Death Penalty..........

Ahhh, so finaly we are getting somewhere.
Define a human for me please?
And I want a deffinition that is totaly bullet proof. (Ill warn you now, there isn't one)

Websters: a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature

Not trying to be a smartass. I wasn't referring to anything philosophical or mysterious when I say "human being". I mean a man. How one man's actions affect another.

You claim its wrong to kill another human being. I accept that and agree.

Then you claim its right to kill another human being. I don't accept that.


No, I am saying it is wrong to MURDER the innocent, and acceptable to execute the grievously guilty.

So you add some conditions: Only if they have killed another human being in a way that goes against the laws of your country. I don't accept that.

I do accept that. I can respect the fact that you don't accept it, but I do accept it.

The laws of your country in my opinion hold less value than the value of human life. They are constantly changing, based on often unfounded fears or religeous ideals, and frequently contridict each other. They can be easily manipulated by people will ill intent, and are at thier most basic level designed to create a society where people are co-herced into doing what others think is right.
Human life however is something much more important, it is the one thing that every person in existance has in common, it is the one binding force that holds humanity together, and if you lose any respect for it then you lose that binding force.

The key phrase in your above paragraph is: "in my opinion". You speak of valuing human life, but you don't consider the lives of the victims survivors, many of whom suffer agonizingly until some closure is made(some have committed suicide in their grief). In my opinion the lives of these survivors are more important than the life of the murderer.

All humans have the right to live.
No matter what the circumstances. Justifying murder because the person you are killing is "bad" is no better than killing somebody because you want to steal their money. Death is death. If you get shot and die in a war - you are dead. If you get stabbed and die while being mugged - you are dead. If you get electrocuted in the chair - you are dead. The end result is the same, no matter how you try to justify it.
You cannot simultaneously claim to value life, and oppose it without being completely hypocritical.

All humans have the right to live.
No matter what the circumstances.

Don't they also have the right to justic?

Justifying murder because the person you are killing is "bad" is no better than killing somebody because you want to steal their money.

Really? So the people who convicted and carried out Timothy Mcveigh's execution are no better than the people who kill old ladies to get their pocket change?

You cannot simultaneously claim to value life, and oppose it without being completely hypocritical.

No, I support execution that is the legal taking of life as an act of punishment and justic. I'm against murder which is the illegal killing of somebody.

If that's hypocritical then police are hypocritical every single day they're at work.

Justice or revenge?
No, I support execution that is the legal taking of life as an act of punishment and justic. I'm against murder which is the illegal killing of somebody.
The distinction of illegal or legal when it comes to taking life is meaningless. It's only there to comfort the people who are too weak to face up to the fact that they are doing the exact same thing as the people they are killing.

The key phrase in your above paragraph is: "in my opinion". You speak of valuing human life, but you don't consider the lives of the victims survivors, many of whom suffer agonizingly until some closure is made(some have committed suicide in their grief). In my opinion the lives of these survivors are more important than the life of the murderer.

Again, this is an argument made based on emotion, which we do not use in decision making as a society. You need to justify, using logic, why it is allowable to murder human beings, despite what they have or have not done. Just saying that you sympathize with the victims is not justification...we all sympathize with the families of those who have lost loved ones to murder. But that in and of itself does not authorize execution.

Really? So the people who convicted and carried out Timothy Mcveigh's execution are no better than the people who kill old ladies to get their pocket change?

The actual people who carried out the execution are not the issue. The responsibility falls on those who support the premeditated murder of Mr. McVeigh. Of course, the responsibility becomes lost when one can hide behind the fact that you are not actually flipping the switch, and that societal standards now permit such henious actions, but I will be so bold as to say that those who support capital punishment have the blood of the executed on their hands. Are you willing to accept that?

For those suggesting the death penalty as an option, I ask this question:

What is the difference between putting someone to death, and putting them in a 6'x6' cell until they die?

The distinction of illegal or legal when it comes to taking life is meaningless.

Can the same be applied to law enforcement agents that kill everyday or break laws to enforce them?

It's only there to comfort the people who are too weak to face up to the fact that they are doing the exact same thing as the people they are killing.

If they're doing the same as the people they've killed, then they're cold blooded murderers. So in saying this, police officers are cold blooded killers.

Yes they're killers. You make it sound like "cold blooded" is somehow worse, but the truth is killers are killers. There's as much of a friendly warm hearted way to kill as there is a cold blooded way. So to attempt and differentiate different acts of murder is rather pointless, as dead is dead. You could make the distinction of brutal vs. non brutal, but such tags as "cold blooded" are practically meaningless in the context of murder.
You should also be wise enough to make the distinction of what is self defense and what is not. If a police officer shoots somebody who is threatening their life, that is different than stabbing an old lady for her purse, or killing somebody who is strapped down and is no threat to you. But yes, they're still killers - because they're engaging in the act of killing plain and simple.

i read the whole thread and back when you were talking about being human.. imo, when someone goes out murdering people he dehumanizes himself, not the other way arround... he shows lack of respect for the life of others which is inhumane...

i like muscletangs example when he said that it would be wrong for a police man to speed to catch a speeder...

you say a killer is a killer, but should the punishment be the same for say, a child who is horseplaying with his friend who ends up tripping and hitting his head on a rock causing him to die (this actually happened to my mother's friend's son), and a person who intentionally points a gun at someones head and fires?

and im not even talking about the death penalty... yes the child killed his friend... so does that mean he should go to prison just as the man with the gun should?... like you said, they are both killers...

not all killers are the same

as for the prisons... if i were homeless in a cold city... i could see myself consider commiting a crime just for shelter (not kill someone but a way to get in)... on top of that you get free food, entertainment, and basically a gym membership as well... not bad

For those suggesting the death penalty as an option, I ask this question:

What is the difference between putting someone to death, and putting them in a 6'x6' cell until they die?
They have the priveledge of having cable tv, breathing, seeing, touching, feeling, hearing, excericising, reading, learning, eating, I can go on.

They may be locked in a cell but if some mother fucker murdered any one I knew I would want to rip their balls off and strangle them with 'em. I'm a very firm believer in forgiveness, but if were murdered it'd be a cold day in hell before I could ever forgive anyone for that.

I'd agree to ending the death penalty on a couple of conditions. All tv's are removed from their cells. Their only means of information may come from newspapers, journals, magazines, novels, any form of literature with in practical means. The cell sizes are made smaller, similar to the jails in the likes of japan.

All humans have the right to live.

Perhaps the killer should have considered that before acting.



No matter what the circumstances. Justifying murder because the person you are killing is "bad" is no better than killing somebody because you want to steal their money. Death is death. If you get shot and die in a war - you are dead. If you get stabbed and die while being mugged - you are dead. If you get electrocuted in the chair - you are dead. The end result is the same, no matter how you try to justify it.
You cannot simultaneously claim to value life, and oppose it without being completely hypocritical.

Apples and oranges again. You could take your own arguement and apply that to those who oppose the death penalty but support abortion. In either case, the arguement over simplifies the issue.

many people commit crimes because jail is a more pleasant place to live than their current situation. as mentioned before, it's warm, they always have food, shelter, much safer than on the streets, nice tv's to watch. yeah you're locked in a cell, but how much time per day is actually spent there? i think we should use the death penalty for severe crimes, like people who murder their families/children, and other cold, vivious crimes. there's a cost to society to keep these people alive for decades and decades. feeding them, clothing them, keeeping them warm, the chance they could escape and commit more crimes. when they're dead, they're costing me nothing.
people argue oh it's wrong to take a life. yeah ok, but why are you sympathizing for a murderer? they killed people too, and i'm SURE they were aware of what would happen to them if they got caught. if they weren't, they were probably mentally ill and shouldn't be executed because they aren't capable of understanding the severity of their actions.

they killed people too, and i'm SURE they were aware of what would happen to them if they got caught.

Thank you.

Yes I am in favor of the death penalty. Live by the sword, die by the sword as the old saying goes.

many people commit crimes because jail is a more pleasant place to live than their current situation. as mentioned before, it's warm, they always have food, shelter, much safer than on the streets, nice tv's to watch. .
People go to jail because they have been convicted for crimes. Nobody wants to be in there!! Jails are a very unpleasant place to be; to think it's otherwise is a bit idealistic.

Some minimum security places are like really bad motels that you cannot leave. They are not so bad, but often are short-term facilities and would do little to correct someone's problems in the outside world.

However, all other jails, where most of the criminals go are simply awful. Sure the facilities are limited but the other prisioners make it nearly unbearable. Prisions are violent, stressful places full of people who were put in there because they are very bad, often psychopaths and/or extremely violent.

Just because they are in prision does not mean they stop being deviants. Their problems are simly redirected at other prisioners.

IMO anyone who does not have the intellegence, resources or fortitude to cope with life on the outside certainly cannot cope with the terrible environment inside.

Apples and oranges again. You could take your own arguement and apply that to those who oppose the death penalty but support abortion. In either case, the arguement over simplifies the issue.
And not a one of them can come up with a good answer what the difference is.

And not a one of them can come up with a good answer what the difference is.

Actually, developing a logical argument to differentiate between the two is cut and dry, which I won't get into here because it's not the proper place to have a discussion about abortion. But the jist of it is that an unborn fetus does not have the same right to life as 1) an independent, functional member of society, or 2) a a child who is under the care of such a member

many people commit crimes because jail is a more pleasant place to live than their current situation. as mentioned before, it's warm, they always have food, shelter, much safer than on the streets, nice tv's to watch. yeah you're locked in a cell, but how much time per day is actually spent there? i think we should use the death penalty for severe crimes, like people who murder their families/children, and other cold, vivious crimes. there's a cost to society to keep these people alive for decades and decades. feeding them, clothing them, keeeping them warm, the chance they could escape and commit more crimes. when they're dead, they're costing me nothing.
people argue oh it's wrong to take a life. yeah ok, but why are you sympathizing for a murderer? they killed people too, and i'm SURE they were aware of what would happen to them if they got caught. if they weren't, they were probably mentally ill and shouldn't be executed because they aren't capable of understanding the severity of their actions.

Again, how does this justify the premeditated murder of a human being as carried out by the state?

But the jist of it is that an unborn fetus does not have the same right to life as 1) an independent, functional member of society, or 2) a a child who is under the care of such a member

So I take it when Charles Manson and his family cut open that pregnant woman, stabbed the "fetus", and ripped it out of her they only killed one person that night?

Just because something needs somebody to live doesn't give it any less rights. If this is the case then murdering people in nursing homes isn't too bad because they too need care. I guess the same could be said about kids at daycare centers. They're not getting the same nurishment or care as getting nurishment directly from somebody but still, it's care.

If a "fetus" was totally dependant on the mother then it'd die the second it'd leave its mother. There are several abortion places though that take the "fetus" out and it's moving, crying, and everything...before they suck its brains out.

How is this any different if you were to take a two month old child, it's moving, crying, and everything and you suck it's brains out? I think the public would want you strung up by your balls.

So if a "fetus" is out of it's mother and isn't dead, it has rights to not die. Sure it needs help to live, but don't infants, some elderly, and people with special needs?

Again, how does this justify the premeditated murder of a human being as carried out by the state?

It's fairly easy to see it actually.

Guy A kills somebody and so does guy B.

Guy A gets executed by the state.

Guy B gets life in prison where he gets his own computer to connect with the outside world. Guy B is able to make parole in about 15 years.

Rationalize it anyway you want, killing is killing.

Guy B gets life in prison where he gets his own computer to connect with the outside world. Guy B is able to make parole in about 15 years.

can you get a computer when you are in prison then?(if you buy it yourself, i guues its like that, you also need to pay for the connection i think)...if i ever get in prison(im certainly not planning to), then i still would be able to go to Af yay!

im against execution though. sitting in your whole life is much harder i think. crap food, riots ETC(but if you have a computer, you can still go to AF:D)

Rationalize it anyway you want, killing is killing.

So if I were to shoot an home-intruder who was about to murder my parents I would be as guilty as the guy who killed his neighbor to steal his shoes?

No, I would be defending myself and my loved ones. Just like the state defends it's citizens by executing murderers. I am differentiating between executing and murdering because they are two different things. The world is not black and white, there are many shades of gray in between.

i like texas' veiw on it, just like Ron White says, "If you come to Texas and kill someone...we'll kill you back"

i like texas' veiw on it, just like Ron White says, "If you come to Texas and kill someone...we'll kill you back"
haha nice, idk if we have the death penalty in wisconsin..i don't think so but we need it.

Are you in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for convicted criminals?
If yes, for what crimes? Where do you draw the line for the use of such a sentence?

I know this has been a hot-button topic for years, but recently it's in the news again, since Gov. Arnold did not stop the death sentence of the Crips' founder Stanley Williams, as per the story below. Do you think he deserves to die? Personally, I do not think so. His crimes simly do not warrant such action. Furthermore, unlike many death row inmates, he has used his considerable intellegence and organizational skills to resurrect a productive life for himself, (as far as one can be productive and make a contribution to society while in prison).
----------------------------------------------------------------
He was condemned in 1981 for gunning down convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, at a 7-Eleven in Whittier and killing Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and the couple's daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, at the Los Angeles motel they owned. Williams claimed he was innocent.

In denying clemency to Williams, Schwarzenegger said that the evidence of his guilt was "strong and compelling," and he dismissed suggestions that the trial was unfair.

Schwarzenegger also pointed out the brutality of the crimes, noting that Williams allegedly said about one of the killings, "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him."

During Williams' 24 years on death row, a Swiss legislator, college professors and others nominated him for the Nobel Prizes in peace and literature.

"Me fearing what I'm facing, what possible good is it going to do for me? How is that going to benefit me?" Williams said in a recent interview. "If it's my time to be executed, what's all the ranting and raving going to do?"[/I]



Its a coincidince this topic has been brought up....being how i just got done watching the movie "Redemption" about Stanley "tookie" Williams. I will say that the movie was convincing, and the actor was a likeable guy, but the special features with actually Stanley Williams werent that great, and i didnt find the real Stanley Williams half as likeable as the actor.

As for him getting out of prison for writing childrens books.....what the fuck...no way... i mean he wrote them ok cool, but is he really someone you want your kids to look up to?...i dont think so, was his message sincere, i dont think so....

As for the death penalty, yes i agree with it, if there is proof for the crime, and the crime was bad enough. lets face it, life in prison would suck, and whats the point of keeping convicts there all their life just waisting our tax dollars?? I guess you could also say the same thing about 50-60 yr olds that get 50 years w/o paroll....it is stupid. And maybe you think im heartless and cruel for saying they are wasting our tax money rotting in prison, cause they are people too...Well not really in my opinion. If you molest kids, murder people, rape women etc, and are classed as unfit to be in society, i no longer have any respect for you, and do not believe you should be given any rights.

And for a last comment, i just wanted to quote something that my dad had to say about the Stanley William case, he said "its amazing how sorry people are when they are caught"....and it makes alot of sense, if you choose to do something wrong, knowing there is a risk you will get caught, and you dont you think your all badass, but if you do happen to get caught, you will be sorry....think about that.

Rationalize it anyway you want, killing is killing.
How about i rationalize it like this, ending the life of people who are innocent = killing, ending the life of people who are guilty = execution, there is a difference, true they both wind up dead, but there deaths were for different purposes...


You should also be wise enough to make the distinction of what is self defense and what is not. If a police officer shoots somebody who is threatening their life, that is different than stabbing an old lady for her purse, or killing somebody who is strapped down and is no threat to you. But yes, they're still killers - because they're engaging in the act of killing plain and simple.
So let me get this straight, as you previously said, "Justifying murder because the person you are killing is "bad" is no better than killing somebody because you want to steal their money".....and then you go and state that If the policeman shoots the bad guy, thats self defence, in that case, it makes him no better than the guy who stabs the old woman for her purse?....rrriiiiiigggghhhhttttt

All humans have the right to live.
No matter what the circumstances. Justifying murder because the person you are killing is "bad" is no better than killing somebody because you want to steal their money. Death is death. If you get shot and die in a war - you are dead. If you get stabbed and die while being mugged - you are dead. If you get electrocuted in the chair - you are dead. The end result is the same, no matter how you try to justify it.
You cannot simultaneously claim to value life, and oppose it without being completely hypocritical.

Wow....what a great idea, lets all live in la la land with fluffy clouds and pretty rainbows.....NOT. Unfortunatley it doesnt happen to work that way, the world will never be without death....but as you said, "all humans have the right to live", what about the ones who kill other humans that have the same right to live??? hmmm???


why are you sympathizing for a murderer? they killed people too, and i'm SURE they were aware of what would happen to them if they got caught. if they weren't, they were probably mentally ill and shouldn't be executed because they aren't capable of understanding the severity of their actions.
If they are deemed too mentally ill to understand the severity of the action of killing someone, they still pose the same threat to society, because they still kill people, and if someone "too mentally ill" killed one of my friends, would it make me feel any better that they didnt know what they were doing?? FUCK NO!, as far as i am concerned they can pay the same price as someone who knew what they were doing...


The distinction of illegal or legal when it comes to taking life is meaningless. It's only there to comfort the people who are too weak to face up to the fact that they are doing the exact same thing as the people they are killing.

Why you believe murderes shouldnt be killed? do you really want to have to live with these people? do you want your family or friends killed by them? you have to realize that killers are not rational and do not play by your rules....

As for the death penalty, yes i agree with it, if there is proof for the crime, and the crime was bad enough. lets face it, life in prison would suck, and whats the point of keeping convicts there all their life just waisting our tax dollars??
I understand your point, but it's a fallacy to believe that executing people saves money.

I posted this about half way down page 1 of this thread, but it bears repeating:


If you are going to be executing someone, it is a very GOOD thing that it's expensive. It's indicative of a more civilised society.

About 12 years ago, I heard the statistic it takes about $4 million to execute someone (probably more money now) , but only about $1.75 million to imprison them for 50 years.

The difference is all the legal appeals etc. that a condemned person is entitled to under US law. This is one of the most decent things about execution in the US; if it's going to happen, the state will provide every legal defense available to prevent it. This is extrodinarily civilised and, as far as I know, unique among nations that use capital punishment.

Other nations that execute people, such as China, do so because it's cheap, easy and is a visible instrument of terror to keep the population in line. Note they can execute people for, among other things, expressing their opinion, if its contrary to the government.

how could it possibly cost $4 million to execute someone?

Ya, im with quteasabutton......i highly doubt that is takes that much to execute someone...

how could it possibly cost $4 million to execute someone?

It doesn't really cost that much to kill somebody. The real cost come from all the red tape and legal fees.

permits and laws to use facilities
permits and laws on the drugs
permits and laws on disposal of drugs
permits and laws on the disposal of the body
lawyers hired to fight the execution

Things like this seem little but they add up in the long run.

Why you believe murderes shouldnt be killed? do you really want to have to live with these people? do you want your family or friends killed by them? you have to realize that killers are not rational and do not play by your rules....
Because killing is wrong. Simple thought, but obviously the logic of that is infinitely too complex for some people to grasp.
People in my family have been murdered - just because somebody killed them doesn't make it allright for me to turn around want to kill somebody else. That wouldn't solve anything anyway. I fail to see the logic in execution, except in a few very special instances, like I stated in my original post in this thread. And as long we send people who have committed one murder to be executed, while we let serial killers live their whole natural lives in jail, I'd rather not have anybody be murdered "legally" until such faults in the justice system are fixed.
Is it too much to ask that justice be an operation of logic and not emotion and vengeance?

It doesn't really cost that much to kill somebody. The real cost come from all the red tape and legal fees.

permits and laws to use facilities
permits and laws on the drugs
permits and laws on disposal of drugs
permits and laws on the disposal of the body
lawyers hired to fight the execution

Things like this seem little but they add up in the long run.At first, I fail to understand how killing someone would cost more than keeping them in jail for life, but upon searching, it seems that its true.

What Politicans Dont Say About the High Costs of the Dealth Penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385)

For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million. In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment. The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.

This (http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost) is another good fact filed page on the costs.

TS out

Because killing is wrong. Simple thought, but obviously the logic of that is infinitely too complex for some people to grasp.

Executing murderers is right. Simple thought, but obviously the logic of that is infinitely too complex for some people to grasp.

Do you see the point? We have two different opinions. My opinion is different from your opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm not capable of complex thought. If you can't express your opinion without insulting people it's because you don't have enough facts to make a valid point.

i think they should just get a diserted island, fence it in with high unclimable fenes and just drop people off there to fend for themselves. its cheap and ur not really killing anyone.

and as for the millions of dollars to excecute someone, i say spend less than a dollar put a bullet in their head and donate the body to science. problem solved.

Executing murderers is right. Simple thought, but obviously the logic of that is infinitely too complex for some people to grasp.

Do you see the point? We have two different opinions. My opinion is different from your opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm not capable of complex thought. If you can't express your opinion without insulting people it's because you don't have enough facts to make a valid point.

We know that executions cost more than imprisonment, and we have no evidence to suggest that execution is effective in detering prospective murderers, and morally killing people is wrong.
Economically, logically, and morally, execution doesn't make sense.
I know, it is still ridiculously complex and hard to understand.

and as for the millions of dollars to excecute someone, i say spend less than a dollar put a bullet in their head and donate the body to science. problem solved.
i like the way you think, i vote you for president

Now some will say I'm getting off topic but I think this raises a good point.

Euthanasia? That's good stuff right there.
Abortion? GREAT!

Holy shit an execution!? Killing is wrong, killing is bad, killing is just so morally wrong!

How does that foot taste champ?

I'm not a fan of euthanasia, mercy killing, assisted suicide or any of that bunk. It's just loads of crap no matter what you call it.

We know that executions cost more than imprisonment, and we have no evidence to suggest that execution is effective in detering prospective murderers, and morally killing people is wrong.
Economically, logically, and morally, execution doesn't make sense.
I know, it is still ridiculously complex and hard to understand.

The cost of execution vs imprisonment is a non starter. It'd be cheaper to throw the criminal in a furnace then to have those elaborate execution chambers with dozens of people there to administer the punishment. Cost savings can be found if that really is someones beef.

Execution is not a tool to deter others, its to punish the criminal.
Execution is morally right.

I know it's beyond some to grasp, but executions are the proper way to punish murderers and rapists.

Economically, logically, and morally, execution doesn't make sense.
I know, it is still ridiculously complex and hard to understand.

Do you understand that you are only stating your opinion, and that others have different opinions as to what constitutes morality? Is that too ridiculously complex for you to understand?

It costs 1 million to keep a convict in jail for life, and 4 million to execute him? Money well spent in my opinion. You don't have to agree...executions still happen, so obviously others do agree with me.

DNA Tests Confirm Executed Va. Man Guilty (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060112/ap_on_re_us/execution_dna)

Just thought I'd post this. DNA evidence gets better and better the more we learn about it.

Initial DNA and blood tests in 1990 placed Coleman within the 0.2 percent of the population who could have produced the semen at the crime scene. But his lawyers said the expert they hired to conduct those initial DNA tests misinterpreted the results.

We've had the tools for a while but now DNA test are so much better. As the technology grows, the argument for innocent people going will get smaller and smaller.

Coleman was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of 19-year-old Wanda McCoy, his wife's sister, who was found raped, stabbed and nearly beheaded in her home.

He got the sentenced he deserved right there. The family got justice for what he did.

"An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight," the 33-year-old said moments before he was electrocuted on May 20, 1992. "When my innocence is proven, I hope America will realize the injustice of the death penalty as all other civilized countries have."

:grinno:

oh yea, its ok to kill innocent unborns but no we cant kill murderers. if u kill u should be prepared to die. action and reaction. id say there are few exceptions to this rule though. if u kill someone for nothing, pleasure, or greed. then u should die. but say if someone killed a person i cared about and i met them in a dark alley one day, you bet i would kill them. like a guy whos daughter was raped by his friend, in anger he went out and killed that man. i might do the same. all murders deserve punishment but those who murder for pleasure or greed need to die. and the island idea is great cause u just get a chopper take the criminals to the island throw their ass out without landing so there is no danger to the transporters. and leave them to fend for themselves. if they get past the fence they will die in the sea. they will either kill each other off or starve. i dont think i would want to kill someone if i knew i would have to spend the rest of my life on a deserted island with killers from around the world and have to hunt for food. maybe we could throw some crocs, lions and tigers on the island too for fun. :D

the island idea is great cause u just get a chopper take the criminals to the island throw their ass out without landing so there is no danger to the transporters. and leave them to fend for themselves

You like the movie Escape from New York don't you? This is pretty much the same thing, same with Escape from L.A. All criminals are transported to a ruined city and once you're in, you can't get out.

I actually think this would be a great idea, thing is, where do you put thousands of criminals? Maybe somewhere in the Virgin Islands? There are plenty of islands around to hold a police force and a nice big one with a wall around it to house everybody inside.

Why do I get the feeling though with reality TV we may soon get something like the movie Running Man?

Do you understand that you are only stating your opinion, and that others have different opinions as to what constitutes morality? Is that too ridiculously complex for you to understand?

It costs 1 million to keep a convict in jail for life, and 4 million to execute him? Money well spent in my opinion. You don't have to agree...executions still happen, so obviously others do agree with me.

The Earth is round, logic and facts back this up, so I believe it is. I operate logically - others operate thigmotropically. If you're going to have morals you may as well follow them, instead of pushing them to the side whenever your emotions cloud your logic and thoughts of seaking purposeless and wholly useless revenge fill your mind.
As I see it most only apply moral judgement when it suits their needs. As soon as they have different needs, they're willing to discard those morals so they could do what under normal moral circumstances would be unthinkable.
If you're not going to adhere to rules, why do you even pretend to follow them in the first place? Society is rather shallow it appears. Morality is superficial.
We execute people for revenge. There is no other reason.
I don't care how shallow anybody believes we as a society should be. All in favour of executing murderers are hypocrits. They simultaneously endorse and encourage murder, but are superficially, morally opposed to it.
And what problems does it solve anyway? No matter how many people you kill, people will still be killed. It doesn't fix anything.
Think deeply. Think logically. What are you actually accomplishing? I have yet to see any good argument in favour of execution. Because all that is has going for it is the childish eye for an eye argument. That's all that can justify it.
It costs too much, doesn't solve any problems, and is immoral.
It boggles the mind that their are people so incredibly idiotic and shallow, that they're willing to waste effort, time, money, and shit on their own beliefs to accomplish something with no positive outcome.
So prove me wrong. Tell me why You (and I'm refering to anybody reading this) support killing people. Tell me what makes it logical. Tell me what makes it worth all of the trouble. Tell me how childish revenge is moral. Tell me something that makes sense about execution in our society and I'll believe it.
But if all you have is "he called me dumb so I called him stupid" arguments, you may as well not waste your effort typing any sort of retort.

The Earth is round, logic and facts back this up, so I believe it is. I operate logically - others operate thigmotropically. If you're going to have morals you may as well follow them, instead of pushing them to the side whenever your emotions cloud your logic and thoughts of seaking purposeless and wholly useless revenge fill your mind.

Off topic again I know but they go hand in hand. Wouldn't abortion go against morals and logic would be pushed aside due to emotions? If killing is killing then abortion is wrong. Whether it's a human or "just a fetus" it's a life form. Abortion kills this life form no matter how you look at it. A person's emotions of fear and lack of responsibility push all morals and logic aside so they can get rid of this burden.

As I see it most only apply moral judgement when it suits their needs. As soon as they have different needs, they're willing to discard those morals so they could do what under normal moral circumstances would be unthinkable.

See the above statement.

If you're not going to adhere to rules, why do you even pretend to follow them in the first place? Society is rather shallow it appears. Morality is superficial.

See the top statement.

We execute people for revenge. There is no other reason.

Justice isn't an option? What about the fact that they won't kill again?

I don't care how shallow anybody believes we as a society should be. All in favour of executing murderers are hypocrits. They simultaneously endorse and encourage murder, but are superficially, morally opposed to it.

Murder is unlawful killing and execution is not. To encourage murder would be to say it's ok to kill anybody. When you execute somebody, you're executing a criminal. Are little boys, little girls, grandmas, grandpas, parents, children, women, men, and other people of our society killed during an execution? No, the person that did the crime, that wronged somebody, is getting punished for what they did. They are not innocent and by dumb luck were picked to get killed.


And what problems does it solve anyway? No matter how many people you kill, people will still be killed. It doesn't fix anything.

You can cut down though or set an example. Would you think twice about killing somebody if all murderers were killed by fire ants in front of a television audience that laughed at them as they died? I sure would.

What about all those people who have killed somebody, went to prison, escaped, and killed again? If they would have been executed the first time, one less person wouldn't be dead. This has happened several times in many states. If all murderers were treated this way, executed instead of prison, there wouldn't be as many dead people today.

Think deeply. Think logically. What are you actually accomplishing? I have yet to see any good argument in favour of execution. Because all that is has going for it is the childish eye for an eye argument. That's all that can justify it.

I'll explain that below.

It costs too much, doesn't solve any problems, and is immoral.

It does cost too much. A simple bullet would do as well.

As for solving problems, one less murderer in the world.

As for immoral, that's what we're arguing.

So prove me wrong. Tell me why You (and I'm refering to anybody reading this) support killing people. Tell me what makes it logical. Tell me what makes it worth all of the trouble. Tell me how childish revenge is moral. Tell me something that makes sense about execution in our society and I'll believe it.

A man drives down the highway drunk and gets pulled over. The cop tells him he didn't abide the traffic laws. So why should the government abide his driver's license? They don't have to and they take it away.
The man didn't abide traffic laws so he loses his right to drive.

Several kids are in a movie theater and they aren't abiding the rules of silence. Why then should the audience members abide them by not having them kicked out? They don't and make management kick them out.
The kids didn't abide by the theater's rules so they lose their right to see the movie.

A guy goes up to a person and murders them. The guy did not abide by the rights or laws of this person's life. Why then should the family, the legal system, and society abide by this guy's right to live?
The guy didn't abide by the person's right to live, so he in turn lost his right to live.

Also, what good do they do to be left alive? They do nothing at all.
What good is Charles Manson doing right now? Nothing.
Right now, tax dollars are being spent to keep homicidal maniacs alive that will never do anything for our society. All they can do is kill, and we're paying to keep them nice and alive.

Again, if they're left alive, there is a chance they could kill again.
Charles Manson is up for parole in 2007.
As stated above, several men have escaped prison and killed several people. If they were killed in the first place they wouldn't of had that chance.

A cop breaks the speed limit and law to catch speeders or criminals on the run. An execution may in part break the law, but it's to serve justice and punishment.

The punishment is as stated above, the person who didn't abide by another person's right to live. In turn, their right to life doesn't have to be abided by either.

As I see it most only apply moral judgement when it suits their needs. As soon as they have different needs, they're willing to discard those morals so they could do what under normal moral circumstances would be unthinkable.
If you're not going to adhere to rules, why do you even pretend to follow them in the first place? Society is rather shallow it appears. Morality is superficial. :thumbsup: Postmodernism: terribly convenient, no? What absolute truth? There is no "moral code". Truth is relative to the individual, morality is simply determined by what behavior best suits one's situation. <= It is an irresponsible, surreptitious farce.

The argument favoring the death penalty is a nonstarter, here's why:

"In January, Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois suspended all executions in that state after 13 death row inmates were found to have been wrongly convicted...It used to be impossible to prove that the legal system produces wrongful convictions. But in the last seven years, DNA tests have exonerated more than 80 prisoners, including eight on death row. The cost of the death penalty to innocent life is becoming quantifiable. And it is going up." Entire Article (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2000/07/power_ja00.html)

You will never have assurance that every executed prisoner is guilty, and without 100% certainty, capital punishment will remain a perversion of justice.

Many republicans seem to be in favor of the death penalty, yet they stand opposed to abortion. I find this ideology repugnant, and don't see how said individuals do not feel hypocritical.

Edited to fix link.

While I am still on the fence concerning this issue, I must admit that I still think 2 stroke makes some good (and logical) points. When reading his last post I couldn't help but feel that it made sense. On the other hand, who could argue that an executed person could ever kill another person again? ct91 thanks for reminding us about the wrongful executions. That has to be the worst thing we as a society could do... kill someone for doing nothing wrong.

Since the big question that revolves around this issue seems to be morality, I have a question to ask all who profess to be Christians. WWJD? (what would Jesus do?) If you read His word and can still answer this question with "execution by torture" (like many here are advocating) or even painless execution, like that which is presently carried out by the state, then please explain yourself. I don't think He would approve of either. If like myself, you are not a Christian, then this may not be an issue for you. But if you are, then it seems to me that any stance advocating the killing of another person makes you a hypocrite candidate at the very least.

(Edited to clear up my thoughts)

Off topic again I know but they go hand in hand. Wouldn't abortion go against morals and logic would be pushed aside due to emotions? If killing is killing then abortion is wrong. Whether it's a human or "just a fetus" it's a life form. Abortion kills this life form no matter how you look at it. A person's emotions of fear and lack of responsibility push all morals and logic aside so they can get rid of this burden.
I'm morally opposed to abortion. I debated whether or not one can consider an egg a living human, but I remain opposed to abortion.

Justice isn't an option? What about the fact that they won't kill again?
If you have to kill somebody to accomplish something you're probably doing something wrong (just a quick rule of thumb there).

Murder is unlawful killing and execution is not.
And so long as people are blind to logic, it will probably remain that way. But that doesn't make it right. It used to be legal to own slaves - just because it was "legal" didn't make it right.

What about all those people who have killed somebody, went to prison, escaped, and killed again? If they would have been executed the first time, one less person wouldn't be dead. This has happened several times in many states. If all murderers were treated this way, executed instead of prison, there wouldn't be as many dead people today.
There's six billion people in the world today, and you cite the escape and and additional murder committed by a handfull as the basis for your argument. Freak occurences are not a logical way to back up an argument.


A man drives down the highway drunk and gets pulled over. The cop tells him he didn't abide the traffic laws. So why should the government abide his driver's license? They don't have to and they take it away.
The man didn't abide traffic laws so he loses his right to drive.
The problem here, is that the government gives you your liscense. They do not give you life, life is a basic right you inherit from nature. A liscense to operate a motor vehicle is not, and being that the government gives it to you, they have the right to take it away.

Several kids are in a movie theater and they aren't abiding the rules of silence. Why then should the audience members abide them by not having them kicked out? They don't and make management kick them out.
The kids didn't abide by the theater's rules so they lose their right to see the movie.
Again, apples and oranges.

A guy goes up to a person and murders them. The guy did not abide by the rights or laws of this person's life. Why then should the family, the legal system, and society abide by this guy's right to live?
The guy didn't abide by the person's right to live, so he in turn lost his right to live.
Again the old eye for an eye argument. Why must we confuse revenge with justice so often?

Also, what good do they do to be left alive? They do nothing at all.
Most politicians do nothing, and you don't see us executing them. :biggrin:
and they take more money than most prisoners to boot...

While I am still on the fence concerning this issue, I must admit that I still think 2 stroke makes some good (and logical) points. When reading his last post I couldn't help but feel that it made sense. On the other hand, who could argue that an executed person could ever kill another person again? ct91 thanks for reminding us about the wrongful executions. That has to be the worst thing we as a society could do... kill someone for doing nothing wrong.

Since the big question that revolves around this issue seems to be morality, I have a question to ask all who profess to be Christians. WWJD? (what would Jesus do?) If you read His word and can still answer this question with "execution by torture" (like many here are advocating) or even painless execution, like that which is presently carried out by the state, then please explain yourself. I don't think He would approve of either. If like myself, you are not a Christian, then this may not be an issue for you. But if you are, then it seems to me that any stance advocating the killing of another person makes you a hypocrite candidate at the very least.

(Edited to clear up my thoughts)



jesus banishes people to eternal suffering in hell for not beleiving in him. i think that is a little worse than executing someone for murder. so yea id say jesus is all for it.

jesus banishes people to eternal suffering in hell for not beleiving in him. i think that is a little worse than executing someone for murder. so yea id say jesus is all for it.

An eye for an eye was a rule of the old testament. When Jesus came around he rewrote all the rules. He taught us to love our enemies, turn the other cheek and to forgive. Jesus himself stopped the stoning execution of a woman (this was the legal punishment for her crime) when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So I don't believe it is correct to say He would approve of capital punishment. If you agree with our state sponsored system of killing people for committing horrific crimes, fine. I always have and may continue to do so. It just seems to be at odds with the teachings of most religions, so when anyone who thinks they are on high moral ground says these killings are justified, I can't help but wonder how hypocritical this sounds. :screwy:

Jesus was for the death penalty. He was also for capital punishment. In the old testament you killed, you were killed.

He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt.5:17). The law made numerous provisions for the death penalty.

But, you say, what about the women taken in the very act of adultery.

One interesting fact about this story: only the woman was brought. No man was accused. Yet, adultery is definitely a two-person sin. Is it possible that Jesus wrote Leviticus 20:10 on the ground? It says, “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Notice, both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. Not one, but both.

At any rate, the consciences of the accusers began to accuse their own hearts. One by one, beginning with the eldest, they slipped away until no man was there to accuse the woman. With no accusers, there was no required penalty.

Good points that I found here: http://www.learnthebible.org/death_penalty.htm

There's also a good report here: http://www.carmical.net/articles/wwjd.html

. Furthermore, unlike many death row inmates, he has used his considerable intellegence and organizational skills to resurrect a productive life for himself, (as far as one can be productive and make a contribution to society while in prison).

Alot of people on death row (serial killers for example) have considerable intellegence and organizational skills, some more than the average Joe. I wish I had my husband's old papers from school, he did an excellent research paper on serial killers.

Williams' case became one of the country's biggest death-row cause celebres in decades. It set off a countrywide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.

Did he sincerely want to devert kids from the gang life or has this all been a front hoping that he'd get clemency? Only one person knew that answer, and he's no longer here to tell us. Anyone can put on a show, how long is someone willing to keep up with the act?

Just a side note: I think Hollywood stars need to stick to making movies or shows and quit trying to use their status to get up on the soapbox.

I am for capital punishment. If you deprive someone else their life, liberty and freedoms, and deprive their loved ones of their companionship and enjoyment of the victim, why you should you be allowed to enjoy the same privledges? Yeah it goes back to the eye for eye argument. But honestly if someone is going to become a menace to society, why should we keep that person around while he enjoys meals, clothing, a roof over his head at my expense as a taxpayer.

Another side note: I don't understand why it costs more money to execute someone in a short instance than it does to keep feeding/clothing/spending utility costs on someone til they die of old age. Can someone help me on this one? A firing squad would be cheap, a box of bullets doesn't cost $4 million.

Alot

Another side note: I don't understand why it costs more money to execute someone in a short instance than it does to keep feeding/clothing/spending utility costs on someone til they die of old age. Can someone help me on this one? A firing squad would be cheap, a box of bullets doesn't cost $4 million.
I addressed this point on page 1 of this thread. To recap:

"If you are going to be executing someone, it is a very GOOD thing that it's expensive. It's indicative of a more civilised society.

About 12 years ago, I heard the statistic it takes about $4 million to execute someone (probably more money now) , but only about $1.75 million to imprison them for 50 years.

The difference is all the legal appeals etc. that a condemned person is entitled to under US law. This is one of the most decent things about execution in the US; if it's going to happen, the state will provide every legal defense available to prevent it. This is extrodinarily civilised and, as far as I know, unique among nations that use capital punishment.

Other nations that execute people, such as China, do so because it's cheap, easy and is a visible instrument of terror to keep the population in line. Note they can execute people for, among other things, expressing their opinion, if its contrary to the government."


The United States sensibly allows every reasonable legal resource to be available to the condemned, and permits the state to pay for them. Simply put, lawyers, legal resources and court time used by the condemned to save themselves costs lots of money.

This is IMO a very good thing. If the state is going to take a life, it is reasonable to try and be sure its the correct thing to do.

I think it is neccacery because it might stop people from trying to do it as much and it is a just punishment you take away a life we take yours away. Fair and simple.

I think it is good. 1. It saves money. 2. it frightens people into not commiting those crimes!

This thread was down for almost two months. Let it go or start another one with a little thought put into it.