The Death penalty.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

How many are there unjustly? There are a lot of cultural issues that can contribute to crime rates. This might have something to do with the prison ratios -

Births to Unmarried Women

Capital Punishment is Draco, Mars and is part of the slavers dominating this planet. It is pure retaliation and sacrifice, something that anyone trying to leave must not participate in. Love only heals, it always forgives and works overtime. It does protect, and sometimes hauls dangerous people off and locks them up for some heavy duty counseling and work, but only if they're a real danger to others.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

or perhaps its because cultural behaviors were made illegal, and prisons were filled. That is really what prohibition was all about. and now look at how many folks are in prison for low level drug offenses.

It doesn't help that prisons are wholly designed to make prisoners worse people.

And it certainly doesn't explain why sentencing for white vs black is so disparate.

Here's some info on that last bit:

Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found.

www.wsj.com...

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: seagull

A death penalty is a very final way to make sure that particular person doesn't hurt anyone ever again.

So is a life behind bars .

What about the others in prison with them? There are murders of other prisoners too So just them being in prison wont stop them killing someone. The surest way to stop a killer is by ending their ability to kill. Maybe they could turn them into quadraplegics? That would be super cruel though.

Terrorist According to the geneva conventions are un uniformed.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

or perhaps its because cultural behaviors were made illegal, and prisons were filled. That is really what prohibition was all about. and now look at how many folks are in prison for low level drug offenses.

People of all races go to jail for drug offenses. Whether that is right or not is another issue. I have relatives that have been busted for drugs. Excessive drug use, and sales, could result from the single parent homes, however, and the poor conditions that tend to go hand in hand with those.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
It doesn't help that prisons are wholly designed to make prisoners worse people.

No, it doesn't. The system isn't doing what it should.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
And it certainly doesn't explain why sentencing for white vs black is so disparate.

Well, in depth studies, without bias, would be nice, but I suspect money is the issue there, not race. Someone with more can get a better lawyer, and end up with less time. That's a class issue, that happens to affect one race more, because of other issues. Again, that can tie in with the family situations. Why those are as they are really needs to be addressed. I personally feel it's planned, to promote the same sort of nastiness as the eugenics programs were, just less obviously.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Here's some info on that last bit:

Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found.

www.wsj.com...

Interesting read, to be sure, but as they say, we don't have all of the details, so it's impossible to make an objective statement. Two drug offenses, for example, might look the same as far as the basic charge, but one case could involve factors that make the crime worse, in some fashion. The bit about steeper laws for one type of a drug over another are ridiculous, of course. Treat both equally. There I suspect money is the factor, again. Who committed the offense, and the position they hold, could affect sentencing. It should not, but it will.

The system is messed up, no matter what the root causes.

some people need to die for there atrocities or whatever they have done but when someone has no regard for life so why should we show them mercy?

a reply to: boymonkey74

I'm against it. It's too easy to frame somebody for murder. There have been cases where the real killer has been found after an innocent man was killed in his place. Also, there are cases where somebody has been locked up for 20 + years is freed because it's proven with DNA evidence that he didn't do it. There's just no way to be 100% sure and you can't bring somebody back if there's a mistake.

I never got how if A kills B it is bad . So C (insert country ) kills A and its all good . Perhaps i am missing something .

a reply to: hutch622

Life in prison. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard that, or read that... ...and if it were true in every case, my support for it would be less than it already is. But all too often, those lifers are released, and again, all too often, they resume their predatory behaviours.

I do not support the death penalty in all capital cases. Never have.

But society, as a whole, has an obligation to protect itself from predators. In most cases, locking them away is sufficient to the cause. But not always.

There are monsters out there deserve nothing less than death. Not as a punishment. It's not about punishment, it's about protecting ourselves, and to a lesser extent vengeance/ or maybe closure for the victims, or their families.

Kenneth Bianchi.

That monster is but one example of why I support the limited use of the death penalty. Should he get out by some mistake, or other reason? I, for one, see no reason to ever take that chance...

a reply to: seagull

Can you not see my point . Its wrong for them but perfectly ok for us as a society . The hypocrisy on this one is strong . How can there be such a thing as legally taking a life .

a reply to: hutch622

Yeah there is that how can a society call it's self civilized If we do something we call uncivilized to them?.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: boymonkey74

There are no circumstances under which I would support the purposeful killing of another person by the state.

Not even if the purp intentionally slaughters 85-100 people with a machine gun...showing no compassion and no mercy ?

A purp that shows no regret doing it and would do it all over again ?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You make him pay and take away his freedom until he dies.
You attempt to understand why he/she did it.
But I do agree with punishment and it should be hard for the rest of his/her life.

a reply to: hutch622

I do see your point. Really, I do. I just don't agree with it. However, I could live with it.

I'm not, as they say, married to it.

a reply to: boymonkey74

You make him pay and take away his freedom until he dies.

...well...he does get free internet, TV, 3 meals a day...and you're paying for it...and he might have shot someone you loved.

You attempt to understand why he/she did it.

I have no sympathy for those that show no sympathy towards others. Once you took the gun and started shooting...you lost all privileges to a "fair" trial. I would feed him to the lynch mob...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I agree with a proper punishment. What happened to making them break up rocks for the rest of their lives?.
No internet no perks..punishment.
Like I said If it was someone who I loved you can bet I would want death to em by my hands but the law should not do what is illegal to do anyway, kill someone for killing someone.
Eye for an eye to me is bronze age morality.

For want of a more in depth reply (which I may or may not come back to) I am fundamentally opposed to the Death Penalty as any sort of just punishment in a civilised society.
In my humble opinion, it willfully neglects the failings of the society as a whole and is but a 'band aid', or 'ambulance at the bottom of the cliff' and is symptomatic of a culturally-inferior, lazy, and maladjusted society.

We can do better.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Eye for an eye to me is bronze age morality.

Agreed...but I don't see it as an issue of morality...it's simply a way to remove the individuals that are destructive to our civilized society. When I say "destructive"....I feel it's an understatement for individuals like Breivik or Manson for example.

It's a contradiction to demand no killing, enforced with a penalty of death.

I support it, but only in very rare circumstances where there remains absolutely no question of guilt, and only for the most horiffic crimes. We have to recognize that it's not a deterrent, and shouldn't be treated as one. Its morally dubious and messy as hell, but it just might be the best worst solution for dealing with the worst that society has to offer. A single innocent executed (which has absolutely happened, over and over through the years) is too many and like I said, it should only be used where there is no doubt.