Do you agree with the death penalty

[Cryptic_Soldier 0]

see' date=' i understand this and it's a perfectly legitimate POV, but it's still justifying killing someone, i think thats what the whole argument stems from[/quote']

 

Why are you preaching pacifism on a MMA website? Is that not contidictory?

[LexTalionis 0]

Why are you preaching pacifism on a MMA website? Is that not contidictory?

 

not really, i'm not preaching pacifism, my view is hard labour would be better than the death penalty, and also i would find it hard to justify killing anyone

[pistolfli 262]

i've never heard of such a case where 1 offender has never had any contact with the victims' date=' if your talking about the charles manson situation then i would still send old charlie to hard labour for the rest of his life. i understand what your saying about putting value on someones life, it's easy to be construed that way but i don't mean it that way, my point is they can still be useful to society while being punished, we can get more out of them and punish them more with hard labour than killing them in a humane way[/quote']

 

I do agree with you that in somecases including some murders that hard labour could be a better alternative but not all, take Harold Shipman with the amount of people he killed (218 positively ascribed to him but it is probably more) i don't see how anything other than the death penalty is justice, i also have problems with the fact that he chose when to die by commiting suicide not out out of remorce for his victims but so his wife could get her full NHS pension (in an hard labour punishment he could of still done this, but that is more to do with the current why we deal with criminals not working).

 

I would hope that people in goverments are having debates like this where people are arguing points in a constructive manner (unlike certain other threads on here that i am staying out of before i say somthing that will stir things up and get me banned) to find a better system for dealing with criminals than the one that we currently have.

[LexTalionis 0]

I do agree with you that in somecases including some murders that hard labour could be a better alternative but not all' date=' take Harold Shipman with the amount of people he killed (218 positively ascribed to him but it is probably more) i don't see how anything other than the death penalty is justice, i also have problems with the fact that he chose when to die by commiting suicide not out out of remorce for his victims but so his wife could get her full NHS pension (in an hard labour punishment he could of still done this, but that is more to do with the current why we deal with criminals not working).

 

I would hope that people in goverments are having debates like this where people are arguing points in a constructive manner (unlike certain other threads on here that i am staying out of before i say somthing that will stir things up and get me banned) to find a better system for dealing with criminals than the one that we currently have.[/quote']

 

very true, the case of Shipman was an odd one in terms of what punishment fits best,i don't think he had much fear of death so he wouldn't have cared if he was executed. it would be nice to think there is a plan to shake up the prison system in the UK because at the moment the sentences are lenient and the prisons are better than most council houses. the other thread is just going back and forth like they always do, i just sit back and laugh at it most of the time

[Xhojin 0]

Killing in self defence is never murder its killing' date=' and if you can prove you were in the right and broke no laws you will be set free.[/color']

 

In that example I wrote and you quoted it was not self defense. The hypothetical man was not defending himself. He was killing someone who had molested his child, or would be molesting his child in the future. It's still murder according to the law, but to be it's not the same as a guy who kills for personal satisfaction or sexual gratification.

 

I'm pro death penalty is some cases, but not all cases. I think a distinction between types of murder or the intent of murder needs to be met.

 

 

 

I think you want to take a ride on the wild side with this guy on your next bus trip right?

 

Hell no. I'm not sure what you are intending to say here. You quoted my posts while at the same time quoteing anti DP folks... yet I am pro DP and this post about the greyhound bus guy was directed to a anti-DP guy...and I was advocating FOR putting him down.

[MasterPo 0]

There are two aspects to consider, one being technical, the other being emotional/philosophical.

 

Technically, in the US, it is estimated that between 10% and 20% of all death row inmates have been wrongly convicted. Not good stats. It also costs significantly more to house and feed a death row inmate than a regular inmate. Statistically the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

The most common argument for the death penalty, is "imagine you walk in on your wife being raped/murdered". In that scenario, I am well within my rights to off the F-er right there. Justice/revenge done. The bigger question is do we want to spend $40,000 - $50,000 a year to keep a person on death row, when spending half that amount would have provided that person a secure place to live, education, job training and the opportunity to do something besides be a thug. I believe the best scenario is somewhere in between: provide more social programs for the less privileged, while going after gang bangers the way we go after terrorists: guilty by association. Gangs are a menace to American society, so if you sport the tats, colors, or anything else, you are supporting and abetting terrorism. I would rather spend money to prevent a problem, than spend twice as much cleaning it up.

[openeye 0]

help me? rofl. am I ill because I have a different opinion then you?

 

Maybe' date=' just maybe, you don't have the ability to defend your side of the argument because you know it's weak?

 

All murder is not equal. Do you honestly think that someone who kills for sexual satisfaction is the same as someone who kills to defend their family?

 

Both are murder but both are not the same. If someone that killed an intruder to protect his family looks down on a sexual murderer is he a hypocrite?

 

I'd say no, and I seriously doubt you'd say differently.

 

So why then if the state kills someone to protect the safety of others is it hypocrisy in your eyes?[/quote']

 

A guy kills his girlfriend because she cheated. Is it murder? Yes.

 

Someone kills a dude because he was breaking into his house. Is it murder? Yes.

 

A serial rapist kills one of its victims. Is it murder? Definitely.

 

A guy presses a button and kills said serial rapist by gas poisoning. Is it murder? Well, apparently not. Because you know, the guy did died. And someone killed him. So where do you stand? Are you saying that a middle eastern girl that is executed for cheating is correct, just because the law says so?

 

Hipocrisy. everytime I see in the news that a guy killed someone brutally, my instincts tell me to hit said guy in the head with an iron bar until it looks like jelly. My rational side though, tells me that if I do so, I'm no better than he is.

 

There's a lot worser things than death. Why not try some of those for a change?

[aethlefirth 1]

There are two aspects to consider' date=' one being technical, the other being emotional/philosophical.

 

Technically, in the US, it is estimated that between 10% and 20% of all death row inmates have been wrongly convicted. Not good stats. It also costs significantly more to house and feed a death row inmate than a regular inmate. Statistically the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

The most common argument for the death penalty, is "imagine you walk in on your wife being raped/murdered". In that scenario, I am well within my rights to off the F-er right there. Justice/revenge done. The bigger question is do we want to spend $40,000 - $50,000 a year to keep a person on death row, when spending half that amount would have provided that person a secure place to live, education, job training and the opportunity to do something besides be a thug. I believe the best scenario is somewhere in between: provide more social programs for the less privileged, [b']while going after gang bangers the way we go after terrorists: guilty by association. Gangs are a menace to American society, so if you sport the tats, colors, or anything else, you are supporting and abetting terrorism. [/b]I would rather spend money to prevent a problem, than spend twice as much cleaning it up.

 

I like and agree with the bit in bold but there would be some that say it would take away their human rights though they probably live in very nice neighbourhoods and never come face to face with crime and how it can tear a person?s life or family apart, a bit like those from around the world including the US that thought it was a good idea to give money and aid to the IRA terrorists even though it was costing normal everyday British people their lives but then get all patriotic and indignant when terrorism came knocking on their soil, like I said if it doesn?t impact your life it?s easy to take the high road.

[Cryptic_Soldier 0]

In that example I wrote and you quoted it was not self defense. The hypothetical man was not defending himself. He was killing someone who had molested his child' date=' or would be molesting his child in the future. It's still murder according to the law, but to be it's not the same as a guy who kills for personal satisfaction or sexual gratification.

 

I'm pro death penalty is some cases, but not all cases. I think a distinction between types of murder or the intent of murder needs to be met.[/quote']

 

The way that you made it sound initially had me thinking it was somthing you whitnessed and were having an initail reaction. in most places I've ever been to, protection of your self, your family, your property, a 3rd party, a 3rd party's poperty are all covered in the same way. You have the leagal righ to defend all of the above with leathal force.

 

 

Hell no. I'm not sure what you are intending to say here. You quoted my posts while at the same time quoteing anti DP folks... yet I am pro DP and this post about the greyhound bus guy was directed to a anti-DP guy...and I was advocating FOR putting him down.

 

I was suggesting to all those who suggest they (the looney bin killers) be rehabbed whp wants to ride on the bus next to one. By a ride on the wild side comment I was simultaniously (accidently) suggesting your gay but actually meaning a bus ride (a ride) on the chace of being stabbed to death' date=' decapitated, and partially eaten. (wild side) It was meant as a partial joke but I giess it was not recieved as such. As I already stated please write out Death Penalty to avoid confusion with what DP really stands for.[/color']

 

 

A guy kills his girlfriend because she cheated. Is it murder? Yes.

 

Yes

 

 

Someone kills a dude because he was breaking into his house. Is it murder? Yes.

 

NO

 

A serial rapist kills one of its victims. Is it murder? Definitely.

 

Yes

 

A guy presses a button and kills said serial rapist by gas poisoning. Is it murder? Well' date=' apparently not. Because you know, the guy did died. And someone killed him. So where do you stand?[b'] Are you saying that a middle eastern girl that is executed for cheating is correct, just because the law says so?[/b]

 

Yes that is ecactly what I am saying, and yes I would shoot my wife and her lover dead myself if I caught them together. (Seperate if I found out later) The law is the law... If you have a problem with the laws move, kill yourself, or simply dont break the frickin law dude.

 

Hipocrisy. everytime I see in the news that a guy killed someone brutally, my instincts tell me to hit said guy in the head with an iron bar until it looks like jelly. My rational side though, tells me that if I do so, I'm no better than he is.

 

So let the state do it... Nameless Faceless Punishment.

 

There's a lot worser things than death. Why not try some of those for a change?

 

Name 1 thing worse than death? Bet you can't. "Hard labor" nope try again... "Being Anally raped everyday till you die?" yeah worse than death but protected against because they have the rights against "cruel and unusual" punishments. The worst thing you can do to somone is kill them as punishement without crossing the lines of the law. Life in prison, and hard labor are all cushy alternatives to somone putting a hood on your head, dragging you from your cell to the execution yard and lopping it (your head) off with a dull axe.

 

Bottom line is if there is a "heaven hell" senario after death they go to hell and suffer for etenity. If there is no afterlife they are just gone and can never hurt anyone ever again.

[Cryptic_Soldier 0]

 

Technically' date=' in the US, it is [b']estimated[/b] that between 10% and 20% of all death row inmates have been wrongly convicted. Not good stats. It also costs significantly more to house and feed a death row inmate than a regular inmate. Statistically the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

Deter crime? maybe not. Prevent crime? to argue it does not is foolish, you execute a serial rapist rather then put him in for 25 to life and he is no more able to rape anyone in the 25 years he would be in jail but also cant rape anyone when he get out. Just like that you prevented a unknown number of rapes from happening by killing 1 guy.

 

As far as the 10-20% goes see my comment about making omelets and breaking eggs.

 

Please also note estimates are not facts. If there was facts to set those 10-20 percent free and they were facts that provided doubt they would no longer be incarserated or on death row IMO.

[flipmodollas 0]

Deter crime? maybe not. Prevent crime? to argue it does not is foolish' date=' you execute a serial rapist rather then put him in for 25 to life and he is no more able to rape anyone in the 25 years he would be in jail but also cant rape anyone when he get out. Just like that you prevented a unknown number of rapes from happening by killing 1 guy.

 

As far as the 10-20% goes see my comment about making omelets and breaking eggs.

 

Please also note estimates are not facts. If there was facts to set those 10-20 percent free and they were facts that provided doubt they would no longer be incarserated or on death row IMO.[/quote']

 

 

But thats your opinion,Sadly 10-20-30 years ago we had a very curropt judical system .Now with more and more advances in technology DNA etc we're seeing more inmates relased,give it time and more we'll also be relased.The tragidy here is the people that are wrongfully convicted and I'm sure it still goes on today,and spend 10+ years in prison only to be found innocent later or now instatuninalized(sp) cuz all they've known for the past 10+years is prison life.

 

 

My stand on the death penalty is and always has been if I cant shoot the mother****er for rape there on the spot,then the Goverment shouldn't hold that right.

[Ichigo 6]

But thats your opinion' date='Sadly 10-20-30 years ago we had a very curropt judical system .Now with more and more advances in technology DNA etc we're seeing more inmates relased,give it time and more we'll also be relased.The tragidy here is the people that are wrongfully convicted and I'm sure it still goes on today,and spend 10+ years in prison only to be found innocent later or now instatuninalized(sp) cuz all they've known for the past 10+years is prison life.

 

 

My stand on the death penalty is and always has been if I cant shoot the mother****er for rape there on the spot,then the Goverment shouldn't hold that right.[/quote']

 

yeah but the do get a hell of a lot of money it works out at something like 250 000 per year and a half

[UFCCagerattler 11,178]

The death penalty has been done. Pretty much everyone has had a death penalty and pretty much everyone has gotten rid of it.

 

It does not prevent crime or reduce crime or turn crime into ice cream.

 

If it did ANY OF THOSE THINGS it would be universally in use.

 

It has been universally thrown away because it doesn;t work.

[aethlefirth 1]

The death penalty has been done. Pretty much everyone has had a death penalty and pretty much everyone has gotten rid of it.

 

It does not prevent crime or reduce crime or turn crime into ice cream.

 

If it did ANY OF THOSE THINGS it would be universally in use.

 

It has been universally thrown away because it doesn;t work.

 

If you;re worried about your taxes should should understand that the DP is far more expensive than prison.

 

Not that it matters.

 

thank you sir.

 

I guess... the one murder thing.. I still have enough hope (not faith.. just desperate hope. lol) for humankind that I think that some people can be redeemed even after killing someone. For me... whether or not the death penalty should be used has more to do with the motivation for the crime then the crime itself.

 

ex: Murder. Did the person kill someone based on a sado-sexual fantasy? or did they kill someone because that person was molesting their child?

 

Both are murder. But the reason and intent behind it are drastically different. I don't think someone should be put to death for protecting their child' date=' likely this person would never murder again since their reason was very specific. yes punish them, but not kill them.

 

The one that murdered for a sexual reason, I so say put him down. You cannot fight the sex drive. It is the single strongest motivator in the human species and that person will always be a risk to re offend.

 

I guess... I try to balance the motivation for the crime against the crime itself and then decide.[/quote']

 

ok ive found some interesting statistics and articles on the subject and answer a couple of the above posts.

 

 

Britain.

The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The figure for homicides in 2007 was 734. The principal causes of homicide are fights involving fists and feet, stabbing and cutting by glass or a broken bottle, shooting and strangling. 72% of the victims were male with younger men being most at risk. Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 ? the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of ?life in prison? for murder. Figures released in 2009 show that since 1997, 65 prisoners who were released after serving life were convicted of a further crime. These included two murders, one suspected murder, one attempted murder, three rapes and two instances of grievous bodily harm. The same document also noted that 304 people given life sentences since January 1997 served less than 10 years of them, actually in prison.

 

Cost.

Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the government may very well better spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick etc., rather than on the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc.

Anti-capital punishment campaigners in the U.S. cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this, whilst true for America, has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S. legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 12 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was from 3 to 8 weeks and only one appeal was permitted.

 

Deterrence.

Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would, however, seem that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent. There is a strong argument here for making murder committed in these circumstances not punishable by death or for having degrees of murder as in the USA.

 

Incapacitation of the criminal. Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or being released from it.

[Xhojin 0]

A guy kills his girlfriend because she cheated. Is it murder? Yes.

 

Someone kills a dude because he was breaking into his house. Is it murder? Yes.

 

A serial rapist kills one of its victims. Is it murder? Definitely.

 

A guy presses a button and kills said serial rapist by gas poisoning. Is it murder? Well' date=' apparently not. Because you know, the guy did died. And someone killed him. So where do you stand? Are you saying that a middle eastern girl that is executed for cheating is correct, just because the law says so?

 

Hipocrisy. everytime I see in the news that a guy killed someone brutally, my instincts tell me to hit said guy in the head with an iron bar until it looks like jelly. My rational side though, tells me that if I do so, I'm no better than he is.

 

There's a lot worser things than death. Why not try some of those for a change?[/quote']

 

Like I've already said before. The intent matters. So I don't see the guy pressing the button to kill the serial rapist as murder. I see it is extermination of vermin. As taking the trash out. As making society safer. Said murderer knowingly and willfully choose to violate the rights and saftey of another human being. In my mind, if one chooses to do this, one at the same time chooses to forfeit their own rights to the same thing.

 

I ask you, why do you think that someone is entitled to the rights that they don't give to others?

 

And No, I never said that a middle eastern girl that is being executed for cheating is correct. Nice ad hominum attack though. I've never even said that law makes anything correct. To me justice, safetly, truth, etc, are all much greater then laws that man makes.

[UFCCagerattler 11,178]

Deterrence.

Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would, however, seem that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent. There is a strong argument here for making murder committed in these circumstances not punishable by death or for having degrees of murder as in the USA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Who is writing this garbage?

 

Why would you invoke Singapore in order to talk about the DP in America?

 

We have the death penalty in America in some states and we don't have it in others and we can tell you that it doesn't do a dam thing and never has.

[Cryptic_Soldier 0]

 

Who is writing this garbage?

 

Why would you invoke Singapore in order to talk about the DP in America?

 

We have the death penalty in America in some states and we don't have it in others and we can tell you that it doesn't do a dam thing and never has.

 

What you need to know is that your quoting the OP who started the thread, He is English and actually talking about the Death Penalty in the UK. So get your head on strait before you come in here making an **** of yourself to everyone.

[aethlefirth 1]

Deterrence.

Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would' date=' however, seem that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is far less serious crime.[/color'] This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent. There is a strong argument here for making murder committed in these circumstances not punishable by death or for having degrees of murder as in the USA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Who is writing this garbage?

 

Why would you invoke Singapore in order to talk about the DP in America?

 

We have the death penalty in America in some states and we don't have it in others and we can tell you that it doesn't do a dam thing and never has.

 

Sorry thought you could read, I will highlight why they talk about Singapore what they are saying here is that in countries where they almost always carry out the death penalty crime is less prevalent as aposed to the states where its rarely carried out.

[aethlefirth 1]

Who is writing this garbage?

 

Why would you invoke Singapore in order to talk about the DP in America?

 

We have the death penalty in America in some states and we don't have it in others and we can tell you that it doesn't do a dam thing and never has.

 

but the same article had an american spin might be easier to understand for you.

 

 

Cost Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the state may very well better spend our tax dollars on the old, the young and the sick rather than the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists etc.

However in the USA the cost of executing someone over giving them life in prison is far higher. This is because of endless appeals being allowed in most states where the average time spent on death row is over 11 years. It is estimated that a capital case resulting in execution costs $3-4 million, whereas the typical cost of keeping someone in prison is $25-30,000 a year or less than a million dollars for a typical life sentence. The states of Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Montana and New Hampshire are all considering abolition due to the high cost of capital cases effecting their budget deficits. California will spend $137 million during 2009 on its capital cases.

 

 

Retribution. Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment, the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Whether there is a place in a modern society for the old fashioned principal of "an eye for an eye" is a matter of personal opinion. Retribution is seen by many as the principal reason for favoring the death penalty. It is also felt by many families of murder victims to be a strong reason for witnessing the execution of their loved one's murderer, in states that allow this, as it provides closure for them. Anti capital punishment campaigners are fond of trotting out Ghandi?s saying that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind". This is nonsense because it wrongly presumes that we all commit murder, whereas only a tiny proportion of people do. Given a population of just under 300 million and a homicide rate of around 16,200 per annum less than 0.5% of the population actually commit a homicide in any given year. Or conversely 99.5% do not kill.

 

Deterrence. Does the death penalty deter? It is difficult to be certain whether it does or doesn?t. It is certainly not used as a deterrent by individual states, but rather purely as a punishment.

In most states, executions are a very rare occurrence. Only a very tiny proportion of murderers are sentenced to death in the first place - about 1.5%. In 2008 just 111 death sentences were handed down in the whole country. Only a small proportion of those sentenced to death are eventually executed, some may have their sentence reduced on appeal, some will die of natural causes awaiting execution. In all states, other than Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia and Delaware, the number of executions as compared to death sentences and murders is infinitesimally small. Texas accounts for 37.6% of all US executions since 1977. With the exception of Oklahoma, Texas and Florida, 51% of the population, who commit 12% of all murders, are virtually exempt from actual execution it would seem, this being the female half of society. Just eleven women have been executed between 1984 and 2008, of whom one was consensual ? Christina Riggs in Arkansas. 56 women were on death row nationally at the end of 2007.

 

The U.S. homicide rate has dropped from 24,526 in 1993 to 15,522 in 1999, the lowest since 1966 - during a period of increased use of the death penalty. Four hundred and eleven (68.5%) of the 598 executions to the end of 1999, took place between 1993 and the end of 1999. In 2007 the FBI?s figure was 15,707. It should be noted that the distribution of these homicides is very patchy ? there being far more in big cities, where 12,227 homicides occurred and far fewer in rural areas.

Equally the murder rate for states with the death penalty is often higher than for those without. Texas had a murder rate of 5.9/100,000 in 2007 while Iowa which has no death penalty had a murder rate of 1.2/100,000 in the same year. Accepting that America is not a homogenous society, there does seem to be very wide variations in the murder rates of individual states. The national average value was 5.5/100,000.

It is dangerously simplistic to say that the rise in executions is the only factor in the reduction of homicides. There has been a general trend to a more punitive society (e.g. "Three strikes and your out") over this period and cities such as New York claim great success in reducing crime rates through the use of "zero tolerance" policing policies. But otherwise, that has been reasonable political and economic stability over these years and no obvious major social changes. Improvements in medical techniques have also saved many potential deaths. Here are two case studies of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent. For details of these go to http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

It will be interesting to see if the current (2009) economic problems will impact on the homicide rate.

 

Case study 1 - Texas.

Texas carries out far more executions than any other state and there is now clear evidence of a deterrent effect. My friend Rob Gallagher (author of Before the Needles website) has done an analysis of the situation using official FBI homicide figures. Between 1980 and 2000, there were 41,783 murders in Texas.

In 1980 alone, 2,392 people died by homicide giving a rate of 16.88 for every 100,000 of the population. (The US average murder rate in 1980 was 10.22, falling to 5.51 per 100,000 by the year 2000.) Over the same period, Texas had a population increase of 32%, up 6,681, 991 from 14,169,829 to 20,851,820. There were only 1,238 murders in 2000 giving it a rate of 5.94, just slightly higher than the national rate of 5.51/100,000. In the base year (1980) there was one murder for every 5,924 Texans. By the year 2000, this had fallen to one murder for every 16,843 people or 35.2% of the 1980 value. If the 1980 murder rate had been allowed to maintain, there would by interpolation, have been a total of 61,751 murders. On this basis, 19,968 people are not dead today who would have potentially been homicide victims, representing 78 lives saved for each one of the 256 executions. The overall U.S. murder rate declined by 54% during the period. Therefore, to achieve a reasonable estimate of actual lives saved, we must multiply 19,968 by 0.54, giving a more realistic figure of 10,783 lives saved or 42 lives per execution. Even if this estimate was off by a factor of 10, (which is highly unlikely), there would still be over 1,000 innocent lives saved or 4 lives per execution. One can see a drop in the number of murders in 1983, the year after Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in America.

In 2000, Texas had 1,238 murders (an average of 23.8 murders per week) but in 2001, only 31 people were given the death sentence and 17 prisoners executed (down from 40 the previous year). This equates to a capital sentencing rate of 2.5% or one death sentence for every 40 murders. Because the population of Texas perceive execution as a very real outcome if they are convicted of first degree murder, the message seems to be getting through.

[aethlefirth 1]

Case study 2 - California.

A total of 196 people (192 men and 4 women) were put to death in California between December 1938 and April 1967 (one man was hanged in this period and the rest executed by lethal gas). The death penalty was ruled unconstitutional in 1968 and there were no further executions in the state for 14 years.

Between 1950 and 1962, California had an average of 7.85 executions per annum (it gassed 102 murderers) and a murder rate of just 2.4 per 100,000 of the population in 1952. Executions, in San Quentin's gas chamber, were typically carried out within 1-1/2-2 years after sentence at that time. As the appeals process became longer and more complex, the number of executions per year fell and the murder rate climbed from 3.9 in 1960 and to 5.4 per 100,000 in 1967. After 1967, when executions ceased, the murder rate climbed rapidly to 14.5 per 100,000 in 1980 (this resulted in 3,411 murders in that year). The murder rate continued to run at an average of 11.76 per annum rising again to 13.1 per 100,000 in 1993.

California carried out its first post Furman execution on April 21, 1992 when Robert Alton Harris was gassed. A further 8 men have been put to death up to the end of 2000 (one more by lethal gas and seven by lethal injection). They had spent an average of 16 years on death row. The effect of these executions was to see the murder rate fall back to 6.05 per 100,000 by 1999 (still slightly above the national average of 5.5/100,000). Based on California's population increase from 23.5 million to 33.9 million over the years 1980-2000, it will be seen that there would have been a potential additional 24,536 murders in these years had the murder rate continued at the 1980 rate.

The current death row population is the largest in America, standing at 667 in January 2009. All these cases are bogged down in the appeals system and it is unlikely that a lot of them will ever be resolved within the natural life span of the prisoner. Presently, the chance of being actually executed in California is effectively nil, whilst legal arguments continue over a virtually irrelevant procedural matter that has nothing to do with justice or the guilt or innocence of individual prisoners. However, the number of murders committed each year has fallen from a peak 4,096 in 1993 to 2,079 in 2000. Some 75,000 people have been the victims of willful homicide (first or second degree murder) between 1960 and 2000 in California. It should also be noted that only those convicted of first degree murder with aggravating circumstances can be given the death penalty. These aggravating factors include such things as torturing, kidnapping, raping or robbing their victim.

 

The concept of deterrence.

Are you deterred by the concept of capital punishment? Do you remember the last execution in your state? Do you believe that you would actually be executed if you were found guilty of murder in the first degree? These are a crucial questions for the deterrence argument. A recent survey of a number of death row prisoners in several states showed that few of them actually gave much thought to what would happen to them and most did not expect to get caught in the first place. Do you believe that even if you were caught, convicted and sentenced to death that you would ever actually be put to death? Do you hear/read about executions taking place in the country as a whole and in your state in particular? If so does this information have any effect on you? If you are not aware of executions in your state how can you be deterred by them? I live in Kentucky which has 36 people on death row and has had just three executions since 1977. The last one, that of Marco Alan Chapman in November 2008 was consensual. He had to go to court for the right to have his lawful and well deserved sentence carried out. But yet in the city of Louisville we had over 80 murders in 2008. It is unlikely that any of these will result in a death penalty and even less likely that they will result in an execution. What message does all this send?

[UFCCagerattler 11,178]

It sends the same message that it sends for all crimes - if there's little chance of getting caught and facing the punishment there's no deterent effect.

 

Doesn;t matter what the punishment is.

 

Which I said like 3 days ago.

 

Time to end this thread: the DP has beeen done to death. Doesn;t work. Never did. Never will.

[aethlefirth 1]

It sends the same message that it sends for all crimes - if there's little chance of getting caught and facing the punishment there's no deterent effect.

 

Doesn;t matter what the punishment is.

 

Which I said like 3 days ago.

 

Time to end this thread: the DP has beeen done to death. Doesn;t work. Never did. Never will.

 

you are a boring little man you have made a lot of statements with no back up and you refuse to see things that have been backed up by statistics and facts but again offer no actual facts as to why your oh so important point of view is more valid and your lack of ability to read simple english and missunderstand any post other than your own, like i said go away grown ups are talking just saying "no it isnt" or "no it doesnt" and "everyone else is wrong" but not backing it up like cryptic said you are just making a fool of yourself.

 

time to end your posts clown.

[UFCCagerattler 11,178]

Nothing tp back up what?

 

We have the DP lots of places. We don';t have to guess or wonder abot it. We can study it.

 

We have the DP in lots of places that had the DP - outlawed the Dp - brought the DP back.

 

We know the DP has no affect whatsoever on crime rates, and if there was the slightest indication that it worked we would have it everywhere, because it isn;t the moral question that we care about its the truth about it tthat matters - and the truth is

 

it doesn't work, it never did, it never willl.

 

This ends the thread.

 

I win.

[yoter_man 0]

wow, where to start.

 

This discussion/arguement can go either way, cases for each POV can be made.

 

MY opinion. Murderers wanna kill people, stick em on the front lines in a war, let them kill the ones that are threatening our country, instead of putting the 18-25 yr old kids that haven't even gotten to live life yet out there to die. IF a murderer is killed are we heartbroken? IF a 18-25 yr old kid is killed in the war, the anti-war nuts come out of the woodwork. Least this way we (u.s citizens) are getting something in return for their heinous acts of violence against someone.

 

i remember reading someone saying the lethal injection crap was too easy of a way to go, i agree. However the murderer killed their victims is the same way they should be killed but with torture involved IMO. Call it what you want, call me what you want, but those that are doing these things would think twice i believe about committing the crime wth this punishment.

 

Pedophiles, no doubt about it, solitary confinement until they are dead. No food, no water, just a little torture to re-enforce the issue to those that think about doing it to children. If someone ever tried to do that to 1 of my kids they better hope to god that the police get them before i do, cause i'm not gonna ask questions, and they can do whatever they want to me in jail for protecting my children and family from these lowlife scums of the earth.

 

Those parent that kill their children, like the lady who locked her 3 kids in their carseats and locked the doors then put her car in the lake/pond for them to dround. They should take her and put her under water until she's almost dead, and pull her out and do it again 3 times so she can feel what each one of those children went through.

 

Little story that happend here locally. A mother tried to drown her 6 yr old son, then called 911 and said that he accidentally drowned in the bathtub. Well when the paramedics arrived they were able to revive the child and he told them that "mommy held me under the water" that woman will never go through what that child did, and she should have to feel the fear, torture, and life long fears, nightmares that this child will undoubtedly go through cause of her actions.

 

IMO the problem with America's crimes is the punishments are jail for x amount of years then they are back on the streets to do it again. Look back in the "old" days, when someone stole something, they lost a hand, you did something you shouldn't have, be headed. Crimes didn't happen as often as they do now, cause the criminal feared the punishment, we are too easy on "our" criminals, they get caught they get free room and board with 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep on. Hell there are families out there right now who don't get that and they are living honest lives. Sad when the gov't treats criminals better than the honest people in society.

 

If you seen the movie "inglorious basterds" you'll know what i mean here. If there is a pedophile that is released back to society, instead of making them register as a sex offender, brand their asses right in the middle of their forehead with a big P to let people know he/she is a pedophile, let them live with the embarassment of the sickening crime they committed. They killed someone out of hate or just to do it, give em a big ol' M on the forehead. You could walk past any of these kinds of criminals and maybe even become friends with them without ever knowing that they killed someone or molested a child, and after you are friends, and trust said person you may let them watch your child and then you have helped them molest your child, cause there was no way of knowing what his past was without him telling you. Chances are they lied to you completely of their past.

 

Thats my thoughts. say what you want, but my beliefs are my beliefs. Bigger the punishment, less crimes IMO.

[aethlefirth 1]

Nothing tp back up what?

 

We have the DP lots of places. We don';t have to guess or wonder abot it. We can study it.

 

We have the DP in lots of places that had the DP - outlawed the Dp - brought the DP back.

 

We know the DP has no affect whatsoever on crime rates' date=' and if there was the slightest indication that it worked we would have it everywhere, because it isn;t the moral question that we care about its the truth about it tthat matters - and the truth is

 

it doesn't work, it never did, it never willl.

 

This ends the thread.

 

I win.[/quote']

 

IF BY THAT YOU MEAN YOU FAIL YOU ARE THE MINORITY HERE LOOK AT THE POLL.

[/img]

[LexTalionis 0]

The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent to other criminals, however it does reduce the ammount of crime that the person being executed will go on to commit, as will a lifetime in a hard labour facility, i think when i say hard labour it sounds like i want to just throw them into work, no i would like a major change in how prisoners are treated, more guards, less priviledges and everyone on suicide watch for starters. i want to see someone who killed another person spend every day to their dying day working 18-20 hours a day, for no money with no hope of being released and no hope of it ending. at least then the state that brings the case against them can recoup the money they spent convicting them

[Mint3o5 0]

I believe no one has the right to decide when you should die.

Unless you're god, higher being, exct whatever you guys believe in.

 

Instead of a death penalty they should put convicts to go fight wars for our country and serve time like that.

[LexTalionis 0]

I believe no one has the right to decide when you should die.

Unless you're god' date=' higher being, exct whatever you guys believe in.

 

Instead of a death penalty they should put convicts to go fight wars for our country and serve time like that.[/quote']

 

they used to do that over here, it was called National Service, however there is one big flaw, criminals are criminals because they can't conform to laws and authority, one thing thats vital when fighting a war i'd imagine is being able to do what your told and not question it

[KungFuMaster 1]

I've already my points early on this thread but I am willing to recap one of the ideas. According to statistics, every man will be in trouble with the law at least once in a lifetime. Some average Joe will make a mistake in life, and if we prosecute to the extreme, we would have taken average Joe's life away.

[pistolfli 262]

I believe no one has the right to decide when you should die.

Unless you're god' date=' higher being, exct whatever you guys believe in.

 

Instead of a death penalty they should put convicts to go fight wars for our country and serve time like that.[/quote']

 

In theory sending the convicts to war sounds fine but then you have to think if i was in the army would i be happy to be stood alongside murderer, and more importantly would i trust them with my life.

[UFCCagerattler 11,178]

"This discussion/arguement can go either way, cases for each POV can be made."

 

Of course, but the facts cannot be changed.

 

The facts are that the death penalty has no observable effect on crime rates.

 

I am not argung the right or wrong of it. Don't care.

 

Do I agree the death penalty/ heavier sentences would they work?

 

NO.

 

We know they don't.

 

There's no need for opinions or guesses.

[yoter_man 0]

they used to do that over here' date=' it was called National Service, however there is one big flaw, criminals are criminals because they can't conform to laws and authority, one thing thats vital when fighting a war i'd imagine is being able to do what your told and not question it[/quote']

 

Thats why with a little common sense i thought most would have, would understand that they would have plenty of eyes on them making sure they do the same, plus MOST people even murderers don't want to die, so they'd fight for their life, and if they got out of line, shoot em! whats the difference where they die? convicted murderers deserve the death penalty anyways, so just take em out. end of problem.

 

I've already my points early on this thread but I am willing to recap one of the ideas. According to statistics' date=' every man will be in trouble with the law at least once in a lifetime. Some average Joe will make a mistake in life, and if we prosecute to the extreme, we would have taken average Joe's life away.[/quote']

 

Not really, the "average joe" as you call them is not gonna make a mistake big enough to deserve to have their life taken away. The "average joe's" trouble with the law is gonna be speeding tickets, drunk in public, DUI etc. not Murder, statutory rape, rape, etc.

[DarkReflection 0]

"This discussion/arguement can go either way' date=' cases for each POV can be made."

 

Of course, but the facts cannot be changed.

 

The facts are that the death penalty has no observable effect on crime rates.

 

I am not argung the right or wrong of it. Don't care.

 

Do I agree the death penalty/ heavier sentences would they work?

 

NO.

 

We know they don't.

 

There's no need for opinions or guesses.[/quote']

 

I would argue that we do NOT KNOW if it would work or not. I have a strong suspicion that it would personally because..

 

A. It would deter people from committing crimes that they will be executed for..

 

and if not that..

 

B. If we execute all who commit these crimes...they won't be around for long...so deterrence isn't expressly necessary to begin with

 

The reason I say we do NOT KNOW if it would work or not is this...because the Death Penalty HAS NEVER BEEN APPLIED in the way that many of us are advocating.

 

Let's say there is a hypothetical scenario where..there is a country with the death penalty. BUT in their laws it states that you can only be sentenced to death for a crime if you were chewing gum AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME. Well.....just..don't chew gum when you do bad things.

 

This means almost NO ONE would ever qualify for the death penalty. Even without that knowledge...most people by chance wouldn't qualify.

 

So...in this hypothetical country we HAVE a death penalty...

 

BUT...IS IT FAIR TO SAY..under these circumstances that..this proves...that the death penalty doesn't work..or deter people in the country?

 

I'd say absolutely not.

 

Yes we have the death penalty...in the US and other places...but it is not applied correctly. It's not only...HAVING a death penalty...it's using it.

 

Cheers

 

-DR

[KungFuMaster 1]

Thats why with a little common sense i thought most would have' date=' would understand that they would have plenty of eyes on them making sure they do the same, plus MOST people even murderers don't want to die, so they'd fight for their life, and if they got out of line, shoot em! whats the difference where they die? convicted murderers deserve the death penalty anyways, so just take em out. end of problem.

 

 

 

Not really, the "average joe" as you call them is not gonna make a mistake big enough to deserve to have their life taken away. The "average joe's" trouble with the law is gonna be speeding tickets, drunk in public, DUI etc. not Murder, statutory rape, rape, etc.[/quote']

No, there are average Joes that have committed murder due to many reasons. I have a cousin who murdered his wife's lover in the heat of the moment.

[Kevbo_Jones 76]

No' date=' there are average Joes that have committed murder due to many reasons. I have a cousin who murdered his wife's lover in the heat of the moment.[/quote']

 

A crime of passion is still a crime. Making said "average" Joe a violent offender.

[yoter_man 0]

No' date=' there are average Joes that have committed murder due to many reasons. I have a cousin who murdered his wife's lover in the heat of the moment.[/quote']

 

so you have 1 example, i really don't think that would constitute the "average" of people. i'll give you that there are some instances that this may be the case, but not the average person.

[aethlefirth 1]

No' date=' there are average Joes that have committed murder due to many reasons. I have a cousin who murdered his wife's lover in the heat of the moment.[/quote']

 

its still murder buddy whether or not the guy was doing his wife he still killed the guy and deserves to be executed im sorry but that heat of the moment shiite just doesnt wash,the guy wasnt trying to kill his wife so its not to protect her and what if this guy has another heat of the moment moment and kills again?

[aethlefirth 1]

I would argue that we do NOT KNOW if it would work or not. I have a strong suspicion that it would personally because..

 

A. It would deter people from committing crimes that they will be executed for..

 

and if not that..

 

B. If we execute all who commit these crimes...they won't be around for long...so deterrence isn't expressly necessary to begin with

 

The reason I say we do NOT KNOW if it would work or not is this...because the Death Penalty HAS NEVER BEEN APPLIED in the way that many of us are advocating.

 

Let's say there is a hypothetical scenario where..there is a country with the death penalty. BUT in their laws it states that you can only be sentenced to death for a crime if you were chewing gum AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME. Well.....just..don't chew gum when you do bad things.

 

This means almost NO ONE would ever qualify for the death penalty. Even without that knowledge...most people by chance wouldn't qualify.

 

So...in this hypothetical country we HAVE a death penalty...

 

BUT...IS IT FAIR TO SAY..under these circumstances that..this proves...that the death penalty doesn't work..or deter people in the country?

 

I'd say absolutely not.

 

Yes we have the death penalty...in the US and other places...but it is not applied correctly. It's not only...HAVING a death penalty...it's using it.

 

Cheers

 

-DR

 

spot on

 

I think that?s the point the guy I quoted was trying to make (that some missed) in places like Singapore where they almost always execute the crime rate is lower, why is that because you kill you are going to get executed not spend the next 30 years waiting for appeal after appeal which is why it costs so much which is another point missed by some, as CRYPTIC said it should take a day you get one appeal the same day and then you are taken out and executed.

But what if the guy was innocent well again there must have been evidence overwhelming or otherwise and I?m sure that a lot of people who get released after being found guilty have just found a way to manipulate the system or find a technicality in law a loophole if you will that allows them freedom when they should have been executed.

Again a good point by CRYPTIC you can?t make an omelette without breaking some eggs which basically means you might make a few mistakes at the begging but once the system is in place you would see a marked decline in violent crime.

[Cryptic_Soldier 0]

The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent to other criminals' date=' however it does reduce the ammount of crime that the person being executed will go on to commit, as will a lifetime in a hard labour facility, i think when i say hard labour it sounds like i want to just throw them into work, no i would like a major change in how prisoners are treated, more guards, less priviledges and everyone on suicide watch for starters. i want to see someone who killed another person spend every day to their dying day working 18-20 hours a day, for no money with no hope of being released and no hope of it ending. at least then the state that brings the case against them can recoup the money they spent convicting them[/quote']

 

Unfortunatly there is no way to MAKE a convict work. They are tired or dont feel like working you cant make them do it.

 

 

I believe no one has the right to decide when you should die.

Unless you're god' date=' higher being, exct whatever you guys believe in.

Instead of a death penalty they should put convicts to go fight wars for our country and serve time like that.[/quote']

they used to do that over here' date=' it was called National Service, however there is one big flaw, criminals are criminals because they can't conform to laws and authority, one thing thats vital when fighting a war i'd imagine is being able to do what your told and not question it[/quote']

In theory sending the convicts to war sounds fine but then you have to think if i was in the army would i be happy to be stood alongside murderer' date=' and more importantly would i trust them with my life.[/quote']

 

1. you would be making me obsolete with a convict army and soldiers like me would be jobless and homless, and as a result of those 2 things become more likly to beocme violent offenders, essentially turning the nations cons into the army the army into cons and the cons back into the army. IT would suck badly anyhow.

 

2. if the entire army was not replaced cons would be useless cannonfodder when it come to combat and would more than likly get more good people killded than bad guys they kill.

 

3. Why in the fug would you give violent murderers guns and bullets with the hope they will use said things on the bad guys rather than on the US.

 

 

 

spot on

 

I think that?s the point the guy I quoted was trying to make (that some missed) in places like Singapore where they almost always execute the crime rate is lower' date=' why is that because you kill you are going to get executed not spend the next 30 years waiting for appeal after appeal which is why it costs so much which is another point missed by some, as CRYPTIC said it should take [b']a day you get one appeal[/b] the same day and then you are taken out and executed.

But what if the guy was innocent well again there must have been evidence overwhelming or otherwise and I?m sure that a lot of people who get released after being found guilty have just found a way to manipulate the system or find a technicality in law a loophole if you will that allows them freedom when they should have been executed.

Again a good point by CRYPTIC you can?t make an omelette without breaking some eggs which basically means you might make a few mistakes at the begging but once the system is in place you would see a marked decline in violent crime.

 

Hey man eventually I conceded to allow a week for 1 appeal so that they could possibly get a conviction overturned. The omelette and eggs comment means that in order to make somthing better/ do somthing good you always must also have to do things that make things worse/ do somthing bad. To make a nice tasty omlette you are essentially killing 2+ potential chickens. In order to clean up death row you got to kill some potentially innocent people. To rid the world of terrorism undoubtably some innocent people will be killed, inprisoned, inverstigated, etc. I forget who said it first but "EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AND OPPISITE REACTION. " Might have been that Newton guy but who knows.

[LexTalionis 0]

Unfortunatly there is no way to MAKE a convict work. They are tired or dont feel like working you cant make them do it.

 

they will work when you start beating them with a bat or a quick zap with a cattle prod.again i might have been a little unclear, major changes in the system are needed and being allowed to beat them to within an inch of their life is for insubordination is ok in my book

[Cryptic_Soldier 0]

they will work when you start beating them with a bat or a quick zap with a cattle prod.again i might have been a little unclear' date=' major changes in the system are needed and being allowed to beat them to within an inch of their life is for insubordination is ok in my book[/quote']

 

You still end up needing manpower to beat the cons which takes us back to the cost effectiveness. My proposition was to have a shock colar device around their neck that not only monitors thier location so if they try and run they get zapped, if their heart rate drops below a certain level implying inactivity they get zapped, if they come within a 3meter proximity to a guard they get zapped, if it sences them talking they get zapped. it would be hilarious to watch a work gange in those conditions.

[LexTalionis 0]

You still end up needing manpower to beat the cons which takes us back to the cost effectiveness. My proposition was to have a shock colar device around their neck that not only monitors thier location so if they try and run they get zapped' date=' if their heart rate drops below a certain level implying inactivity they get zapped, if they come within a 3meter proximity to a guard they get zapped, if it sences them talking they get zapped. it would be hilarious to watch a work gange in those conditions.[/quote']

 

it could end up costing a lot of money but i'm thinking the ammount saved on labour for building roads and such would help a lot more than people think, the shock collar idea could work though, reminds me a bit of Battle Royale but overall if they were properly made they could be very useful.......and funny

[Cryptic_Soldier 0]

it could end up costing a lot of money but i'm thinking the ammount saved on labour for building roads and such would help a lot more than people think' date=' the shock collar idea could work though, reminds me a bit of Battle Royale but overall if they were properly made they could be very useful.......and funny[/quote']

 

I dont know that anything a shock drunk con builds would be of very high quality. They actually might end up killing more people with their shatty construction...

[LexTalionis 0]

I dont know that anything a shock drunk con builds would be of very high quality. They actually might end up killing more people with their shatty construction...

 

well i'd imagine you'd have a professional foreman to check over such problems, and if something was deemed faulty they would have to rebuild it, also i think the collar could have a big impact on how they act, after building the same wall 4 times they would probably put everything they had into not being shocked just so they could finish it and go to bed, again i'm probably not smart enough to work out all the ins and outs of the idea, but i'm sure some people are and i would leave it in the capable hands of them

[Cryptic_Soldier 0]

well i'd imagine you'd have a professional foreman to check over such problems' date=' and if something was deemed faulty they would have to rebuild it, also i think the collar could have a big impact on how they act, after building the same wall 4 times they would probably put everything they had into not being shocked just so they could finish it and go to bed, again i'm probably not smart enough to work out all the ins and outs of the idea, but i'm sure some people are and i would leave it in the capable hands of them[/quote']

 

Why cant we compromise and have our killers and rapists executed and have our other criminals do hard labor to earn the money needed to execute the really bad guys?

[LexTalionis 0]

Why cant we compromise and have our killers and rapists executed and have our other criminals do hard labor to earn the money needed to execute the really bad guys?

 

i don't know, i think hard labour is more of a punishment, but thats just my opinion, a lot of people think death is the worst thing but i really don't fear death, it's going to happen at some point and i'm not going to be able to stop it, however the thought of constant work with random beatings, no money and an living in pain for the rest of my natrual life seems more punishing. i think if i had a choice between the 2 i would probably pick death but thats just me

[judo_phantom 0]

i believe if the crime is serious enough,such as murder, that the person responsible should not only be exectued, but executed in the way in which THEY killed their own victems. it should also be done in public, to make an example of them.

 

note that i'm not trying to sound like a psycho here, i seriously believe this would work.

[DarkReflection 0]

i believe in the crime is serious enough' date='such as murder, that the person responsible should not only be exectued, but executed in the way in which THEY killed their own victems. it should also be done in public, to make an example of them.

 

note that i'm not trying to sound like a psycho here, i seriously believe this would work.[/quote']

 

I completely agree with the public executions for deterrence. I think there should be a special channel on television that is a govt channel and whenever there is an execution it will be looped on that channel for 24 hours after the execution.

 

Because the it becomes VERY real...*chuckle* especially if it's death by slowly sawing someones head off as someone said...if THAT doesn't stop you from doing a drive by just to show you are tough or to gain acceptance..then I don't think anything will...and if it won't stop you...thats fine...because when we catch you...YOUR head will be sawed off...and hopefully you can help deter someone not quite as ignorant as yourself.

 

 

I think the same thing should be done in prisons...I could make prisons the safest places on earth in a week. No joke. As I said before you take a zero tolerance policy toward ANY violence.

 

First of course you put cameras and audio equipment to film literally EVERY square inch of the prison..

 

You hit another inmate, sexually assault another inmate or correctional officer etc......for ANY reason...even if they deserved it...you get shot in the head and left in your cell block for a day as a reminder of what happens when you commit violence...

 

This will solve the violence in prisons in short order..guaranteed

 

Cheers

 

-DR

[FirstHero 0]

Definitely.