Why the death penalty must be abolished

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by cannibal
 


I agree. That's just it....the whole point in a nutshell. It seems that poor behavior is perpetuated in this country. The people that act irresponsibly and illegally are taken care of. In the meantime, those of us that work ourselves to the bone and actually contribute to society have our tax money used to support these people. It's sickening.

Honestly, I don't care what people do. Let them dig their own holes. I do not want to have to pay for it though. Especially when my husband and I work so hard and still cannot manage to buy a decent chunk of property or even have children (under comfortable circumstances). Yet we have criminals and irresponsible women erroneously popping out babies to get an extra $79 a month in their welfare check.

Are you serious? People want to defend this?




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
why don't you abolish crime first?

then when all of the criminals play by the rules, than we can abolish the death penalty since it will no longer be needed

IMO you really should focus your energy on abolishing crime first, just a suggestion



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


It is not revenge. It is justice.

Put it this way.

Your mother is killed by a man. The police arrest him, then the government comes to your door. They tell you you have three options.

1.) Put the man to death.

2.) Life in prison, but you and your family will foot the bill (~$30k a year)

3.) Prison term, you pay nothing, the person goes free after three years.

What would you choose?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


It is not revenge. It is justice.

Put it this way.

Your mother is killed by a man. The police arrest him, then the government comes to your door. They tell you you have three options.

1.) Put the man to death.

2.) Life in prison, but you and your family will foot the bill (~$30k a year)

3.) Prison term, you pay nothing, the person goes free after three years.

What would you choose?


2)

I will have to pay like, a fraction of a cent.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Perhaps you did not read correctly?

You and your family (siblings and father) pay the complete cost of prison.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Perhaps you did not read correctly?

You and your family (siblings and father) pay the complete cost of prison.


Yeah but in real life they don't do that.

Of course in that case, I would choose the DP. I need to live. But when you dip it out of the govt's huge pool of money, most of which they waste in pointless wars anyway, it's different.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Um, ok, since you ask but please note that this is PURELY my opinion and that I don't mean it as an attack. You view it purely as a revenge/forgiveness thing to start and refuse to view it anyway but. You also so be at times "horse trading" when I bring up an aspect of keeping people who have proven themselves to be a danger alive for their own sake being hypocritical as we allow the innocent to starve to death, you say that we should feed them, which is not really the main reason I assert that the death penalty should be used.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Um, ok, since you ask but please note that this is PURELY my opinion and that I don't mean it as an attack. You view it purely as a revenge/forgiveness thing to start and refuse to view it anyway but. You also so be at times "horse trading" when I bring up an aspect of keeping people who have proven themselves to be a danger alive for their own sake being hypocritical as we allow the innocent to starve to death, you say that we should feed them, which is not really the main reason I assert that the death penalty should be used.


Nah I see what you mean. In the past the death penalty was necessary because such people couldn't be safely quarantined.

These days though, we can disarm them and put them in solitary confinement and they won't be a threat to the guards any more than a bear in a zoo would.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Quaranteening them means we take care of them and it doesn't completely remove the threat these people present to those who have done nothing wrong. I don't agree that it is the way to go.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bad man incorporated
 


We should never have the right to take someones life. It is not, and shouldn't be, ours to take. Sure, lock 'em up and throw away the key. But, don't kill them.

They do horrific things, and naturally in return, we want to be rid of them. But, it'd be better to leave them rotting in a cell somewhere, and give them 40-50 years, if they live that long, to reflect on their disgusting behaviour.

Plus, if there is a life after death, to be partly responsible for murder yourself, would not look good on your record.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Quaranteening them means we take care of them and it doesn't completely remove the threat these people present to those who have done nothing wrong. I don't agree that it is the way to go.


The threat is about as low as the chance of killing an innocent person though.
As for "taking care of them", like I've said, it does suck, but then again so do a lot of things, like people bumming off welfare because they're too lazy to work. Do I think it's a shame they get free money? Yes. Do I think they should work or starve? No.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


See, but that huge pool of money is your tax money paying to house that murderer!



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
You get rid of the death penalty and you'll also have to outlaw abortion.
The two kinda go together.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alesanjin
reply to post by bad man incorporated
 


We should never have the right to take someones life. It is not, and shouldn't be, ours to take. Sure, lock 'em up and throw away the key. But, don't kill them.

They do horrific things, and naturally in return, we want to be rid of them. But, it'd be better to leave them rotting in a cell somewhere, and give them 40-50 years, if they live that long, to reflect on their disgusting behaviour.

Plus, if there is a life after death, to be partly responsible for murder yourself, would not look good on your record.


Yup. We need to have compassion on the people who don't deserve it. Has ANYONE read Lord of the Rings?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I feel like Michael Dukakis ....



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Doesn't address the paying for their upkeep aspect. They become little more than parasites that serve no good purpose, and for what reason? Because they showed and acted upon a total disregard for anothers life and thusly have shown themselves to be a threat to those who are innocent.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


I recommend you start expecting disagreement.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Doesn't address the paying for their upkeep aspect. They become little more than parasites that serve no good purpose, and for what reason? Because they showed and acted upon a total disregard for anothers life and thusly have shown themselves to be a threat to those who are innocent.


I don't see it as saving them though, I see it as an investment in civility. Once you start offing undesirables, you hit a slippery slope. You are saying that killing and violence are sometimes the answer, and that brutalizes a society.

I think paying $1 billion to house the worst criminals is a better investment than using that money to fight pointless wars or line the pockets of corporate thugs.

Just mo though.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


I said nothing about saving them. I did say something *alot of somethings
*
about saving others from them and the only sure way to do that.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


I said nothing about saving them. I did say something *alot of somethings
*
about saving others from them and the only sure way to do that.


Yeah, I can see your point.
But what if the death penalty is shown to brutalize society, or the chance of executing an innocent person is more likely than a DR prisoner killing a guard?





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join