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

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I have to admit I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please clarify.

"Cutting your own switch" refers to the custom of getting whipped. Your parent sends you out to cut a branch (the switch) off of the tree, then you get whipped with it. If it's too thin, you're told to go get another one. Heaven help you if the second one is too small.


I'm against hypocrisy; only those that are completely ignorant and without thought are strongly and continually hypocritical. That said, I think it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone.

It's more of a punishment to be locked in a 2m x 2m concrete cell with no outside contact for the rest of your life than to be killed. Some would say it's inhumane, but that's what should be substituted for the death penalty - you go to this cell until you die. You have nothing, see nothing except your once a day meal. The light comes on at 6am and goes off at 6pm. You have a toilet and a sink. No magazines, no TV, nothing other than your meals comes into the cell. The only thing that comes out of your cell is you - when you're dead.

[AlmostStock]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

It's more of a punishment to be locked in a 2m x 2m concrete cell with no outside contact for the rest of your life than to be killed. Some would say it's inhumane, but that's what should be substituted for the death penalty - you go to this cell until you die. You have nothing, see nothing except your once a day meal. The light comes on at 6am and goes off at 6pm. You have a toilet and a sink. No magazines, no TV, nothing other than your meals comes into the cell. The only thing that comes out of your cell is you - when you're dead.

The state could save a whole lot of money like that! Good thread by all. I am especially intrigued by 2strokes thoughts. I never thought of it in that way but it makes sense. I was always for the death penalty. Now I'm not so sure.

[scuba4321]

I am 100% for the death penalty, for murder, child molesters, and rape. I work in public safety, spent time working in a jail, with those convicted of the same crimes. I ask this to you all, would you want to work next to a person who was lawfully convicted of murder or rape, but was released because he has been "reformend" or now says "violence is very bad". All these criminals from hard core felons to the town drunk, seem to find Jesus, and denounce criminal activities very quickly when they enter the cell walls. Just like kids say "mom I promise I will not do it again!" Punish them and punish them swiftly. One appeal, and that should be it!

[YogsVR4]

I support the death penalty. I also think it needs to be used for only the most heinous of crimes. Lets just call it a late term societal abortion. As a society we have determined that we don't want these individuals and made the decision to abort them.

Blokes argument that "The concept of punishment in and of itself is really pretty asinine and childish" is outlandish. Then to say "Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye?" Being in jail is punishment so that negates the first foolish statement. The idea that capitol punishment is a three stooges ideology is beyond tenuous.

I believe that an eye for an eye is the proper punishment for violent crimes. (That's not to say a rapist must be raped).

I also believe 'cruel and unusual' should be amended to say 'cruel and unusual for the offense'. A pickpocket belongs in jail to pay for a short period, drug pushers belong in for a long period, drug users belong in rehab, and murders belong in the electric chair.

[jcsaleen]

What they did to tookie williams is a complete injustice and the fact Gov. schwarzenegger did it because his base is pro death penalty is even worse. That man made a complete 180 and the justice system isn't showing what they're main goal is... "REFORM!" If a man like this isn't able to get out then whats that saying to all. He killed four people (which to this day he still maintains his innocence because no hard facts were ever produced) He goes completely again what he once stood for wrote books to try and stop gang violence and succeeded (probably saved alot more lives then he "supposedly" took) as well. He is also a winner of the noble peace PRICE! For christ sake what more must you do to redeem yourself!

[fredjacksonsan]

Just because he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean he didn't commit the crimes. He was found guilty of killing 4 people. On purpose. That is why he was still executed, according to law.

[jcsaleen]

The justice system was meant for reformation and rehabilatation so this is there example.... ?

[fredjacksonsan]

I agree that if someone is rehabilitated, they should get a chance. But the guilty verdict was appealed numerous times, and the courts could not find the evidence to prove he didn't do it. He still did it, whether or not he's reformed or not. I'm not saying I like it that way (see my previous) but that's what the law says.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Blokes argument that "The concept of punishment in and of itself is really pretty asinine and childish" is outlandish. Then to say "Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye?" Being in jail is punishment so that negates the first foolish statement.

Obviously we have different views. I see it this way: if somebody is allergic to peanuts you keep peanuts away from them. You're not "punishing" the peanuts, you're keeping them away for the safety of the people that would be harmed by them. In the same way, you're keeping people away from the people they have harmed/will harm by putting them in prison. It's not intended as a punishment, it is simply a seperation from the public for the safety of the public. Is that such an outlandish and crazy concept to believe in?

[elementskater15]

I can see where your coming from but,...if you kill someone, you need more than just to be separated from the general public dont ya think?

[jcsaleen]

Originally Posted by elementskater15

I can see where your coming from but,...if you kill someone, you need more than just to be separated from the general public dont ya think?

Yes it least that but he should be kept alive atleast. I'm not saying let him go but if you look at the cases. A. There was a no solid evidence to prove he did it. B. He's made a complete role reversal.

[elementskater15]

I do agree with you that you need to be proven 100% guilty. People meed to just toughen up and realize that if you are able to take person's life, your life needs to be taken in exchange at least. I think I watch too much Fullmetal Alchemist...

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by elementskater15

......if you kill someone, you need more than just to be separated from the general public dont ya think?

Why?

[elementskater15]

Why? I have a little difficulty wording complex stuff like this so bear with me. Think of it this way;if someone kills a member of your family, you'd want them dead, right? If you have the mental ability(or disabilty) to actually kill someone, you are really nothing more than a burden to the already failing society we live in. Think of Hitler as an extreme example. Because of him, millions of people died. Did he deserve to die? Yes. Think about Sadaam. He had many people tortured and executed. Does he deserve death? You bet. The only people that should be in prison are those that can be refermed and become funcioning memebers of society again. After you kill someone, you never forget how simple and quick is can be to take a person's life. Therefore, he/she shouldn't have the opportunity to be in society again. I still stand by my philosophy of "an eye for an eye." I dont see why people actually want to save these murderers. So if you kill someone you deserve to live for free with three meals a day in a climate controlled building? No, I dont think so.

[TexasF355F1]

Don't think his murders warrant his death?

How about looking at the bodies of a few of his victims? (Gruesome!)
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-pr...msvictims.html

Read this from MSN on-air personality Tucker Carlson (who opposes the death penalty):
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8063569/

To me it's not about whether he should have lived of died, it's about justice. He never showed remorse, never said he was sorry, and up until about 6 months ago when Jamie Foxx starred in the movie about Tookie no one knew who the hell he was. I know I sure as hell didn't.

And I don't honestly believe he wrote any of those books. And from what I've been hearing, he never really did write them. If he was so adimate about keeping kids out of gangs, then why is his son a crips member and in jail at the current time? Why wasn't he out preaching at schools from elementary to high school to college? If he was truly the man the celebrities claim he was he would have been! And they would have let him go speak publicly if that's what he was going to do. I firmly believe that.

The guy started one of the most infamous and notorious gangs not only in California, but all over the country. Does anyone expect me or anyone else for that matter believe that he never robbed, assaulted or killed anyone? HELL FUCKING NO!!! That's what gangs do. If you don't believe that than you never went to school with gang members or personally knew any.

The guys gone, he wasn't a saint so everyone needs to stop treating him like he was.

Edit: And if you want to cut down the homicide rate in the country we have to go centuries back....Public Execution. Hanging's, Be-headings, Roman style - lions, etc. Then maybe people would think before killing others.

And just because the guy denied doesn't mean it's true. There were other facts that the media never tends to mention. That he boasted about the killings to people he knew. He was a cold blooded killer, and that's that.