Why I support the Death Penalty and Public Execution!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
With a horrible person like that I would publicly be more than happy to cut his genitals off.

Yes I always said that if somebody does anything to any of my children when they were young I would hunt it and cut his genitals right up.

Let him go through live without Mr. Happy and see him suffering.




posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
With a horrible person like that I would publicly be more than happy to cut his genitals off.

Yes I always said that if somebody does anything to any of my children when they were young I would hunt it and cut his genitals right up.

Let him go through live without Mr. Happy and see him suffering.


Marg this might scare you but I agree with you! That would stop the repeat offenders too would it not?



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Quick justice should be a part of it agree, but for your question, I dont care!


So you dont care that your a hypercrit and you dont stand by your beliefs ?
So its ok to ignore the death penalty but to accuse women of murder?
Wheres your spine?



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11


Quick justice should be a part of it agree, but for your question, I dont care!


So you dont care that your a hypercrit and you dont stand by your beliefs ?
So its ok to ignore the death penalty but to accuse women of murder?
Wheres your spine?


Its right under my BACKBONE. The children have done NO Crime. These animals have. BIG Difference.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Its right under my BACKBONE. The children have done NO Crime. These animals have. BIG Difference.

Then you must be in a wheelchair.
Murder is murder weather it be a baby or a a adult who has commited crimes. It dosnt matter if the person has commited crimes or not its still murder there is no differnce or are you a closet support of abortions?
You cant pick and choose what murder is.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Think before answering, but would the continued use of the Death Penalty and now the suggestion of having public executions (TV or otherwise) still add to the deterrance of such crimes, as mentioned in this post?

I do believe that past and present numbers would indicate otherwise?





seekerof



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
(1) Muder :the unlawful killing of a person, esp. when done with deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime (first-degree murder) or with intent but
without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Notice the Unlawful part ok?


(2) Yes I think it would deter some but not all of the crimes. When one knows that there is serious consequences, one might be less inclines to try it. Good thing is that there would be no repeat offenders, ever.

Now maybe a 2nd degree murder might not warrant the death penalty, but something like what this guy did and had done in the past would warrant such action. Just think of the money that could be used elsewhere in society instead of taking care of trash. You see giving a life sentence doesn't necessarily mean a hard core punishment. If they would be forced to break big rocks into little rocks for 40 years then fine (maybe depends on the crime) then punishment would mean something, not letting the taxpayer subsidize them getting Law degree's for free when I had to pay for my education.

My brother brings up the only decent argument against, their soul, but that is another topic in itself.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I never said crimes should get a free ride bye the way
I already know what murder is. Was there some point to telling me what murder is other then avoiding the fact your a hypercrit.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I hate the death penalty. Its so distgusting
When we kill a murderer we are doing the exact same thing as the scumbag. What about all the people who were innnocent when they were electricuted?D.N.A. evidence has proven that some of the people killed were innocent. No one deserves to die. Not evan scumbag murderers.

Now dont ANY1 here tell me to put my feet in their G*ddam shoes. There are alot of people who I wish were dead, but I would never want them killed. I would rather they spend theyre lives in jail being tortured. If your religiouse or none-religiouse you could easily agree that being tortured the rest of your life is worse then dieing in like 5 seconds. The none-religiouse because they would have to suffer instead of just die, and the religiouse because they would be tortured the rest of their lives and spend the rest of eternity in hellfire.

Murder is wrong, no matter who is commiting it.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Yes I think it would deter some but not all of the crimes. When one knows that there is serious consequences, one might be less inclines to try it.

You may think so edsinger, but the evidence simply doesn't support that notion. Actually quite the contrary (read the thread to which I supported a link earlier if you're interested in reading more about it).


Good thing is that there would be no repeat offenders, ever.

Bad thing is that we won't be able to bring those later found innocent back to life, ever.


Just think of the money that could be used elsewhere in society instead of taking care of trash.

Please educate yourself about the costs of capital punishment in practice as compared to life imprisonment (a hint; the former is more expensive).



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durden



Just think of the money that could be used elsewhere in society instead of taking care of trash.

Please educate yourself about the costs of capital punishment in practice as compared to life imprisonment (a hint; the former is more expensive).


Sorry don't have lots of time, but of course it s more expensive to execute, I mean the lawyers got to be paid for the 26 appeals..



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Sorry don't have lots of time, but of course it s more expensive to execute, I mean the lawyers got to be paid for the 26 appeals..

So your former point about the costs of treatment is... what, exactly
?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Sorry it took so long..

My point is that is not worth it to spend 200-300k to support these P.O.S's for the rest of there life, the trials should be quick just as the founding fathers intended. To many appeals just keep lawyers in business.


I am not draconian here, I just think that there should be some accountability for crimes, and yes the amount of crimes would fall. This is one thing the Islamic world has right.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Sorry it took so long..

My point is that is not worth it to spend 200-300k to support these P.O.S's for the rest of there life, the trials should be quick just as the founding fathers intended. To many appeals just keep lawyers in business.

The idea of reducing delay and costs of capital cases is simply not realistic unless we're going to abandon the crucial safeguards and constituional rights of suspects in favor of a speedier conviction/execution with the obvious risk of executing an even larger number of innocents. And as to what the Founding Fathers intended... well, let's just say I seriously doubt their intention was to execute more innocents.


I am not draconian here, I just think that there should be some accountability for crimes, and yes the amount of crimes would fall. This is one thing the Islamic world has right.

I'm certainly not disputing that offenders should be held accountable for crimes they've committed. What I am disputing is the notion that capital punishment is a rational manner of punishment and/or effective as a deterrent. As Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the Pennsylvania Prison Society and early believer in the so called 'brutalization effect' concluded; having a death penalty actually increases criminal conduct. This argument is very much supported by the majority of evidence.

So as to avoid this turning into a tedious rehash of what's already been thoroughly covered, I'd again advice you to read through the other Death Penalty-thread.


[edit on 16-4-2005 by Durden]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
And as to what the Founding Fathers intended... well, let's just say I seriously doubt their intention was to execute more innocents.

This argument is very much supported by the majority of evidence.

So as to avoid this turning into a tedious rehash of what's already been thoroughly covered, I'd again advice you to read through the other Death Penalty-thread.


We I meant the right to a speedy trial. So the taxpayer should have to pay for multiple appeals etc etc and it takes 20 years? No, that is a waste of recourses and should be shortened considerably.

I do not think that is the case, now these 'animals' know that there is no way they will be killed for their crimes until way later. If they knew they could die in days or weeks it would change the attitude for 'some' not all but some yes.

I agree, there is no reason to argue the death penalty with me, I believe in its virtues.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Yea! Hang em in a public square. It would deter crime. Also it shouldn't take ten years to carry out the death sentence.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
We I meant the right to a speedy trial. So the taxpayer should have to pay for multiple appeals etc etc and it takes 20 years? No, that is a waste of recourses and should be shortened considerably.

I know exactly what you meant, edsinger. It seems however, you're completely missing the point of what I'm saying. In death penalty-cases, increase in time and cost of administering criminal justice can't be avoided without abandoning the procedural safeguards and constitutional rights which the courts are - and should be - requiring. The reasons for the radical increase in time and cost spent includes empaneling the jury and the fact that post-conviction appeals are considerably more frequent in capital cases.


I do not think that is the case, now these 'animals' know that there is no way they will be killed for their crimes until way later. If they knew they could die in days or weeks it would change the attitude for 'some' not all but some yes.

I have yet to see you present a rational argument and/or evidence to support why you think that is the case. Fact is that evidence show an increase in homicide in states where the death penalty is utilized. It simply doesn't make any sense that this would dramatically change by suddenly dismissing the constitutional rights of suspects and ignoring what safeguards are needed to avoid executing innocents (of which we have numerous examples) in favor of speedier convictions and executions.


I agree, there is no reason to argue the death penalty with me, I believe in its virtues.

I was advising you to educate yourself on this issue and read through what's already been covered. Do so, and I'll be more than happy to have at least a somewhat meaningful discussion with you.


[edit on 17-4-2005 by Durden]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
An example of Ted Bundy should suffice, he costs the taxpayer millions and was a piece of trash that should have been killed in 30 days when he was finally caught.

Look I agree safeguards are needed, but not 20 damn years and a million bucks a pop.


No Bullets are cheap.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
An example of Ted Bundy should suffice, he costs the taxpayer millions and was a piece of trash that should have been killed in 30 days when he was finally caught.

Ah, yes; Ted Bundy..
. Are you suggesting Mr Bundy should be seen as the example of the typical suspect of homicide? And that what heinous acts he was finally convicted of perpetrating should dictate the means of how suspects are treated in the criminal justice system so that you could speed up the trials process and accept a sudden dismissal of the constitutional rights of suspects? Tell me you're joking... If you actually took a few minutes and did some research, you'd realize that there are far more examples of executed innocents than there are of serial killers such as Ted Bundy.


Look I agree safeguards are needed, but not 20 damn years and a million bucks a pop.

So you're pretty much arguing against the use of capital punishment. Either that, or you're willing to accept an even larger number of innocents killed in favor of saving a few bucks. Priceless.


No Bullets are cheap.

So? Do you have a problem with the means of executions being too expensive as well
?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
So basically it boils down to this,

You are more concerned about the Constitutional rights of the Criminals than that of the victims. Its societies fault anyway right? No accountability for these crimes, hell let the taxpayer carry the burden durden, I mean we don't have better things to do with that money right?


Yes, that is Priceless.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join