suca Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 im sure theres already been a thread on this but dammit, im too lzy to search and im honestly interested in the responses yall might have. DEATH PENELTY: FOR or AGAINST and WHY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suca Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 personally, i am against the death penalty. i firmly believe that people who commit horrible crimes or kill innocent people should pay the price, but life after death is strictly based on theory and opinion. since we dont know what happens when we die, it seems to be an unfit punishment because maybe death just isnt all that bad? in the case of fucked up serial killers, dont give them a paintless injection that for all we know may not be so bad, make them live out the rest of their life in utter hell. being tortured, disrespected, ETC. let them live out their sentance in misery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I believe you can't kill people to show them that killing is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Module X Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 The cost to taxpayers to incarcerate people for life sentences is huge. Just something to think about. I don't support the death penalty though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulkillers Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 i am for the death penalty, but there needs to be guildlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquemada Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 for, just because some people really deserve to die. and like the dude up said it's going to cost a lot of money to keep some fool locked up forever, why even keep the dude alive if his life is finished? you keep the dude in to "pay for he did" he'll just probably be spending his life fucking up/raping kids doing 3 months for stealing an ipod, why let the dude keep fucking up people's lives, just end that shit quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suca Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 i understand youre argument about the financial issues, but i still say torture the fuck outtaq some sick bastard for a short while before the deed is done. from what ive heard, death row people are accomidated kinda nice which is bulllll. throw the fucker in a hole inthe ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_igma Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 an eye for an eye man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 5 5 thats a tight one! rape kidnap murder any of those are enough for an execution,bullet in back of head,quick and less suffering for the criminal,and should be done quick,with a quick trial not those 6 year trials. thats what i think... peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suca Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 why less suffring for the criminal though? considering that suffering is usually what the victim went through, it only seems fair to execute the criminal in a torterous way. if going by the eye for an eye ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunt double Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 i am against the death penalty because it isn't just punishment for a criminal, it has undue effects their family, who haven't done anything, if a criminal are in there for life, at least their family can see them, talk to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulkillers Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 i am against the death penalty because it isn't just punishment for a criminal, it has undue effects their family, who haven't done anything, if a criminal are in there for life, at least their family can see them, talk to them.good point but staticstally(sp) most death row inmate and inmates doing life rarely get vistors after the first couple of years. but what about the victums family? there family was interupted by the acts of one person making they choice to commit that crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunt double Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 i know, the victims family has to deal with it, but it isn't going to rectify the situation or undo the crime by putting someone else's family (who have done nothing wrong) through losing a loved one. that is a situation where the state should be able to rise above the pettiness of the "eye for an eye" mentality, and show compassion for people where the criminal didn't. otherwise executions are not justice, just an act of revenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost`25 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Check this. You people for the death penalty face a paradox. What is murder exactly? Lets say its killing an innocent person. Ok, so if you accidentally put to death an innocent person, you are a murderer, we all are, and by your own logic you deserve to die. An eye for an eye, we both lose our sight, and two wrongs don't make a right. Humans make mistakes, its our nature, and someone being put to death because someone didn't conduct a proper investigation and instead just wanted to win a case is NOT JUST. A prosecutor who doesn't win a lot doesn't stay one for long. Penn and Teller did a special on this on their show Bullshit, I suggest all of you look for it and watch it with an open mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulkillers Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 when you plan and carry a murder it is not a mistake. you make the choice to commit murder. you make the choice to fire into a house of someone you dont like not careing who or what you hit. that is not a mistake, it is a total disregard for them human life and you deserve to die, not to grow old on the tax dollars i pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost`25 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 If you are after one person, you DO care who you hit. Imagine just randomly firing into their house, not even knowing if they're home? Thats just fucking dumb. When you are after one particular person, you look for them and them only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o.O Almost Free Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I have always been a firm believer of "an eye for an eye" If someone Murders someone. Then they should in fact suffer the same fate as the person they murdered. But If i had my choice I'd also put all petofiles on to the death sentence. If the murder was an accidental then the death penalty should not be given. For example. If someone was in a bar fight and hit the person in the head, the person in fact died later that night from the injuries he suffered in the fight. there should be no death penalty. BUT if someone goes out with intent to kill someone, and does so. then by all mean's give them the death penalty. thats just my thoughts anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulkillers Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 If you are after one person, you DO care who you hit. Imagine just randomly firing into their house, not even knowing if they're home? Thats just fucking dumb. When you are after one particular person, you look for them and them only.but if that one pertson is not alone most of the time person with them dies too. IE ron goldman and nicloe brown simpson. you are more likely to get murder by someone you know. so. ie lady who killed all her kids in texas andrea yates i think was her last name.when you kill someone you dont care. if you by accident kill dudes sister when you were trying to shot him. you dont care you hurt them in another way. killiers ,rapist, and child molster dont care. thet diserve to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Some people deserve to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 i think in a primitive society the death sentence is necessary because of both the cost of incarceration and the risk of the damage that could occur from a repeat offence. however ithink in modern society the death penalty has no place simply because of the huge chance that they are executing the wrong person and if this is done there is zero chance of rectification of injustice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost`25 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 You know who invented the "Lethal Injection" (which by the way is now the most popular way of the death sentence)? Fred Leuchter. Any idea who that is? He was in charge of finding a new way to kill people "unworthy of life" in Auschwitz. Lethal injection is a Nazi practice, and for us to call it human is ironic beyond belief. Lethal injection sometimes doesn't even come to standards for putting animals to sleep. Anyone even know what happens during the process? First your put to sleep by a drug called Sodium thiopental, it lasts about a minute. After that you get a dose of Pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes your respiratory system. Finaly you get dosed with Potassium chloride, which forces you into cardiac arrest. Sounds simple and harmless, but the system is flawed. The correct dosage amount of the first drug depends on you. Everyone has a different amount that works for them. Autopsy's have shown that some prisoners have not been dosed enough for them to loose consciousness, but only to be non-mobile. So some prisoners have been fully aware of whats happening and probably suffered through not being able to breath and a significant amount of pain near the end. The only person lethal injection is human for, is the person administering the drugs. Know the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 i think in a primitive society the death sentence is necessary because of both the cost of incarceration and the risk of the damage that could occur from a repeat offence. however ithink in modern society the death penalty has no place simply because of the huge chance that they are executing the wrong person and if this is done there is zero chance of rectification of injustice. Actually, it is the reverse. In "primitive" society, the chances of a false conviction are far greater, BECAUSE the methods of DNA testing did not exist/were not perfected, and evidence was in many cases circumstantial. In modern society, we have exhaustive methods of gathering evidence. That does not mean we do it correctly, but the ability is there. I don't think that anyone should be sentanced to death if there is anything less than 100% assuredness and even then in the most extreme of cases. Currently, the system is still flawed, lab conditions are a disgrace and full of lazy technitions, and police still falsify evidence no matter what CSI will have the public believe. If anything, it is far more expensive to incarcerate a prisoner now than before because of higher standards of living in prisons--if you can call being imprisoned life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 You know who invented the "Lethal Injection" (which by the way is now the most popular way of the death sentence)? Fred Leuchter. Any idea who that is? He was in charge of finding a new way to kill people "unworthy of life" in Auschwitz. Lethal injection is a Nazi practice, and for us to call it human is ironic beyond belief. Lethal injection sometimes doesn't even come to standards for putting animals to sleep. Anyone even know what happens during the process? First your put to sleep by a drug called Sodium thiopental, it lasts about a minute. After that you get a dose of Pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes your respiratory system. Finaly you get dosed with Potassium chloride, which forces you into cardiac arrest. Sounds simple and harmless, but the system is flawed. The correct dosage amount of the first drug depends on you. Everyone has a different amount that works for them. Autopsy's have shown that some prisoners have not been dosed enough for them to loose consciousness, but only to be non-mobile. So some prisoners have been fully aware of whats happening and probably suffered through not being able to breath and a significant amount of pain near the end. The only person lethal injection is human for, is the person administering the drugs. Know the facts. Lethal injection has been around longer than the Nazis. The ancient Greeks used arsenic. It was not an injection, but the concept is still the same and the chances of a person being aware they were dying was 100%. Who knows, maybe people who are killed by lethal injection experience it even in sleep. I think it is ridiculous that they do not simply use the same anesthetia as they do in surgery, where the person is completely put under in a controlled manner, for as long as possible. I've been under general anesthetia several times and I don't remember a thing that happened between when I was counting down from 10 and when I woke up in insufferable pain. The methods used in lethal injection vary from state to state, some use too much poison and that is becoming a huge issue, several states have shut down their death penalty programs until it becomes sorted out. I don't think it should be that complicated, it is not hard to induce a coma. And don't use the Nazi comparison, it's a stupid comparison. Those in concentration camps were guilty of no crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulkillers Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 we need to bring back the firing squad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Actually, it is the reverse. In "primitive" society, the chances of a false conviction are far greater, BECAUSE the methods of DNA testing did not exist/were not perfected, and evidence was in many cases circumstantial. In modern society, we have exhaustive methods of gathering evidence. That does not mean we do it correctly, but the ability is there. I don't think that anyone should be sentanced to death if there is anything less than 100% assuredness and even then in the most extreme of cases. Currently, the system is still flawed, lab conditions are a disgrace and full of lazy technitions, and police still falsify evidence no matter what CSI will have the public believe. If anything, it is far more expensive to incarcerate a prisoner now than before because of higher standards of living in prisons--if you can call being imprisoned life. haha im not saying that the chances of a wrongful conviction are lower in primitive society im saying that i think the consequence of allowing a known criminal to continue living in your society are much higher than they are today. In that in a tribal setting or something similar a thief can deprive a family of their ability to survive in a single hit where as in contemporary society that isnt anywhere near the case. The same thing goes for what owuld seem to be less harmful crimes like adultery or something that can severely damage the social fabric and in a primitive monogamous society would require a precedent being set against it or risk social breakdown. and in real terms it is nowhere near the case that being incarcerated is mroe expensive now than it would be in soem small agrarian community. At least one person would be needed to guard a prisoner constantly (as well as soem kind of prison needing to be constructed in the first place) both of which would be a ridiculously high drain on the community and neither of hwich can really be warranted in situations with high resource scarcity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Why not swallow a tiny grenade? That would be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 definately for the death penalty under the right set of circumstances. The death penalty is a preventative measure and will deter people from crimes. It works in other countries, the crime rate in Saudi Arabia is almost nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 yeha i wish i lived in a country just like saudi arabia... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 dude, you have no clue what saudi arabia is like. And if you don't want to go there, then don't. And don't speak on what you have no clue about. If saudi is not your cup of tea, fine, but we're talking about the death penalty not whether you'd like to have a vacation home in Mecca or not. The point of the death penalty is to deter crime and when I was in saudi arabia, jewelry store owners would leave their shops un attended to go pray with millions of people from every country roaming about. Now if that's not a shining example of how the death penalty (along with fearing God) works , then I don't know what is. *not that they kill you for stealing, they just cut your hand off, but who's being picky? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I don't know man i just cant really respect a place where the leaders are trillionaires from stealing the resources of the country and then if a poor person steals something their hands are cut off. seems a bit hypocritical to me. what would jesus or mohammed say about the social structure in saudi arabia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.