Studies say death penalty deters crime

I agreed until you said that you would cut the Department of Defense's budget,Inspiteof.



[edit on 11-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by enjoies05
Yeah, yeah...eye for an eye...I've heard that before.

So why are killers better than the people they kill? Better than innocent people? Why do they deserve to live?

It has nothing to do with who's better or who's worse. They may not deserve to live the lives we ordinary citizens do, thats why i say lock em up forever with as little luxury as possible. Cut the cable TV and congucal visits, let them think and suffer with whatever conscience they may have. But IMO, executing them serves no prupose accept bloodlust.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I agreed until you said that you would cut the Department of Defense's budget,Inspiteof.



[edit on 11-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

And i think thats because you and I have different political beliefs in life. To me, it seems stupid to defend a way of life with a $600 billion dollar budget when you can barely feed all of your citizenry.

Originally posted by mizzu
Duh!!! I am all for giving murderers life in prison as long as those who oppose the death penalty pay for it. I believe once a person is convicted they should be able to mount one appeal. If they loose their appeal, they should be hanged. Simple, quick & guaranteed to deter major crime.

I think the worst thing about the death penilty (from the convicts point of view) Would be the 60 days minium they spend in a tiny cell just yards away from their fate. Repent as much as you want mate, it aint bringing your victim(s) back.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
But IMO, executing them serves no prupose accept bloodlust.

And it saves lives of more innocent people that would be put at risk if they were left alive.

Because if you...

lock em up forever with as little luxury as possible. Cut the cable TV and congucal visits, let them think and suffer with whatever conscience they may have.

What have they got to lose? If they are already messed up enough to kill once isn't there a good chance they will snap and do it again?

Originally posted by newtron25
One more time, I oppose the death penalty. I would not vote for it myself. Am I glad that it is present now under current societal conditions? I'll let you answer that one. Because I don't see a better solution being offered in the meantime.

First, i like your posts too, they are well thoughtout with a good balance of common sense and passion.

To the bolded statement in your previous post (bolding mine of course): Then maybe its time to look for a different solution instead of relying on one that seems to be doing nothing.

I may be wrong and may be reading too much into your previous posts (please correct me if im wrong) but you seem to believe the death penalty is working as a deterance. If this is true, then why is it that murder and violent crime rates continue to soar?

Side note: I realize your against the death penalty, but got the opnion stated above from inferrance in your previous posts, again correct me if im wrong.

Originally posted by enjoies05
And it saves lives of more innocent people that would be put at risk if they were left alive.

Put who at risk? If they are in prison what innocent life can they take?

What have they got to lose? If they are already messed up enough to kill once isn't there a good chance they will snap and do it again?

Ever heard of solitary confinement?

pfft.

If someone is going to kill another person I doubt they care, I mean in their minds they arent going to get caught.

and imo, death is a sweet release compared to living out your natural life in prison.


There is nothing humane about lethal injections or gas chambers, it's pretty damn sick.

Killing is killing, you support murder?

and if ye do, how many of you consider yourself christians or are of some "yaweh" based religion?

Whats that 6th commandment on the 10 commandments, or numero 5 if ye be catholic???


Oh yeah

THOU SHALL NOT KILL

it's fun to pick and choose what fits our needs right?

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Put who at risk? If they are in prison what innocent life can they take?

Guards, nurses, other inmates, other prison workers, escape and kill more. There are many people that are in danger.

Ever heard of solitary confinement?

Yep.

So it is not alright to execute a person who killed an innocent person, but it is ok to lock them up in a cement box the size of a bathroom. Why not just execute them?

Plus, extreme isolation like that can cause mental deterioration, even if they are in there for a short time. That would lead to a even more crazy and uncontrollable inmate, again, putting more innocent people at an even greater risk.

[edit on 11/6/2007 by enjoies05]

if you hold life to be the most sacred thing in the world. The worst punishment is to take what you hold most dear. I would say it's not an eye for an eye, but the punishment should fit the crime.

You kidnap and kill a girl coming out of Target who just bought a boyfriend a gift. Then you deserve to lose what is most sacred in this world...your life.

Originally posted by Lysergic

THOU SHALL NOT KILL

Isn't there something about an eye for an eye?

How spending the money saved by executing more proven murders on looking after our elderly better?

Originally posted by Now_Then
Isn't there something about an eye for an eye?

An eye for an eye will leave us all blind.

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by Now_Then
Isn't there something about an eye for an eye?

An eye for an eye will leave us all blind.

Review my posts, I don't want to kill anyone in this fashion either, but if we continue to post platitudes promoted by peace keepers and angels, without offering solutions for the masses, then we are just as guilty as the rest.

Where are the alternatives? Where is the uproar of protest with DEFINITIVE replacement plans on how to deal with what is going on?

It is not enough to say we will go blind if we continue. We need leadership, if not from our leaders, then from within. And it starts by giving of our ideas and our hearts.

My previous posts were made out of sheer frustration, because for a while now, I have heard this "give peace a chance" and "don't kill if you don't want someone to kill you". This is philosophically correct.

So, I ask those who would post such ideas what their plans are to stem the tide of violence? What do you offer a suffering nation who does not know how to help itself?

If there is any better and more horrific illustration as to how deadened and numb we have become, look toward our attitudes on the "war" we are fighting now.

Who are we fighting? A country?....No. We're fighting ideas and dogma. We're fighting something that can not be fought, the battle between whose opinion is greater. If someone says in their religion they wish to kill you as part of their fatwah, should we lay down and allow them? If we do, are we not respecting the gift of life our "God" has given us by offering it up so cheaply?

Likewise, if we enable killers by giving them life sentences and allow similarly singular minded (and in some cases demented) individuals to kill with the same punishment, are we not telling the same, peaceful and loving "God" that we don't love ourselves....because, after all we are allowing some within our society to kill while letting them live?

We are not God-like enough as a collective body of citizens to make that decision. We simply can not place the care of the platitudes of "An eye for an eye will leave us all blind" to guide us all so blindly.

Provide us new spectacles, Mr. Lennon. This time preferably without the rose tint and with corrected vision so we may see the truepath to resolution and peace.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by newtron25]

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I agreed until you said that you would cut the Department of Defense's budget,Inspiteof.



[edit on 11-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

And i think thats because you and I have different political beliefs in life. To me, it seems stupid to defend a way of life with a $600 billion dollar budget when you can barely feed all of your citizenry.

Well, it seems to me that you think it is the government's responsibility to feed people. It's not, especially if you want to maintain the freedoms that a capitalistic society provides. Now, if you want to devolve into some sort of dictatorial socialist form of government, then we have a completely different discussion on hand.

You and I are the government in a free society.

Unless you're willing to give that up too.

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by Now_Then
Isn't there something about an eye for an eye?

An eye for an eye will leave us all blind.

That would imply us humans are basically and intrinsically bad.



Given that I may buy shares in the guys that make Suicide booths

In a perfect world, where it's completely obvious to tell who killed who, how and why.. I can understand supporters of the death penalty. I wouldn't agree with it even then... but i can understand it. Though, just so you know, killing your loved one's murder will not bring them back, and will not help you feel any better.

However, how many times have you heard of sloppy police work, cases being re-opened and re-investigated only to show that the person couldn't of or didn't do it? I seem to hear about it at least once a year. I can't see how anyone would be willing to kill innocent people cause they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. As far as I'm concerned, even if it's one out of a million who is innocent, I think keeping the million alive to save the one would be worth the cost.

Put them in a cell, give them books to read and no contact with the outside world. That will make them no longer a threat to anyone. Even have a slot through the door to pass meals in. It sounds fitting, and that way your not making the world blind.

Originally posted by JessicaS

However, how many times have you heard of sloppy police work, cases being re-opened and re-investigated only to show that the person couldn't of or didn't do it? I seem to hear about it at least once a year.

While that indeed does happen, the statistics on that is about 2 out of every 1000 cases.

That's not a very high ratio.

Originally posted by JessicaS


Put them in a cell, give them books to read and no contact with the outside world. That will make them no longer a threat to anyone. Even have a slot through the door to pass meals in. It sounds fitting, and that way your not making the world blind.

Actually, suspended animation or forced coma seems slightly more fitting, as the killers have placed not just the loved ones' lives into turmoil, but frozen the development of the person they killed forever.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, it seems to me that you think it is the government's responsibility to feed people. It's not, especially if you want to maintain the freedoms that a capitalistic society provides. Now, if you want to devolve into some sort of dictatorial socialist form of government, then we have a completely different discussion on hand.

The government has a responsibility to maintain the welfare of the people. If it believes it is doing this buy dumping a butt load of cash into RnD projects (many of which have a built in obselesnce) then its time for a new government. Like you said, this is for a different discussion. (though i do not support capitalism, locally or globally)

newtron25 said it best :

but if we continue to post platitudes promoted by peace keepers and angels, without offering solutions for the masses, then we are just as guilty as the rest.

There is a complete lack of alternative solutions which i think is a huge part of the problem. Nothing has been done (outside of banning the action) to solve the problems leading to the "necessity" of capital punishment.