1 of 6
1
All in fvour of the death penalty say aye!
Posted: 25 January 2008 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2008-01-25

In the over liberalised UK I often took the side of those against the death penalty out of a semi belief in Jesus and the turn the other cheek message, and the fear of finding an innocent guilty. However with the very stomoch turning degree of “evil” displayed towards other human beings by some, I feel my opinion moving more towards execution for those whose crimes are so vile towards their fellow man. This would give a sense of justice to those violated, ( or their families)m, and cut down on the expence laid out on idealistic re hab ( that turns out to be next to useless as well as inrcedibly expensive), and maybe free some space in the justice system. The fact that some will be put off comitting the crimes in the first place is also a nice bonus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2008 02:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
JesusheknowsmeandheknowsImright - 25 January 2008 06:10 PM

In the over liberalised UK I often took the side of those against the death penalty out of a semi belief in Jesus and the turn the other cheek message, and the fear of finding an innocent guilty. However with the very stomoch turning degree of “evil” displayed towards other human beings by some, I feel my opinion moving more towards execution for those whose crimes are so vile towards their fellow man. This would give a sense of justice to those violated, ( or their families)m, and cut down on the expence laid out on idealistic re hab ( that turns out to be next to useless as well as inrcedibly expensive), and maybe free some space in the justice system. The fact that some will be put off comitting the crimes in the first place is also a nice bonus

Here in the very under-liberalized State of Texas, where we execute more people than anybody except in China and Saudi Arabia, I’m experiencing a kind of Clockwork Orange/Ludovico Technique effect. I think you can morally justify capital punishment on the basis of societal self-defense (the executed criminal is 100% deterred from killing again), but why put yourself with such base company as radical Wahabis and corrupt Maoists?  Capital punishment is a relic and vestige of the Old West here in Texas. I’m tired of hearing about it. My vote is “nay.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2008 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

If you compare those places that practice capital punishment and those that do not, you will see that it is no deterrant to crime, so erase that idea from your list of why you want to be a murderer, jesushe.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2008 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10

I sayeth nay, with a possible exception for John Edward, that Phelps woman and Billy Ray Cyrus.

 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2008 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
Sander - 25 January 2008 09:32 PM

I sayeth nay, with a possible exception for John Edward, that Phelps woman and Billy Ray Cyrus.

Whoa, pardner!  Billy Ray Cyrus sired Hannah Montana, who is numero uno in my granddaughters’ book.  Without Hannah, what would little girls do?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2008 07:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
Bruce Burleson - 25 January 2008 10:35 PM

Whoa, pardner!  Billy Ray Cyrus sired Hannah Montana, who is numero uno in my granddaughters’ book.  Without Hannah, what would little girls do?

My kids are too young for Hannah Montana, and that’a good thing because the phenomenon of turning preteen girls into celebrities is incredibly creepy. When Britney Spears first became famous, it was obvious that her handlers were selling her as “jailbait.” They certainly knew that most of her “fans” were grown men who would only buy her albums if they came with nude photo spreads. Years ago at a hockey game, some idiot displayed a banner reading “XXX Days Until Mary Kate and Ashley are Legal.” Yuck. Like their first sexual experiences would be with some drunken shirtless slob hoping that his dumbass behavior would get him on television. The best revenge would have been if he finally wound up on TV by being interrogated by Chris Hansen.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2008 08:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26

I’ve long been against the death penalty because emotion is the chief factor in determining who gets executed. For capital crimes, I favor the sentence of lifetime isolation, in rooms with no doors or windows, no entertainment, lights on 24 hours a day, and irregular meal times.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2008 10:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  651
Joined  2006-12-08

Aye! 

“Death Penalty” is an oxymoron, as any Epicurean can tell you:  “Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.”  Death is no penalty, but execution is still a good way to get rid of dangerous criminals.

 Signature 

Do-gooding is like treating hemophilia—the real cure is to let hemophiliacs bleed to death, before they breed more hemophiliacs. -Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2008 10:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2007-11-30

I am completely and utterly for the death penalty.

The drain on resources by individuals such as the ones who would fit the criteria FOR the death penalty is too great and unneeded. They forfeit their “right” as an creature to exist.

A serial rapist simply has no Right to live. Their brain and their actions are damaged goods, a ruined soul if you will. The lives they ruined, sometimes lasting the entire lifespan of the victims.

I am fully an atheist and I see nothing wrong with ending the life of others that harm and murder others for malicious reasons.

Who really decides who does and does not have a right to live? This takes a bit to explain but overall there are certain base morality factors that come into play.

Here in the USA I have no problem with MY money being taxed out to fund jails and prisons for inmates who will one day be released. They are being punished and removed from society, perhaps in some cases to permit introspective thinking of their harm of others in their crimes.
Note: People serving time for smoking and selling pot (even more so for medical reasons) is disgusting and immoral.

I do believe that a person to be put down should without any doubt be guilty of the crime. Immediately I think of repeat child molesters, rapists, murderers (it depends on who they killed and why) and perhaps other “crimes” that are not coming to mind.

Additionally, I am for a painless death in the VERY REMOTE chance they are innocent but due to overwhelming evidence, they are guilty. While there are plenty of caged humans that are without a doubt guilty of said crimes I think of the 0.01% (I’m making up that figure) chance they are in fact not guilty.

Do I feel they deserve a painless death? Not really.

If I was somehow convicted of a horrid crime that I didn’t commit and it deemed death so be it! No system is perfect and because of that; torture should not be used as the means preluding death smile

Life in prison is HELL normally, though some rise up and suffer not as they should be—- other than their restriction of life in the confinements of the building.

Also to add, I am fairly certain that I would be capable of being the executioner. This is meaning that I am not babbling ideas that I myself wouldn’t be capable of performing.

Of the several reasons I’m a vegetarian, one of them being is in that I would not be capable of slaying, gutting and chopping up a cow or other animals for consumption. This does not factor in desperate times of survival BUT this time has not come nor shall it most likely.

[ Edited: 26 January 2008 10:24 PM by entheogensmurf]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 07:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
entheogensmurf - 27 January 2008 03:21 AM

The drain on resources by individuals such as the ones who would fit the criteria FOR the death penalty is too great and unneeded. They forfeit their “right” as an creature to exist.

What I hear is that the process of killing a convicted criminal costs more than keeping that criminal locked up. That should matter if the issue is really justice, as it should be, rather than retribution.

I’m against the death penalty because of what you can learn at the Innocence Project website posted above, but much more than that a healthy society isn’t into punishment and retribution, but rather public safety and the good of the community. Predatory criminals need to be denied access to their prey, and aside from the incentive and means by which to best convert the greatest number of them into productive, contributing members of society (with a debt to pay off), that’s really all a healthy system of justice should be about. It certainly shouldn’t be about imposing particular brands of morality upon everyone (like the blue laws here in Georgia, and sex crimes—any sex act that can be criminal, it seems, would have to be an assault of some sort, and that’s the only valid purview of law in such matters). We also need a better referee mechanism in legal proceedings—a neutral attorney who challenges any impropriety or error from the prosecution or the defense. An adversarial system favors the stronger adversary, and that’s not what justice is about. That’s only a step removed from having champions fight (a rather significant step, I certainly admit, but it’s still the same basic notion).

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2007-12-27

The death penalty is one of the issues that is ineffable to me.

I certainly believe that if you knowingly and willingly take someone’s life; someone who has done no harm to you (First or Second degree murder, I believe), then your life should be forfeit. 

Further, there are crimes that don’t involve direct life-taking that my (atheistic and ineffable) morals tell me are worthy of immediate death; such as conspiracy to commit mass murder on innocents, torture and mutilation of innocents, and promoting boy-bands like N’Sync.

So it is quite easy for me to throw the “switch” on mass murderers and upon a particularly vile pussbag I recall who picked up a woman at a bar, raped her, cut her arms off, and left her for dead in a ditch (yet she lived).

But as readily as I would throw that switch, how is the State supposed to dictate where to draw the lines of what is “death-worthy?”

First, if the State is going to execute somebody, it must be Damn Sure that the accused is guilty,  Thus, in the U.S.,we have several layers of automatic appeals. Which take 10 years, damn-it-all.  But that’s the consequence of getting it right.

2nd, The State has to determine what is murder.

OK, Jeffrey Dahmer counts; slam dunk. 

What about a barfight where the police show up and there are 4 dead and 5 standing? 

I knowOJ F’n Simpson killed two people, and I would pull the switch, but I would be disappointed in the State if they did it after a jury let him off.

What about Tookie Williams?  Killed a lot of people when he was a gangbanger, but after 15+ years in prison was a demonstrably different, older, and better person.  He only killed people that were out to get him, and in the end he only had compassion in his soul.

Me, I’d throw that switch too, he ordered people killed for drug war reasons.  You shouldn’t get to say you’re sorry for that. 

But, I’m uncomfortable with the State legislating where to draw that line.

My point is that the death penalty is not a simple matter, and only simple people have simple solutions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  805
Joined  2007-08-28

.

Let me break it down for you…..

There is an objective approach to the emotional subject of the death penalty. Using rational logic, it can be concluded that:

Quantitatively and qualitatively, the worst crime is committed in religious nations.

Children are brainwashed by their parents, in religious nations, to grow up to be delusional robots.

Therefore, the criminal is not responsible for his/her actions, in religious nations.

Obviously, religion is the problem; crime is just a symptom. Religion must be destroyed, and crime will cease.

We must not be led astray by the strawmen and red herrings of social stratification, economics, education, privilege, culture etc. contributing to drug addiction and the drug empire, and the related crime. The real reason we lock our doors at night is religion.

The death penalty is as bad as the religion that causes crime. Any resemblance to Biblical remedies is insane and intolerable in a secular society.

The “penalty” for horrific crimes should be a mandatory science education, provided by the state, at taxpayers’ expense, of course. To “graduate” from this mandatory rehab, each victim of religion must submit peer-reviewed (someone outside the peer structure will appoint the peers) original research into psychopathic subservience (obsequious servility, not to be confused with obeying the law), or for the more heinous offenders, original research into the evolution of quantum consciousness and morality.

It is the duty of society to teach people how evolution works, so that certain members of that society will not be tempted to 187 another member of that society because “he got all up in my face”. Natural predators can do that, but humans are not natural, in spite of being a natural product of nature; and naturally, we cannot follow our nature to do unnatural things to one another.

(Thank you, God, for leading me to this website. You do work in mysterious ways to strengthen my faith.)


.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 05:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

It’s ironic, mcalpine, that we often see the inverse of that very same sentiment, more or less, from religious apologists, and that the absurdity of the position is so obvious to so many of them when it’s inverted as in how you just presented it.

As in this case, the truth of the matter is a little different than most believers would like to think.

Byron

[ Edited: 27 January 2008 06:16 PM by SkepticX]
 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 06:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26

Mcalpine, your straw man satire overlooks the fact that the problem isn’t necessarily “religion” but authoritarianism, the idea that morality is determined by a real or alleged authority. One can argue that religion is one of the major reasons why cultures and societies become mired on the lower levels of the Kohlberg scale. But no one is arguing that religion is the only reason.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  132
Joined  2007-07-31

It always morbidly amuses me that most if not all of those who are against capital punishment are for torturing someone for the rest of his or her existence by locking him or her in a cage and, at the very least, depriving him or her healthy sensory input, as if that’s so much more humane than a quick death. This is tantamount to torturing a rabid dog before putting it down, and any sane, conscientious person would find this reprehensible. The alternative is rewarding the violently sociopathic criminal’s actions by providing him or her a comfortable existence which is utterly undeserved.

As far as who should be put to death, only those whose guilt of profoundly heinous crimes is indisputable should be put to death in the most humane way possible. The Dahmers, Gacys, Bundys, Geins, etc. Keeping folks like this alive in any capacity (other than perhaps rendering them brain dead, keeping their bodies on life support so their much needed organs can be harvested for transplants) serves no positive purpose whatsoever.

Imnsho.

 Signature 

The fact that life has no meaning is a reason to live - moreover, the only one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2008 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
Jack’s Smirking Revenge - 27 January 2008 11:49 PM

It always morbidly amuses me that most if not all of those who are against capital punishment are for torturing someone for the rest of his or her existence by locking him or her in a cage and, at the very least, depriving him or her healthy sensory input, as if that’s so much more humane than a quick death.

Can you explain why sensory input is “healthy”? I don’t understand why isolation from the human race would unquestionably be torture, since some people like that isolation.

Jack’s Smirking Revenge - 27 January 2008 11:49 PM

The alternative is rewarding the violently sociopathic criminal’s actions by providing him or her a comfortable existence which is utterly undeserved.

You’re right about that comfortable existence. I would not want to subject someone to physical and sensory isolation if it could be proven that this amounts to torture - with this proof, I would find it just as abhorrent as anyone else.

What I really want from these murderers is not their pain but their remorse. Sincere remorse, not the phony-baloney crap offered by celebrities and politicians in trouble. (If it were my loved ones who they killed, I would want the murderer to come crying to me on his hands and knees, offering to eat his own shit in exchange for my forgiveness.) Is it possible to put someone through a non-harmful mental exercise that would cause him to recognize the depth of the harm he has done?

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 6
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed