Thrawn's Revenge
Off Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: Meyer on March 06, 2008, 12:49:38 AM
-
And you can discuss other penalties on this topic. and if you are neither yes to the DP or no to the DP then don't add anything like don't care and that sort of stuff. just vote if you have an opinion.
-
While I say yes, I think it should be only used when there is NO other choice, unless you want more corpses to deal with.
-
i agree in the case of criminal dictators eg. milosevic(although he died before he could be) but not on the public.
-
Basically people who can't be reformed.
-
I agree with it to an extent. Some of these serial killers will never stop killing no matter how much you punish them and that is a fact. I don't mean it should be used on every murder. But like killing 40 people(refering to Pigton trial in Canada) it may be necessary to implement it. I think it's pretty harsh/inhumane but it is necessary at times.
-
I dont agree with it at all. To my mind, killing someone for what they have done is to lower yourself to their level.
Also, in some ways, death is an easy way out, instead of having to live the rest of their life with the weight of their actions on their shoulders, they get ultimate freedom ("there is no one so free as a dead man").
-
the person has to have done some pretty serious shit to need to be killed. it also needs to be proven that he would be a danger to other inmates
-
Basically, do it if they
1. They have no remorse from the deaths they caused
2. Are likely to kill more people later on
3. There is no hope of them reforming in jail
If they feel no regret from their murders, how would they have to "live with it"?
-
live with it as in they regret it. for all of you who are religios the bible says
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
genesis 9:6
-
I said if they don't regret it.
-
Theres a couple of reasons i say death over life
1)Costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to guard/keep alive a murderer
2)There are numerous cases in which life sentences have been imposed but the inmates get out through either shortening of sentence or a temporary release (dont know what the official name is of that) and they ended up killing more people
3)Prisons are a joke compared to what they used to be
-
Theres a couple of reasons i say death over life
1)Costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to guard/keep alive a murderer
2)There are numerous cases in which life sentences have been imposed but the inmates get out through either shortening of sentence or a temporary release (dont know what the official name is of that) and they ended up killing more people
3)Prisons are a joke compared to what they used to be
i agree 100%
besides the death penalty is painless now with the new lethal injections.
-
I don't think that a serial killer would worry much about what he/she has done. So it isn't propably so much oof an punishment to them.
And I totally agree with Scarecrow. death penalty is the best solution for society. Saves lot's of tax payers money. now someone can just do a crime, get sentenced for life, and spend the rest of his/hers life behind bars while common people do work and pay his living. Only one penalty there should be: Death Penalty.
And also it's true that prisons these days are too comfy. they're more like hotels than prisons. every prison should be Quantanamo. that would change things.
As for teh method of killing I think that firing squad or hanging are the best ones to go. hanging is also very ecological (so that environmentalist keep their mouths shut).
-
its simple what seems better? a 200 thousand dollar a year prisoner or a $.50 injection?
-
and it prevents overpopulation. ;D
-
I agree 100% with the death penalty if some murder beheads 20 people and ruins so many lives he should die for it.
-
2)There are numerous cases in which life sentences have been imposed but the inmates get out through either shortening of sentence or a temporary release (dont know what the official name is of that) and they ended up killing more people
And thats why i also think that a Life Sentence should mean just that - No probation, no parole, no "get out of jail free" card.
besides the death penalty is painless now with the new lethal injections.
Actually, the death penalty isnt guaranteed to be painless:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7183957.stm
I don't think that a serial killer would worry much about what he/she has done. So it isn't propably so much oof an punishment to them.
And I totally agree with Scarecrow. death penalty is the best solution for society. Saves lot's of tax payers money. now someone can just do a crime, get sentenced for life, and spend the rest of his/hers life behind bars while common people do work and pay his living. Only one penalty there should be: Death Penalty.
Maybe a serial killer wouldnt feel remorse or guilt, but they lose their freedom (which is apparently something society feels is very important).
But if you have the death penalty, who decides what crimes befit death? Just murder? Or should accidental death be included? Or just not acting when seeing someone in trouble?
If you say that someone should die for killing someone, then every member of the armed forces, or police service who has killed should get the death penalty, and the executioner who performs the death penalty on others should receive it in return.
-
No. they aren't killing some innocent person just to benefit from it. and I think that death penalty should be as painful as possible. And being inside isn't probably so bad. no taxes, meals are made for you. And if someone is convicted for life it's a huge burden for the society. for people who work and live their lives according to law. for example. I do some big mass murder kill dozens of people. then what? I'll be sentenced for life life as we don't have death penalty (one day it will hopefully change) and the rest of my life all my expenses are paid by those whose loved ones I killed and even more of those who I have done nothing. Doesn't sound so great. And as I life on a country where nobody has ever sit his penalty for life but are all releases after 10-15 years, I'd be back.
Maybe all criminals from all over the world should be put on an isolated area which is cut from rest of the world by big wall and guarded 24/7. And they would get nothing but one set of clothes. and then we just sit back and wait for nature to do it's job.
-
I agree that we should seperate those who deserve to die with those who don't. Someone who is a serial killer and won't change becasue of psycological reasons needs to die to prevent others from being killed. This isn't about punishing them, but about protecting others.
-
No. they aren't killing some innocent person just to benefit from it.
Oh, so all the people killed by police and soldiers deserved to die, did they?
And the executioner is killing someone just to benefit from it, since he/she is getting paid for it.
Also, what if the sentenced individual is innocent, and was falsely convicted for a crime they didnt commit? "Whoops, we killed an innocent individual, ah well".
and I think that death penalty should be as painful as possible. And being inside isn't probably so bad. no taxes, meals are made for you. And if someone is convicted for life it's a huge burden for the society. for people who work and live their lives according to law.
If, as a society, we promote universal human rights and the "humane" killing of animals, why should criminals be treated differently?
And if you think someone should be killed rather than be a burden on society, i suppose you also think that the elderly, the terminally ill, the mentally ill, and the disabled should be killed, so as to not burden the taxpayer?
I agree that we should seperate those who deserve to die with those who don't. Someone who is a serial killer and won't change becasue of psycological reasons needs to die to prevent others from being killed. This isn't about punishing them, but about protecting others.
So, if someone has a mental illness, and kills someone, they should be killed, even if they couldnt help themselves?
Also, how is killing them not punishing them? And the "others" are just as protected with that person behind bars.
-
I don't promote universal human rights and the "humane" killing of animals. If you remember I suggested that all aid to Africa should be stopped and let them try to survive themselves. I don't say that all people killed by police and soldiers deserve to die but why where they being shot at the first place? most likely they had started the shooting. and soldiers usually kill people during wars. And I don't say that we just kill some random dude. first there is investigation to determinate whether or not the accused is guilty or not. And I don't say that they should be simply because they are a burden to society. but if we should save money the easiest and best solution would be to kill prisoner's.
"Just taking out the garbage."
-
studies show that exacting revenge on someone who has done so mutch damage is healthy for society.
-
and what study is that?
-
I don't promote universal human rights and the "humane" killing of animals. If you remember I suggested that all aid to Africa should be stopped and let them try to survive themselves.
I was talking about society in general.
I don't say that all people killed by police and soldiers deserve to die but why where they being shot at the first place? most likely they had started the shooting. and soldiers usually kill people during wars.
What about the civilians killed in the crossfire, or mistakenly identified as an enemy, or sadistically killed for entertainment?
-
OK, let's see. You are suggesting we should allow this person who will not stop killing people to have the opportunity to either escape from prison or get let out for good behavior. As previously stated; by dying, they're released from all constraints of this. Whether you believe in an immortal soul in which the person would be relieved from any pain or suffering in life, or, if you don't believe that; in which case their consciousness is ended, their pain released. As I stated before, the death penalty should be used, not as a punishment for that person, but as a preventative measure to stop the taking of lives. And should only be used in the most severe of cases of those psychologically unable to remove themselves from this behavior, and are aware of themselves and their surroundings. Regarding those sadistically killed for entertainment, this falls into the line of my explanation.
-
You are suggesting we should allow this person who will not stop killing people to have the opportunity to either escape from prison or get let out for good behavior.
No, thats not what im suggesting. Someone convicted for murder (or similar) would presumably be in high security, which would preclude them escaping. And ive already said in this thread, that if someone receives a live sentence, it should mean life - So they have no opportunity for early release, or probation/parole.
-
and that's the worst case for society. they have to support that bastards living.
-
Accidents happen, someone could escape if either security starts to relax around him (as in the guards, not the methods) or he could just be plain better than the security. And I'm not saying use it on ANY murder case. Someone killing someone else, but only that one person, should be locked up. Someone who doesn't care who his target is will continue to be a danger if left alive.
-
meyer, where do you deem death penalty to be necessary at the least?
-
some people really think the death penalty is horrible. the usa is one of the few countries with it.
-
Texas, the expressway
-
meyer, where do you deem death penalty to be necessary at the least?
I think that at least murderers and rapists should be killed. and maybe some who are convicted to life. But I also have an idea that all crimes would be punishable by the death. that should lower the criminality.
-
what about manslaughter?
-
While I agree with executing murderers and rapists, anyone else doesn't fall into that category for me, Meyer. And, as I said, only for those who will do it again.
-
well they do for me.
-
manslaughter is by accident so i don't think the death penalty applies.
-
not if it's self defense.
-
recently in the uk, there was a case of a thief who had been terrorising as neighbourhood gor a decade and stealing over
-
if it is self denfense that is okay.
-
The death penalty should be incurred for those with 'evil' intent, but then agaain, how can one be truly sure if it WAS evil intent that drove someone to commit crime, and not neccessity? In my opinion though, rapists and murderers do what they do either for the pleasure of doing it, or for revenge, and both are entirely unsupported, so that is my opinion.
-
you can tell if someone is "evil" by posture, facial expression, and a few other things. unless they are a good actor :angel:
-
That's what I meant. :) It's funny how the people you would least expect, commoners, have such good acting talent, which ius why it is so difficult to prosecute people appropriately.
-
it's not hard to prosecute but people have so much rights that you have to think everything you say very carefully. hell if a white man even looks badly at a black one it's immediately racism.
-
isamu, you can't tell someone is evil. if they sow no remorse, and think they did a good thing, they are evil. evil is psychological, not aesthetic.
-
it can depend. but you are right in some areas vadereclipse
-
isamu, you can't tell someone is evil. if they sow no remorse, and think they did a good thing, they are evil. evil is psychological, not aesthetic.
define evil and good. Who is to judge what is good and what is evil?
-
define evil and good. Who is to judge what is good and what is evil?
Exactly, and who is to judge who deserves to be killed, and who doesnt?
-
I am. And you don't have to be "bad" person to be killed. I don't think many who are convicted to death penalty think they are bad.
-
it is hard to condemn someone to death for anyone. as long as it is not a close case to me i don't think i would care.
-
I fully agree with every comment since my last one, especially with the "who are we to judge" comment. Truly, I would do my best to ensure a being that languishes in the torment of others get's their just reward (punishment), but it may not necessarily mean they are bad as people; they could be really nice on the inside, but have had tough up-bringings. It's kinda like with people who have mental illnesses. For example, just because a person may seem a bit down at one point does not mean we should call them 'emo' or use other stupid terms to describe them. We should not define a person through appearance, but through careful study-never judge a person by a first glance.
-
i would need some pretty hard core convincing to convict someone to death.
-
I don't. I'd be a great judge.
-
im sure you would
-
Hehehehe. Funny.
People may think I am a little angel with curly blonde hair and a girlish face that makes me seem like more of a female, but in reality, I am a heartless monster. I care not for what befalls people, I am a very 'formal' person, and my insults actually degrade people instead of just being mindless words-eg; "Your an ar**hole!" The information I just agve everyone re-enforces my overall view of me most likely being a very good Judge.
-
actually im the same way only i demoralize the apponent then when he throws the first punch, i lay him out.
-
I have never been in a fight my entire life-probably because the people in my grade are pussies, and because I am basically friends with everyone, and also because I am smart and very diplomatical-I have broken up quite a few fights in my time. It's good to have so many contacts, and be so intelligent. It really pays off.
-
i have been in tons of fights. i just haven't started any
-
It's good that you don't start fights.
-
im a very sovereign person
-
As am I. We think much like each-other I can see. Anyway, evil should be quenched, and good should be rewarded. But still, how does one tell if one is evil or good?
-
im a very sovereign person
Sovereign?
So you are 1) a King, Queen, or other supreme ruler, 2) a former British gold coin (worth 1 pound Sterling), or 3) have supreme rank, power or authority?
-
I really doubt that. Actually right now I think that he is just stupid.
-
do you mean you are impartial to others, and have no bias?
sovereignty is by definition, the greatest level of authority.
-
(Hint, look up definitions of word if you don't know BEFORE you use them.)
-
A useful pointer, but if you pay attention to the context of his words, you would understand.
Hint: vadereclipse was right.
-
im pretty non bias usually unless it comes to star wars topics.