DEATH PENALTY

death penalty only for 1st degree murder.
long time in prison for all the other ones though, and I don't think it should make a difference if it's a family member or not

It depends, if the guy killed or raped my kid(I dont have one) or any other famly member. And he went to jail for live. It would be a short life because that guy would have their throats slit and have their body stuffed in the toliet. But if he got away I would have probally blown the guys di#@ of and then shoot the bastard. Graphic yes, but you shoild listen to some of those peoples how have one of their famly members killed or hurt, or raped and see how they reacted.

This statement not only nullifies people's willingness to participate in the argument, it also displays the best example of irony ever.

I believe the political correctness of the him/her was made moot by inferring that liberals are indeed Nazis.

I believe you have just proved an inverse Godwin's Law as you brought up the Nazis on the first post.

Actually, I think we should have a society that works on the front end like public education and continuing education rather than work on society at the back end in law and punishment.

There will always be people in this world that will perform acts such as discriped here but no one wants to talk about how that person came to commit such acts in the first place.

Reminds me of one of my Favorate quotes

We kill people who kill people in order to show other people that killing is wrong.

Communist! Although to go with the theme I should probably have gone with Nazi instead. Nazi communist?

The Archbishop should have spent a little less time asking questions and a little more time finding answers. Poor people generally have themselves to blame, and giving them food rarely helps do anything but keep them hungry.

The idea that education will solve all the worlds ills holds up only in a fairy tale. If the liberal philosophy is correct and people really do start out as a blank slate and only become evil because of their environment, then you would have to take away freedom in order to create one that led to normal people. After all, education alone is completely worthless. Illegal drugs are used by people who have been informed of the ill effects, people still have unprotected sex with complete strangers despite not being able to turn on a tv without figuring that one out. Only by forcing parents to provide a stable home, which is a neat trick as an unwilling parent cannot possibly provide one, could you ever hope to achieve anything.

Of course, as with any philosophical viewpoint that is provably wrong from the start, it's not, and the point is moot. You'd still need corporal and capital punishment to have anything resembling a fair system of justice. Three square meals and a roof over your head in return for butchering people is a crime.

Ignoring the poor bastard's own views on the matter(he thinks the gun laws did most of it), you should read up on what Rudy Giulliani did for New York City. Law enforcement ignore petty crime, it's beneath them, the joys of ego. By forcing them to clean up the hookers, drug pushers, and vandals, he drastically dropped the crime rates across the board. Working at the back end is definitely the wrong method, but the front end isn't the school system, it's shoplifting, running stoplights, joy riding. When you get away with something small, it encourages you. Think of it as an education in consequences. In most of the country, they learn there aren't any.

I think the death penalty is okay in extreme cases. But the way they administer the death penalty is inhumane. It would be better to just shoot the convicted rather than strap them to a table and pump them full of lethal drugs.

I've also noticed that ever since MumbleFratz asked that the off topic threads be removed from the "recent posts" window, more and more of these threads have appeared.  

Etrius

Oh, really? So we should cut of all aid to the 1.3 million poeple in Burma who just suffered a typhoon? And we should also endorse the Israelli blockade of the Gaza strip until everyone there starves to death? And should we also allow the World Bank to continue to line its pockets by demanding 1.3 billion dollars a month from Haiti where over a million people now face starvation because their government has to confiscate food production and lower trade barrier to pay off its debt that was run up by the western endorsed dictator in exile?

Yes. I subscribe to 'an eye for an eye'. If someone raped, deathly harmed, or was out to kill a family member I'd shoot that person myself and make sure they didn't survive to create another mockery of the legal system. When people can't respect others and don't recognize the consequences of their actions, they have no business being a part of society. Obviously the reaction to an offense must be tailored to its level of threat (ie: someone breaks into your house, you shoot them. If they walk on your property you yell/chase them off). However, my point of view is probably a bit far out there to most people since they tend to live in urban or suburban communities. I'm from the rural middle-of-no-where. Here people take care of their own and each person's property is like their own little world. The neighbor on one side has a junk yard and the neighbor on the other side has an elaborate expensive house. A friend half an hour away has a fenced compound with pet cougars. Violence, crime, burglary...it all simply does not exist out here because you could wind up never leaving the house you broke into or with chicken crap all over the road in front of you house when you piss someone off.

Furthermore, if someone is convicted of killing someone else, I really don't care if the death penalty is deemed inhumane, hurtful, torture, or whatever else. I'm sure the person who was killed didn't go painlessly.

No, I would not.

...

Okay, I take that back. I WOULD feel an instinctive need for revenge, but I would immediately suppress it. Killing them wouldn't accomplish anything. I'd much rather see that person rehabilitated so they can live normally in society, maybe even help others out depending upon their new job.

The death penalty solves nothing, and there is a consistent correlation between higher crime and the death penalty in areas where it is utilized, as shocking as that might be at first thought. It doesn't deter anyone, because people only kill if they're:

A. Insane
B. Temporarily enraged/what have you(crime of passion.)
C. Convinced they will not be caught.
D. Two or more of the above.

Rather, rehabilitation is the key. I know that goes against people's initial instincts and emotions, but trust me, it works out better for everyone in the long run.

Capital punishment is a good way of balancing things out: a bad person kills a good person and the bad person forfeits his life as a result. Not only that but it ensures the bad persons DNA can no longer pollute the gene pool.

"The death penalty solves nothing, and there is a consistent correlation between higher crime and the death penalty in areas where it is utilized"
You haven't been to Detroit or the north side of Milwaukee have you?

If it was intentional or it was extreme negligence (i.e. drunk driving), they go to jail. Their punishment is that they killed another human being. That alone is enough to haunt them. So keep them off the streets and keep them thinking about their crime until they get it. If someone broke into my house, I would use force, up to lethal force, to protect myself, but there's a difference between self-defence (and defence of property) and vigilante justice.

Accidental or in a circumstance where they felt great remorse? I wouldn't press charges. Though that's difficult to tell, as the sort of people that kill often are so sociopathic that lying comes easily.

I don't believe in ruining others lives just because they impacted or ruined mine unintentionally. It's not efficient, it's not right, and it's not fair. I'm an atheist, but I thought this story was amazing.

There's a tenet of some forms of Buddhism that those that we see as criminals or those who make bad decisions are not fundamentally evil - they are ignorant about the consequences of their actions. Sometimes this ignorance is born out of personal irresponsibility, but we as a society have to take credit for part of it. If someone has a mental disorder and kills another, we should have seen the signs and got that person help. You can't fix crime, but rehabilitation, education, and programs like those that exist in prison are part of the solution. Killing people is not.

Oh, and speaking of ignorance:



Yes, because clearly there's a gene for killing people. You probably shouldn't post this sort of thing if you don't know anything about sociology or genetics.

https://forums.galciv2.com/132685

Are they anything like Vegetariancarnivores?

These days, everbody had a difficult childhood. But not everybody becomes a murderer.
People should stop to blame everybody else and start taking responsibility for themselves. If an adult human beeing kills/rapes somebody then I give a sh** about the problems he might have had in the past.

Still, I'd be against the death penalty. I have no objections to putting a 100% guilty criminal in his grave but the problem is the "100% guilty" part. There is no such thing. You can never be absolutely beyond any doubt 100% sure that you got the right guy.

Yea, it works better for everyone. Like ... you rehabilitate the sex offender and after playing nice to the psychologist he gets released and starts raping the next 8year old girl. Everybody is happy then!

In the scenario you are describing, I might want the perpetrator dead... which doesn't mean that in this situation, I would be the best choice to make that decision. The main problem with death penalty as I see it is that you can never be sure beyond any doubt that the case isn't a setup and the convicted "perp" innocent. I'm sure the US have already killed a number of innocent persons, so death row should be abolished ASAP.

Seeing as incarceration just gives career criminals free room and board with little hope of reform while we pay for it. I'm all for weeding these dregs out of society in any way possible. In fact the whole death penalty process as it stands is a waste of money. If found guilty, walk their ass right out of the courtroom door and put a bullet in their head. No use me paying for them to live for free for years while they go through some BS appeal system. Then again I expect the US justice system to do very little of what would be called justice anymore anyway. Your sentence depends on your status in society and how good a lawyer you can afford. Maybe it isn't what the touchy feely "they just need a hug" types want to hear, but maybe they should pony up and either pay for or attempt to reform this type of scum themselves.

lol, the simplicity of the common american......

scerw that if the persion permantly scars a persons or kill a persion he should die and they should make death penaltey strecter in my opion. like if you steal high amounts of stuff or if you do a crimes over and over again even after riblitation or just mentaly screwed up they should get the death penaltey. and you may say prison for life but i am not paying for that persion to live in a home and get food for free. besides Prison dose nothing, all prison dose is make them smater and tuffer and ways to do crime or crimes better for example if you go to jail for stiling you will get better at stiling or better at not getting arestesd for stiling.
and pluse we are a two planet spices living on one planet, the human race domanits the globe and is killing the earth at the same time. there are 6.6 billion right now and in 2050 there will be 9 billion humans. so what, if a pesion dies they died not at the greddy hands of a human by the law and for salvation of the human race. if that dose not happen it will be like "Logan's Run" evrybody die at a certean age.i whould rather die for a crime i comited, for one i whont be able to live with my selves, and 2 i dont whant to die at the age of 21.



a bullet may miss or not work a drug dosen't. and inhumane my ass pepole do drugs becase they whant to drugs there are pepole ingenting, sniffing and smoking crapey drugs they get off the street. at least the its a govwement drug it clean and it will kill you fast in stead of over time like street drugs do.

I honestly believe that no one should decide if another person should live or die.
But if someone where to harm my family, and i dont care for what ever reason i would become a psykopat. I would lock that bastard in my basement and torture him for as long as i live.

Thats the feeling i have about it, but no one exactly knows what you will do if something like this happens, and i hope i never will.

So no, i dont believe in death penalty as it would just be far to easy for the criminal to get away from what he did.

There's a difference between getting high, and dying through pain (if the knockout part doesn't get you, or they miss a vein)

So, I have a question for those of you who are in favour of the death penalty: since there is such a dire need for kidneys and other vital organs, and since the executed criminals won't be needing theirs any longer, is it ethical to take those healthy organs and give them to those who are in need?

But you see, not many of us here have commited a crime, or have been to prison, or died. So we can not possibly say which punishment would work best. Experience usually speaks for itself, and in this case there is no experience, only assumptions.