EXACTLY!!! That's what I've been saying for the last 5 pages!!!
Do you agree with capital punishment?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Why not just give everyone guns, so they can sort out the bad guys themselves?
Why bother with a costly police force, or a justice system at all?
Oh, right. Some of the people getting guns for "justice", would probably use them to do something else, you know, something bad -which would mean they're bad guys instead...
What to do?
Why bother with a costly police force, or a justice system at all?
Oh, right. Some of the people getting guns for "justice", would probably use them to do something else, you know, something bad -which would mean they're bad guys instead...
What to do?
The trial. The execution itself is only half as expensive as the average cost of life in prison.
It's about justice
Sorry, Norsefire, but turning the United States into the Middle East for the sake of blood vengeance defies any rational assertion of justice.
The point is justice, which is bigger than you, me, or any one convicted criminal.
Keep trying, Norsefire. You might eventually come to understand that point.
The idea that you would consider prison "leisure time", or that Sandy would call it a "paid vacation" reminds that the argument for bloodlust is, at its heart, purely emotional and ultimately irrational.
Norsefire said:
Sorry, Norsefire, but turning the United States into the Middle East for the sake of blood vengeance defies any rational assertion of justice.
The point is justice, which is bigger than you, me, or any one convicted criminal.
Keep trying, Norsefire. You might eventually come to understand that point.
The idea that you would consider prison "leisure time", or that Sandy would call it a "paid vacation" reminds that the argument for bloodlust is, at its heart, purely emotional and ultimately irrational.
F'd up thinking produces criminals. A good chunk of children are unwanted/ unplanned and don't become criminals.
Bells
Staff member
So you don't think being put to death for a crime you didn't commit is wrong because you think they have committed other crimes in the past? So lets say a guy has been found guilty of petty theft as a teenager and then mistakenly found guilty of murder and placed on death row. Do you think it is right for the State to murder him in return even though he did not commit the capital crime? Do you think petty theft as a teenager warrants a death sentence?
Ermmm ok..
Bells
Staff member
:bugeye:
Killing a person innocent of a crime is not an issue for you (because they may have committed other crimes in the past, such as being found guilty of possessing a joint) but aborting an embryo is an issue?
HAHAAAA!
HA!!
You're making funnies!
And being an unwanted child leads to "f'd up thinking" which leads to criminals. It's a scientific fact.
I mean:
FACT: abortions lower the crime rate, because they get rid of people most likely to be criminals in the first place.
That seldom happens. No. And no.
I didn't say that. Life begins at conception. Killing an innocent baby is different from frying a criminal.
Roman said:
You raise an interesting issue insofar as there is a correlation between the people who want to "fry" criminals and arm themselves to the teeth because they are afraid of crime, and those who would vote for policies that either raise or fail to lower the crime rate. Who needs to spend money on education? If the dumbass kids steal a bike, I can shoot 'em. Who cares about mental health? If some depressed, homeless guy gets into my garbage can looking for a meal, I can shoot him. If those 100,000+ kids in need of a family grow up to a life of crime for lack of better guidance, we can just shoot them.
If we apply the same "logic" to capital punishment, we see that the only proper solution to society's ills is to just kill people. Isn't that wonderful? Glory be to God!
That seldom happens. No. And no.
I didn't say that. Life begins at conception. Killing an innocent baby is different from frying a criminal.
Is killing an innocent baby different from killing an innocent person, wrongly convicted of a crime?
No. They are both wrong. I don't support frying an innocent person no matter how old they are.
Or rather, for the sake of less crime? In the Middle East, the punishments might be harsh, but the crime rate is EXTREMELY low as compared to America
Precisely, and those who murder love murder and should be murdered, correct?
In a way, it is leisure time. They are allowed TV's, computers, they are allowed socializing, they are allowed basketball, and we pay for it......after they murdered countless innocence.
Then what about trials for a life sentence? What seperates a death sentence trial?
And the execution HALF as expensive as the average cost of LIFE in prison? Ridiculous, sheesh, last I checked you only needed two good shots to the head and they're down. And those two shots shouldn't cost as much as LIFE in prison.
Norsefire, we don't do that even where the death penalty is legal. The costs are mostly legal, related to the fact that those supporting the death penalty also support giving them the benefit of the doubt, as it should be, which means appeals.
Sandy, you say, "I don't support frying an innocent person no matter how old they are.", but you support the death penalty even though innocent people have been set free who the system had decided to kill. I hope you will consider the contradiction.
Your position is one of ideals over reality. Your ideal of perfect justice doesn't exist across the board. You could point to several cases that are examples of the death penalty being delivered justly, but my concern is for the exceptions, like the Sacco and Vanzetti case. My concern for innocent life exceeds my need to do more to a criminal than lock them up for life.
Sandy, you say, "I don't support frying an innocent person no matter how old they are.", but you support the death penalty even though innocent people have been set free who the system had decided to kill. I hope you will consider the contradiction.
Your position is one of ideals over reality. Your ideal of perfect justice doesn't exist across the board. You could point to several cases that are examples of the death penalty being delivered justly, but my concern is for the exceptions, like the Sacco and Vanzetti case. My concern for innocent life exceeds my need to do more to a criminal than lock them up for life.
Is the death penalty not a penalty of death? Yes, so any method whatsoever should be administrated in order to achieve the goal of death of the criminal
And so, spidergoat, my point is that the death penalty is just. However, as you point out innocence have died before. So, we need an effective police force, and evidence team and then we can continue the death penalty.
In the US, the death cannot be done in any way that is considered "cruel and inhumane". That is the argument that has been used to suspend the use of lethal injection, on the grounds that the drugs used can sometimes be administered wrongly, and the prisoner is paralyzed rather than anesthetized.
A shot to the head is cheap, and instant death.....not cruel nor inhumane and economically friendly!
The instances of a person being truly innocent are very few and very far between. They system is not flawless. Nothing is. I would not support keeping 10,000 death row inmates alive just in case one is innocent. Sorry, but no.
Life in prison is no deterrent to crime. It empowers and emboldens criminals who know they will get their free vacation for life when they kill/torture someone.
Taxpayers are tired and fed up with paying for criminals.