Death Penalty?

[evilstrawberry]

Are you for or against the death penalty?

[GunCrave]

Not only am I for the death penalty, I'm for improving it so people wait less on deathrow and suffer more during execution.

[HighlyIllogical]

I am against it, for it is both immoral and not cost effective. In actuality, it is cheaper to incarcerate someone for life without parole than to execute them, including trial costs.

[evilstrawberry]

I guess in making the thread I should post my opinion. I think it is wrong, if you kill someone who killed someone, then you are a killer to. It is imoral and as the above statement, it is cheaper to keep them alive.

[Elamdri]

can't make it more painful, execution cannot involve excess pain or it boarders into the realm of torture.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

why shouldnt we make them think they are dead??? wire them to a machinewhichputsliquidfoodinyourbloodthing
y, and put them in a dark room.. keep them alive for EVER that's more funny.

[Imperator]

For. I think we should put in express lanes for people with previous convictions, or just do it texas style. Quick, cheap, and easy.

[Trendwhore]

At 2/19/06 03:22 PM, mackid wrote: I am against it, for it is both immoral and not cost effective. In actuality, it is cheaper to incarcerate someone for life without parole than to execute them, including trial costs.

I also think it's amoral and that it degrades a society when it kills those who do not follow it's rules and norms.

Where do you get those numbers from mackid?

[Kieland]

At 2/19/06 03:49 PM, TrendWhore wrote: Where do you get those numbers from mackid?

I'm not sure where mackid got those numbers, but I've heard it before.

I can't stand the death penalty. From reading this thread, it sounds as if those in favor of the penalty want those who've caused suffering to suffer themselves. However, to do so is inhumane. We shouldn't lower ourselves to these monsters' levels and give them the satisfaction of remembrance. We should lock them away and forget them. However, we shouldn't kill them. We're not the murderers, they are. So let's lock 'em in cells with big fat guys named Bubba and let it be done with.

[evilstrawberry]

I can't stand the death penalty. From reading this thread, it sounds as if those in favor of the penalty want those who've caused suffering to suffer themselves. However, to do so is inhumane. We shouldn't lower ourselves to these monsters' levels and give them the satisfaction of remembrance. We should lock them away and forget them. However, we shouldn't kill them. We're not the murderers, they are. So let's lock 'em in cells with big fat guys named Bubba and let it be done with.

I agree!!! I think death is the easy way out, give them what they deserve and let them get butt fucked by Nasty Nate.

[Trendwhore]

You last two posters are no better than the twats asking for the death penalty!

[Kaleidoscope]

I think the death penalty is a really good. Why let criminals suffer in jail when you can just get rid of them.

[TheTrueMrJack]

At 2/19/06 04:30 PM, -Sickair- wrote:

:Why let criminals suffer in jail when you can just get rid of them.

Yeah, why let the assholes suffer? ...C'mon man, suffering is a GOOD thing in this case. Also, I am for more exercise equipent in Prison. Makes ot more brutal to the assholes.

[CynicalScythe]

Yeah, why let the assholes suffer? ...C'mon man, suffering is a GOOD thing in this case. Also, I am for more exercise equipent in Prison. Makes ot more brutal to the assholes.

suffiring?
are you kidding? assuming your not a bitch ( or someone's bitch) then you get free meals no taxesand if you get enogh money then all sorts of luxories. lie a saw a cell with a tv in it! a T.V!

[WolvenBear]

One: The numbers used to say that execution is more expensive than life in prison take into account the court costs. A death row inmate not only is allowed more appeals than a lifer, but all of their appeals must be used up, due to our current system, EVEN IF THEY PLED GUILTY. Plus there's the fact that the average death row inmate spends about 25 years in prison, and you have astronomically high costs. Whereas a lifer may have the appeals optioned to him, but he can choose not to take them, or the court can deny his appeal. Court costs are the huge cost here. So limit everyone to three appeals, which must be carried out over the course of 10 years (max). They go straight from their last trial to the chamber. Put in a plead guilty option, and have an express lane. Costs go down like crazy and the court system gets less congested.

Two: Part of the death penalty involves closure for the families. Their loved one is dead while the murder sits in prison watching Dr. Phil and enjoying snack cakes. May murderers wrte books and make money off of the death. And they live in (in some cases) a better quality of life than they do on the outside. Many are right when they say that this is not justice. Nor is it in a lot of cases "suffering". Also, the death doesn't have to be cruel. Make it quick and easy. Hell, I'm not even opposed to painless. I believe in a lake of fire in the after life. If they're gonna burn for all eternity, then let em go quick from this realm.

Finally: There ARE reasons to execute. Some crimes are just so awful, the only real recourse is to put the monster down like a rabid dog. Treason is also a good reason. And finally, as posted on here several months back, some people are still a threat to the outside, even while locked up.

[GangsterRapper]

At 2/19/06 02:56 PM, evilstrawberry wrote: Are you for or against the death penalty?

I live in a England. The country where the death penalty was abolished back in the 1950's. I'm all for the death penalty, especially when child killers are concerned. I know the death penalty doesn't really deter murder and other evil crimes, but at least it's a fitting punishment for the most awful of crimes.

[taggygee]

Totally totally against it....

As gandhi once said..

"An Eye For An Eye Makes The Whole World Blind"

Its just all wrong, the state of prisons is bad enough, i think death would be a release to most prisoners

[Denta]

I think that death penalty should exist.
But you should only use it if the criminal has done a very very rough crime, like murdering, assasination (the same) or rapeing.

[Me-Patch]

At least we don't hang our criminals in the street anymore. Whole towns would show up to watch people die and crap their pants, kinda barbaric.

[Thespus]

Here are some statistics reported about the economics of the death penalty.

http://www.mindsprin../~phporter/econ.html

http://www.deathpena..p?did=108&scid=7

[Draconias]

Life in prison is not absolute. Few, if any criminals sentenced to life in prison serve even one half of the sentence. The sentence itself is less than a lifetime, so an increasing number of inmates have outlived life sentences. You can say someone is forever locked away in prison, but that's never true, and society is never truly safe from their threat.

That threat doesn't just remain with that one murderer. When you put a serial killer in prison for a life sentence, you provide a lifetime of psychotic teaching and advice to every other inmate, who you are supposedly trying to reform. For every life sentence criminal in a prison, that's more crowding, more strain on the prison system, and more impressionable people for serial killers and chronic offenders to further corrupt. Why would we ever want to stick people so horrible they can never be allowed outside of prison right alongside people who we are "reforming" for a return to Society?

Also, don't forget that crime and murders can still happen inside a prison. If you think it is immoral to execute someone, it must be just as immoral to let a serial killer kill other people, regardless of past crimes. Also, I noticed an odd double standard where many said killing them is immoral, but intentionally having them raped is perfectly fine and moral. How can one form of further crime be any better or worse than another in the absolute sense?

Many people have complained about how the Death Penalty costs more than a life sentence for taxpayers. That is a matter of poor implementation, not the actual merits of the act. An execution can be free, but our system gives far too much leeway to Death Row criminals and thus massively increases the cost. Money should have nothing at all to do with this argument, as it has no bearing on the actual subject and only reflects negatively on the arguers for being greedy and callous.

Some criminals are simply too dangerous, too heinous, to ever allow back into society. If ever they are alive, their threat remains for innocent or undeserving people around them, and no good can come from their existance. Such people "deserve" nothing, and no "vengeance" is being served, these murderers simply need to die. They can not exist in this world without harming and endangering others, and the only safe option is simply to remove them. It is not an act of murder, or anything heinous or evil on its own, it is simply ending their lives, erasing them. They must be cleared from this world, and there's nothing more to it. It is the obligation of the State to perform this action for the safety of citizens, regardless of "deserving it" or "vengeance."

My Proposed Framework for the Death Penalty:
Requirements: Murder of 3+ people OR a particularly heinous and brutal murder where the victim survived for a significant span of time. Pregnant women can count for a maximum of two people, and only if the pregnancey has reached ~5 months. The convict must appear impossible to rehabilitate for some specific reason.

Appealing: Minimum of two re-examinations of the case. Appellant may not, under any circumstances, escape from his or her sentence due to a court technicality; such situations can only lead to a re-trial. Maximum of eight appeals, but further appeals may be accepted based on judicial discretion.

Every appeal must be heard, but may be denied by any level judge.

Time Limit: The execution must occur a minimum of two years and a maximum of three years after the first incarceration post-conviction, or within a month of the final appeal. No appeals may be made after the limit of three years have been passed.

Execution Style: Lethal gas administered within a sealed room is the only style of execution. Such gas must be colored for non-convict safety, and intermixing red, white, and blue is suggested.

Convict can not survive the execution; if large amounts of lethal gas and at least 45 minutes of attempts fail, the execution room should be safely vented and the use of a 9mm handgun is authorized to complete the execution. All handgun shots must be aimed at the head or upper torso, and as few shots as possible should be used to complete the job.

Those who erase the existance of others, others of far more worth to the world, and only wish to continue their deeds, can only be erased as well. For if they are not, their corruption and black tendrils of influence will spread and continue the harm we seek above all else to prevent.

[Thespus]

At 2/21/06 05:49 PM, Draconias wrote: Life in prison is not absolute. Few, if any criminals sentenced to life in prison serve even one half of the sentence. The sentence itself is less than a lifetime, so an increasing number of inmates have outlived life sentences. You can say someone is forever locked away in prison, but that's never true, and society is never truly safe from their threat.

Actually a true life sentence without parole is someone being in prison for life. There are those cases of 15 to life or 25 to life, but those are paroled sentences.

That threat doesn't just remain with that one murderer. When you put a serial killer in prison for a life sentence, you provide a lifetime of psychotic teaching and advice to every other inmate, who you are supposedly trying to reform. For every life sentence criminal in a prison, that's more crowding, more strain on the prison system, and more impressionable people for serial killers and chronic offenders to further corrupt. Why would we ever want to stick people so horrible they can never be allowed outside of prison right alongside people who we are "reforming" for a return to Society?

The security level of the prison is determined by the seriousness of the crime, along with the cell block you belong to. So, the chance of a convicted murderer hanging out and influencing a seventeen year old theif is very slim. Unless you live in a state that just lobs all felons together in one area.

Also, don't forget that crime and murders can still happen inside a prison. If you think it is immoral to execute someone, it must be just as immoral to let a serial killer kill other people, regardless of past crimes. Also, I noticed an odd double standard where many said killing them is immoral, but intentionally having them raped is perfectly fine and moral. How can one form of further crime be any better or worse than another in the absolute sense?

Are the tax-payers and government killing someone that could possibly be innocent? Besides, the security is pretty tight, and if the murderer is a serial murderer, he's most likely isolated from a group of people pending psychological profiling.

Many people have complained about how the Death Penalty costs more than a life sentence for taxpayers. That is a matter of poor implementation, not the actual merits of the act. An execution can be free, but our system gives far too much leeway to Death Row criminals and thus massively increases the cost. Money should have nothing at all to do with this argument, as it has no bearing on the actual subject and only reflects negatively on the arguers for being greedy and callous.

I think there's a reason for all this leeway. It's called the fundamental rights of American citizens. So, these citizens are allowed to prove that they're worthy of these rights. If they fail to do so, they die.

Some criminals are simply too dangerous, too heinous, to ever allow back into society. If ever they are alive, their threat remains for innocent or undeserving people around them, and no good can come from their existance.

Life imprisonment without parole.

My Proposed Framework for the Death Penalty:
Requirements: Murder of 3+ people OR a particularly heinous and brutal murder where the victim survived for a significant span of time. Pregnant women can count for a maximum of two people, and only if the pregnancey has reached ~5 months. The convict must appear impossible to rehabilitate for some specific reason.

I don't believe that killers should be rehabilitated, but that's not what the prison system is for, to me. It's to keep them from doing more harm in society by isolating them from society.

Appealing: Minimum of two re-examinations of the case. Appellant may not, under any circumstances, escape from his or her sentence due to a court technicality; such situations can only lead to a re-trial. Maximum of eight appeals, but further appeals may be accepted based on judicial discretion.

This sounds like the system of appeals we have. Way too much leeway as you said.

Every appeal must be heard, but may be denied by any level judge.

Uh huh.

Time Limit: The execution must occur a minimum of two years and a maximum of three years after the first incarceration post-conviction, or within a month of the final appeal. No appeals may be made after the limit of three years have been passed.

Oooh. New one. Probably making it less expensive, but with all the appeals we were talking about earlier, how are you going to get all these people executed within three years if they are waiting on appeals?

Execution Style: Lethal gas administered within a sealed room is the only style of execution. Such gas must be colored for non-convict safety, and intermixing red, white, and blue is suggested.

I like the chainsaw to the head method. It really makes them think about what they've done.

Convict can not survive the execution; if large amounts of lethal gas and at least 45 minutes of attempts fail, the execution room should be safely vented and the use of a 9mm handgun is authorized to complete the execution. All handgun shots must be aimed at the head or upper torso, and as few shots as possible should be used to complete the job.

Awwww.... No shots to the groin?

Those who erase the existance of others, others of far more worth to the world, and only wish to continue their deeds, can only be erased as well. For if they are not, their corruption and black tendrils of influence will spread and continue the harm we seek above all else to prevent.

I don't know, man. It just doesn't sound convincing enough.

[GunCrave]

At 2/20/06 06:50 AM, taggygee wrote: Totally totally against it....

As gandhi once said..

"An Eye For An Eye Makes The Whole World Blind"

Sorry pal, no one's going to take you seriously if you quote Ghandi.

[Elfer]

At 2/19/06 03:10 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote: Not only am I for the death penalty, I'm for improving it so people wait less on deathrow and suffer more during execution.

Go look up the controversy around lethal injection. If you experience anasthesia awareness, there's not very many more horrible ways to die.

[TheThing]

for. there are too many people in this world and we have to take them out

[evilstrawberry]

At 2/21/06 08:46 PM, thething69 wrote: for. there are too many people in this world and we have to take them out

How retarded are you? We have about 9 billion people on earth and we can support well over 14 billion, sure maybe cars, planes, and boats take up a lot of the oil and resources, but eventually we will find more efficient ways to do most everything.

[thecheeseisblue]

Against it, death shouldn't be granted to some people, we shoudl lock them in solitary confinement where they will go insane. A worse fate than death if you ask me.

[RacistBassist]

for it, because i beleive eye for an eye and all that crap

[thecheeseisblue]

At 2/21/06 09:08 PM, blizace wrote: for it, because i beleive eye for an eye and all that crap

An eye for an eye? So, that would work if they were a murderer, but ithe death penalty kills rapists too.If it were really an eye for an eye a rapist would not be killed, the system is not truly fair in that respect.

[RacistBassist]

i was using a vague reference