???

oops, i botched it. Can someone change it to "Are you in favor of the death penalty?"

I'm against. The way I see it is that if you are going to get punished for killing someone, then why is it justified that the government do the same thing that they are against, and that's killing people. It sounds hypocritical to me.

i really have no problem with the death penalty.

 

the one issue that does cause me a problem is the fact that people do get wrongly convicted. thats where i see the problem.

 

now if you actually murdered someone, your ass deserves to die.

But you're not suppose to kill anyone. No one is. I don't see why the government is allowed to take someone's life in their own hands when no one else is.

This is a tough one, hard to decide.

 

I guess I'm actually kind of against it. Although sometimes I do wish they would take some criminals and kneecap em.

Theres a large number of women who commit crimes and turn themselves in when pregnant ,so the state is forced to pay for their medical costs (and by the state i mean the taxpayers) Whats the problem with this and many oter scenarios? Prison for some is not the worst alternative, people are not supposed to want to go to prison or jail. I say we ban the death penalty BUT we need to make prison stricter. And by no means do i mean bring back torture chambers or the such, simply, make it harder for prisoners to get gain time and parole. Make them actually WANT to reform in order to get privileges, but also keep the retribution aspect alive as well. Make sentencing indeterminate so that prisons always have the possibility and hope of freedom even if some will never acquire it, this wil make them more controllable.Take away certain unnecessary privileges. There was one guy that was handicapped so he sued to get a TV in his cell and won, this is absurd. Make prison, prison again, and then we can do w/o te death penalty. And find a way without reducing sentences to make a murder 1 conviction more severe than a murder 2 conviction.

Vague answers. This is an issue where a third option is necessary. Why does it always have to be black and white?

 

Death Penalty should be applied in extreme cases such as: Psychopaths, Sociopaths and Terrorists. People such as McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. Must be given the ultimate punishment, because this people will never feel sorry or regret their actions and if they had a choice they'd do it again. Furthermore, their state of mind does not fit into society.

Vague answers. This is an issue where a third option is necessary. Why does it always have to be black and white?

 

Death Penalty should be applied in extreme cases such as: Psychopaths, Sociopaths and Terrorists. People such as McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. Must be given the ultimate punishment, because this people will never feel sorry or regret their actions and if they had a choice they'd do it again. Furthermore, their state of mind does not fit into society.

434621[/snapback]

 

I agree with you on that. Those people are the ones that do deserve to be killed. The DC Sniper fits on that list as well. Punk B****.

I guess the death penalty stems from the Bible, "An eye for an eye", since our society is based on Judeo-Christian ethics.

 

I believe that if you commit the ultimate crime, you should get the ultimate penalty.

 

Yes, there will be some cases when I would back down and re-assess but it's very easy to sit in front of my computer and pass judgement. I would think differently if I were in a courtroom.

 

I've only been on civil juries, never criminal.

For it, but only in a Federal arena, ie treason, sedition, etc...

 

As far as I'm concerned individual states have been proving their own ineptitude when it comes to using the death penalty for years. No way some hack Governor and bush league court systems in the middle of Screwyoursister, Texas should be deciding life or death issues.

Actually the death penalty has been around (in different forms) long before Jesus Christ was even close to being born. The death penalty comes from a sort of common law carryover that has been passed through civilizations through generations

Actually the death penalty has been around (in different forms) long before Jesus Christ was even close to being born. The death penalty comes from a sort of common law carryover that has been passed through civilizations through generations

434711[/snapback]

 

So has slavery.

 

(A little devil's advocate for you.) :whistle

only if we can apply the death penalty to Barry Bonds...why? Because I love killing black people, especially RICH black people. I want EVERY rich black person convicted of a capital crime just so I can feel good about being a non-rich white person.

 

Edit: THE ABOVE IS SATIRE!

It's called satire. The left claims people want the death penalty to kill black people...that's as ridiculous as my post, thus the point. I'm not going to let you rid my right to free speech.

It ISN'T bigotry, it is called SATIRE. If you take it literally, then you are stupid. You know I don't want to aimlessly kill people, I was merely reflecting the ridiculousness of the left's view on the death penalty when it comes to racism. If you are not intelligent to realize that, I can care less.

by the way, free speech DOES protect bigotry. If I want to have a neo-nazi rally, that's my right. Go move to CANADA.

Depends on the situation, but most Deserve it.

Vague answers. This is an issue where a third option is necessary. Why does it always have to be black and white?

 

Death Penalty should be applied in extreme cases such as: Psychopaths, Sociopaths and Terrorists. People such as McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. Must be given the ultimate punishment, because this people will never feel sorry or regret their actions and if they had a choice they'd do it again. Furthermore, their state of mind does not fit into society.

434621[/snapback]

 

What good is a "punishment" that the punishee isn't around to savor for a good long time? Its become so clinical and painless with lethal injections that the act itself is no more than what a heavily narced up terminal cancer victim experience as they spend their final moments on planet earth. Rather than something of note that might be cautionary to others, its become very ordinary.

 

This is where I think you've got the concept wrong - DP isn't about the one being offed, or that they "deserve" it more than someone else who did similar crimes in a different jurisdiction. Its just society saying "your behavior was unacceptable, we don't want you around anymore". This is quite different notion than "punishment" designed to affect behavior - although DP certainly does eliminate all possibility of recidivism :lol

434944[/snapback]

 

Ok, this is a little hitler-ish. Culling the herd via the DP b/c someone violates certain laws is a slippery slope.

 

As far as being clinical and painless.... May be, but I bet if you took a poll of every death row prisoner and asked them what they feared more - Death via injection or life in prison they'd all answer that they'd prefer life in the clink. It's a no brainer.

I'm much like DetroitWhat22 on this one....I really don't know, but I lean towards no capital punishment.

 

I feel killing a human being should only be in cases of war or self-defense.

May be, but I bet if you took a poll of every death row prisoner and asked them what they feared more - Death via injection or life in prison they'd all answer that they'd prefer life in the clink. It's a no brainer.

434955[/snapback]

 

McVeigh is the most recent and obvious counter example to this thesis. He chose the needle rather than fight appeals.

 

Gary Gillmore is another obvious counter example - he demanded a firing squad (and got it)

435156[/snapback]

 

OK, you picked out two. Now what about every single other death row inmate in the country who exhausts, on average, 12 years worth of the appeals process in an effort to avoid buying the farm?

 

BUt I am with you on the whole deterrance -v- rehabilitation point. I too think that the idea of rehabilitative encarceration is an exercise in futility for most violent offenders right now. They need to harshen up prison life a bit, stop making it another means of welfare.

May be, but I bet if you took a poll of every death row prisoner and asked them what they feared more - Death via injection or life in prison they'd all answer that they'd prefer life in the clink. It's a no brainer.

434955[/snapback]

 

McVeigh is the most recent and obvious counter example to this thesis. He chose the needle rather than fight appeals.

 

Gary Gillmore is another obvious counter example - he demanded a firing squad (and got it)

435156[/snapback]

 

OK, you picked out two. Now what about every single other death row inmate in the country who exhausts, on average, 12 years worth of the appeals process in an effort to avoid buying the farm?

 

BUt I am with you on the whole deterrance -v- rehabilitation point. I too think that the idea of rehabilitative encarceration is an exercise in futility for most violent offenders right now. They need to harshen up prison life a bit, stop making it another means of welfare.

436032[/snapback]

 

 

I defintely agree with this point. The problem is that life sentences are not very good mostly because those are the hardest prisoner's to control being that they have no incentive to 'good' behavior on the inside. In addition to this, there needs to be stricter laws for appeals, because nowadays they can keep brining up appeals that have no merit, and thats a waste of time and money