# The Death Penalty Is Wrong And Needs Abolished



## Famous (Sep 6, 2011)

*old post, del.*

.


----------



## Famous (Sep 6, 2011)

.


----------



## Tugwahquah (Apr 13, 2011)

No. I wish they would put to death all the people with life sentences. Cost money keeping all those dangerous criminals alive.


----------



## JustKittenRightMeow (Jul 25, 2011)

I agree with it under certain circumstances. As long as evidence against who ever is up for it is proven to be legitimate, I say fry the sucker. You have the gonads to kill an innocent woman walking home from the grocery store? You deserve to be killed as well. Rape little boys and girls? firing squad...so on. Hardworking people shouldn't waste their money to help keep a bunch of criminals locked up.


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

JustKittenRightMeow said:


> I agree with it under certain circumstances. As long as evidence against who ever is up for it is proven to be legitimate, I say fry the sucker. You have the gonads to kill an innocent woman walking home from the grocery store? You deserve to be killed as well. Rape little boys and girls? firing squad...so on. Hardworking people shouldn't waste their money to help keep a bunch of criminals locked up.


totally agree with this. I used to be against the death penalty until I read into a few accounts of some really despicable crimes. it made me realize, you know what? some people truly do deserve to die.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

I absolutely support the death penalty. I don't think it should be used in cases based on circumstantial evidence (like in the Scott Peterson case) though.

I find it ironic that no one whines about life sentences for what they really are. Life sentence = death behind bars. It just takes a little longer (unless one dies from illness or killed by a fellow inmate), but the only way someone in a life sentence and someone on death row leaves prison is the same - stiff in a pine box.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

States should not have the legal power to kill their citizens (with very few exceptions, such as armed police opening fire with live rounds on a crazed gunman), the death penalty is backward, barbaric and uncivilised.

I am going to pre-emptively echo a point UltraShy is probably about to make, which is that the method of execution used in the US (one of the only western countries to execute people) seems more focused on keeping the spectators happy than being humane. Apparently all those barbituates cause heart failure before loss of consciousness and it is an agonising way to die made to look peaceful by the muscle relaxants which prevent howls of pain or violent thrashing around. If the US insist on killing it's own citizens it should at least do it humanely, by shooting them in the head and chest with high-calbire weapons, and the people who support the death penalty should have to watch since there need to be people present to verify the execution took place properly and it would prove the strength of their convictions if they didn't mind being spattered with blood and bone fragments and bits of internal organ in order to uphold their notion of justice.


----------



## Akane (Jan 2, 2008)

The death penalty and sometimes the entire legal system is flawed not wrong. I do question the method though. Experiments with eeg machines while euthanizing animals has shown sedatives and chemical euthanasia may not be nearly as humane as we think.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

> Resonance said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently all those barbituates cause heart failure before loss of consciousness and it is an agonising way to die made to look peaceful by the muscle relaxants which prevent howls of pain or violent thrashing around.
> ...


Well its called the death _penalty_, not the death prize.

I find it very wierd we are somehow concerned with putting violent criminals to death so humanely when you can bet they didn't give their victims that consideration.



> If the US insist on killing it's own citizens it should at least do it humanely, by shooting them in the head and chest with high-calbire weapons, and the people who support the death penalty should have to watch since there need to be people present to verify the execution took place properly


I'd be glad to watch that happen to someone who killed a member of my family. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a family member.

Besides, where I grew up firing squad is still the choice execution method. Though they did hang a particularly violent criminal once...



> and it would prove the strength of their convictions if they didn't mind being spattered with blood and bone fragments and bits of internal organ in order to uphold their notion of justice.


Don't be dramatic. :roll

Besides, the blood splatter and bone fragmants thing is largely Hollywood.

So if you support life impriosnment would you be fine with having to watch a video of every day that person spent in prison until they died? Ridiculous.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

Dark Alchemist said:


> Well its called the death _penalty_, not the death prize.
> 
> I find it very wierd we are somehow concerned with putting violent criminals to death so humanely when you can bet they didn't give their victims that consideration.


Because we are meant to be running a civilization not a vigilante mob, and because the whole basis of our justice system is that we are morally above the depravities of the accused and so do not sink to their level, otherwise what basis do we have to accuse them of any wrong if we treat them the same way they treated others. To think otherwise is to argue that inflicting painful death is morally _ok_ and it's the context that determines whether or not it is right.



> I'd be glad to watch that happen to someone who killed a member of my family. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a family member.


As would I, but I do not mean executions where the accused has some personal connection with the spectators, I mean a random selection of death penalty supporters should be chosen for the observer gallery of any execution.



> Don't be dramatic. :roll


I imagine watching someone get shot in the head _is_ rather dramatic.


----------



## VagueResemblance (Apr 17, 2010)

Yes there are people that cannot be reformed. Yes there are crimes whose savagery and evil boggle the imagination. In a perfect world I would be for the death penalty...but then in a perfect world they probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

What about the implementation of it? What about the execution of railroaded innocents? What about the people that commit lesser crimes and are condemned to die? What about the racism inherent in the system? In Philadelphia alone a black man is four times more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime as a white man. I don't really want to know how this breaks down for, say, Texas.

Those in support should answer two questions.

1. are you willing to perform the execution yourself?
2. what is the acceptable number of innocent people being put to death annually?


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

Even though I view capital punishment as immoral, I support it.



Tugwahquah said:


> No. I wish they would put to death all the people with life sentences. Cost money keeping all those dangerous criminals alive.


Yep. This exactly. It costs us so much money to pay for all these prisoners when they are just serving a life sentence.


----------



## persona non grata (Jul 13, 2011)

Tugwahquah said:


> No. I wish they would put to death all the people with life sentences. Cost money keeping all those dangerous criminals alive.





Marlon said:


> Yep. This exactly. It costs us so much money to pay for all these prisoners when they are just serving a life sentence.


In the American justice system is costs substantially more more to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate them for life. There are mandatory appeals and court costs are very expensive.

Eliminating these costs isn't a real option seeing as how they're there as a safeguard against executing the innocent.


----------



## StayingMotivated (Sep 5, 2011)

killing to prove that killing is wrong makes no sense to me personally. I'm very much against the death penalty.


----------



## Tora (Oct 1, 2010)

@the idea it is cheaper to kill then life sentence; its not its very expensive to put someone to death.

No one deserves death. Because we are ****ed up does not make it their fault, yes, they should be punished because they are a danger to society. Sometimes these dangerous criminals are more victims(not saying they deserve sympathy but rather an understanding of the dark parts that exist in humanity rather then treated as anomolys that should be shunned, because we need to accept we are not "perfect" in the light of how western culture operates.) A broken home or just a broken life in general is responsabile- where equality is just a myth so hatred is born because they feel people see their culture as inferior.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Resonance said:


> Because we are meant to be running a civilization not a vigilante mob, and because the whole basis of our justice system is that we are morally above the depravities of the accused and so do not sink to their level, otherwise what basis do we have to accuse them of any wrong if we treat them the same way they treated others. To think otherwise is to argue that inflicting painful death is morally _ok_ and it's the context that determines whether or not it is right.


So by that logic, say a criminal who imprisoned people against their will for his sordid pelasure was arrested. Would locking him up for life qualify as "treating him the same way he treated others?" Would we be no better than him for imprisoning him?



> As would I, but I do not mean executions where the accused has some personal connection with the spectators, I mean a random selection of death penalty supporters should be chosen for the observer gallery of any execution.


I'm very willing to bet there would be a line of people willing and hoping to get in.



> I imagine watching someone get shot in the head _is_ rather dramatic.


Doesn't mean you have to have your clothes ruined.


----------



## Shannanigans (Feb 27, 2011)

yes


----------



## Syndacus (Aug 9, 2011)

Tora said:


> @the idea it is cheaper to kill then life sentence; its not its very expensive to put someone to death.
> 
> No one deserves death. Because we are ****ed up does not make it their fault, yes, they should be punished because they are a danger to society. Sometimes these dangerous criminals are more victims(not saying they deserve sympathy but rather an understanding of the dark parts that exist in humanity rather then treated as anomolys that should be shunned, because we need to accept we are not "perfect" in the light of how western culture operates.) A broken home or just a broken life in general is responsabile- where equality is just a myth so hatred is born because they feel people see their culture as inferior.


So if a killer came into your house, raped your daughter and wife and then killed them but left you alive to bear witness to these crimes, you still forgive him, and you let him live a life sentence, dying quietly behind bars?


----------



## King Moonracer (Oct 12, 2010)

The death penalty is stupid. It should be replaced with torture. Why kill someone? what does that do? Nothing. I lifetime of pain and misery would make them think about what they did to deserve this. 

The prison system is a complete joke. You could go in there as a thief, and come out as a killer/rapist nazi.

It is completely ineffective at "rehabilitating" criminals.


----------



## DanCan (Jul 29, 2009)

You "Reap what you Sow". Killing someone gets you killed. Just like being mean to someone will get them to act the same way back. It's a "Natural Law". It's not a matter of cost of taxes(but what if all that taxpayer money was back in our hands?). It's not about revenge(but I'd totally understand that. I'd flip out if someone hurt my dog, let alone my family). It's about consequences. You do something, and you get a result. If someone murders(not talking about self defense), then the natural result should be their death.


----------



## F1X3R (Jul 20, 2009)

I don't think most murderers or violent offenders care too much about consequences while they are committing the crimes. There is no deterring the types of people who commit crimes worthy of the death penalty. Sentencing criminals to death just feels good, but it doesn't accomplish anything. 

Also, the only way to ensure that innocent people will not be put to death, is to remove the death penalty.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

I cannot agree.



F1X3R said:


> Also, the only way to ensure that innocent people will not be put to death, is to remove the death penalty.


 In which case you would be virtually guaranteeing that many innocent people will be tortured endlessly in prison.

In a perfect world, I wouldn't agree with the death penalty at all. In the real world, we have human beings who go in for something like murder at 20 years old and spend 60 years locked in a concrete box.

IF the person turns out to be innocent, it makes no real difference if they can't prove it (And most of the time they probably can't). So what's worse? Executing an innocent man a year or so after his conviction or leaving him to rot in what has to be the closest thing to hell on earth for 60 years?

Strictly on a level of humanity, the death penalty is the most humane thing you can do in many cases.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Resonance said:


> States should not have the legal power to kill their citizens (with very few exceptions, *such as armed police* opening fire with live rounds on a crazed gunman),....


^Agree, so long as that was merely one example and not meant to imply that armed civilians lack a right to act in self-defense as well.



Resonance said:


> I am going to pre-emptively echo a point UltraShy is probably about to make, which is that the method of execution used in the US (one of the only western countries to execute people) seems more focused on keeping the spectators happy than being humane. Apparently all those barbituates cause heart failure before loss of consciousness and it *is an agonising way to die made to look peaceful by the muscle relaxants which prevent howls of pain or violent thrashing around.* If the US insist on killing it's own citizens it should at least do it humanely, by shooting them in the head and chest with high-calbire weapons, and the people who support the death penalty should have to watch since there need to be people present to verify the execution took place properly and it would prove the strength of their convictions if they didn't mind being spattered with blood and bone fragments and bits of internal organ in order to uphold their notion of justice.


^You beat me too it. It would be more humane to blow their head off with a shotgun. Executions are regularly botched by prison personel who have no medical training at all. At least they're trained in the use of shotguns. Here Texas can seek out the best price on the needed ammo: http://ammoseek.com/?gun=shotgun&cal=311&shot_size=00&shell_length=2+3/4&mfg=&keywords=&sortby=cpr


----------



## watashi (Feb 6, 2008)

It's inhumane. I don't feel sorry for those criminals, yet doing the same thing they did to punish them is not right. They'll probably suffer more in prison anyway. Also you have to consider the justice system is not always correct. Someone could be wrongly charged or set up.


----------



## Tora (Oct 1, 2010)

Syndacus said:


> So if a killer came into your house, raped your daughter and wife and then killed them but left you alive to bear witness to these crimes, you still forgive him, and you let him live a life sentence, dying quietly behind bars?


Is revenge going to bring them back? Do you take foolish comfort that if life ****s you over karma is going to bite someone in the ***? I don't think so. It is not punishment but protecting society from dangerous people, karma or revenge are both foolish principales


----------



## F1X3R (Jul 20, 2009)

> In which case you would be virtually guaranteeing that many innocent people will be tortured endlessly in prison.
> 
> In a perfect world, I wouldn't agree with the death penalty at all. In the real world, we have human beings who go in for something like murder at 20 years old and spend 60 years locked in a concrete box.
> 
> ...


Do you want to wager on how many people freed after decades in prison wished they would have had their head blown off years ago instead of finally being free and able to see their families again?


----------



## Lisa (Jul 8, 2006)

Resonance said:


> *States should not have the legal power to kill their citizens (with very few exceptions, such as armed police opening fire with live rounds on a crazed gunman),** the death penalty is backward, barbaric and uncivilised.*
> 
> I am going to pre-emptively echo a point UltraShy is probably about to make, which is that the method of execution used in the US (one of the only western countries to execute people) seems more focused on keeping the spectators happy than being humane. Apparently all those barbituates cause heart failure before loss of consciousness and it is an agonising way to die made to look peaceful by the muscle relaxants which prevent howls of pain or violent thrashing around. If the US insist on killing it's own citizens it should at least do it humanely, by shooting them in the head and chest with high-calbire weapons, and the people who support the death penalty should have to watch since there need to be people present to verify the execution took place properly and it would prove the strength of their convictions if they didn't mind being spattered with blood and bone fragments and bits of internal organ in order to uphold their notion of justice.


I agree with the bolded stuff.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Tora said:


> Is revenge going to bring them back? Do you take foolish comfort that if life ****s you over karma is going to bite someone in the ***? I don't think so. It is not punishment but protecting society from dangerous people, karma or revenge are both foolish principales


So what are you arguing for? You seem to be against both punishment and pardon.


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

persona non grata said:


> In the American justice system is costs substantially more more to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate them for life. There are mandatory appeals and court costs are very expensive.
> 
> Eliminating these costs isn't a real option seeing as how they're there as a safeguard against executing the innocent.


^What he said.

That said, I'm on the fence, although I mostly oppose it. The thought of a government having the legal power to kill its citizens in any situation other than to stop a clear and imminent threat to life bothers me. And I absolutely don't believe it should be used in a purely circumstantial case. Unless you have a crowd of witnesses, or clearly have the guy's face on video doing the act, don't even consider it.


----------



## Matomi (Sep 4, 2011)

Yes, it's pathetic. Who are they to judge who lives and who dies, Death to them all!


----------



## Tora (Oct 1, 2010)

Dark Alchemist said:


> So what are you arguing for? You seem to be against both punishment and pardon.


I'm not saying so much of forgiving but understanding, not punishment but rather protecting society from dangerous individuals.

Death is never a reasonable sentence, even with someone with influence because if you kill them he transcends being a member of a organization to a symbol of martyrdom.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

To be honest, life in prison is a much bigger deterrent to keep people from crime, then the death penalty is. Lot's of criminals are truly unafraid to die, but spending 20+ years in a prison with unimaginably cruel inmates and corrupt guards will make anyone think twice.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Tora said:


> I'm not saying so much of forgiving but understanding, not punishment but rather protecting society from dangerous individuals.


I find it very funny that locking someone up until they dies somehow isn't "punishment" to you.



> Death is never a reasonable sentence, even with someone with influence because if you kill them he transcends being a member of a organization to a symbol of martyrdom.


A life sentence is essentially "death behind bars." The only way they leave prison is stiff in a pine box (whether of execution, old age or killed by a fellow inmate).


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

I'm going to have to steal some UN wording and say that capital punishment violates human dignity. I'm ashamed that we still do it, honestly.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

My objection to the death penalty is purely practical - because of the possibility of executed innocent people. 

But I have no moral objection to it. It seems the moral objections to the death penalty are purely visceral - they rely on the premise that death is the worst thing that you can inflict on someone. But the truth is that there are worse fates than death, and death shouldn't hold some special significance in our minds. Why, for example, wouldn't you also object to locking someone up for their entire life? That's basically ruining their life. So why is death any worse?


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

bezoomny said:


> I'm going to have to steal some UN wording and say that capital punishment violates human dignity.


How?


----------



## subzero0 (Jun 18, 2005)

i think the only people that deserve the death penalty are serial killers


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

persona non grata said:


> In the American justice system is costs substantially more more to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate them for life. There are mandatory appeals and court costs are very expensive.
> 
> Eliminating these costs isn't a real option seeing as how they're there as a safeguard against executing the innocent.


Yes, it should be abolished. It's just a waste of money and only serves to satisfy people's craving for revenge. Also, the legal system is obviously not perfect. I keep seeing news articles about wrongly convicted prisoners being let out after 10 or 20 years and how the memory of eyewitnesses is extremely unreliable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/us/29witness.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## James_Russell (Aug 26, 2011)

Tugwahquah said:


> No. I wish they would put to death all the people with life sentences. Cost money keeping all those dangerous criminals alive.


The ratio of people in jail for minor drug offences to brutal murders is very far from even.

Executions themselves are much more expensive than life sentences. So why would the state decide to kill off it's murderers. When a policy change and releasing millions of people caught carrying, growing and selling Marijuana would save billions.

The death penalty is wrong, inhumane and has no place in modern society. As the recent case proved, there will always be the possibility of unjust executions. He wasn't saved despite so much doubt in his case. It has happened before and while the death penalty still exists it will happen again.

America, for the driving force of the west is very much trapped in the middle ages.


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

Yes I agree with that statement. I think the death penalty is barbaric.


----------



## Keith (Aug 30, 2008)

I disagree, I think the death penalty is fair its hard for a prosecutor to make a case for the death penalty its only used in cases we're there is an extreme amount of physical evidence or a confession and for a really heinous offense, though granted its not a perfect system but what is? I really don't think life in prison is all that much better as an alternative.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

F1X3R said:


> Do you want to wager on how many people freed after decades in prison wished they would have had their head blown off years ago instead of finally being free and able to see their families again?


1. Execution does not have to be brutal or especially violent with the technology that exists.

2. My position for some time has been that a convict who receives a life sentence should be free to choose either life in prison or execution so no one can blame the state for executing innocent people. Then if any innocent people were executed, it was their own choice.

3. I'm not a mind reader but if I was convicted of a crime I didn't do and given a life sentence, unless there was a very strong possibility that I could somehow prove my innocence, I would rather be executed. Especially if I hadn't been able to prove it within, say, five years. Yes. There's always the chance I might be exonerated in 20 years. Do you have any idea what it would be like spending even 10-20 years in an American prison? It's basically a slightly toned down concentration camp without the mass graves and/or ovens. This is not summer camp. Prison is designed from the ground up to punish people and that's exactly what it does.


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

PickleNose said:


> Strictly on a level of humanity, the death penalty is the most humane thing you can do in many cases.


The odd thing is how many of those on death row do everything possible to extend their life, doing as many appeals as are possible. There seem to be only a relative few who want to get dead ASAP, and are really pissed that they have to wait for the appeal that's automatic with any death sentence.

Strange how many behave in a manner clearly indicating they prefer living in a cage like an animal over being dead. Not sure what they have to live for; perhaps just a most basic animal instinct to preserve life.:stu


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

PickleNose said:


> 1. Execution does not have to be *brutal *or especially *violent* with the technology that exists.


Those terms need to be defined. Do you mean in terms of how it looks or in terms of level of suffering in getting dead?

Depending on how those terms are defined, death by sitting in a wide open field upon a hundred pounds of high explosives is either brutal & violent or not.

The idea of blowing a person up such that it would be hard to even find any fragments of them may seem very gruesome. Yet, how much suffering can there be in a death that involves total destruction of the entire central nervous system within milliseconds?


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

UltraShy said:


> The odd thing is how many of those on death row do everything possible to extend their life, doing as many appeals as are possible. There seem to be only a relative few who want to get dead ASAP, and are really pissed that they have to wait for the appeal that's automatic with any death sentence.
> 
> Strange how many behave in a manner clearly indicating they prefer living in a cage like an animal over being dead. Not sure what they have to live for; perhaps just a most basic animal instinct to preserve life.:stu


Couldn't agree more.

Unless I believed I had a real shot at an overturned conviction and release from prison within the first couple years, I'd _beg_ for execution.

I oppose the death penalty, but only because of its irreversibility. I think life w/o parole is even less humane, and in theory I support giving convicts the option of execution if they consent. Unfortunately, that doesn't work as well in reality as it does on paper, as issues like martyrdom and suicide-by-proxy come into the picture.


----------



## modus (Apr 27, 2011)

Even the Bible advocates "eye for an eye".
If I killed someone, I would want to die
The death penalty is expensive because our legal system allows insane appeals. We need to stop letting this happen and just get it over with.
Is it not also barbaric to murder someone, as most death row inmates have done? Why should they not be treated to their own barbarism so they can truly realize what they've done?
For those against, what do you suggest as an alternate option? I see a lot of people saying they're against it and not giving any ideas of other ways to deal with these inmates.


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

JustKittenRightMeow said:


> I agree with it under certain circumstances. As long as evidence against who ever is up for it is proven to be legitimate, I say fry the sucker. You have the gonads to kill an innocent woman walking home from the grocery store? You deserve to be killed as well. Rape little boys and girls? firing squad...so on. Hardworking people shouldn't waste their money to help keep a bunch of criminals locked up.


:agree

For those who oppose it - I don't like the idea of the death penalty at all, but some people are so irreversibly evil and barbaric that they really need to go.

I do not support paying high taxes just so these hateful and twisted people can sit in jail with 3 meals a day and recreation time. If you do something so reprehensible that you are found so guilty as to earn the death penalty, especially if it was malicious and you have no remorse, you deserve to have the same fate your victim most likely had.


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

Courtney, come on now. "Pay high taxes for them?" Capital cases can't account for more than 1% of all inmates nationwide. Financially, keeping them alive in jail is a drop in the bucket if there ever was such a thing.

Now, if you want to talk about questionable uses of our tax money, there's always enforcement of and incarcerations related to weed...


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

don't know,,,, butr the good thing in this country they can _*forgive even in the last min!*_

woundering if people in other parts of the world can forgive,????,,,,


----------



## modus (Apr 27, 2011)

Embassy said:


> If the appeals process is scrapped innocent people will end up being executed.
> *139 people have been wrongfully convicted and exonerated from death row in the United States* and without the appeals process could have possibly been put to death.


I didn't say do away with it completely but this crap where 15 appeals can be made is not cool.



straightarrows said:


> As far as I know that in the US if u r a $$$$$ who can gwt a good lawyer,, u'll just spend few years in jail!!
> :um:no


This is absolutely true. Rich people do not get executed and it's bull****. A murder is a murder, regardless of how much money you have.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

I don't believe in the death penalty from a purely moral point of view. I just don't think it's ever right to kill another human being (other than perhaps euthanasia perhaps) , and that is that.

As to the details of the situation, I haven't really studied it or anything, but in my heart, I just don't feel it is right.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

straightarrows said:


> don't know,,,, butr the good thing in this country they can _*forgive even in the last min!*_
> 
> woundering if people in other parts of the world can forgive,????,,,,


"Forgive" is the wrong word. They just get commuted to life in prison - they dont get hugs and are allowed to go free.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Embassy said:


> If the appeals process is scrapped innocent people will end up being executed.
> *139 people have been wrongfully convicted and exonerated from death row in the United States* and without the appeals process could have possibly been put to death.





> *A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT *
> 
> Great effort has been made in pretrial, trial, appeals, writ and clemency procedures to minimize the chance of an innocent being convicted, sentenced to death or executed. Since 1973, legal protections have been so extraordinary that 37% of all death row cases have been overturned for due process reasons or commuted. Indeed, inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by appeals than by execution. ("Capital Punishment 1995", BJS, 1996). And, in fact, many of those cases were overturned based on post conviction new laws, established by legislative or judicial decisions in other cases.
> 
> ...





> Life without parole?


Ever wonder how many innocent people have lived out ther lives and died behind bars? Maybe you should be arguing against life sentences too.


----------



## lyssado707 (Oct 29, 2004)

Agreed. I don't support the death penalty because even if someone is so dangerous that they have to be behind bars for the rest of their lives, they can still make a positive influence from behind bars if they turn their lives around. If they'd rather have the death penalty than life in prision, then okay, but it has to be their choice.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

UltraShy said:


> Those terms need to be defined. Do you mean in terms of how it looks or in terms of level of suffering in getting dead?


 Well, whatever. I was present when one of my dogs was given the shot. It was more or less instant. I figure they could do much the same for a lethal injection for humans. They just make it more complicated than it needs to be, I guess. For whatever reason.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

Yes... I agree... and I won't debate it.


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

Dark Alchemist said:


> "Forgive" is the wrong word. They just get commuted to life in prison - _they dont get hugs and are allowed to go free_.


in this country they r allowed to go free !:yes it's enough that one member in the family forgive :clap even in the last min!

,,,,or they can ask for money... (some families r crazy and ask for millions!:sus

I woundering if they have the same law in other parts of the world,,,,


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

exobyte said:


> Even the Bible advocates "eye for an eye".




The Catholic Church, the largest & original x-tian church, is firmly opposed to the death penalty.

Does that mean the Pope missed that biblical passage?:stu


----------



## modus (Apr 27, 2011)

UltraShy said:


> [/LIST]
> The Catholic Church, the largest & original x-tian church, is firmly opposed to the death penalty.
> 
> Does that mean the Pope missed that biblical passage?:stu


It means, and I'm allowed to say this because I was raised Catholic, that the Catholic church is seriously messed up. It's a "faith" built around ruling a country using fear, a purely human invention, unrecognizable from its roots.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

straightarrows said:


> in this country they r allowed to go free !:yes it's enough that one member in the family forgive :clap even in the last min!
> 
> ,,,,or they can ask for money... (some families r crazy and ask for millions!:sus
> 
> I woundering if they have the same law in other parts of the world,,,,


Are you trolling? Or talking about some country other than the US?

It doesn't matter what members of the family thinks. That is irrelevant in the court system.


----------



## tranquildream (Nov 17, 2010)

I don't think death is enough of a punishment for some of the crimes committed. If I was a murderer or serial rapist and got a death sentence, I would just be like, whatever. But I guess punishment solves nothing in the end anyways.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I think it is justified for cases that are totally proven. There are people who would obviously commit sever crimes again and again.

They recently took away the "last meal" right given to condemned convicts in Texas after one guy asked for a bunch of stuff....and didn't eat any of it! Waste of money.


----------



## danabeaton (Jul 15, 2011)

But if we didn't have the death penalty, they couldn't make mistakes like killing innocent people or people whose cases didn't have strong evidence!

NOBODY has the right to take another life. So what gives YOU or the government the right to execute someone? Prison should be about keeping people safe, not getting revenge. I can understand needing justice (there's someone out there responsible for my friend's death, but I would never wish death upon them... I just wish they would turn themselves in so we can understand what happened), but killing someone makes you as bad as that killer.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

millenniumman75 said:


> They recently took away the "last meal" right given to condemned convicts in Texas after one guy asked for a bunch of stuff....and didn't eat any of it! Waste of money.


How many millions of dollars are spent on trials & appeals for every single death row inmate? And you're worried about the cost of a big meal?

I'd tend to suspect prison staff were eating really well that night saying "No use letting this banquet go to waste just 'cause he dead."


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

danabeaton said:


> But if we didn't have the death penalty, they couldn't make mistakes like killing innocent people or people whose cases didn't have strong evidence!


What about innocent people who get killed or die of old age in prison?



> NOBODY has the right to take another life. So what gives YOU or the government the right to execute someone?


Then what gives them the right to lock someone up until they die?

And probably the fact that we're not rapists or serial killers.



> but killing someone makes you as bad as that killer.


So if I were to kill someone in self defense (lets say that person intended to rape or kill me), am I no worse than said person?

And using an earlier scenario of mine, if we imprison someone whose crimes was locking up people against their will, would we be as bad as them?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dark Alchemist said:


> *What about* innocent *people who get killed* or die of old age *in prison*?


That would bring up the issue of inadequate security. Wisconsin hasn't had the death penalty in over 150 years, yet Jeffrey Dahmer is dead, killed by another inmate. Inadequate security effectively equals a death penalty for some.

As for old age, we live in a nation where much of the public cries out for prison terms that are so long as to be ridiculous. Most violent crime is committed by the young. Someone who was a vicious killer at 18 isn't likely to be any real threat at 68. Most folks mellow with age, and eventually even the the most bad a** gang bangers will be so old that they'll have to stuff their Glock inside the waistband of their Depends.



Dark Alchemist said:


> So if I were to kill someone in self defense (lets say that person intended to rape or kill me), am I no worse than said person?


The vast majority of people would recognize a clear moral difference between killing someone to stop them from attacking you, and simply killing someone because you'd like to steal their stuff or just be cause you're in the mood for some killing.


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

If you are from the United States, these are the two contradictory amendments:

Amendment 8:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, *nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*

Amendment 14 - Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In my opinion, amendment 8 is too subjective (what's considered cruel and what's considered unusual?). Anyone who is against the death penalty would say that the criminal is protected by this amendment because death is a cruel punishment. Although I agree that death is a cruel punishment, I don't like subjective terms such as "cruel" and "unusual"; it's too open to interpretation.

This is why I approve of the death penalty, which amendment 14 implies.


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

Death Penalties methods just need to be changed to immediate death by firing squad followed by incineration, THE END.


----------



## minimized (Nov 17, 2007)

Problem with the death penalty is that it's adherents hold it up as a case of deterrence, in which it fails miserably.

Just some draconian measure of returning blood meant to satiate the masses and provide some sort of fake closure... just another stat line for the politicians, another empty gesture.

That being said I don't have a problem when it happens in clear-cut cases, but I have serious problems with the way the justice system works, so take that as you will.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr House said:


> Death Penalties methods just need to be changed to immediate death by firing squad followed by incineration, THE END.


If making death as rapid as possible is the goal, then why do firing squads aim for the heart when a head shot would produce the most rapid death.:stu Oh, yeah, that's because rifles can make a head literally explode at such close range. I remember some show that looked at a case where a pissed off teen girl shot her parents with dad's hunting rifle. They couldn't show most of the pics on TV as there was blood & guts everywhere.

We can't have that -- they want barbarism that doesn't look barbaric.

In self defense shooting, the upper center chest is the standard target area simply because it's large & contains important stuff like lungs & heart. A shot to the head would be more effective at stopping someone, but you're more likely to miss that smaller target in a defensive situation. Execution is quite different as it allows all the time in the world to line up a perfect shot to the head. Kind of hard miss a stationary target using a rifle supported by a rest at a distance of 10 feet.

Guess that must be done out of tradition. That's how it was done the other year in Utah, with a target placed over the heart. Utah has since banned death by firing squad. They still want to kill, but without the embarrassment that a corpse with blood pouring from multiple bullet wounds produces for their state.

Utah also used the ridiculous tradition of having one of the multiple shooters firing a blank. It doesn't fool anybody, since recoil is a function of a bullet's mass & velocity. A blank firing a bullet of no weight at no velocity will be blatantly obvious, so each of them will know if they fired a live round or not. Utah used law enforcement officers who volunteered for the job of killing. Wonder if they picked the cops who wrote the best essay on "why I want to shoot somebody outside of a self-defense situation."


----------



## 0lly (Aug 3, 2011)

The death penalty doesn't sit right with me for some reason. 

It serves three purposes: revenge, deterrent and keeping dangerous people of the streets. Firstly, revenge; what's the point? I can't imagaine a grieving family would be much relieved by revenge, and in fact many would probably be quite unsettled by it (I hope), and simply making people suffer has no practical end. Secondly, deterrents probably don't really work; I would imagine (speculate) that most murders/rapes are ones of passion and stupidity -- I doubt the offender is weighing up the legal pros and cons as he/she pulls the trigger. And finally, it does indeed serve well to keep dangerous types off the street, and probably a lot cheaper than locking them away. But, I don't care about the economics of the situation; prison funding budgets don't bother me much. 

So, as I see it, the only advantage the death penalty has is an economic one; and does anyone here seriously care about prison funding? I mean really care? Care enough to live in a country where you might be killed by the state?


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

there are some people out there who truly have no conscience, cannot be rehabilitated, and have committed unspeakably despicable crimes. why do we care more about people like that than we do about the average, innocent american citizen? seriously, think about it. if you go to prison, you're guaranteed a place to live, health care, and 3 hot meals a day for the rest of your life, which is more than a lot of decent americans have. why do heinous criminals deserve that? I'm all for killing them off. eliminate the possibility of them being paroled for "good behavior" or something stupid. I don't even really care if it's humane, to be honest. stab them a few times and drop em down the garbage chute.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

0lly said:


> Firstly, revenge; what's the point? I can't imagaine a grieving family would be much relieved by revenge, and in fact many would probably be quite unsettled by it (I hope), and simply making people suffer has no practical end.


Vengence appeals very much to basic animal instinct, even though people like to think they're ever so far removed from animals.



0lly said:


> Secondly, deterrents probably don't really work; I would imagine (speculate) that most murders/rapes are ones of passion and stupidity -- *I doubt the offender is weighing up the legal pros and cons as he/she pulls the trigger.*


Exactly. I seriously doubt any resident of Texas who wanted her cheating husband dead said "How about we go on a road trip, honey." and then they drove off into the sunset and she put a bullet in his brain as soon as they crossed the border into a state that lacks a death penalty. Criminals do things that are typically so stupid it's obvious that few put much, if any, planning into it.


----------



## Lost in Universe (Oct 2, 2011)

Death penalty is completely absurd, doesnt matter how terribly is the crime, if you suport it, it means youre capable of the same. Just because someone commited a terrible crime and killed doesnt give you the right to kill him back, thats a primitive feeling. Ist more easy to destroy then to build, and so what if there is no recuperation possible, lock him and throw the key away. You say its expensive to support them, lolo, thats a very cold statement, thats a logic robot thinking.
Who ever defends death penalty will never truly evolve spiritualy.


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

BKrakow said:


> there are some people out there who truly have no conscience, cannot be rehabilitated, and have committed unspeakably despicable crimes. why do we care more about people like that than we do about the average, innocent american citizen? seriously, think about it. if you go to prison, you're guaranteed a place to live, health care, and 3 hot meals a day for the rest of your life, which is more than a lot of decent americans have. why do heinous criminals deserve that? I'm all for killing them off. eliminate the possibility of them being paroled for "good behavior" or something stupid. I don't even really care if it's humane, to be honest. stab them a few times and drop em down the garbage chute.


:agreeNo only that, what does a convict sentenced to life without possibility of parole then have to lose? Kill prison guards, kill other prisoners, keep trying to break out of prison, and kill innocent bystanders if they do succeed in escaping.What more can they be punished with?

And there are plenty of cases of convicted murderers and other serious crimes, eventually getting paroled, only to commit crimes again.The shrink says the prisoner is now 'reformed'.

We had a convicted murderer here in MA last year, get released from prison, and kill a police officer while robbing a store....

We have people who need kidneys and livers in order to survive, and we have murderers that need to be executed.....That's the law of 'Supply and Demand'

One appeal within three years of being sentenced to die, then the harvesting of all viable organs!!


----------



## zomgz (Aug 17, 2009)

I try not to get involved in these kind of discussions but I feel like I have to say this.

I don't think anyone deserves to die, there's always hope for someone. No matter what they did in life I think they can change, and I'll always believe that.

I think killing a murder (i.e.) makes us no better than them. What sets the electric chair operator apart from the murder? A person fighting for for their country and us fighting for ours? Each side kills each other and only the opposing side is considered to be horrible.

I just think human life is one of the most important things in the world and "bad" people can change.

Anyway if you can't tell I don't support the death penalty.

Do I think it's right to have to pay taxes to keep them locked up? I don't know. I think we should pay to help them, everyone deserves help. I think "bad" people sometimes have psychological issues, and people with SA should know that it can make us do weird things.


----------



## ShyGuy86 (Sep 17, 2011)

zomgz said:


> What sets the electric chair operator apart from the murder?


I agree with your post, but I wouldn't feel comfortable assigning the blame to the chair operator. If anything, I'd blame the Judge who issued the sentencing, and, partially, the DA who requested capital punishment in the first place.


----------



## F1X3R (Jul 20, 2009)

The chances of a person proving their innocence drops dramatically once they die.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

I keep mulling this question over in my mind and I'm pretty sure I've answered this differently on various occasions. Anyway, right now, I support the use of the death penalty in some cases. There are criminals who cannot be rehabilitated. & most of the people who say they are against it would not be if it was their loved one who was raped, tortured, and murdered. I mean, look at people like Ted Bundy. I am glad he fried, and the world is rid of him for good. He definitely didn't deserve 3 meals a day. There are certain kinds of people who do need to be eliminated from existence. The process however, should be very carefully regulated and all attempts should be made to weed out the innocents from death row.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

WinterDave said:


> :agreeNo only that, what does a convict sentenced to life without possibility of parole then have to lose? Kill prison guards, kill other prisoners, keep trying to break out of prison, and *kill innocent bystanders if they do succeed in escaping.*What more can they be punished with?


Dave, could you be so kind as to provide statistics on how many felons have succeeded in escaping from maximum securities prisons? You make it sound like they're sent to a minimum security summer camp like Matha Stewart.



WinterDave said:


> We have people who need kidneys and livers in order to survive, and we have murderers that need to be executed.....That's the law of 'Supply and Demand'


Healthy lifestyles are not a hallmark of felons. Things like drug & alcohol abuse, hepatitis, smoking etc...doesn't make for top quality spare parts.

At least I'll give you credit for your honesty. You don't attempt to hide behind some squeaky clean moral facade. You want 'em dead and then slice & dice them like a butcher.

Are organs auctioned off to the highest bidder on a medical version of E-bay then?:stu


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

WinterDave said:


> :agreeWe have people who need kidneys and livers in order to survive, and we have murderers that need to be executed.....That's the law of 'Supply and Demand'
> 
> One appeal within three years of being sentenced to die, then the harvesting of all viable organs!!


This is disgusting.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

UltraShy said:


> Are organs auctioned off to the highest bidder on a medical version of E-bay then?:stu


This is also disgusting.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

sprode said:


> Problem with the death penalty is that it's adherents hold it up as a case of deterrence, in which it fails miserably.


So does prison in that regard. Maybe we should outlaw that too?

Anyways, deterrence has never been why I believe in the death penalty.


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Embassy said:


> :agree
> People make mistakes, inflicting pain on them and killing them isn't helping anyone.


Abducting, raping and dismembering a child is a "mistake?" Or raping and killing dozens of women?



> I also don't buy the "but it's justice for the victim's family!" argument. What about the murderer's family?


Why don't we just let murderers go free for the sake of their families? Yeah, what could go wrong? :lol

What if the murderer's victims were their own family?



> If your brother/sister killed someone randomly would you want them put to death? It can happen to anyone.


I support the death penatly in henious crimes. If my brother (I don't have a sister) were to commit such a crime (and there were no doubts as to his guilt), then the brother I know and love is as good as dead. Because as he is he would not do that. If he were, the person I knew as my brother is gone, and the better that stranger were taken off this earth the better it would be.


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Embassy said:


> Yes, people make mistakes and change.


Most serial killers/rapists do not make "mistakes." They fully know what they are doing and enjoy it. To them their only mistake is getting caught. 
Some people are born twisted and have zero hope of "changing." To think all criminals have simply "made mistakes" and can "change" is incredibly naive and childish.



> Blatant exaggeration. They would be given or commuted to life sentences.


But...but... what about the murderer's family? Would you want your brother/sister put away in a place full of meanies for a simple mistake for life?



> That's your view on it, it isn't the same for everybody. Some people wouldn't want their loved ones to be executed, it can make their lives even more miserable and even have them resort to killing themselves due to the pain of having their loved one taken away from them.


That's your view on it, it isn't the same for everybody. Boo-hoo. It doesn't matter what loved ones want or think. Its not about them, its about the killer and the victim. Its up to impartial courts to decide punishment for a reason.

Show me one case where a suicide over that has happened. Seriously, that has to be one of the lamest arguments against the death penalty I've ever come across.

And how do you know they don't kill themselves over a loved one being locked away for life? Or do you simply not care if the death penalty's not involved?


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Embassy said:


> Yes some people enjoy it, but isn't the state going down to their level when they "enjoy" killing them?


By that logic, if a serial rapist/killer were trying to rape/kill me and I managed to kill them in self defense, I would be no better than them?

Also, would imprisoning a person whose crime was capturing people and keeping them locked up for his sordid pleasure make us "no better than him?" Would his victims expressing relief for his imprisonment be hypocrites?

More like a taste of their own medicine.



> So if they're "born" twisted, are you suggesting it isn't their fault because they were born that way?


Its to counter your naive idea about everyone being able to "change" or that they've all "made a mistake."



> They may, but it's much better to be able to have the possibility of visiting them or even just knowing that they're alive. With them being killed, their loved ones have no hope of him/her rehabilitating and will never see them again.


So you admit you made it up. And yeah, what family doesn't want to visit their serial killer/pedophile/rapist bretheren? Put that in the christmas card. :lol

A life sentence doesn't offer rehabilitation.



> I do care, it's obviously impractical to give a killer sentences below life without parole. I believe in long sentences for these things, it's just that the death penalty brings about too many complications when there is a much better alternative.


Good thing you have no real say in the justice system then.


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Embassy said:


> That's in the spur of the moment, your own life is at risk at _that_ moment an killing is just as your own life is in danger at _that_ moment. The death penalty is purely revengeful because the person is being killed when there are no threats of other lives being in danger.


Locking someone up until they die is not "revengeful"? Because that's what a life sentence is - "death behind bars." The only way out of prison is stiff in a pine box. Just takes a little longer.



> That's revenge. I don't have much to say about this quote, it's rather disgusting.


Retribution is a part of justice, like it or not.



> You seem nonchalant about what you said in terms of killers being born the way they are. If it's to counter my idea about them being able to change, then you are admitting that they are born killers, no?


Regardless of how it occured (nature or environment), they present an unacceptable danger to others and need to be removed from society.



> They can change and rehabilitate themselves in jail.


:roll I find such childish naivety disgusting. They're more likely to shank other inmates (or be beat to death by other inmates a la style of Jeffrey Dahmer).

Sociopaths and psychopaths cannot be rehabilitated or change. Period. They are incapable of remorse.



> Also, how do you feel about innocence? Adding on to all of the complications that come with capital punishment, surely you think that the possibility of an innocent person being executed is enough to abolish the practice all together?


Don't you think the risk of an innocent person dying in prison should be enough to abolish life sentences (you know its happened)? For that reason some other countries have abolished life sentences.

I don't like the death pnealty being used in cases with circumstantial evidence. But with forensic technologies getting better and better, its should be the heyday of the death penalty. Not the end of it.


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Embassy said:


> The death penalty is irreversible. Yes, there is the possibility that an innocent person could spend their life behind bars but they could also be found innocent and be released. The latter is a much better option.


Not if they die before they are found not guilty. I saw an article a short while back about a man who was wrongly convicted of rape, he died four years into his sentence from an athsma attack. There are quite a few stories like that.



> I'm unsure if you live in a death penalty state, but doesn't it worry you that you or anybody can possibly be wrongly convicted of murder and put to death?


I worry about anyone put into prison wrongly. But you're still not adressing why that differs from an innocent person put behind bars and dying there or the innocent person that gets killed by inmates.



> They are already removed from society, in prison. The most dangerous inmates are locked up in high security facilities.


The last person my state executed escaped from prison and raped and killed two teens. So did Ted Bundy.



> Can you prove it? Unless you have access to the mind of every sociopath and psychopath, you don't know if they can be remorseful or not.


Decades of research can. Do some basic research on sociopaths and psychopaths, being incapable of remorse is one of the main identifiying symptoms. The consensus among psychologists in the field is that there is no chance of rehabilitation.



> Good argument, but Troy Davis was still executed despite DNA evidence suggesting that he might have been innocent. Unless the death penalty is abolished, people will most likely continue to be executed without substantial DNA evidence.


I don't know if he was guilty or not (I haven't followed the case so I can't comment). But like I said, I don't like it being used in circumstantial cases. On that principle I don't think Scott Peterson should be executed (don't expect me to advocate for him anytime soon though). 
You know, there was another execution around the time Davis was executed that I didn't see anyone complaining about:



> *Man executed for dragging death of James Byrd*
> 
> Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed in Texas Wednesday evening for his involvement in the infamous dragging death of a black man 13 years ago.
> 
> ...


Well, maybe becuase the guilt was clear.

I notice you didn't answer one of my earlier questions - I'm just curious what you think of it:



> Also, would imprisoning a person whose crime was capturing people and keeping them locked up for his sordid pleasure make us "no better than him?" Would his victims expressing relief for his imprisonment be hypocrites?


----------



## PetePain (Sep 8, 2011)

straightarrows said:


> don't know,,,, butr the good thing in this country they can _*forgive even in the last min!*_
> 
> woundering if people in other parts of the world can forgive,????,,,,


Which civilized country on this planet still has capital punishment I ask you ?


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Embassy said:


> Innocent people can die naturally in prison but *why take the risk of ending their life early when there is still a chance that they may be found innocent?*


Putting them in prison risks their lives. Why do that?

But its pretty clear you oppose the death penalty even when guilt is assured.



> Many death row inmates have changed themselves and become different people (or have claimed to.) They may be lying but there will never be a way to tell what is going on inside their brain.


Many more have not.



> Valid point but to me there is a difference. No matter what specifically the crime was these individuals need to be kept away from society in order to keep others safe. The death penalty is revengeful because even though the person being condemned allegedly committed a murder, it isn't saving any lives. Even if they tortured people by capturing them and keeping them locked up, this has to be done to them for obvious reasons.


Like I said, retribution is part of justice. The death penalty is punishment.


----------



## binny (Aug 5, 2011)

Death penalty needs to be reinstated in australia too many criminals getting wrist slaps from murders being written off as an excuse e.g the person was under the influence. 

Guy shoots dead teen for drug debt guy gets 18 months prison what a joke


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

There is true evil in the world and it's about time that some people realize that. It's time they stop living in the deluded fantasy that deep down we are all good people who can change and be nice.


----------



## Embassy (Feb 21, 2011)

.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Embassy said:


> Another point is that a country like Canada still has a much lower murder rate than the US despite not having executed anyone in almost 50 years.


Japan also has an insanely low crime rate despite having the death penalty and using it quite often. They use hanging, btw. And they don't inform the condemned until the day of the execution, their families are informed later. I like their style.

Mexico doesn't have the death penatly, and their crime rate is sky high.

I guess you just can't generalize.


----------

