WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THE DEATH PENALTY?

Post Reply New Topic

You apologized for what you said yet now you're going to go at me because I criticized you for what you said. Is irony a subtlety lost on you?

That's an admission from someone with a spine. I congratulate you.

I do not disagree. Murder is a punishment that should carry 25 years minimum and even then I think that's soft, but then again I would say good behaviour must be taken in to account somewhere along the line. The only factors that should reduce the punishment or clear it are pounding abuse, blackmail or self-defence. But do not think to try and confuse the arguments of lenient sentencing and the death penalty. I have already had the guy with the eagle avatar admit to saying that long incercerations and Death Penalties can be considered sometimes equal in how tough they are and I am all for tough sentences on flagrant offenders.

I can understand, but if you let structural problems act as an excuse of what is otherwise bad law then you give up any sort of mandate to make and lay down the law.

And you don't need an organised movement to rip up the rails then, Reality will turn against you: Expediency does not allow anyone to make premature judgements on someone's life fairly.

That is an injustice guaranteed to create resistance and also a polarized movement that goes too far and makes soft justice seem reasonable. Then the whole legal system will be warped by partisan politics. At the end the whole system will be a mixture of unreasonable compromises from both sides and the society you hoped to protect will only be worse off for it.

By not willing to follow a higher ideal to the letter one creates the catalyst for terrible consequences and misery.

This coming from the man who constantly used sarcasm against me. If you want to accuse me of making personal attacks I'd like you to point to where I did so, just once, rather than make some ghostly addendum and bank on someone being gullible.


Hysterics? If reasoned argument about why sarcasm is cheap and pointing out that you are trying to use weak sentencing as an excuse for enforcing the death penalty is specious as hysterical then I wonder what your definition for hysterics are.

Your belittling use of emoticons to try and shut me up, oh how it makes you sound like a bleeting lamb when you complain that I am not allowing you to express your view. I can't stop you expressing your view. In fact you have made your view clear already, unless you're saying that I am not allowed to criticize what you said. Yet you... criticized me from the very beginning. That sounds sociopathic.

By the way you don't need to add some barbed invitation. Rattlesnakes don't invite people to dinner.

Well prison overcrowding isn't the only issue I have with life sentencing, I firmly believe that some people in this world are just pure evil and beyond help. Certain people should not be allowed a chance to walk free and continue killing and hurting people, and I don't believe good behavior should be taken into account when the murderer is a sociopath who knows how to manipulate the system.

I feel that death sentencing can be OK just as long as the prisoner isn't tortured and is given some decency in their final days. Obviously some murders don't deserve a death sentencing if the murderer was doing it out of self defence of if they were mentally ill and not in control of their actions. But there are some downright hanus crimes that I believe deserve no mercy or second chances. Like the sickos who rape and murder children or the kind of killers who take advantage of people and murder them just to get their money. Where do you draw the line when it comes to killers like this? I don't think people like this should ever be allowed to be a part of society and given the chance to kill again.

Then let them rot, and don't let the innocent get lumped in with them. That

Manipulate the system yes, but then that only calls up more questions about the system not being able to control itself and letting bystanders die. I have nothing against life sentences, and I mean life, but I will not allow harm to come to another without good cause and the death penalty is a killer of the innocent in the end.


I don't like the fact that people get crushed in the gears of the legal system. It shouldn't happen ever. End the death sentence and you end the capital punishment of innocents. And in the end prisoners just stay boxed up.

I am not intending ever to let such types go Grey. I offer the acceptable alternative of life in sensu stricto sentence. It will stop those who are caught in the gears from dying. It will also remove the most appalling people from society, who indeed have defiled so much, from doing anything dangerous again and make them rot in impotence.

Please do not say that I think these monsters should be let go. You didn't know what I thought of the truly bad offenders. I gave you the minimum of 25 for good behaviour in standard cases. That's as steep as Mt Mckinley already, the way it should be.

The real point where one should consider the death penalty at all is Genocide.

I guess when you get down to it there's a problem with both solutions. With the Death Penalty you run the risk of killing people who are actually innocent or at least don't deserve to die, and with Life Sentencing you are giving truely evil killers a chance to some day get out of prison and kill again. Of course not doing anything about these crimes would be anarchy, so what can we do? These are just some of the difficult choices every society has to make and there really is no right solution.

Ignorance is strength. Don't you know?

........and war is peace and freedom is slavery.

Tis better the state kill 1 innocent man than let 9 guilty men live.
Tis better the state let 9 injured/sick/disabled people die on the street than let 1 lazy free-loader abuse the system.

I think I'm starting to understand how right-wing people think...

We should add "cruelty is compassion" to the newspeak dictionary as well.

Inquiring minds want to know why this thread is in "News and Current Events" rather than PPR.

There is a right solution, it's called banning the death penalty. Without the death penalty no innocents die. Innocents not dying is more important than an increased prison budget, unless you're a gutless, unfeeling animal. Also I am not saying that with life sentencing one lets 'truly evil' killers get out. I mean life as in life. As in until they die.

I am not saying not doing anything at all. I am saying give long prison sentences, sometimes until the criminals die. Why you added that in there I don't know, it's superfluous.

Of course, that's why the ignorant are at the bottom of the pile, why the ignorant are always in retreat. You know 1984 was supposed to be a commentary on a psychopathic society right? That you're both tooting its horn makes you both seem desperate to shut me up or maybe...

That's your question, not anyone else's. Quit hiding. And maybe it's because I was replying to the other two people's criticisms already made in this thread against other people. Pot calling kettle black.

Dictionaries don't contain phrases. I can see why you'd want to think that ignorance is strength. Also, how heartless. You would let innocent men die so you can keep your cherished death sentence? I offer the acceptable alternative of life imprisonment and no innocents dying at all. Life as in proper life imprisonment. Yet you start throwing a hissy fit by making specious rules about what is right and wrong.

Your next example however is absolutely disgusting. You would let nine people, NINE people die so you could root out one person who was abusing the system? You would let the majority die so that you would prevent a minority from cheating. This is absolutely evil and it only highlights the monstrosity of your arguments. This is pitiful fanaticism. It isn't even a good metaphor, because those 'lazy freeloaders' would get away scot free whilst you would be left swimming in an ocean of innocent blood, and I mean an ocean.

It is also a weakling argument. Soft know-nothings who try to ignore an issue rather than fix it for good, who try to defend their insolent and arrogant beliefs that insist on allowing innocent blood to flow rather than making suggestions that save lives. These are the arguments of people who would rather let societies die rather than change.

Hold on now and back up up a bit. You're way, way off on your interpretation of marshall's comments. He's being facetious. I also think this thread is closer to PPR territory than News. And I'm 100% opposed to the death penalty.

Here's his post

I already said that other people had already done it, so when they start complaining about me doing it then it's pot calling kettle black.
If you take a casual look on this forum people do actually debate on most of the threads, so complaining when I am doing it is more like an attempt to muzzle me.
And to be honest how do you know if he's being facetious? Who even care's whether it's facetious? It's disgusting. One can't just say abominable things and then say 'I was being facetious' as a get out free card.

if there is no "stay" of execution, then i suppose the rules insist that the execution is completed.
i think that after the execution of the prisoner, all those that participated in the prisoners execution should be arrested and tried for murder, and after conviction, sentenced to death.

i hope you can imagine the rest

sorry my battery is almost dead