death penalty - yes or no

do you support the death penalty

  • YES

    Votes: 33 45.2%

  • NO

    Votes: 40 54.8%
  • Total voters
    73
Make the punishment fit the crime:

Thieves should be stolen from (bank robbers should have their banks robbed),
Copyright infringers should be copied,
Speeders on the highway should be overtaken,
Prostitutes should be fucked (and charged for it),
Drug dealers should be dealt drugs.
 
No. I have no desire to be involved in the killing of any human being... What is "it" that causes some people to want to kill (or not)?
 
If I had committed a crime worthy of the death penatly, I'd prefer death than spending the reminder of my life in a cell.
 
Last edited:
thedevilsreject said:
not in the luxury of british prisons its not
Click to expand...

If you think any prison is lucky you're mistaken. It's not just the prison you're in, it's what you would miss and the rights you'd be stripped of.
 
but the fact remains tha british prisons are too easy going, i have stories of homeless people actually commiting crimes just to get themselves off the streets
 
But how do you prove the conversion, and if you are willing to accept his word, are you willing to become the gurantor of his future actions, and suffer the same fate as him should he re-offend? Will you stand Blood Bond for a murder. If you have DNA evidence and the murder was cold blood murder and there are no extenuating circumstance or is a second time in the commission of a crime sorry, Snap-Crackel-Pop!
 
Last edited:
Meathead said:
If I had committed a crime worthy of the death penatly, I'd prefer death than spending the reminder of my life in a cell.
Click to expand...
The justice system does not aim to give convicts their preferred punishment.

[Side point: If you're sentenced to death, you also spend the rest of your life in a cell :p]
Easily solved with the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Why do people keep pretending that the death penalty is the only solution to comfy prisons, let alone the most desirable one?
 
If someone's a permenant threat to society then there's no reason to spend money keeping them alive other than issues to do with the morality of human life and accidental convictions.

The Staff Sergeant from Jarhead said:
God says: "Thou shalt not kill".

Now here this.... FUCK... THAT... SHIT!
Click to expand...
 
I generally don't like looking at the issue of the death penalty from a moral standpoint, because I look at morality as a personal issue. To me, morals apply to individuals, not society. A society can have an overabundance of immoral people, but the society itself cannot be immoral. Therefore, I do not say that it is "wrong" for the government to kill people when they commit a crime. There are several reasons why the government kills people who commit crime:

1) They are reinforcing the power of the state over the citizenry, which is necessary for a society to survive. The government must be more powerful than individuals or else that society is doomed, so execution of individuals who do things that the government has prohibited is a way of saying that you do not have the freedom to do what the government has said you cannot do. They are not punishing that individual, specifically, but rather it is a display of power (not a deterent, mind you). This is simple enough.

2) Of course there is the issue of removing specifically dangerous individuals from society in order that peace and order be maintained, and this is the second reason why I think that it is reasonable for the state to execute criminal citizens.
 
They are reinforcing the power of the state over the citizenry, which is necessary for a society to survive.
Click to expand...

Wrong, what is necessary is for the individual to be just as powerful as the state. A state is nothing without individuals. A totalitarian society won't work. Instead of society killing others, it should prevent such measures from happening. Otherwise it is society's fault another man is taught wrong, as well as those who don't teach him wrong. We are all our brother's keeper. We should do our best to look out for one another. Help one up if they fall, not shoot them down. And when you fall and want a hand, will you expect someone or God even, to lift you up in a time of crisis or when you wronged? If you try to rule others with an iron fist, so will God rule you with an iron fist.
 
Wrong, what is necessary is for the individual to be just as powerful as the state. A state is nothing without individuals. A totalitarian society won't work.
Click to expand...
History disagrees with you, Caesar.
 
usp8triot said:
what is necessary is for the individual to be just as powerful as the state. A state is nothing without individuals.
Click to expand...
Wrong. If individuals are just as powerful as the state, then there is no state. That's called anarchy.
 
Exactly. When you have complete equality you have anarchy, which is why all societies are inherently unequal.
 
No, equality is not the same as justice or fairness. We are talking about political power. If all individuals in a society have absolutely equal political power, there is anarchy because people are no longer living in the context of a group, but as stand-alone political entities. This is why people are unequal in the real world, usp8triot, because if they weren't the survival of the human species would be impossible.
 
All individuals have, or should have, the same political power to get defend themselves if on trial. The state should have no more. If you mean if someone is suspected of trouble and runs from the state, that the state can come get them and put them through a fair trial, yes, but no one is more powerful than another. We are all equal, or should be. I am quick to defend against a quick to kill attitude. God forbid, it could be your innocent life up there in court one of these days and let's hope you would get a fair trial and a judge who values life, without having a quick to kill attitude or making hasty decisions on a life he thinks is cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top