Why not just execute people who receive life without parole?

[Syzygys]

Also, what about death row? People can be on death row for 20 years; they're still using up resources, there's still the cost of execution etc.

That is the whole point, they shouldn't be. They should be either executed rather swiftly, or the sentence changed to life.

Also, I can donate a few bucks for a bullet...

Man, I have just read the whole Menendez story, what a waste of taxpayers' money and misscarriage of justice....

 

[Syzygys]

I wonder why people here fear death, when everybody eventually dies, but not everybody goes to prison?

Shouldn't people fear prison more, since that is avoidable???

 

[Asguard]

Syzygys and anyone who surports the death penelty should really read the case of lindy chamberlain

 

[Cybernetics]

The most painless method of lethal injection was my choice because any pain inflicted would be pointless, what use would it be since they would be dead, this argumeant actualy covers all choices therefor it dosent mater

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

So we can make them slaves before they die, why else.

 

[Cazzo]

because they can still be of use to sociaty even incaserated.

Of course they can, the Democratic Party would love to give prisoners the right to vote.

 

[Cazzo]

I think 1 more option should have been added to the poll.

The criminal should be executed the same way they executed their victims.

 

[Enmos]

I think 1 more option should have been added to the poll.

The criminal should be executed the same way they executed their victims.

Who is going to be the executioner ? This will be a problem..

 

[Cazzo]

Who is going to be the executioner ? This will be a problem..

Use someone else who's on death-row to carry it out.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

I think 1 more option should have been added to the poll.

The criminal should be executed the same way they executed their victims.

What if they didn't kill anyone? But committed some other heinous crime. I don't know I just think death is far to light a punishment. There is no suffering in death only relief from suffering. (I assume) Killing someone won't bring your loved one back, but knowing that someone else is miserable just like you are should make you feel a little better. Plus you don't have to punish the family and friends of the convicted. They know that they are unhappy somewhere, but that they are still alive which gives them some consolation, however slight. I think its better than knowing a loved one is dead.

 

[Norsefire]

If they turn out to be innocent later on, you can't undo an execution.

I assume this is the main reason you are against the death penalty. As for the penalty itself, there is nothing wrong with it, any more than there is with prison.

You assume that life in prison must be a meaningless, worthless life. There's no proof of that. Dostoyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment in prison. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for close to 30 years, and look what he went on to do.

Murderers are meaningless, worthless people. Besides, if they are allowed this entertainment and fun behind bars...well, that's hardly a punishment.

Obviously, if you're against capital punishment, you think all methods are barbaric.

Prison is more barbaric. You're imprisoning someone and condemning them to die as prisoners.

Prisoners are people, not things.

I know, they are sick and disgusting people. In death at least they can be useful.

No people who get life in prison should not be executed. People can still accomplish a great many things while in prison. I know that all of the chairs in the stadium at my old school were made by prisoners in a high security prison. A life in prison is not a meaningless life its just another way to live. And for truly terrible criminals who are in fact without a doubt guilty I think killing them is letting them off easily. I'm kind of sick for thinking this I know, but I think they should receive life in solitary confinement without parole. No entertainment just food, water, toilet, and bed. Nothing rots you like being left alone to your own thoughts. ie Cabin Fever. I think that is a much better punishment.

Perhaps. But the question is, should we allow people like Charles Manson and Gary Ridgeway the chance to live? I think not. Ridgeway murdered fourty eight known people, and he is suspected of murdering 71

It's a very good point that keeping them alive leaves a chance for them to be proven innocent. Sure, some may be guilty without a doubt, but an uncertain rule of "well, execute them ONLY if they're guilty without a doubt" doesn't work, it's got to be either black of white. And in my opinion, it's more important to save an innocent life than it is to kill a guilty one.

Also, what about death row? People can be on death row for 20 years; they're still using up resources, there's still the cost of execution etc.

I don't even understand myself why people stay on death row that long.

What if they didn't kill anyone? But committed some other heinous crime. I don't know I just think death is far to light a punishment. There is no suffering in death only relief from suffering. (I assume) Killing someone won't bring your loved one back, but knowing that someone else is miserable just like you are should make you feel a little better. Plus you don't have to punish the family and friends of the convicted. They know that they are unhappy somewhere, but that they are still alive which gives them some consolation, however slight. I think its better than knowing a loved one is dead.

Too light a punishment? Are you kidding? Nothing puts more fear into criminals than the death penalty; nothing puts more fear into anyone than knowing that, by tommorow, they're never going to be seeing daylight again.

 

[Syzygys]

Since I was bored...

Syzygys and anyone who surports the death penelty should really read the case of lindy chamberlain

Now listen dummy:

1. We are for executing GUILTY people.
2. You Aussies can't get shit right.
3. I personally never said automatic execution for murder, although I said automatic if premeditated and at least 2 people gets killed.
4. Evidence was fucking lousy, see point #2...*

If this is your best innocent in death row story, you really have to try harder. By the way, how did it feel for her to be in prison for nothing, specially that she as a mother suffered most?? Not to mention the new evidence came out ACCIDENTALLY, so she could have stayed in prison FOREVER innocently.. I wonder how does it feel???

*Make it pretty much NO evidence, whatsoever:

"lack of a body, the lack of a motive, and the lack of any eye-witnesses" Congratulation you guys have a fantastic system over there!! I think you guys should just open the prisondoors and let everybody out with this kind of detective work...

 

[Asguard]

Syzygys right cause everyone on death row is guilty. I guess those inocences projects are a waste of time then.

look nothing is perfect, you very very rarly get someone who 10,000 people saw murder someone else and even if you did eye witness testomony is almost always wrong. DNA maybe great in rape trials where seamon in the victom DEFINITLY means there was sexual intercors with the guy (oh except for cases like the one hypothosised in the NCIS eposode Lt. Jane Doe but in a murder trial its never that clear cut. DNA can only say you were somewhere with a certain degree of error. Even that could be transfer to someone else (for instance your spouse). My dog could be implicated in being basically anywhere i go symply because she leaves so much hair all over my clothing

There are no apsolutes, there are no garrentiees. Nothing is certain and nothing is perfect

 

[Enmos]

Use someone else who's on death-row to carry it out.

And give them the satisfaction ?

 

[Norsefire]

I think we are discussing two things: the penalty itself and the judicial system. The fact that innocent people are sometimes punished for crimes they did not commit is a sad fact of the imperfect judicial system. However, as for the penalty itself, there is nothing wrong with executing scum.

 

[Syzygys]

Nothing is certain

Death is....

Oh, the irony!

Nothing is perfect

Except this analogy:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1969045#post1969045

 

[Enmos]

I think we are discussing two things: the penalty itself and the judicial system. The fact that innocent people are sometimes punished for crimes they did not commit is a sad fact of the imperfect judicial system. However, as for the penalty itself, there is nothing wrong with executing scum.

Agreed, they are two different things. However, I don't see how you are going to separate the two.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

If they turn out to be innocent later on, you can't undo an execution.

I assume this is the main reason you are against the death penalty.

It's one of the reasons. There are others.

As for the penalty itself, there is nothing wrong with it, any more than there is with prison.

I just told you one thing wrong with it. Weren't you paying attention?

Murderers are meaningless, worthless people. Besides, if they are allowed this entertainment and fun behind bars...well, that's hardly a punishment.

One minute you're arguing that life in prison is worse than death; the next you're arguing that prison is a holiday party camp.

You need to settle on a position, rather than flip-flopping back and forth. You'll have more credibility that way.

Prisoners are people, not things.

I know, they are sick and disgusting people.

No. Many are in for very minor crimes. They have poor legal representation because they are poor themselves. Sometimes they are the victims of a criminal justice system that is racist or otherwise discriminatory.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



It's one of the reasons. There are others.

Such as?

I just told you one thing wrong with it. Weren't you paying attention?

That's a problem with the judicial system.

One minute you're arguing that life in prison is worse than death; the next you're arguing that prison is a holiday party camp.

You need to settle on a position, rather than flip-flopping back and forth. You'll have more credibility that way.

What I am arguing is that the concept of prison is barbaric, because it is. However, I do not mind because prisoners are barbaric, and are scum, so they should be treated like the vermin they are.

No. Many are in for very minor crimes. They have poor legal representation because they are poor themselves. Sometimes they are the victims of a criminal justice system that is racist or otherwise discriminatory.

I'm obviously speaking of heinous offenders.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

It's one of the reasons. There are others.

Such as?

The death penalty is more expensive to administer than life imprisonment. The death penalty costs more in terms of legal appeals etc. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent. The death penalty involves society descending to the level of the criminal. Revenge should not take precedence as the sole reason for punishment. The death penalty sends the message that "killing is ok". Enlightened nations agree that the death penalty is barbaric. Juries and judges may be reluctant to convict if they know it will result in the death of the offender. The death penalty multiplies suffering (e.g. for the offender's family), adding to the net evil of the crime. Innocent and mentally ill people may be put to death unfairly. The death penalty can create undue sympathy for the offender. The death penalty cannot undo the crime.

Do I need to go on?

What I am arguing is that the concept of prison is barbaric, because it is.

Prior to prisons, the death penalty was used all the time. For less serious offences, corporal punishment was the most usual punishment. i.e. other barbarities like public flogging or torture.

However, I do not mind because prisoners are barbaric, and are scum, so they should be treated like the vermin they are.

Prisoners are people just like you.