It has nothing to do with revenge. In prison they can still cause harm to people.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Damn straight.FatherTed wrote:
if i was bringing malice into it, i'd rather they spend life getting bummed by tyrone in all honestly. thankfully, revenge should have no place in a court of law.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Well here's a question for you guys. If somebody you're close to, your wife, your parents, or your gf or something; how would you like it if some guy comes and kills them?
Do you think that person should go to jail where he can cause more harm or would you rather see him dead and gone with?
how so?-Sh1fty- wrote:
It has nothing to do with revenge. In prison they can still cause harm to people.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
That's why they have maximum security prisons /facepalm.-Sh1fty- wrote:
It has nothing to do with revenge. In prison they can still cause harm to people.
what people keep glossing over, and mis-labeling "revenge", is the word 'restitution'.
a killer cannot give restitution for a life he took.
a killer cannot give restitution for a life he took.
No, they can't. So it isn't relevant.burnzz wrote:
what people keep glossing over, and mis-labeling "revenge", is the word 'restitution'.
a killer cannot give restitution for a life he took.
Punishment for them is not restitution. It's revenge/rehabilitation/isolation for the protection of society/deterent.
I will take five goats and your first born daughters hand in marriage. tnxburnzz wrote:
what people keep glossing over, and mis-labeling "revenge", is the word 'restitution'.
a killer cannot give restitution for a life he took.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If the law can prove, without a doubt, that the accused is indeed the murderer of said loved one, then I'm in favor of capitol punishment. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness no longer applies to you when you see fit to take it away from others unjustly, in my opinion.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Well here's a question for you guys. If somebody you're close to, your wife, your parents, or your gf or something; how would you like it if some guy comes and kills them?
Do you think that person should go to jail where he can cause more harm or would you rather see him dead and gone with?
The other option you provide in your question doesn't make much sense to me. Cause more harm behind bars? Unless they have strong contacts outside willing to do their bidding, the only harm they are are to those in the prison system. However, being convicted of murder isn't always a life sentence, and there is always a chance a violent offender will repeat another violent crime once after being released.
Well I don't know what to say. Once you kill somebody the damage is done and that can't be reversed. The proper punishment is debatable though.
Why should he be allowed to continue living?
Why should he be killed?
Why should he be allowed to continue living?
Why should he be killed?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Why not? The only valid reason to kill anyone is to protect someone else. If they don't pose a threat there is no need to kill them.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Well I don't know what to say. Once you kill somebody the damage is done and that can't be reversed. The proper punishment is debatable though.
Why should he be allowed to continue living?
He shouldn't.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Why should he be killed?
As I said previously in this thread, dead is dead. It doesn't matter if the judge sentences him to life in prison without parole or he commands the bailiff to take him out behind the courthouse and shoot him in the head. He loses his life either way.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not? The only valid reason to kill anyone is to protect someone else. If they don't pose a threat there is no need to kill them.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Well I don't know what to say. Once you kill somebody the damage is done and that can't be reversed. The proper punishment is debatable though.
Why should he be allowed to continue living?He shouldn't.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Why should he be killed?
There is no morality here, the end result is the same, the man has been sentenced to death. The difference between your opinion and my own is that you are squeamish.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Why do some feel execution by gunshot or hanging is draconian? The intent is execute the individual, not care about their discomfort through the process. I wouldn't say "torturing" someone to death would be justified, but that obviously isn't the real intent when it comes to execution.
Well then you need to look in other directions to make up your mind.
that person's cell could be given to somebody else. It might cost more to feed and cloth him than to shoot and bury him. I know it's been discussed but it wasn't really proven that it's more expensive to kill.
that person's cell could be given to somebody else. It might cost more to feed and cloth him than to shoot and bury him. I know it's been discussed but it wasn't really proven that it's more expensive to kill.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
It's for the comfort of the audience. It's easier to see someone being "put to sleep" when in fact they are going through a heart attack (lethal injection) than a painless gunshot to the head.Phrozenbot wrote:
Why do some feel execution by gunshot or hanging is draconian? The intent is execute the individual, not care about their discomfort through the process. I wouldn't say "torturing" someone to death would be justified, but that obviously isn't the real intent when it comes to execution.
Shifty, it's a hell lot more expensive to keep someone on death row than life imprisonment. Death sentences do not deter people from murders now innit. Criminals always think they're too smart for the law. People murder for three things, passion, money and urge (psychopaths). It's impossible to prevent all three reasons, especially passion and urge.
I'd rather a fucker rot for the rest of his life in prison than a quick death.
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Well then you need to look in other directions to make up your mind.
that person's cell could be given to somebody else. It might cost more to feed and cloth him than to shoot and bury him. I know it's been discussed but it wasn't really proven that it's more expensive to kill.
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty … id=1101084
You know a single execution can cost up to $37 million?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Well then you need to look in other directions to make up your mind.
that person's cell could be given to somebody else. It might cost more to feed and cloth him than to shoot and bury him. I know it's been discussed but it wasn't really proven that it's more expensive to kill.
Some criminals get accustomed to life in prison. They still have happiness and enjoyment. They have friends, hobbies, sex, drugs, etc. They can still hurt others; inmates, security guards, medical personnel and legal counsel. Someone who has nothing to lose is dangerous. They don't deserve life or the chance to harm anyone else.
That's what maximum security is for.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Some criminals get accustomed to life in prison. They still have happiness and enjoyment. They have friends, hobbies, sex, drugs, etc. They can still hurt others; inmates, security guards, medical personnel and legal counsel. Someone who has nothing to lose is dangerous. They don't deserve life or the chance to harm anyone else.
agreedCybargs wrote:
That's what maximum security the death penalty is for.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Some criminals get accustomed to life in prison. They still have happiness and enjoyment. They have friends, hobbies, sex, drugs, etc. They can still hurt others; inmates, security guards, medical personnel and legal counsel. Someone who has nothing to lose is dangerous. They don't deserve life or the chance to harm anyone else.
What if you fuck up on evidence? One innocent dead by the state is one too many. And we know there have been a shitload of fuck ups especially in the US.west-phoenix-az wrote:
agreedCybargs wrote:
That's what maximum security the death penalty is for.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Some criminals get accustomed to life in prison. They still have happiness and enjoyment. They have friends, hobbies, sex, drugs, etc. They can still hurt others; inmates, security guards, medical personnel and legal counsel. Someone who has nothing to lose is dangerous. They don't deserve life or the chance to harm anyone else.
More expensive, more likely to go horribly wrong.Cybargs wrote:
What if you fuck up on evidence? One innocent dead by the state is one too many. And we know there have been a shitload of fuck ups especially in the US.west-phoenix-az wrote:
agreedCybargs wrote:
That's what maximum security the death penalty is for.
What are the possible reasons for it? Revenge - that's it.
Justice is not about revenge. That is why the death penalty is a very bad idea.
Innocent people being convicted is horrible, but it's going to happen.
I really don't know whats worse:
Being executed for a crime you didn't commit.
or
Living the rest of your life in prison knowing you'll never get out.
They both destroy lives.
I really don't know whats worse:
Being executed for a crime you didn't commit.
or
Living the rest of your life in prison knowing you'll never get out.
They both destroy lives.