Ohio man struggles with guards before execution

[Marc04]

Good! Murdering scum should go kicking and screaming to a painful death.

That has got to be one of the most cold hearted things i have ever heard anyone say.

I fail to see what kind of punishment killing the guy does. Its over for him, he's dead, most people who are put to death go into the crime thinking they are going to die, they simply don't care. Like i said, its over for that person.

the only thing it is, is revenage for the family, which is wrong. I would much rather see them rot in a cell, forced to rethink what they did for the rest of their natural life, i see that as a much better punishment.

[MagicRat]

I would agree marc, the only real use of capital punishment is to serve as a deterrent to others. Well, apparently, it does not do that very well.
If the state really does want deterrence, they could have public beheadings, like they did in such advanced societies such as revolutionary France and in modern Saudi Arabia.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by Marc04

That has got to be one of the most cold hearted things i have ever heard anyone say.

Originally Posted by Marc04

I fail to see what kind of punishment killing the guy does. Its over for him, he's dead, most people who are put to death go into the crime thinking they are going to die, they simply don't care. Like i said, its over for that person.

the only thing it is, is revenage for the family, which is wrong. I would much rather see them rot in a cell, forced to rethink what they did for the rest of their natural life, i see that as a much better punishment.

The only punishment worse then a screaming death would be one that the person is forced into hard labor where they endure hardship after hardship for the rest of their lives. Since that is not done, they should cry like a baby as they go.

You call it cold hearted. I call it retribution. Fully deserved. Fully meted out.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

I would agree marc, the only real use of capital punishment is to serve as a deterrent to others. Well, apparently, it does not do that very well.

Originally Posted by MagicRat

If the state really does want deterrence, they could have public beheadings, like they did in such advanced societies such as revolutionary France and in modern Saudi Arabia.


Capital punishment, as it is used for common prisioners is a nasty and brutal thing. It has no place in a civilized society. The state has no right to take a life, the same as anyone else.
Besides, it costs on average $4 million to execute someone in the US (mostly legal fees and appeals), yet only $1 million to lock them away for 40 years. Save money and lock them away in a really unpleasant place for the rest of their lives

Capital punishment is not meant to be a deterrent to others. Its retribution. Its eye for an eye.

If they want to use it as a deterrent it should be painful. Not only that they should force anyone convicted of a crime who is going to be release to sit down and watch it happen. Let them know they could be next if they fuck up again.

The cost is of no importance. Saving money by keeping them alive is not the issue. They deserve to be punished in the most brutal and painful way possible. You are wrong saying the state has no right to take a life. If you're squemish about have someone executed then give the option to the family of the victim. Let them decide if/how the murderer should be exectued. Even let them do the execution.

Anyone who uses the argument, but they could be found innocent later should stop with that right now. The death penalty should be invoked when there is no question about the guilt. Witnesses, DNA evidence and the entire appeals process. Using the argument that they might be found innocent later is weak. You could use that for everything then. No officer, you should pull me over, it might be found later that I was only going 55 not the 80 you clocked me at.

[2strokebloke]

They deserve to be punished in the most brutal and painful way possible. You are wrong saying the state has no right to take a life.

I vote Yogs becomes a third world dictator!

Nobody has the right to take away the right to live of somebody else. Everytime somebody is put to death, everybody involved has blood on their hands, and it makes them no less murderers than it did the murderer who they murdered.
The death sentence is out-dated, a violation of human rights (as is all murder, no matter who's killing who), and in this day and age, it may very well become an "unusual" punishment. (well at least in civilized, 1st world countries)
As for an "eye for an eye" don't make it sound like the three stooges are sentencing people to death! And as always, the "they could be found innocent" argument is not wrong here. With a speeding ticket, it's just a speeding ticket - not a human life, you can get money back - but once you're dead, well good luck buddy!

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I vote Yogs becomes a third world dictator!

Cool. I appoint you minister of misinformation

Nobody has the right to take away the right to live of somebody else. Everytime somebody is put to death, everybody involved has blood on their hands, and it makes them no less murderers than it did the murderer who they murdered.

I disagree. If you kill someone out of planning or robbery (first degree murder) then your life is forfeit.

The death sentence is out-dated, a violation of human rights (as is all murder, no matter who's killing who), and in this day and age, it may very well become an "unusual" punishment. (well at least in civilized, 1st world countries)
As for an "eye for an eye" don't make it sound like the three stooges are sentencing people to death! And as always, the "they could be found innocent" argument is not wrong here. With a speeding ticket, it's just a speeding ticket - not a human life, you can get money back - but once you're dead, well good luck buddy!

If there are witnesses to murder. Its on video tape. No contraversy, how in the world are they going to be found innocent later? Its irrefutable. Off with their heads!

[2strokebloke]

I'll irrefute you...

Anyway, I already appointed somebody else as dictator, but you're welcome to take on the title of "Ambassador Of Justified Death" and if that doesn't float your boat, we still have an opening for an "Emperor Of Bombardment & Foreign Commercial Intercourse" That means you get to order embargos, and blow things up, I think you'd like the job.
Now I just need to figure a plan for seizing the northwest territories of Canada - gee I'm going off on a Tangent. Anyway back on topic:

If there are witnesses to murder. Its on video tape. No contraversy, how in the world are they going to be found innocent later? Its irrefutable. Off with their heads!

What? You think all of those who have been condemned to death, have video proof of their guilt? You're crazy.

[boingo82]

I don't think it's about retribution. Termination of someone's life is the ONLY way to make SURE they will never be out on the streets again.

Keep them in prison for the rest of their life? They'll be paroled sometime. Life without parole? Well, then with no incentive to be "good prisoners", they make life hell for the guards, and try to escape, sometimes succeeding.

The death penalty IS the only way to keep them off the streets, permanently.

[Marc04]

didn't a wise man once say an eye for an eye will leave the world blind?

I don't see how its a punishment, for those people that turly want to live life like most normal people then yes it is. but for a cold blooded killer, no its just an escape. the easiest way out. i would still rather see him rot in jail

[MagicRat]

Yogs, you said:

I]Capital punishment is not meant to be a deterrent to others. Its retribution. Its eye for an eye.

If they want to use it as a deterrent it should be painful. Not only that they should force anyone convicted of a crime who is going to be release to sit down and watch it happen. Let them know they could be next if they fuck up again.

The cost is of no importance. Saving money by keeping them alive is not the issue. They deserve to be punished in the most brutal and painful way possible. You are wrong saying the state has no right to take a life. If you're squemish about have someone executed then give the option to the family of the victim. Let them decide if/how the murderer should be exectued. Even let them do the execution[/i].


Your logic is seriosly flawed. Capital punishment has been proven not to be a deterrent. Furthermore, there are many countries that punish people in the most brutal way possible, such as Islamic law nations. Yet they still have serious crime issues. There are also nations without capital punishment or brutal punishment who have a far far lower crime rate than those which execute people.

Crime and punishment is far more complicated than you state.

By the way, if you try to take over parts of Canada, we will feed you piece by piece to rabid wolves

[YogsVR4]

My logic is not flawed at all. I know crime and punishment is not a simple line or two on a message board. However, everyone who keeps claiming that the state doesn't have the right to take a life is completely wrong.

Aside from that; who the hell would want to take over Canada? I like it right where it is. I get no end of entertainment by America Jr. I like the beer. Great hockey players and the funny French they speak in Quebec. Its like a little sister demanding to be treated like an adult but using big brothers proximity to stay nice and safe. Now Costa Rica on the other hand…

[stealthj]

woah!!, good thing i will never have to do that, i would never be able to KILL someone like that

if u dont want them on the streets then dont let him out on the street