capotal punishment

[swayside]

since nearly all of the most contravercial subjects have been brought up, i though it fitting to bring this up this topic.
if anyone purposefully takes the life of another human being (aside from war situations), the only fitting punishment for that person is death. life sentences are siutable for manslaughter and a death by neglagence. but if you intentionally kill someone, you deserve no less than to be quickly and efficiently executed.

the punishment should fit the crime!

[DarkCyrstal]

I can't agree with you more. Anything less than the death penalty for first or secend degree murder is an insult to the victim. I think we should bring back harsher executions than lethal injection. Let's bring back crucifiction... upside down during the monday night football! We'd have peoepl tuning in who don't care about football. If you market the death penalty right you could almost balance the stupid budget.

[Len-Mystic]

While it might be fun to watch a person slowly suffocate to death on the cross during football this would create such an uproar from all of the politically correct mothers and good ol' boys that they might ban it all together.

[Askey18]

I agree 100% that the death penalty should be put into effect. I don't know if marketing it would be such a good idea. The death penalty should be seen as more of a redemption for the victim and the victim's family, rather than nation-wide entertainment.

[swayside]

At 12/16/02 12:52 AM, Askey18 wrote: I agree 100% that the death penalty should be put into effect. I don't know if marketing it would be such a good idea. The death penalty should be seen as more of a redemption for the victim and the victim's family, rather than nation-wide entertainment.

of course, but it shouldn't be a redemption. it's there punishment. i could just be how you look at though. i'm not one to agree to disagree but you have got a point.

[Slizor]

swayside....How have you managed(or not as the case may be) to rationally justify being against Abortion, but for Capital Punishment? I mean, all this "The Baby has a right to life!" What about the prisoner?

the punishment should fit the crime!

So if I beat you, I should be beaten? If AnarchyPenguin rapes you, AnarchyPenguin should be raped? What about if you're caught for possession of drugs, what happens then? Say I kill your child(Although I hope that you don't have one/ever have one, there is enough stupid people as it is) do you get to kill mine? Is that not the punishment fitting the crime?

[GekiganFlare]

At 12/16/02 10:08 AM, Slizor wrote: swayside....How have you managed(or not as the case may be) to rationally justify being against Abortion, but for Capital Punishment? I mean, all this "The Baby has a right to life!" What about the prisoner?

the punishment should fit the crime!

So if I beat you, I should be beaten? If AnarchyPenguin rapes you, AnarchyPenguin should be raped? What about if you're caught for possession of drugs, what happens then? Say I kill your child(Although I hope that you don't have one/ever have one, there is enough stupid people as it is) do you get to kill mine? Is that not the punishment fitting the crime?

I personally am against the death penalty for any crime. It just doesn;t sit right with me, and in any case does less to 'payback' the victim(s)/family than other methods. For example making the murderer clean the grave of the victim and work with all money being sent to the family is one idea I had, however its not perfect in the least. Also the implementation would be flawed because of the allready unbalanced judicial system (across the world), judges are corrupt/racist/prejudiced so the application of the proper penalties is always questionable.

Also the death penalty does not allow for mistakes to be rectified, currenty (i know of in the uk) there have been cases of wrongfully executed people being proved innocent because of new evidence etc.

[Tacitacial]

At 12/15/02 09:43 PM, swayside wrote: since nearly all of the most contravercial subjects have been brought up, i though it fitting to bring this up this topic.
if anyone purposefully takes the life of another human being (aside from war situations), the only fitting punishment for that person is death. life sentences are siutable for manslaughter and a death by neglagence. but if you intentionally kill someone, you deserve no less than to be quickly and efficiently executed.

the punishment should fit the crime!

I'm against death penalty, you can't allow yourself to sink to the same level of the criminal, no matter what. Some people may deserve death, but you shouldnt kill them if its not absolutely necessary. You have to be better then them, if they take a life, dont take theirs.

[swayside]

At 12/16/02 10:08 AM, Slizor wrote: swayside....How have you managed(or not as the case may be) to rationally justify being against Abortion, but for Capital Punishment? I mean, all this "The Baby has a right to life!" What about the prisoner?

your just about stupid, aren't you? one of my strongest points in my anti-abortion arguments have been that the unborn child has done absolutely nothing wrong. people that murder, obviously, have done something to merit there own death.

the punishment should fit the crime!

So if I beat you, I should be beaten? If AnarchyPenguin rapes you, AnarchyPenguin should be raped? What about if you're caught for possession of drugs, what happens then? Say I kill your child(Although I hope that you don't have one/ever have one, there is enough stupid people as it is) do you get to kill mine? Is that not the punishment fitting the crime?

in ancient law, if a man raped someone, they would castrate him. if someone stole something, they would cut off their hand. that is the punishment fitting the crime. but we, as a race tend to think of physically harming someone as "barbaric". so we have implimented time sentences that "fits" the crime. but the taking of another human life merits nothing less than that criminal's death.

[swayside]

slizor, can't you see how rediculous what you're saying is. "it's ok to take an innocent life, but it's not ok to take a guilty one". how can you believe that and be intelligent enough to breath at the same time?

[swayside]

At 12/16/02 12:23 PM, warriormage wrote: I'm against death penalty, you can't allow yourself to sink to the same level of the criminal, no matter what. Some people may deserve death, but you shouldnt kill them if its not absolutely necessary. You have to be better then them, if they take a life, dont take theirs.

there's a huge differnce between murder and execution. we're not sinking to their level by executing them. if they deserve death, give it to them.

[Slizor]

your just about stupid, aren't you?

Hmm, that's a tough question, why doesn't someone like you who can't spell capital, capitalise or punctuate, answer for me?

one of my strongest points in my anti-abortion arguments have been that the unborn child has done absolutely nothing wrong. people that murder, obviously, have done something to merit there own death.

That's asinine reasoning. "People who get the death penalty have done something that deserves death."

So if I beat you, I should be beaten? If AnarchyPenguin rapes you, AnarchyPenguin should be raped? What about if you're caught for possession of drugs, what happens then? Say I kill your child(Although I hope that you don't have one/ever have one, there is enough stupid people as it is) do you get to kill mine? Is that not the punishment fitting the crime?

in ancient law, if a man raped someone, they would castrate him. if someone stole something, they would cut off their hand. that is the punishment fitting the crime.

Actually it's not. If someone raped someone, they deserve to be raped, according to your logic of kill and be killed.

but we, as a race tend to think of physically harming someone as "barbaric". so we have implimented time sentences that "fits" the crime. but the taking of another human life merits nothing less than that criminal's death.

So, according to you, if a person violates another's right to life, then they deserve to have theirs violated? Would this executioner then hae their right to life violated, as they violated anothers? Or are you saying that if someone violates the right to life of another, they no longer deserve to have a right to life? They are in a way, non-human, not deserving of moral status. This seems like a very big decision for any human to make. Surely, if you are Christian, you realise that such judgements are divine, and should be left to God.

[Slizor]

slizor, can't you see how rediculous what you're saying is. "it's ok to take an innocent life, but it's not ok to take a guilty one". how can you believe that?

Thing is, I don't believe that. I don't have your notions of guilty and innocent, it would involve me believing that there is an ultimate truth to the world and thus an ultimate moral code, for which all beings can be judged. I'm not as arrogant as that. I believe it is okay to take a non-sentient life but not to take a sentient one(I am aware that there are different layers of sentiency). And that is what a foetus is, non-sentient. Once it becomes sentient then it deserves a right to life.

[swayside]

At 12/17/02 04:33 PM, Slizor wrote:

your just about stupid, aren't you?

Hmm, that's a tough question, why doesn't someone like you who can't spell capital, capitalise or punctuate, answer for me?

this comming from someone who would kill the innocent and protect the guilty? you need to sort out your beliefs before you try to staighten out my english.

:"People who get the death penalty have done something that deserves death."

in a perfect world (where you don't exist), yes

Or are you saying that if someone violates the right to life of another, they no longer deserve to have a right to life?

yes. once a human kills another, they forfeit their right to live. it's only fair that they should die.

and there is a difference between a murder and an execution. in murder, the killer does it for his own intentions. in an execution (the like of which i have been talking about) the killer is doing it for the betterment of society in accordance with his duty.

:They are...not deserving of moral status. This seems like a very big decision for any human to make. Surely, if you are Christian, you realise that such judgements are divine, and should be left to God.

yes, but God has made his law obviously clear. the murderer may rectify himself with God, but he still deserves his own physical death for causing that of another human.

[swayside]

At 12/17/02 04:40 PM, Slizor wrote:

slizor, can't you see how rediculous what you're saying is. "it's ok to take an innocent life, but it's not ok to take a guilty one". how can you believe that?

Thing is, I don't believe that. I don't have your notions of guilty and innocent, it would involve me believing that there is an ultimate truth to the world and thus an ultimate moral code, for which all beings can be judged. I'm not as arrogant as that. I believe it is okay to take a non-sentient life but not to take a sentient one(I am aware that there are different layers of sentiency). And that is what a foetus is, non-sentient. Once it becomes sentient then it deserves a right to life.

sentiency doesn't matter. if it's alive and it's human (which every unborn child is no matter what) it is wrong to take that life. so even with your trying to reason your way out of it, you believe that it is ok to take an innocent life, but wrong to take a guilty one.

[Slizor]

Or are you saying that if someone violates the right to life of another, they no longer deserve to have a right to life?

yes. once a human kills another, they forfeit their right to live. it's only fair that they should die.

You're really promoting the sanctity of life there!
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Gandhi.

and there is a difference between a murder and an execution. in murder, the killer does it for his own intentions. in an execution (the like of which i have been talking about) the killer is doing it for the betterment of society in accordance with his duty.

In both there is a motive to kill, the result, death.

They are...not deserving of moral status. This seems like a very big decision for any human to make. Surely, if you are Christian, you realise that such judgements are divine, and should be left to God.

yes, but God has made his law obviously clear. the murderer may rectify himself with God, but he still deserves his own physical death for causing that of another human.

You can't agree with me then say something to the opposite of it! Do you agree that only God should have the authority to start life, and to end life? I mean, it is his gift, no?

[Slizor]

sentiency doesn't matter. if it's alive and it's human (which every unborn child is no matter what) it is wrong to take that life.

Explain to me why a non-sentient human is more worthy of life, then say, a dolphin, or some other sentient, intelligent creature. A definition of sentiency is that the thing can suffer. A foetus(until a point) can not suffer, it is a glob of cells.

so even with your trying to reason your way out of it, you believe that it is ok to take an innocent life, but wrong to take a guilty one.

No, I don't. Those are your value judgements there, not mine.

[EZ3]

What about the wrongly accused? What about those who did it in self defense?

[swayside]

At 12/19/02 04:05 PM, EZ3 wrote: What about those who did it in self defense?

in self defense cases the defender should not be responsible. if someone is trying to kill you, and you kill them in self defense, it's not your fault. only when there are too many indications that the death of the attacker was supremely unnecessary, or that self defense went from that to malice, sould the defender be at fault for anything.

[the-unknown-soldier]

Ok lets think about this for a minute...
The option that is considered more barbaric is 'the person gets to site in court every 2nd day for about 2 years and stair his victim's family right in the face, before the execution gets put on the news and he becomes a celebrity, is given a swift and painless death and according to most inmates that are christians they have said sorry and penanced so they think they are going to heaven (if you are christian then it is your believe that the person will go to heaven.)

ok option 2

For the rest of this mans life he is told what time to wake up what time to sleep, he is counted 5 times a day and is probably raped in the shores. By the time he his like 80 he will have a billion diseases which are badly treated for in jail and he will die anyway.

By not excuting a person you are making his death slow and painful, daily ripping away his soul with metal cruelty and absolute control. You, instead of letting him go to heaven straight away are making him wait forever. He will not become famous, He will not site in court. He will have a miserable life.

Now people are complaining that execution is barabaric???

Other facts: It costs the goverment less to house a man in his 20's until the day he dies, than to spend billions on apeals and shit in court. and to execute him.

if we find that he is innocent, fingerprints...dna who knows what technology we will have in 20 years time, we can sleep a little easier at night knowing that we are not murderers rather just really mean muda fuckers.

I am thankfull that we do not have executions in australia, i don't want to make it easy for the murderers.

[Tacitacial]

there's a huge differnce between murder and execution. we're not sinking to their level by executing them. if they deserve death, give it to them.

It still comes down to killing on purpose, a sentient being deserves life. And justice isn't about revenge, or getting even with someone.

[rXvox]

It still comes down to killing on purpose, a sentient being deserves life. And justice isn't about revenge, or getting even with someone.

^^^^
Agreed. It's all about revenge.
Death Penalty is stoopid

[swayside]

At 12/20/02 10:52 AM, SPiNDLE_XL wrote:

It still comes down to killing on purpose, a sentient being deserves life. And justice isn't about revenge, or getting even with someone.

^^^^
Agreed. It's all about revenge.
Death Penalty is stoopid

i disagree, it's all about justice.
the death penalty is just.

[the-unknown-soldier]

Nobody replys to what i said??? that took me ages to type annd i wannna here what all you pro execution guys think about it...tell me@!!!! Bloody hell when i tried to put this with a wuote of my post it said 'the quote is too long. thats how long it took....tell me what you think

[swayside]

At 12/20/02 04:45 AM, the_unknown_soldier wrote: ...the person gets to site in court every 2nd day for about 2 years and stair his victim's family right in the face,

i don't think that the trials should go on as long asd they do. as citizens, and even as criminals, we have the right to a swift and expediant trial.

before the execution gets put on the news and he becomes a celebrity, is given a swift and painless death...

i'm not for televising/sensationalising of murder cases. it's close to impossible to give an unbias and in depth report, much less find one these days.

also, i don't think that executions should be as swift and painless as most are today. i mean, i'm not for bleeding them to death, but there should be harsher methods than lethal injection (cough cough, ack!, oh how terrible)

ok option 2

For the rest of this mans life he is told what time to wake up what time to sleep, he is counted 5 times a day and is probably raped in the shores. By the time he his like 80 he will have a billion diseases which are badly treated for in jail and he will die anyway.

but that would be just. if they kill someone, they shouldn't just be allowed to die. they should be executed with a cold, machanical precision. besides there are too many variables in your "option 2".

Now people are complaining that execution is barabaric???

i'm not. it's only fair.

sorry for not responding to this sooner.

[the-unknown-soldier]

At 12/20/02 10:41 PM, swayside wrote:

At 12/20/02 04:45 AM, the_unknown_soldier wrote: ...the person gets to site in court every 2nd day for about 2 years and stair his victim's family right in the face,

i don't think that the trials should go on as long asd they do. as citizens, and even as criminals, we have the right to a swift and expediant trial.

People get apeal after apeal after apeal, the trial should be thoghrough

i'm not for televising/sensationalising of murder cases. it's close to impossible to give an unbias and in depth report, much less find one these days.

But doesn't the press have a right to say 'this man will die in 10 days.... what are you going to stop the press talking about execution...thats a symptom of killing someone..changing that would be against the first ammendment

also, i don't think that executions should be as swift and painless as most are today. i mean, i'm not for bleeding them to death, but there should be harsher methods than lethal injection (cough cough, ack!, oh how terrible)

But what is more painful, phycologically than a slow 80 year death. that is more painful than anything you will ever come up with.

ok option 2

but that would be just. if they kill someone, they shouldn't just be allowed to die. they should be executed with a cold, machanical precision. besides there are too many variables in your "option 2".

What variables are there exactly????? finding out the guy is innocent. I'm Australian ok and the last man to be hung in Victoria was innocent. He tried to escape and they said he shot a guard when in fact he did not. But now he is dead...what a variable that is.

Now people are complaining that execution is barabaric???

i'm not. it's only fair.

I meant that to say that a life sentense is more barbarick than an execution.

sorry for not responding to this sooner.

I fogrive you :p respond again though

[swayside]

At 12/20/02 11:55 PM, the_unknown_soldier wrote: People get apeal after apeal after apeal, the trial should be thoghrough

of course it should. but it shouldn't take as long as it does for most cases.

But doesn't the press have a right to say 'this man will die in 10 days.... what are you going to stop the press talking about execution...thats a symptom of killing someone..changing that would be against the first ammendment

sorry if i sounded like i'm trying to keep the press out of anything. i'm a fan of the john peter zenger trial. sure they can and should be allowed to report on such cases, but it's annoying how they can sensationalize them. remmember o.j.?

What variables are there exactly?????

well, you say that, in jail, they will get raped in the showers, get many diseases, and be miserable. for that to be a certainty, you would have to schedule certain times for another criminal to butt-rape him. also, you would have to make sure that you get a good variety of diseased people to wank him. also, there are some people that make the best of any situation. there's no guarentee that they would be miserable in prison. those are all variables of the like of which i was speaking.

[lostremote0001]

The problem with a life sentance, is that people often are out in 7 years or less. If they kept murderers in there for their whole lives, it would be a fitting punishment for a murder(however uncomparable). Thats my stance anyway.

[the-unknown-soldier]

Nah your getting yourself confused....when you kill someone like 3rd degree or sumtin they will go "LIFE" (with a minimum of 15 years cough cough) But when there are really bad crimes eg the hobart masicare or somethign they say 'LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE'

Do you know how phychologically challenging to loose your liberty. To have no control over anything.....it is absolute torture.

[swayside]

At 12/21/02 01:55 AM, lostremote0001 wrote: The problem with a life sentance, is that people often are out in 7 years or less.

i've always wondered why that is. it's so stupidl