really relying on experts who tell us what that evidence means? Bottom line, is that we rely on others to collect and analyze such evidence and then to present it fairly. Mistakes can be, and are made, in the collection, storage, and interpretation of such evidence. There have even been instances when such evidence has been deliberately faked.

I strongly believe that the issue of the death penalty cannot be properly considered by looking at just one case. Assuming the suspect in this case is guilty, what he did was horrendous. Does he deserve to die? A strong argument could be made that he does. Do I wish to participate in executing him? No. And yes, since I am a member of the society you are asking to perform the execution, I feel you are asking me to participate. I don't think our society should be in the business of killing it's members, no matter how badly we feel they've misbehaved.

I'm sorry I asked questions instead of providing answers, and I certainly don't want to imply that anyone's a racist by some of my questions, but these things do influence why one guy gets the chair, and the next guy goes to prison. Unless we can guarantee that the death penalty is applied without any consideration of race, we have no business executing anyone.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I mean, if a dog attacks someone, it gets put down the first time it injures someone. I dont see the difference between the two animals.

Precisely : human beings are humans, not animals.
I am against death penalty because I think that no society, no government, no organization should have the power to kill people, whoever they are, whatever they have done.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan


Why do we give out the death penalty for one murder and not another?

Because circumstances of the crime are crucial to determining the appropriate punishment. They're same sort of reasons we give stiffer penalties to someone who steals $100K from a bank than to someone who steals a pack of gum from a grocery store.



Would you feel that the perpetrator deserved the death penalty if his victim was a 45 year-old, skanky, crack-whore, instead of a pretty, 22 year-old, white, college girl?

Cause let's face it. The 25-year old's life is worth more. Of course, race has nothing to do with it.



Are you in favor of the death penalty in this case because of the perpetrator's criminal past?

That certainly should have something to do with it. No?




You also talk a lot about racial disparities. Typical behavior is also different if you divy people according to their race and punishment is based on behavior. If you look at recent death penalty cases on a case-by-case basis instead of making hasty assumptions based on statistics, I think you will find that the right people are given the death penalty and there's little racism involved.

Would you feel that the perpetrator deserved the death penalty if his victim was a 45 year-old, skanky, crack-whore, instead of a pretty, 22 year-old, white, college girl?

Cause let's face it. The 25-year old's life is worth more. Of course, race has nothing to do with it.

oh, silly me. i thought we were all to be treated equally under the law. but i see it's now up to leper to decide whose life is worth more.

Worth more... what?

Originally posted by Leper Cause let's face it. The 25-year old's life is worth more. Of course, race has nothing to do with it.[/B]
Who are you, or anyone else, for that matter, to decide whose life is "worth more" than others? Arbitrarily deciding such things leads down a very bad road. And, as sputnik said, everyone is equal under the eyes of the law.

Originally posted by sputnik

oh, silly me. i thought we were all to be treated equally under the law. but i see it's now up to leper to decide whose life is worth more.

I didn't say the law should treat these two individuals differently. But I DO think criminals should be punished differently according to their victim....as well as other circumstances, including motive, intent, history, future dangerousness, and nature of the crime.

C'mon, are you guys really trying to pretend you're not more upset when a man shoots a young woman to death instead of a middle-aged male? Spare me your self-righteousness. I think the vast majority of you value people's lives differently, although the vast majority of you are too close-minded to admit it.

Why do you think Elizabeth Smart was such a big story? We all know why....because she seemed like she had so much potential: She was pretty, smart, and talented. Or in other words, because she is a more worthy human being than most.

Don't be ashamed about it. That's the way it is and the way it should be.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Who are you, or anyone else, for that matter, to decide whose life is "worth more" than others? Arbitrarily deciding such things leads down a very bad road. And, as sputnik said, everyone is equal under the eyes of the law.

It's not my decision, it's the jury's decision. I'm not advocating "arbitrary" decision-making; I'm advocating informed decision making. And I believe there are aspects of a person's life that influence the relative worth of their lives, including age, talent, education, health, and integrity. Furthermore, I believe we all consider such factors, albeit most of you do it on a subconscious level.

since when do humans have control over thier age or talent or education or health? because someone is old, or sick, or could never get a good education, they are lesser human beings than the rest of us? that idea makes me sick.

If everyone is to be treated equally under the law, the law must be predisposed to the idea that one person's life is not worth more than another person's.

I think most of the statistics show that if you're black you stand a much better chance of facing the death penalty than if you're white. Additionally if the murder victim(s) are white there is a higher chance for the death penalty to be imposed.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

Originally posted by Leper

Because circumstances of the crime are crucial to determining the appropriate punishment. They're same sort of reasons we give stiffer penalties to someone who steals $100K from a bank than to someone who steals a pack of gum from a grocery store.

I don't neccessarily think one murder is worse than another in the sense that a life has been taken.

Cause let's face it. The 25-year old's life is worth more. Of course, race has nothing to do with it.

Statistics show that race DOES have something to do with it, and I don't know what criteria you are using to determine that the 22 year-old's life is "worth more".

You also talk a lot about racial disparities. Typical behavior is also different if you divy people according to their race and punishment is based on behavior. If you look at recent death penalty cases on a case-by-case basis instead of making hasty assumptions based on statistics, I think you will find that the right people are given the death penalty and there's little racism involved.

I disagree.

See links in previous post.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Hmmm...answers. That would be nice.
1. Statistics show that it is not applied evenly to members of our society based on the race of the victim and of the perpetrator.

BULL, but if it is true we are still getting rid of some of the scum on this planet.

2. If you discover that you have made a mistake in the application of the death penalty, there is no way to reverse your decision.

This is true and it is sad when the wrong one pays for a crime they didn't commit. So before we put down a scum bag we should have solid proof. why do we still have people like Manson in prison sucking money's from the old, disabled, and children?

3. It solves no problem, it just makes us feel good

Vile, this is just plain horse sh** I have told you before of scum bags that get released or escape that kill again, so if they were "hung" like they should have been then they would not cause harm again. Not to mention the Millions of dollars spent on these a**wipers to keep them in prison. Sorry to burst a bubble here folks, but it is cheaper to kill then keep a high risk criminal in prison..

4. How can you ever be absolutely certain that you are executing the right person? DNA evidence is the "Holy Grail" right now in criminology, but can you interpret DNA test results, or are we really relying on experts who tell us what that evidence means? Bottom line, is that we rely on others to collect and analyze such evidence and then to present it fairly. Mistakes can be, and are made, in the collection, storage, and interpretation of such evidence. There have even been instances when such evidence has been deliberately faked.

This part is what we need to look at. Take the piece of sh** that was caught on tape taking that 11 year old away, then later confessed to killing her. The real question is how much evidence is good, and what evidence is true???

I strongly believe that the issue of the death penalty cannot be properly considered by looking at just one case. Assuming the suspect in this case is guilty, what he did was horrendous. Does he deserve to die? A strong argument could be made that he does. Do I wish to participate in executing him? No. And yes, since I am a member of the society you are asking to perform the execution, I feel you are asking me to participate. I don't think our society should be in the business of killing it's members, no matter how badly we feel they've misbehaved.

So, lets keep trash in an allready over populated world? WHY, AND WHAT THE HECK FOR?

I'm sorry I asked questions instead of providing answers, and I certainly don't want to imply that anyone's a racist by some of my questions, but these things do influence why one guy gets the chair, and the next guy goes to prison. Unless we can guarantee that the death penalty is applied without any consideration of race, we have no business executing anyone.

There have been plenty of white's, etc... executed, why are you taking a simple matter and adding race etc.. to it? A KILLER is just that, nothing more, a piece of horse dung, very simple.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Precisely : human beings are humans, not animals.
I am against death penalty because I think that no society, no government, no organization should have the power to kill people, whoever they are, whatever they have done.

THIS IS JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLE WRONG

A killer is not a human and does not belong with the rest of us who would help our fellow man,... NOT KILL HIM/her

Originally posted by Vilepagan
If everyone is to be treated equally under the law, the law must be predisposed to the idea that one person's life is not worth more than another person's.

I think most of the statistics show that if you're black you stand a much better chance of facing the death penalty than if you're white. Additionally if the murder victim(s) are white there is a higher chance for the death penalty to be imposed.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

Something comes to mind here................ O.J.

Originally posted by mad dog
BULL, but if it is true we are still getting rid of some of the scum on this planet.



This is true and it is sad when the wrong one pays for a crime they didn't commit. So before we put down a scum bag we should have solid proof.

oh mad dog, how can you have solid proof when you are already referring to the accused as a "scum bag?" calm down a bit will yeh?

Even a cursory look at some statistics makes you wonder how "racially blind" our justice system is in this country.

Blacks make up 13% of the US population

At year end 2002:

3,437 black males out of every 100,000 black males was incarcerated

450 white males out of every 100,000 white males was incarcerated

Death Penalty statistics:

Number of people executed since 1976:
BLACK 310 34.1%
HISPANIC 57 6.5%
WHITE 519 57.2%
OTHER
(Native American,
Asian, Iraqi) 22 2.4

Race of Victim:

BLACK 188 13.9%
HISPANIC 54 4.1%
WHITE 1094 80.6%
OTHER 21 1.5%

In cases where an execution has occurred, over 80% of the murder victims are white, even though nationally only 50% of all murder victims are white.

38 states have death penalty statutes, yet in 2002 only 13 states actually executed anyone.

In 2002, 71 persons in 13 States were executed -- 33 in Texas; 7 in Oklahoma, 6 in Missouri; 4 each in Georgia and Virginia, 3 each in Florida, South Carolina, and Ohio; 2 each in Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina; and 1 each in Louisiana and California.

# Of persons executed in 2002:
-- 53 were white
-- 18 were black

# Of those executed in 2002:
-- 69 were men
-- 2 were women

You have to wonder why Texas is executing people far more than any other state, indeed they represent almost half of ALL executions.

It seems obvious from these statistics that your chance of receiving the death penalty is more dependent on race, and geographical factors, than it is on the crime you committed.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Even a cursory look at some statistics makes you wonder how "racially blind" our justice system is in this country.

Blacks make up 13% of the US population

At year end 2002:

3,437 black males out of every 100,000 black males was incarcerated

450 white males out of every 100,000 white males was incarcerated

Death Penalty statistics:

Number of people executed since 1976:
BLACK 310 34.1%
HISPANIC 57 6.5%
WHITE 519 57.2%
OTHER
(Native American,
Asian, Iraqi) 22 2.4

Race of Victim:

BLACK 188 13.9%
HISPANIC 54 4.1%
WHITE 1094 80.6%
OTHER 21 1.5%

In cases where an execution has occurred, over 80% of the murder victims are white, even though nationally only 50% of all murder victims are white.

38 states have death penalty statutes, yet in 2002 only 13 states actually executed anyone.

In 2002, 71 persons in 13 States were executed -- 33 in Texas; 7 in Oklahoma, 6 in Missouri; 4 each in Georgia and Virginia, 3 each in Florida, South Carolina, and Ohio; 2 each in Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina; and 1 each in Louisiana and California.

# Of persons executed in 2002:
-- 53 were white
-- 18 were black

# Of those executed in 2002:
-- 69 were men
-- 2 were women

You have to wonder why Texas is executing people far more than any other state, indeed they represent almost half of ALL executions.

It seems obvious from these statistics that your chance of receiving the death penalty is more dependent on race, and geographical factors, than it is on the crime you committed.

For the geography issue, granted. The way you are treated has always been dependent on where you are, nationally and internationally. That's cause the planet isn't culturally homgenous.

As for the race, your conclusion based on a statistical distribution is absurdly lacking any evidence of causation. Isn't it possible that blacks tend to commit more crimes in American society? Or in the alternative, isn't it possible that the average black person isn't able to spend as much on his legal defense as the average white person? And if either of those are true, any statistician would expect the extremities of crime (i.e. death penalty cases) to be dominated by blacks.

What do you think of Asians having a lower incaceration rate than whites? Wouldn't your assumption be that our society is more racist toward white people than Asian people? Of course, I'm sure any Asian person would find that assumption absurd and realize that the logic supporting your conclusions is incomplete/flawed.

I think that the statistical disparities are primarily the product of cultural differences (For instance, it's well known white culture isn't as rife with celebrities raving about killing people as black culture) and disparities in wealth (the more money you have, the better your criminal defense will be....and the races that are disproportionately executed are the poorer races).

Originally posted by Leper
For the geography issue, granted. The way you are treated has always been dependent on where you are, nationally and internationally. That's cause the planet isn't culturally homgenous.

So we can agree that if you live in certain areas of the country you are far more likely to get the death penalty than if you live in other areas of the U.S.

As for the race, your conclusion based on a statistical distribution is absurdly lacking any evidence of causation. Isn't it possible that blacks tend to commit more crimes in American society? Or in the alternative, isn't it possible that the average black person isn't able to spend as much on his legal defense as the average white person? And if either of those are true, any statistician would expect the extremities of crime (i.e. death penalty cases) to be dominated by blacks.

Causation isn't the issue here. That would be the subject for a new thread.

Yes, it's certainly possible, and even likely, that blacks are arrested, convicted, and jailed more often because of limited funds for their criminal defense. This only strengthens the argument against executing people.

What do you think of Asians having a lower incaceration rate than whites? Wouldn't your assumption be that our society is more racist toward white people than Asian people? Of course, I'm sure any Asian person would find that assumption absurd and realize that the logic supporting your conclusions is incomplete/flawed.

I wasn't attempting to support any specific racial conclusions. The statistics do however show that the system is racist, and thus I don't think the system should be killing people using racist criteria. There is also one statistic that is not controlled by how much the defendant spends on his defense. If you kill a black person you are not as likely to get the death penalty as if you'd killed a white person, despite the fact that half the murder victims in this country are white.

I think that the statistical disparities are primarily the product of cultural differences (For instance, it's well known white culture isn't as rife with celebrities raving about killing people as black culture) and disparities in wealth (the more money you have, the better your criminal defense will be....and the races that are disproportionately executed are the poorer races).

If people are being executed disproportinately why does it matter what the reason is?

Do you think poor people should be executed more than rich people?

You guys...take this TRUE life scenario for instance.

My friend's ex-husband is in prison for 10 years after molesting his step-children (my friend's kids). He had a prior record for doing the same thing (my friend, obviously, didn't know about this record) and was on probation or some stupid thing for the first offense. The problem is that this ex will be out of prison at some time and has threatened to come after my friend for having him prosecuted. My friend receives these "emerency alert" calls from the government every time he is moved from prison to prison to keep her alerted. Now, if he had killed one of her girls, he would probably have gotten the death penalty... and that would have been a good thing, IMO, since he's obviously not "rehabiliated" and won't be while in jail. What message does that send?

The question is WHEN and IF the perp will be rehabiliated? There has to be some type of savage "or else" to fit the savage crime. The crime of the 22 year old's abduction and murder is most definitely one of those crimes!

IMO, we should have the threat of death penalty for Murder 1 in every single state in the US. Perhaps our crime rates will decrease. And, now that we have DNA evidence, the chance of error is much less than in previous cases.

I don't believe that race SHOULD ever play a role in this situation...it should be based on the CRIME itself and the perp's past criminal acts. PERIOD.

Originally posted by mad dog
THIS IS JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLE WRONG

A killer is not a human and does not belong with the rest of us who would help our fellow man,... NOT KILL HIM/her

if that's true, shouldn't we avoid paerticipating in wars? because wouldn't soldiers become the "scum" you're talking about?

:rolleyes: if you still cant differentiate between soldiers and murderers you got a long way to go

war is murder in the name of a country or cause. not saying there are times when it isn't called for, but that's what it is, and that's why I think it should only be used as a last resort. of course there's a difference, but a lot less of one then people like to think there is.

if you still cant differentiate between soldiers and murderers you got a long way to go
See the quote in my signature. Frankly, anybody who kills is a murderer, doesn't matter what for. I think there is absolutely no excuse to kill somebody. If you didn't try to kill them they wouldn't try to kill you, and the other way around. Idiotic humans just can comprehend that. And I don't think people should get a break for being ignorant. A soldier on one side is just as bad as one on the other. Killing a terrorist makes you just as bad as them. And here we can get a quote from the Nazi Neitzsche: "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I f I had a dime for every time I have heard that line of thinking I would be a rich man. unfortunantly in the real world that kind of thinking will only get you killed, or enslaved by someone with a gun who doesnt share the same ideas as you.

It's not my fault the average IQ of the planet is -3 billion. I completely disagree with killing, even though it happens in the real world and it is "necessary"(Bullshit) doesn't make it right. And it doesn't give the people who do it in a uniform a break.

i think the people in government who don't have to fight these wars, who send other people to die for thier causes are the ones to blame for war. not the soldiers.

Trav, just because a way of thinking is unpolular doesn't mean there is anything inherintly wrong with it. infact, becasue most people on this earth are total morons, unpoular opinions tend to be held by eople who are pretty smart on to something. it's the U.S., and if I want to say that the only difference between war and murder is that the organizers of wa rare responsible, not the killers, than that's my right. if I get shot for expressing my opinion, that's sad and ridiculous and tragic, but atleast I was expressing my opinion, and not someone else's.

Originally posted by sputnik
oh mad dog, how can you have solid proof when you are already referring to the accused as a "scum bag?" calm down a bit will yeh?

Sorry if I confused you, I was talking about killers not accused people. How would you define a killer?

Originally posted by WhammyBar
if that's true, shouldn't we avoid paerticipating in wars? because wouldn't soldiers become the "scum" you're talking about?

This statement right here shows your age, I consider you inteligent, but to call a human that is defending a country or a freedom the same as serial killer is STUPID.

Quit trying to twist things and take the facts away from scum. Do a search sometime on the "Ice Man" or any serial killer, then tell me how wonderfull they are.

Originally posted by Blibblob
It's not my fault the average IQ of the planet is -3 billion. I completely disagree with killing, even though it happens in the real world and it is "necessary"(Bullshit) doesn't make it right. And it doesn't give the people who do it in a uniform a break.

So what are we suppose to do with a guy that kills people for thrills. I don't wake up in the morning and say "oh what a nice sunny day, I think I'll kill someone" These types of people have no, NO use on this planet.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
it's the U.S., and if I want to say that the only difference between war and murder is that the organizers of wa rare responsible, not the killers, than that's my right. if I get shot for expressing my opinion, that's sad and ridiculous and tragic, but atleast I was expressing my opinion, and not someone else's. [/B]

You need to sit down and think LLOONNGG and hard about this statement. Then go visit a war memorial or a vet and thank him/her for your FREEDOM

Originally posted by mad dog
So what are we suppose to do with a guy that kills people for thrills. I don't wake up in the morning and say "oh what a nice sunny day, I think I'll kill someone" These types of people have no, NO use on this planet.

We are supposed to treat them better than we would treat an animal.

The killer kills out of lust, greed, anger, or perhaps because they've decided that their victim has no value. Deciding that another person "has no use" can't be too much different.

Unless we want to become that killer, we should lock these people up and never let them out.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
We are supposed to treat them better than we would treat an animal.

Why??? Tell that to the victims of The Ice Man. He tied people in a chair in a cave and let rats chew there eyes, nose, face, etc... off and flimed it for his pleasure. Is he any better then an animal? I have been attacked by dogs more then once, but they didn't tie me up and torture me first. So my question which creature is better?


The killer kills out of lust, greed, anger, or perhaps because they've decided that their victim has no value. Deciding that another person "has no use" can't be too much different.

Here is were you are missing the whole point, most folks live there lives without killing others. Now when Sallybobjoe gets up in the morning and decides it's a good day to kidnapp someone, and torture and then kill them, and dump the body were it can't be found they have brought on a problem. It is up to the rest of us to prtect our fellow man, neighbor, son, daughter, wife, etc... We are NOT killers when we are making a better future for our race. Once again take out the trash, it has no purpose.

Unless we want to become that killer, we should lock these people up and never let them out.

I can agree with this if we lived in the land of perfect, but we don't. These killers cost billions to keep locked up. Why cheat the old, disabled, children, or you and me out of our HARD earned money? Why pay for something that can never be used. Kind of silly to throw away money on something that has no purpose, sort of like buying ocean front property in TN.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
We are supposed to treat them better than we would treat an animal.

The killer kills out of lust, greed, anger, or perhaps because they've decided that their victim has no value. Deciding that another person "has no use" can't be too much different.

Unless we want to become that killer, we should lock these people up and never let them out.

I'm with mad dog on this one. Why would we insult the lives of animals by valuing them below murderers? Animals' lives at least have some value, or at least aren't liabilities. Muderers, on the other hand, are more of a liability than they're worth. There might be some exceptions to this rule (Such as in a case where the victim did something so offensive to the reasonable person that the murder is morally justified), but I think as a general rule, animals' lives are worth more than murderers' lives and we shouldn't blink at the thought of putting them to death.

And suggesting that putting a murderer to death is as morally reprehensible as the actions of the murderer himself is ridiculous. As I imply above, there are times when killing is justified (self-defense being the most obvious example) and this, of course, is one of those times.

any animal that kills someone is killed. Bears, dogs, mountain lions, you name it. they are sought out and killed.

I think we can all agree that our justice system is not perfect. Sometimes the guilty go free, while the innocent are punished. Given that fact, is it not immoral to choose a system where you are then certain to send innocents to their death?

then we shouldnt send anyone to jail anymore, becasue some of them might be innocent. is sending an innocent man to die in the electric chair any worse then sending an inncoent man to life in prison? I never understood the argument that we shouldnt execute becasue we might execuute an innocent man. death penalty cases go on for years, with many appeals. this is done for a reason. a person sentanced to die has more then enough chances to prove their innocence.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I think we can all agree that our justice system is not perfect. Sometimes the guilty go free, while the innocent are punished. Given that fact, is it not immoral to choose a system where you are then certain to send innocents to their death?

I never thought I would live to see the day....but I agree with Vile here.

Originally posted by Travh20
then we shouldnt send anyone to jail anymore, becasue some of them might be innocent. is sending an innocent man to die in the electric chair any worse then sending an inncoent man to life in prison?

Yes, a lot worse.

I never understood the argument that we shouldnt execute becasue we might execuute an innocent man. death penalty cases go on for years, with many appeals. this is done for a reason. a person sentanced to die has more then enough chances to prove their innocence.

People who go to prison for any reason have ample opportunities to prove their innocence, yet innocent people still end up in prison. Once you execute someone there is no appeal.

Originally posted by mad dog
This statement right here shows your age, I consider you inteligent, but to call a human that is defending a country or a freedom the same as serial killer is STUPID.

Quit trying to twist things and take the facts away from scum. Do a search sometime on the "Ice Man" or any serial killer, then tell me how wonderfull they are.

I'm not blaming the soldiers, thewy just follow the orders of their superiors, which they would get into loads of trouble for not doing. I blame the people who start wars, the leaders of the country. like sputnik said. people in the governemnt send citizens of our country off to die and kill others all the time. how is that not in some way equivlant to murder? knowing that someone will die? I don't beleive in humans over principles, I think human life is more important than anything, and we should protect it before anything else.

I can agree with this if we lived in the land of perfect, but we don't. These killers cost billions to keep locked up. Why cheat the old, disabled, children, or you and me out of our HARD earned money? Why pay for something that can never be used. Kind of silly to throw away money on something that has no purpose, sort of like buying ocean front property in TN. [/B]

then if it costs so much to keep people locked up, then why don't we slacken up those tough drug laws a little bit? there are more stoners out there than murderers, so if we legalized marijuana we'd have a lot more room in prison for the real criminals.

400th post! yay!

So what are we suppose to do with a guy that kills people for thrills. I don't wake up in the morning and say "oh what a nice sunny day, I think I'll kill someone" These types of people have no, NO use on this planet.
Why in the hell did you turn this into another execution argument? So, I'll comment on something else...

to call a human that is defending a country or a freedom the same as serial killer is STUPID.
They aren't the same. But just because you kill for something other than pleasure doesn't make it right. Then again, you could eat them. It's pointless to kill something and let it rot. I think it should be law that if anybody kills somebody, they should eat the corpse. And make necklaces with their bones. Hey, that's better than the electric chair(Unless they're a cannibal, then they get to eat veggies for the rest of their lives!). "I sentence you to eat the corpse of the guy you killed" "What?! I killed him for his money, not his meat! If I wanted his meat I would have just slept with him!"(Oh, okay, that one was just bad...)

Originally posted by WhammyBar
I think human life is more important than anything, and we should protect it before anything else.

except of course for children to be born with birth deffects or unwanted by their irresponsible mothers

except of course for children to be born with birth deffects or unwanted by their irresponsible mothers
Wow, you are sad. Do you and mad dog try and pull things into topics that have been argued trillions of times before?

dont like seeing your faulty arguments turned around on you do you? whenever I see contradiction and hypocrisy from the left, which is often, I am forced by duty to point it out.

Originally posted by mad dog
So what are we suppose to do with a guy that kills people for thrills. I don't wake up in the morning and say "oh what a nice sunny day, I think I'll kill someone" These types of people have no, NO use on this planet.

Do you really think that people wake up and think what a NICE sunny day, I think I'll kill someone? Or do you think they are tired of gloomy days?

If anyone is really interested in the psychology of killing, I would suggest a book by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman called "On Killing". It's a very insightful book with a very compelling argument.

Originally posted by Pepper
If anyone is really interested in the psychology of killing, I would suggest a book by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman called "On Killing". It's a very insightful book with a very compelling argument.



BUENO

Originally posted by Travh20
dont like seeing your faulty arguments turned around on you do you? whenever I see contradiction and hypocrisy from the left, which is often, I am forced by duty to point it out.
Trav, since you brought this up for the gazillionth time, I shall bring out my old, dusty arguments which you have yet to refute.

A.) Do you support the death penalty but not abortions? If so, you are as much a hypocrite as I am. I will not attempt to refute the fact that I am a hypocrite, since your logic in calling me one is flawed in any case.

B.) Fetuses cannot feel pain during the first trimester, the only period of time in which I support abortions anyway, with the exception of the ones in which the mother's life would be endangered.

C.) Blib never made that argument. He's stated many times that he's against abortion. Great way to make generalizations, Trav.

Thank you borg.

Do you really think that people wake up and think what a NICE sunny day, I think I'll kill someone? Or do you think they are tired of gloomy days?
Nice.

You need to sit down and think LLOONNGG and hard about this statement. Then go visit a war memorial or a vet and thank him/her for your FREEDOM Yeah, what he said. :D

Here's a serious question: In order for an execution in a death penalty case, should there be mandatory DNA evidence?? That should suffice (in a perfect world) so that an innocent doesn't accidentally get it.

whenever I see contradiction and hypocrisy from the left, which is often, I am forced by duty to point it out. LMAO! Trav, in your opinion, is anything that IS worth arguing over ever NOT from the left??
And what's this ---> "forced by duty"? LMAO!

Originally posted by Blibblob
Wow, you are sad. Do you and mad dog try and pull things into topics that have been argued trillions of times before? [/B]

OH, excuse me, I forgot how we never stray from the topics here at all forums :eek:

I also thought we were talking about murderers{death pen.}, or was it abortion, maybe politics, wait military, or just folks in uniform??????????????

Originally posted by Core
Do you really think that people wake up and think what a NICE sunny day, I think I'll kill someone? Or do you think they are tired of gloomy days?

And of course lets not forget about "Son of Sam", his dog told him to do it. I believe the dog was probably pissed because he had to drink from the toilet and sniff a**es. :D

Originally posted by saycricket
Here's a serious question: In order for an execution in a death penalty case, should there be mandatory DNA evidence?? That should suffice (in a perfect world) so that an innocent doesn't accidentally get it.

This is a start, but what we need to do is take the corruption out of the system. To many loop holes, to many violent criminals get off on technicalities. Once again O.J. comes to mind.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
We are supposed to treat them better than we would treat an animal.

The killer kills out of lust, greed, anger, or perhaps because they've decided that their victim has no value. Deciding that another person "has no use" can't be too much different.

Unless we want to become that killer, we should lock these people up and never let them out. Here is what i propose. We have a national poll. We treat this poll just as we would an election. Only we record the results as well as the names of the people and how they vote. Those that vote for locking up violent repeat offenders will then be asked to pay for the incarceration of these offenders, while those who vote for the death penalty will then be given a tax break showing them how much they would have had to pay had they voted to keep these animals alive. Then we will see who really stands behind their words. When money talks, bullshit tends to walk. And my opinion is that there will be decidedly less people who will vote for incarceration if they had to pay more money to make it happen. I just wish this were the reality instead of only my dream.

HaVok, I really don't think you can justify executing people because it's less expensive than keeping them in prison.

It's more expensive give someone the death penalty than it is to keep someone in prision for the rest of their life. The road to the death penalty involves lots of court dates, appeals, and waiting on death row.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
HaVok, I really don't think you can justify executing people because it's less expensive than keeping them in prison.
agreed.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
It's more expensive give someone the death penalty than it is to keep someone in prision for the rest of their life. The road to the death penalty involves lots of court dates, appeals, and waiting on death row.


This is unfortunately true and the only reason I don't support our death penalty. The last statistic I heard from a reliable source (4 or 5 years ago) was that we spend 1 million dollars to handle a death penalty appeal, and there is an average of several appeals for every such sentence. Meanwhile, it costs less than a millioin dollars to imprison someone for life. Ridiculous, but true.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
It's more expensive give someone the death penalty than it is to keep someone in prision for the rest of their life. The road to the death penalty involves lots of court dates, appeals, and waiting on death row.

This is a false statement research and you will find it is much more expensive to keep a hard criminal then excute. Take Sallybobjoe who killed at the age of 30? Now keep him/her till they die age 80. Lets say it only cost 40,000 a year to keep them, your up to $2,000,000. $40,000 a year to keep someone like Charlie M. is and would be cheap, it is probably double this. Lets not forget all the extra trouble these beings cost while they are imprisoned. Now lets say someone goes on death row say 15 years at the cost of 40,000, that comes to 600,000 plus some juice(electric or chemical). Now you can add in other cost court lawyer etc.. you still don't spend as much on a lifer. Now lets clean up the system and take out all the bullsh** loop holes that these thugs get off on and end things faster. Sallybobjoe is proven without a doubt{dna, facts, etc...} to be a killer. Put him/her down in {at the most} 5 years. Look how much money us tax payers could save and how much safer the world would be without these scum bags{I am talking about the ones that are proven quilty}

Oh yeh;

One more thing look how much money we waste on the lifers because they have to keep going back to court. So no matter if it's death row or life these thugs still abuse the court system and keep costing tax payers money. Take out the trash get rid of the quilty, and quess what happens the problem goes AWAY.

It has been shown through numerous studies that it is far more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for life. This is partly due to the automatic appeals that are required when you sentence someone to death, and partly due to the increased cost of a capital trial.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/dp/dp-cost.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

To mad dog:
This is a false statement research and you will find it is much more expensive to keep a hard criminal then excute.

Sorry mad dog, but even a cursory search of the figures shows that we save money by incarcerating people rather than killing them.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It has been shown through numerous studies that it is far more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for life. This is partly due to the automatic appeals that are required when you sentence someone to death, and partly due to the increased cost of a capital trial.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/dp/dp-cost.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

To mad dog:


Sorry mad dog, but even a cursory search of the figures shows that we save money by incarcerating people rather than killing them.

Wow Vile, thats crazy. I had no clue we spent that much! Thanks for the resources.

Famus studies hmmmmmm, Acording to Bush the war is not that expensive. Tax increase will save workers money. Insurance is on the up and up. Medical cost are high because of false claims{that why doctors drive dodge vipers}etc... etc.... etc....

I'm not trying to be a butt, but I have looked into this for over 4-5 years now and have tug deep into info, I have come to my own conclusion. As far as studies by this or that one, most are full of BULL. Believe who you want, but be very carefull of what line of garbage they are trying to sell. Studies are put out to catch the eye of folks and the one's usually doing the study are on one side or the other so they will crunch a number here and there or put something in and forget to take something out. In the end the study favors there OPINION. I'm sure if I wanted to go to different sites I could come up with info that shows my research, but that is not fair. All I'm saying is that I put about as much belief in these "so called studies" as I do into Marsians comming to my house for dinner.

Vile if you believe in studies then you must know that Gay people started aids and that they will all go to heck. Hope you get my point not trying to be an a**. There are 6+billion people in this world all with a different opinion and each group has there own little study.

My research was done with numbers, add them up and the result is lifers cost ALOT more then the DEAD.

First of all, let me say that I don't think the capital punishment issue should be decided for economic reasons.

Secondly, the links that I provided do go to some websites that are decidedly anti-capital punishment, however the studies they cite were, in most cases, performed by organizations which have no stake in the argument. Duke University performed one of the studies mentioned.

Lastly, capital punishment serves no pupose other than revenge. There is no rehabilitative effect on the criminal so sentenced, and indeed we have determined that these people are beyond rehabilitation. It does not deter future crimes, so it's only function is to inflict society's revenge upon the perpretrator of a capital crime.

An interesting look at Capital Punishment:
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
First of all, let me say that I don't think the capital punishment issue should be decided for economic reasons.

I know Democrats hate this fact of life, but you must incorporate the cost into any decision you make, whether you like it or not.

Secondly, the links that I provided do go to some websites that are decidedly anti-capital punishment, however the studies they cite were, in most cases, performed by organizations which have no stake in the argument. Duke University performed one of the studies mentioned.

Yeh, mad dog is being hard-headed. Capital punishment is very costly.

Lastly, capital punishment serves no pupose other than revenge. There is no rehabilitative effect on the criminal so sentenced, and indeed we have determined that these people are beyond rehabilitation. It does not deter future crimes, so it's only function is to inflict society's revenge upon the perpretrator of a capital crime.


Wrong. It also incapacitates. Merely imprisoned murderers may still pose a threat to those working in the prison system.

Not to mention, I think it COULD have a deterring effect if we made the experience what it should be: a horrifying one. None of this special last meal, painless, and sit in the pin for 7 years BS. There shouldn't be any special treatment, there should be an equivalent amount of pain to what his victims suffered, and there shouldn't be more than one appeal.

Originally posted by Leper

Wrong. It also incapacitates. Merely imprisoned murderers may still pose a threat to those working in the prison system.

The threat is minimal if prisoners are handled correctly, and we can always do more to reduce the threat. One way to reduce the threat would be to eliminate the death penalty. If these prisoners have nothing to lose by assaulting guards then we can blame the death penalty for some of the assaults.

Not to mention, I think it COULD have a deterring effect if we made the experience what it should be: a horrifying one. None of this special last meal, painless, and sit in the pin for 7 years BS. There shouldn't be any special treatment, there should be an equivalent amount of pain to what his victims suffered, and there shouldn't be more than one appeal.

Are you advocating torturing people to death?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
The threat is minimal if prisoners are handled correctly, and we can always do more to reduce the threat. One way to reduce the threat would be to eliminate the death penalty. If these prisoners have nothing to lose by assaulting guards then we can blame the death penalty for some of the assaults.

For one, a "minimal" threat is still a threat.

Second, lifelong prisoners are often also considered to have "nothing to lost." Only they have more time to make good on the threats they pose.


Are you advocating torturing people to death?

Pretty much. I believe the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 8th Amendment.

Originally posted by Leper

For one, a "minimal" threat is still a threat.

Second, lifelong prisoners are often also considered to have "nothing to lost." Only they have more time to make good on the threats they pose.

True there is a threat, but we don't punish people for what they "might" do. if we did we would advocate the police shooting suspects just because they "might" pose a threat if arrested.


Pretty much. I believe the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 8th Amendment.

How do you interpret the 8th amendments ban on "cruel and unusual punishment"?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
True there is a threat, but we don't punish people for what they "might" do. if we did we would advocate the police shooting suspects just because they "might" pose a threat if arrested.

Actually, yes, punishment is often based on the future dangerousness of the criminal. The more of a threat one poses, the greater the punishment they will face based on incapacitation purposes.

As for the second point, I never said I think punishment should be determined by policemen. Of course, police have always possessed the power to act to prevent an imminent and obvious threat, which does sometimes include shooting suspects.

How do you interpret the 8th amendments ban on "cruel and unusual punishment"?

Well, I think if you conduct and administrate "torture" in a usual manner, then you aren't punishing anyone in a "cruel and unusual" way.

Leper, I used to respect you, but you lost all respect with me for advocating torture. Did you grow up in the Dark Ages?

As for "cruel and unusual punishment, I would say torture is unusual, as the State does not tortue anyone anymore. Hell, the U.S. has never "officially" tortured anyone.

Originally posted by Leper

Actually, yes, punishment is often based on the future dangerousness of the criminal. The more of a threat one poses, the greater the punishment they will face based on incapacitation purposes.

True, but the death penalty as punishment stands by itself. You cannot compare it to other punishments because it's final.

As for the second point, I never said I think punishment should be determined by policemen. Of course, police have always possessed the power to act to prevent an imminent and obvious threat, which does sometimes include shooting suspects.

I was making the point that no matter how dangerous a person "might" be, the police are still required to take a certain risk and allow that person the opportunity to surrender. We don't just shoot people because they "might" pose a threat, and we shouldn't execute people because they "might" kill again.


Well, I think if you conduct and administrate "torture" in a usual manner, then you aren't punishing anyone in a "cruel and unusual" way.

I doubt that most people would be in favor of torturing people as a form of punishment. Your desire also lends credence to the suggestion that capital punishment is just a form of revenge.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Leper, I used to respect you, but you lost all respect with me for advocating torture. Did you grow up in the Dark Ages?

As for "cruel and unusual punishment, I would say torture is unusual, as the State does not tortue anyone anymore. Hell, the U.S. has never "officially" tortured anyone.

Well, Borg, if it makes you feel any better, I respect you regardless of your feelings about me. Frankly, if I were going to offend you, I'm surprised that, of all my radical (by other people's standards) stances, my stance on torture is what did it.

As for your reason why torture is unusual, you could use the same reasoning to rebuff any sort of punishment that has never been used before, or hasn't been used in recent history. I seriously doubt the writers of the Bill of Rights intended such an inflexible result.

The way you would make torture "usual," in my opinion, would be by instituting a legal system that makes guidelines of torture that are meeted out in a standard way. Sample law: Anyone who commits theft of $50-500 worth of property is subject to 5-50 canings. That way, caning would become a usual punishment for minor crimes of theft.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
True, but the death penalty as punishment stands by itself. You cannot compare it to other punishments because it's final.

I don't see why we shouldn't apply equal reasoning to the death penalty.


I was making the point that no matter how dangerous a person "might" be, the police are still required to take a certain risk and allow that person the opportunity to surrender. We don't just shoot people because they "might" pose a threat, and we shouldn't execute people because they "might" kill again.

I never said we should punish people because they "might" pose a threat. I think one of the reasons we should punish people because they "do" pose a threat.


I doubt that most people would be in favor of torturing people as a form of punishment. Your desire also lends credence to the suggestion that capital punishment is just a form of revenge.

I doubt that also. Our society, for some reason, is against using pain as a form of punishment for criminals, but they don't hesitate to use pain as a form of punishment for their kids (e.g. spankings). Besides, isn't imprisonment more cruel than many sorts of torture?

I never denied revenge is considered in determining punishment (including the death penalty). Revenge, if you think about it, is really just a subconscious form of deterence.

Originally posted by Leper
I don't see why we shouldn't apply equal reasoning to the death penalty.

Because the death penalty is final. There is no appeal and no way to correct any mistakes you might make. As a form of punishment it can only be applied once to any individual, and it has no disciplinary effect.

I never said we should punish people because they "might" pose a threat. I think one of the reasons we should punish people because they "do" pose a threat.

I have no problem with imprisoning someone because they pose a threat. There is no way to know if a person is subject to rehabilitation unless you give them the opportunity. We sentence people to life terms when they have either committed a horrendous crime or have demonstrated that they are recidivists and will not be rehabilitated. If you executed people for their first offense, are you not killing people that might otherwise be rehabilitated?


I doubt that also. Our society, for some reason, is against using pain as a form of punishment for criminals, but they don't hesitate to use pain as a form of punishment for their kids (e.g. spankings). Besides, isn't imprisonment more cruel than many sorts of torture?

The intentional infliction of pain as a punishment is barbaric. If we imprison someone for life we will protect society adequately without endangering our prison guards any more than they already are. If a man is facing the death penalty what further punishment can you threaten him with? If you sentence them to life imprisonment, you can always put them in solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure.

I never denied revenge is considered in determining punishment (including the death penalty). Revenge, if you think about it, is really just a subconscious form of deterence.

The fact is that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder. If we as a society exact our revenge on murderers by executing them, are we not telling our citizens that killing for revenge is ok?

We don't have the death penalty in our neck of the woods. Personally I am against it. Whilst I understand the raw emotion that means you might consider taking anothers life in punishment, it is all too final for me.

Final, in the sense of miscarriage of justice- we have had many high profile cases of innocent people being mistakenly imprisoned and susbequently released, something not possible with a death penalty. There was for example a number of incidents where England 'fitted up' Irish people for bombings carried out by Irish Republicans.

The death penalty also appears to come as a relief to many convicted murderers when the alternative is a life time of captivity. Over here our greatest mass muderer, a doctor, recently killed himself in prison, as did a major serial killer/ child molester- both opted to die rather then serve time. Maybe doing a stretch in prison is feared more than death?

If a little kid hits you with all his might, do you hit him back with all of yours?

If killing is wrong then it's wrong. If it's okay sometimes then who says when it's okay?

Humans think it's okay to kill sometimes: for food, for revenge, and for fun. The government believes this, the crackheads believe this, and the holier-than-thou jingoists believe this.

If one wants to make a statement one does so with their actions. The government can't kill and simultaneously encourage the masses not to.

if some scumbag slices your wifes throat in front of you, are you goint to take him out or let him walk away and call the cops?

I'm not saying I am more enlightened than anyone else.

I, too, believe it's okay to kill sometimes. I got it from my Uncle Sam.

no you get it from your human nature. Liberals seem to excel in the attempt to stop people from acting as they would naturally

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
Because the death penalty is final. There is no appeal and no way to correct any mistakes you might make. As a form of punishment it can only be applied once to any individual, and it has no disciplinary effect.

Losing years of your life to imprisonment seems pretty final to me too, just to a lesser decree. I still see no reason to change our reasoning.


I have no problem with imprisoning someone because they pose a threat. There is no way to know if a person is subject to rehabilitation unless you give them the opportunity. We sentence people to life terms when they have either committed a horrendous crime or have demonstrated that they are recidivists and will not be rehabilitated. If you executed people for their first offense, are you not killing people that might otherwise be rehabilitated?.

Sure, it's possible they could be rahabilitated. They might even be innocent. But would you rather risk letting them kill again? I guess I view it much like warfare....When you get involved, you know some people will die that don't deserve to die, but you should be convinced you are doing more good than harm.

Of course, every crime should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; I'm by no means advocating blind imposition of any punishment.

The intentional infliction of pain as a punishment is barbaric. If we imprison someone for life we will protect society adequately without endangering our prison guards any more than they already are. If a man is facing the death penalty what further punishment can you threaten him with? If you sentence them to life imprisonment, you can always put them in solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure.

I could just as easily say that intentional entrapment of someone in a 8x5 cell for years at a time is "barbaric," as well. I suspect a lot of prisoners would trade pain for a prison sentence. Not only that, it would (or should) be cheaper and more productive than wasting away a life for years at a time when you can accomplish the same objectives in a short time frame.

You can put people on death row in solitary confinement also.


The fact is that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder. If we as a society exact our revenge on murderers by executing them, are we not telling our citizens that killing for revenge is ok?

No, the fact is that the death penalty, under our present system, is not a deterrent to murder, or at least not a significant one.

And the answer to your question is, of course, no. Just as when we as a society decide to imprison someone, we are not saying it's okay for citizens to imprison people.

Originally posted by Travh20
no you get it from your human nature. Liberals seem to excel in the attempt to stop people from acting as they would naturally

Wow that's a bold statement. So you are saying.....it's human nature to .......? Kill?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by God's Plumber


Final, in the sense of miscarriage of justice- we have had many high profile cases of innocent people being mistakenly imprisoned and susbequently released, something not possible with a death penalty. There was for example a number of incidents where England 'fitted up' Irish people for bombings carried out by Irish Republicans.

I would make the same point I made with Vilepagan. When you mistakenly imprison someone and discover your error, there's no restoring the years you cost of that person's life and you don't stop imprisoning people because you mistakenly imprison a few innocents.

The death penalty also appears to come as a relief to many convicted murderers when the alternative is a life time of captivity. Over here our greatest mass muderer, a doctor, recently killed himself in prison, as did a major serial killer/ child molester- both opted to die rather then serve time. Maybe doing a stretch in prison is feared more than death?

In a minority of cases, this might be so.

Originally posted by Travh20
no you get it from your human nature. Liberals seem to excel in the attempt to stop people from acting as they would naturally

You mean like say if I felt it was natural for me to be gay, liberals would tell me to stop?:D

ya right, and risk losing a sacred cow? I think not pagan.

I would make the same point I made with Vilepagan. When you mistakenly imprison someone and discover your error, there's no restoring the years you cost of that person's life and you don't stop imprisoning people because you mistakenly imprison a few innocents.

When we wrongly imprison someone it is a terrible tragedy, but we try to make amends by giving them a bunch of money and hopefully doing our best to see that it doesn't happen again.

What are you going to do when you mistakenly execute someone?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
When we wrongly imprison someone it is a terrible tragedy, but we try to make amends by giving them a bunch of money and hopefully doing our best to see that it doesn't happen again.

What are you going to do when you mistakenly execute someone?

Give them a bunch of money and do our best to see that it doesn't happen again?

Originally posted by Leper
Give them a bunch of money and do our best to see that it doesn't happen again?

I supose they could use it to try and bribe their way through the pearly gates :D

Originally posted by Travh20
no you get it from your human nature. Liberals seem to excel in the attempt to stop people from acting as they would naturally

(And I quote)

"We're all humans... we're all animals
We're all preditors so the hunger's understandable"

-Ed Blank

(End Quote)

It is human nature to kill.

It is also human nature to squat and take a shit whenever the mood strikes you. Socialization is about teaching people to go in a special room to piss, eat with a fork, and not have sex with their siblings. There's a lot of bullshit that falls under the category of "human nature" that we try to control for the sake of society.

The human being, as noble a beast as he is, is an animal. Nothing we cherish in our enlightened state comes "naturally" to us (language, technology, education, government..).

Resist your reptile mind. Step into the light.

The government should be teaching us the righteous way (I am in no way referring to any concept of organized religion). The same way society encourages us to control our excretory functions (or wear an extra absobant undergarment) it should also encourage us to express our higher selves. The current ruling class, however, encourages the opposite with respect to violence.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
]First of all, let me say that I don't think the capital punishment issue should be decided for economic reasons.

I agree and disagree, If a hard criminal is taking good money from good people then there is an issue. Why waste money on garbage?

Secondly, the links that I provided do go to some websites that are decidedly anti-capital punishment, however the studies they cite were, in most cases, performed by organizations which have no stake in the argument. Duke University performed one of the studies mentioned.

That's fine, but when we look at studies we have to read between the lines. Studies are good but they are NOT 100%

Lastly, capital punishment serves no pupose other than revenge. There is no rehabilitative effect on the criminal so sentenced, and indeed we have determined that these people are beyond rehabilitation. It does not deter future crimes, so it's only function is to inflict society's revenge upon the perpretrator of a capital crime.

Once again I ask you to go down to Texas and tell that to the wifes of the guards that lost there lives to crimininals that should have been fried in the 1st place. A killer is a killer they will allways cause trouble so if they are no longer here, how can they cause trouble?

Non-believers;

If someone comes up to you with a knife and starts to stab at you{or a loved one}, do you do what is in your power to stop the attack? If you do, lets say the only way to stop the attack is to kill the attacker. Now have you killed the attacker out of revenge or out of DEFENCE?

When society takes away a killer{proven without doubt} they are only defending themselfs just like in the above example.

Why do people insist on making an ocean out of a mud puddle

Here is another way to look at this, take society as a whole. Kind of like the human body, now if your body gets a cancer to you destroy it, or say well it deserves a chance? Well in society we have given criminals the chance, and all it has done is over growded or prisons, slowly eating the unit up, the same way a cancer eats the body. A killer is societys cancer, they do nothing but destroy.

Why do people insist on making an ocean out of a mud puddle

Because they can. :D

Originally posted by mad dog
Non-believers;

If someone comes up to you with a knife and starts to stab at you{or a loved one}, do you do what is in your power to stop the attack? If you do, lets say the only way to stop the attack is to kill the attacker. Now have you killed the attacker out of revenge or out of DEFENCE?

When society takes away a killer{proven without doubt} they are only defending themselfs just like in the above example.

Why do people insist on making an ocean out of a mud puddle

Your example is flawed. If you kill someone who is threatening you, that is self-defence, if you kill someone who has threatened you, that's revenge.

Originally posted by mad dog
Here is another way to look at this, take society as a whole. Kind of like the human body, now if your body gets a cancer to you destroy it, or say well it deserves a chance? Well in society we have given criminals the chance, and all it has done is over growded or prisons, slowly eating the unit up, the same way a cancer eats the body. A killer is societys cancer, they do nothing but destroy.

It may help you to look at humans as animals, or in this case as a disease that is infecting society, but it doesn't change the fact that we are talking about other human beings.

There have been criminals in our midst throughout history, and there are likely to be criminals among us for a long time to come. Treating the problem with fire and bloodshed has done little to rid our species of this scourge, and until we learn to deal with the problem using our higher abilities of reason and compassion, instead of revenge and violence, we will likely have to deal with it a good while longer.

Originally posted by Vilepagan ]Your example is flawed. If you kill someone who is threatening you, that is self-defence, if you kill someone who has threatened you, that's revenge. [/B]

I don't see how it is flawed, If you have a serial killer running around killing, then to kill him is a step towards defending society. Not revenge, but a safety measure

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It may help you to look at humans as animals, or in this case as a disease that is infecting society, but it doesn't change the fact that we are talking about other human beings.

A beast is a beast nothing more, just because the wolf is wearing a lamb outfit doesn't make it part of the flock.

There have been criminals in our midst throughout history, and there are likely to be criminals among us for a long time to come. Treating the problem with fire and bloodshed has done little to rid our species of this scourge, and until we learn to deal with the problem using our higher abilities of reason and compassion, instead of revenge and violence, we will likely have to deal with it a good while longer.

I think you love the word revenge :) Getting rid of a killer is NOT revenge it is society cleaning up the trash, nothing more.

I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this. I refuse to put a violent criminal in the same catagory as you, me, or others that try to live peacefully with each other. Heck I would even put my pets in a higher catagory then a childmolester, rapest or killer.