Originally posted by Donnie Darko

But why must we think in "eye for an eye" terms at all?

That's what's holding us back.

An eye for an eye simply means the punishment must fit the crime. It's a short hand idea that punishments must be equal to the crime...no more, no less.

An eye for an eye...a life for a life. Pretty simple prescription, yet people are offended by just retribution. Seems awful barbaric to rip out someone's eye, yeah? Yet, we need more of it.

Originally posted by Praetorian Guard

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

But why must we think in "eye for an eye" terms at all?

That's what's holding us back.

An eye for an eye simply means the punishment must fit the crime. It's a short hand idea that punishments must be equal to the crime...no more, no less.

An eye for an eye...a life for a life. Pretty simple prescription, yet people are offended by just retribution. Seems awful barbaric to rip out someone's eye, yeah? Yet, we need more of it.

Arguing it is hopeless.

F people.

I've given up arguing. People are too stubborn about this issue.

Like I said, humans can't save themselves ....

I am sorry I sincerely appreciate your views on the continued abolition of the death sentence, miscarriages have and continue to occur and to the civilised mind it is simply barbaric. However it is usually not civilised people who commit these crimes, more the callous and vicious, the death penalty is necessary first as an instrument of ‘pause’ essentially society reminding us of the consequences of our actions. It is also necessary for revenge and punishment, regardless of the victims and families wishes as without its use it purpose as a deterrent becomes superfluous.

I personally think we need it back, and we should extend it to include corporate manslaughter. Additionally in extreme capital cases I could argue for the head on pike scenario, but I admit that would be going too far.

If someone murdered someone I loved I would want payback, wouldn’t you?

The main idea I've got is "children need the death penalty to exist to be safe" and "wouldn't you want to avenge your loved one".

Why doesn't life in maximum security prison without parole suffice for the very worst criminals? I want an explanation WHY. The idea that they can kill guards doesn't work because if done right they would be no more dangerous than an angry ape in a zoo. Sure it costs a lot of money, but isn't it money well spent to set such a high standard for life?

I have yet to hear a reason why we MUST have the death penalty.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Donnie Darko]

Our society has a foundation of rules to protect it’s people and it’s society as a whole.
When someone steps outside the rules of society, they forfeit the protection of the society they live in.
You try and kill society, society no longer protects you.
So play by the rules - or die.

As horrific as that is (just drips NWO if you apply it to other circumstances) I still believe, and strongly, this formula MUST apply to serial killers, murderers, rapists who kill, and fist and foremost pedophiles.

One thing people forget conveniently it seems, or are just ignorant of.

Pedophilia does not end when the criminal is caught.
The child's pain goes on, and the crime continues to harm throughout the child’s whole life.
No matter how much *help* the child receives, if any, the crime will never, ever *go away*.
It’s impossible to ever regain the innocence stolen.

Furthermore. A victim of pedophilia often, and more often than is reported, grows into an abuser/pedophile themselves.
When they perpetrate on a child the very same crimes perpetrated on them - their excuse is “It was done to me”.
So the initial pedophile - (arguably) - is the perpetrator of an infinity of crimes against generations of children.

Put an end to the outrage of pedophilia once and for all.

Make it a public killing, make it horrific and whatever you don’t make it *humane* - Burn them at the stake - IMO.

So possibly, just possibly if one person is crippled in fear before they harm a child - if a horrific execution acts as a deterrent, stops a child rapist in their tracks - it will save a whole generation of children suffering - and another generation and the next after that.

Capitol punishment obviously breaks off any further gathering of information from a person who is already deceased. This could constitute 'destruction of evidence' and be a form of 'obstruction of justice.'

Karla Faye Tucker was put to death in Texas for a murder she committed when she was under the influence of many different drugs that had been supplied to her by 'friends.' How much insurance was on the persons who she was executed for killing? Who else was involved in setting her up? We will likely never know the truth because the state of Texas destroyed the evidence and prevented any further investigation by killing Karla Faye Tucker.

You may recall that George Bush did one of his clown comic routines about her when she asked him to "Please don't kill me."

Before John Wayne Gacy was executed he told his lawyer that "I hope the truth comes out someday." The local police department had received reports for over ten years of screams coming from his home at night? Curious that they never investigated and took no action. If Gacy were alive he may have been able to explain why he was mass murdering young men for so many years and the police failed act. The state of Illinois destroyed the evidence by executing him and now we may never know the truth.

Jeffrey Dahmer was slain while in prison to break off any further testimony that he could give. When he was finally arrested the Mayor told the police chief to clear off the computer files of any contact that the Milwaukee police had had with Dahmer. Jeffrey was an 'Intelligence agent' working undercover. The police had dropped many kids off at his apartment for him to eat. It was known in intelligence circles as "Operation meals on wheels." Of course it could be argued that if capitol punishment were allowed then the authorities wouldn't have had to contract murder him in the lock up. Even with that said, capitol punishment should be ended.

Law is not created to guarantee equal outcomes, rather it is designed to guarantee equal process. One concept of Justice is that no party may be denied to do what another party is allowed to do. An ordinary citizen is denied the right to kill after capture. So if you are attacked and you subdue your assailant, once the assailant is no longer able to continue the combat, your attack must cease. On the other hand, the state may kill a person who presents absolutely no threat and is under total control. The basis of allowing for 'unequal process,' between parties, the state versus the individual, is evidence that capitol punishment is 'intrinsically unjust.'

The state is a legal fabrication and a synthetic construction. If you consider your self a just person, would you ever allow the state to do an unjust act in your name? Capitol punishment is an unjust act Capitol punishment is murder, and if done to silence a witness, is at minimum, compounding of a felony. It is Treason against humanity.

When citizens commit crimes they are jailed for punishment and for the protection of society. Therefore, I do not see the point in societies executing those who no longer pose any danger. I think those who commit murder should be jailed indefinitely (separated from society), but I believe all criminals should be given the chance to become better people. Does that mean they should be given cable, or be allowed to pursue college degrees? No, but that's a separate issue. The bottom line is killing people for killing people is childish and it accomplishes nothing. Philosophically speaking, if you believe in God, then executing those who no longer pose any danger would serve no objective purpose other than mere revenge. After all, God – a perfect being with absolute authority – is going to judge them anyway, so for us to carry out our limited judgments is disrespectful, arrogant, and pointless to say the least. On the other hand, if you do not believe in God, then capital punishment is just the act of transforming criminal beings into a state of nothingness. How can that be considered a punishment when the only people who will realize and remember such events are the witnesses and the avengers? Indeed, the most logical solution is indefinite confinement. In that way, society would be safe from criminals, the criminals would be punished, and criminals would be given the chance to become better people.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by YSM85]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
I foresee the return of the death penalty to the UK, the EU, Australia, Canada and New Zealand in the early '10s as society breaks down and crime gets really bad.

Hi Donnie. Thanks for your worries for European Union.

Here in France, that abolished death penalty in 1981 even if a short majority of french population was still for at this periode, the number of people supporting death penalty has decreased over the last 20 years. From below 50% in the '80s, there is now around 61% people against death penalty in France.
Also, death penalty abolition has been written in the Constitution in 2002. It is now an anticonstitutional punishment here.