|
Post by Ethan Hawkeye on Sept 30, 2005 17:28:46 GMT -5
Is the death penalty wrong?
|
|
|
Post by functionman on Oct 1, 2005 21:41:09 GMT -5
Absolutely not. Here's what the death penalty should be though: only for major criminals, who have been proven so guilty that they can't possibly be innocent. If you're not going to kill that kind of people, then the only alternative is to send them all to Australia...(both approaches have been proven to work in the past)
|
|
|
Post by Vizor on Oct 2, 2005 21:24:21 GMT -5
Well you take the like of one person the state should take yours. Though what if the person you killed was the person that killed your little girl. Though because the state didn't do it, you should go on death row...since they like to watch people die in pain and all. Taking away their fun now adays can really get you in trouble.
I esspecially like all those people who got killed and then everyone by some chance relised they where innocent. Though I mean who cares, it's just a few that we screw over.
|
|
|
Post by Eyesore on Oct 4, 2005 20:33:49 GMT -5
It does get a little blown out of proportion, but the thought that conspiracy against a person to flawlessly and legally end their life can be just at a government's fingertips is a bit scary. It's like the patriot act... harmless unless either really bad judgment is used or the government conspires against someone with its leverage.
Don't get me wrong, I think conspiracies are completely unlikely and never actually happen.. I'm just sort of exploring quasi-plausible reasons why people think the death penalty is bad, excluding the obvious "he could be innocent" card.
Vizor's theoretical scenario is stupid... I think it should be up to the state to say "first we'll prove that he's guilty, then we can kill him" rather than just "I THINK HE'S GUILTY I'M GONNA FUCK HIM UP SO BAD". I think in that case, it should first be proven whether or not the second victim killed the original victim, and if the deceased is proven guilty, a very very small penalty should be given for some new crime that we can call "taking judgment into your own hands". Something like 200 hours of community service, I dunno
|
|
|
Post by Cool lil Dude on Oct 5, 2005 5:15:11 GMT -5
Hmm.. death penalty? Dudes, never thought about it.. ;D We doesn't have death penalty's in sweden..
|
|
|
Post by JackInJill on Oct 14, 2005 16:31:28 GMT -5
What Vizor also needs to factor in is that, with his scenerio, it would be very unlikely that the killer is sentanced to death. If man one kills man two's daughter and somehow gets away with it and man two kills man one, I don't think it would be enough to kill him(man two).
If Man two say planned out and went through with raping man one's wife and child, slit all of their throats afterwards, and could not have been proven clinically insane, then he might be murdered by the state.
heh, the clincally insane part also brings up the fact that he could plead insanity due to his daughter's death, and get off scot-free with a simple couple years in a ward.
|
|
|
Post by JuggaloPIG on Oct 14, 2005 16:55:15 GMT -5
kill everyone!
|
|
|
Post by Vizor on Oct 15, 2005 13:47:24 GMT -5
What Vizor also needs to factor in is that, with his scenerio, it would be very unlikely that the killer is sentanced to death. If man one kills man two's daughter and somehow gets away with it and man two kills man one, I don't think it would be enough to kill him(man two). You'd be suprised how many people do, the state argues that if everyone could do this, it would be mayham. Since everyone has thier own version of justice, it must be left to the justice department...if they start lettting people off...people will think its ok...blah blah blah. Chances are man to would get 20 years in prison maybe even death. I've seen quite a few senarios like this, where they get the chair. Then again there are people who have gotten the chair for actually have done nothing at all, only to be proven to late. Edit: I mean real life cases where they got the chair....
|
|
|
Post by Vizor on Oct 15, 2005 13:50:36 GMT -5
It does get a little blown out of proportion, but the thought that conspiracy against a person to flawlessly and legally end their life can be just at a government's fingertips is a bit scary. It's like the patriot act... harmless unless either really bad judgment is used or the government conspires against someone with its leverage. Don't get me wrong, I think conspiracies are completely unlikely and never actually happen.. I'm just sort of exploring quasi-plausible reasons why people think the death penalty is bad, excluding the obvious "he could be innocent" card. Vizor's theoretical scenario is stupid... I think it should be up to the state to say "first we'll prove that he's guilty, then we can kill him" rather than just "I THINK HE'S GUILTY I'M GONNA FUCK HIM UP SO BAD". I think in that case, it should first be proven whether or not the second victim killed the original victim, and if the deceased is proven guilty, a very very small penalty should be given for some new crime that we can call "taking judgment into your own hands". Something like 200 hours of community service, I dunno Eyesore you may call it a stupid senario, I may agree that it is stupid. Though that's why I don't make up my own senarios...I just use real ones, or base them off real ones. Though that's stupid...next time I'll just make up a senario that hasn't happened yet...that way it can't be stupid. PS. Eyesore before you call a senario stupid...make sure it's not a real one. It helps occationaly...the ones that suck the most are when the people who get the chair...and then are proven to be innocent. Though if I made a senario like that to, you'd probably say that's stupid too.
|
|
|
Post by Eyesore on Oct 17, 2005 20:16:16 GMT -5
Although I do think an abundance of things are stupid, the scenario of a chair victim being innocent isn't one of them. That's probably the biggest reason why the death penalty is opposed.
I didn't make myself clear, but I am actually opposed to the death penalty. I can argue both sides easily though, I find... but my own personal beliefs are that no one deserves to die, and besides, prison is a worse punishment.
|
|
ferret
Newcomer
I got a Rock n' Roll fever of 169!!!
Posts: 7
|
Post by ferret on Jan 26, 2006 13:19:18 GMT -5
i don't think the death peanalty is wrong. if they had it hear in the UK it would save alot of money as wecurrently have a probleme with overcrowded prisons. also if someone has commited a mumber of crimes you want them around so just kill the bastards! it's the simplest solution because the cahnces are there family dosn;t want them anymore,, unless they are part of a mafia but we'll not get into that! i like this smilie!-
|
|
|
Post by JackInJill on Jan 26, 2006 18:21:49 GMT -5
Two wrongs don't make a right, Ferret. The reason why someone would be given the death penalty is because they saw other people's lives as expendable. Life in prison is a pretty horrible sentence all in it's own and just because the government's strapped for cash doesn't make those criminals live's any less than ours. It's like actaully trying to fight fire with fire.
|
|
|
Post by Eyesore on Jan 27, 2006 15:56:43 GMT -5
Two wrongs don't make a right, excuse me?
Murder is wrong in your eyes, no matter who it's done to, right?
Well what about kidnapping someone and keeping them in your basement for 20 years with only three rations of dried up food per day? That's wrong, isn't it? Oh, but suddenly it's right as soon it's applied to criminals!
I certainly won't justify murdering for the justice system, but you have to see murder as something different when it's done as a punishment than when you do it out of spite.
|
|
|
Post by JackInJill on Jan 27, 2006 19:19:21 GMT -5
So you see sending people to jail as a form of kidnapping? So if a kid breaks curfew and his parents send him to his room as punishment they should be arrested? Because that's what jail is, it's getting grounded by the government. You wouldn't kill your kids when you send them to their room...well, maybe you would Eyesore, but normal people wouldn't. And neither should the government.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Hawkeye on Jan 27, 2006 22:40:52 GMT -5
I would hardly consider criminals as children to the government, more like tax reciepts.
|
|