What do you all think? Should there be a death penalty?
Why or why not?
Full Version: Death Penalty
Yes... because we have make sure people fear doing illegal stuff... its like the whole jail thing... but some people overcome the fear... others dont and obey the law... but the death penalty is a definetely way to prevent more mass murders and etc...
I'm FOR the death penalty. I wrote frikken' essay about this.
the death penalty is a way to intimidate people so they won't commit any illegal crimes and such...so i'm for it...
YES! If people have committed serious crimes, why shouldn't they? Hmm...they get to live their lives out as if nothing happened in a jail cell (where they are fed properly, etc.), with the slim chance (still a chance) that they could escape or be freed somehow through another trial. Furthermore, it shows other future criminals that people like them are being convicted, and may make them think twice. I have more on this, don't worry. 
Totally and completely FOR the death penalty. 
Toldja I was a conservative republican.
Toldja I was a conservative republican.
I'm for death penalty.
I mean, who cares if the con repented? The fact still remains that he murdered someone.
*believes in the saying, " an eye for an eye" *
- Chinkieeyedpnoi
I mean, who cares if the con repented? The fact still remains that he murdered someone.
*believes in the saying, " an eye for an eye" *
- Chinkieeyedpnoi
I'm for it.
It does make people fear doing bad things... unfortunately, the death sentence can last for years on end, and these criminals use our tax money for their lawyers.
It does make people fear doing bad things... unfortunately, the death sentence can last for years on end, and these criminals use our tax money for their lawyers.
so what happened to everyone deserves to live?
It's right, and here's why...
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky to death in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow them to repeat their crime, perhaps on a grander scale.
Get a grip, liberals...
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky to death in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow them to repeat their crime, perhaps on a grander scale.
Get a grip, liberals...
nevermind im not gonna post what I wanted....now that I think about it it may be a little too out of bounds. But yea once you take someone's life you losses all rights that the goverment has granted every person who lives here. Since you seem fit to decide if someone else has the right to live its only fair that your fate lay in someone else's hands.
QUOTE(InfamousOwen @ May 12 2004, 10:08 PM)
nevermind im not gonna post what I wanted....now that I think about it it may be a little too out of bounds. But yea once you take someone's life you losses all rights that the goverment has granted every person who lives here. Since you seem fit to decide if someone else has the right to live its only fair that your fate lay in someone else's hands.
But it's meant to be that way because it's a punishement for a wrong doing.
QUOTE(AngelicEyz00 @ May 12 2004, 7:58 PM)
so what happened to everyone deserves to live?
“The most sacred thing that we, each and every one of us, have is the right to life. When someone takes away that life, they should suffer the ultimate price and that’s the actual sacrifice of life.”
i personally think the death penalty is the easy way out. why rot and wait till you die in prison when you can just die? the only problem is that prisoners take a considerable chunk of tax funds.
i say it's a cruel and unusual punishment.
::jerry::
::jerry::
QUOTE(lil boi @ May 12 2004, 10:48 PM)
i say it's a cruel and unusual punishment.
::jerry::
::jerry::
I'd say it's fair punishment. If you can take a life and think nothing of it, then I'd say we take your life and see how you'd like.
i am anti-death penalty. reasons are as follows:
-What gives the government the right to kill? True, murder or what not deserves severe punishment. However, i say go with torture dang. An eye for an eye is wrong. (In my opinon...)
-Giving such power to any authority seems like giving them advantage. I mean, government should not be allowed to. Also, I think death penalty shows a lack of maturity because it reminds me of those little 2nd grade fights that break out just because a kid spills ketchup on someone's hair. It's like... " You... Im going to tell on you!" and the teacher says, " Its alright children, youc an put ketchup on him for putting ketchup on you."
I know that murder and other serious crimes are not a matter of ketchup or whatever and it is very serious, but I think there would be better ways to handle punishment other than taking away life.
-What gives the government the right to kill? True, murder or what not deserves severe punishment. However, i say go with torture dang. An eye for an eye is wrong. (In my opinon...)
-Giving such power to any authority seems like giving them advantage. I mean, government should not be allowed to. Also, I think death penalty shows a lack of maturity because it reminds me of those little 2nd grade fights that break out just because a kid spills ketchup on someone's hair. It's like... " You... Im going to tell on you!" and the teacher says, " Its alright children, youc an put ketchup on him for putting ketchup on you."
I know that murder and other serious crimes are not a matter of ketchup or whatever and it is very serious, but I think there would be better ways to handle punishment other than taking away life.
i heard that giving someone the death penalty wastes
a whole lot of money because of the many trials they have to go through
it's like quadruple the cost of putting the person in jail for life
a whole lot of money because of the many trials they have to go through
it's like quadruple the cost of putting the person in jail for life
im for it..
i dont really know..i live in Canada and there is no death penalty..but i had to write an essay about it and i said it's wrong cause isn't one of the commandments u shall not kill??
yes; if someone purposely kills someones else [which automatically recieves the death penalty or somethin` like that] then their life should be takin` ... it`s not like we`re givin` out death penalties for robbers ... =X
Just a thought to put out there for you guys ... America is the only 'civilized' nation in the world that still has the death penalty. England, France, Japan, Spain, Italy etc ... they no longer have a death penalty.
QUOTE(rivendell @ May 13 2004, 10:52 AM)
Just a thought to put out there for you guys ... America is the only 'civilized' nation in the world that still has the death penalty. England, France, Japan, Spain, Italy etc ... they no longer have a death penalty.
Yes, but how is the crime in those places? *Makes note to go research*
QUOTE(Kathleen @ May 13 2004, 10:55 AM)
Yes, but how is the crime in those places? *Makes note to go research*
I think I read somewhere that England's crime rate was the highest in the world per 100,000 people. But I'm not totally sure, I'll have to look for the article again.
Nope, nobody has the right to kill anyone for whatever reason.
Simple equation.
Any reason fathomable < someone's life
Shouldn't all you religious types depend on God to deal out the punishment?
Simple equation.
Any reason fathomable < someone's life
Shouldn't all you religious types depend on God to deal out the punishment?
I disagree with playing God. I believe that when you take a life, there will be consequences one way or another, even if its a person who "deserves" to die. So my answer is no.
QUOTE(CrackedRearView @ May 12 2004, 9:59 PM)
It's right, and here's why...
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky to death in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow them to repeat their crime, perhaps on a grander scale.
Get a grip, liberals...
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky to death in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow them to repeat their crime, perhaps on a grander scale.
Get a grip, liberals...
I'm not a liberal, but I agree with you.
I also agree with what someone else said...How many rehabilitated people actually come out of the system?? not very many, and is that the chance you should take when dealing with murderers, rapists, child sex offenders?? Child sex offenders get off way to easy if you ask me. They get some time in jail, get out and have to register where they live so neighbors will know...BIG WHOOPTY DO!! 9 out of 10 times they go and repeat the crime again and again. It's not a chance I'd like to take, not to mention the amount of money that we the people pay to house these criminals. Some criminals have it better in jail then they did outside of prison. It's almost like rewarding them by giving them life in jail. Obviously they didn't have any respect for life to begin with if they have taken and destroyed lives.
i dont believe in the death penalty...cuz no matter what someone did wrong, their life shouldnt be taken for it..
QUOTE(shawty_redd @ May 13 2004, 8:08 AM)
i dont really know..i live in Canada and there is no death penalty..but i had to write an essay about it and i said it's wrong cause isn't one of the commandments u shall not kill??
yes that is a commandment, but were not talking religion and there is seperation of church and state
QUOTE(rivendell @ May 13 2004, 1:06 PM)
I think I read somewhere that England's crime rate was the highest in the world per 100,000 people. But I'm not totally sure, I'll have to look for the article again.
See? They don't have the death penalty, and their crime rate is the highest in the world!
QUOTE
It's right, and here's why...
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky to death in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow them to repeat their crime, perhaps on a grander scale.
Get a grip, liberals...
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky to death in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow them to repeat their crime, perhaps on a grander scale.
Get a grip, liberals...
Crackedrearview, I completely agree with you (as well as Dastrubd)! I was going to say that, but yes, the murderer has a chance of getting out and committing the crime again...no one realizes that when they look at this.
QUOTE
i dont believe in the death penalty...cuz no matter what someone did wrong, their life shouldnt be taken for it..
So you're saying if someone slaughtered your whole family as if they were animals, you wouldn't want him to die? I don't think people realize that if they were in the shoes of the parents, friends, whatever of the victims, they would want it.
Furthermore, as I said (I don't think anyone listened to me), having the death penalty puts fear in those that are going to commit future crimes. I mean, if I knew there was a risk of death, then I wouldn't do it. If there isn't, then, hey...why not go brutally murder all the people I hate? I know I'm going to be in a jail cell the rest of my life, with a pretty good chance of getting out!
Wouldn't death penalty be cruel and unusual punishment?
Is it right for people to kill people that killed people?
There are many pros and cons to death penalty, but would 2 wrongs really make it right?
Is it right for people to kill people that killed people?
There are many pros and cons to death penalty, but would 2 wrongs really make it right?
I'm against It. i agree w/Christina that the government doesn't have the right to kill someone...
I understand the situation, but I think the easy way out would be the death penalty... Rotting in a jail cell for the rest of your life is worse... & I doubt it's so easy to escape when you're held in a maximum security jail
I understand the situation, but I think the easy way out would be the death penalty... Rotting in a jail cell for the rest of your life is worse... & I doubt it's so easy to escape when you're held in a maximum security jail
Is it not better to have those two wrongs prevent others?
I don't consider it unusual nor cruel - you kill a life...you deserve to have yours taken away.
I don't consider it unusual nor cruel - you kill a life...you deserve to have yours taken away.
Forget the death penalty. If anyone hurts any of my loved ones, I'd go vigilante on his or her ass. Busta cap in that mofo. King Kong ain't got nothin' on me!
QUOTE(AngelicEyz00 @ May 13 2004, 3:42 PM)
I'm against It. i agree w/Christina that the government doesn't have the right to kill someone...
I understand the situation, but I think the easy way out would be the death penalty... Rotting in a jail cell for the rest of your life is worse... & I doubt it's so easy to escape when you're held in a maximum security jail
I understand the situation, but I think the easy way out would be the death penalty... Rotting in a jail cell for the rest of your life is worse... & I doubt it's so easy to escape when you're held in a maximum security jail
QUOTE
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
I know I'm double posting.
QUOTE(CrackedRearView @ May 12 2004, 7:59 PM)
It's right, and here's why...
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky to death in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow them to repeat their crime, perhaps on a grander scale.
Get a grip, liberals...
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky to death in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!
He served a lousy 20 years in jail for demolishing every bit of potential to lead an excellent life that Pamela had. Who knows, maybe she would have been the person to find a cure for AIDS? Guess we'll never find out.
If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)
Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow them to repeat their crime, perhaps on a grander scale.
Get a grip, liberals...
Hey...you can't just make the assumption that liberals are not for the death penalty. Hell, I consider myself a liberal, but I'm still for the death penalty.
I don't think there's such a thing as peace. 
People will always kill...it's in our nature to. It can even go back to survival of our species...people feel so strongly against someone who has just killed their loved one that they don't think about it, and seek out revenge. So because God (heh please don't take offense to this) created humans, justice shouldn't be served?
People will always kill...it's in our nature to. It can even go back to survival of our species...people feel so strongly against someone who has just killed their loved one that they don't think about it, and seek out revenge. So because God (heh please don't take offense to this) created humans, justice shouldn't be served?
I always view it as the death penalty is justice for the victims family...
QUOTE(strice @ May 12 2004, 10:20 PM)
i personally think the death penalty is the easy way out. why rot and wait till you die in prison when you can just die? the only problem is that prisoners take a considerable chunk of tax funds.
I was abotu to say it costs money. I'm not willing to pay for some murders food, living quaters, cable, workout places...
I am FOR the death penalty was the best Thing made. It helps to punish people and not only that it helps keep taxes lower. You killed someone you deserve to die in the same way.
QUOTE
I doubt it's so easy to escape when you're held in a maximum security jail
yeah you obviously don't live in Georgia. Two men were "accidently" released last week from a maxium security jail. One month ago 3 were released accidently, They haven't found them. Then just this week one was released. I'm saying what is going on with them, they need to get that under control
Hehe thank you! Think about it: why waste money keeping these murderers alive?
"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
-Ghandi
-Ghandi
I am obviously for the death penalty. I just think that the way people are executed is kinda like.......lame....
I mean lethal injections....c'mon. the criminals like tortured the people they killed, some one should get an axe instead and kill the criminal......
I mean lethal injections....c'mon. the criminals like tortured the people they killed, some one should get an axe instead and kill the criminal......
That's not all, though...I mean, you're giving these felons a chance to roam communities...why do we have to live in fear simply because we don't think it's right to kill another human?
QUOTE
"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
There can be exceptions.
Lets say person A rapes then murder a little girl, and I want him to die through the death penalty, but I believe so much in peace and not 'an eye for an eye' and let him be jailed. Now, years later, he's paroled and when he gets out he finds some other little girl to rape and kill....
it wouldn't be an eye for an eye any more.. it'll be an eye for two eyes...
In this situation then, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" cannot be applied, because two innocents have been killed. Do I make any sense?
QUOTE
Do I make any sense?
Nope, you never do. You always oppose my correct views.
lol,jp. yeah, i see what you mean. but in the long run revenge just leads to more revenge in a never ending cycle leaving the whole world in a poop hole.
Ah yes! I've never thought about that before...wow...I've been enlightened! I told you you were my hero! 
QUOTE(WildGriffin @ May 13 2004, 6:58 PM)
Nope, you never do. You always oppose my correct views.
LOL! Sorry if I sound opposing... I don't mean to be, but opinions are, and will be, opinions.
QUOTE
yeah, i see what you mean. but in the long run revenge just leads to more revenge in a never ending cycle leaving the whole world in a poop hole.
What a sad world it is... because that's what's happening now.. but we just.. can't seem to stop.
QUOTE
Ah yes! I've never thought about that before...wow...I've been enlightened! I told you you were my hero!
*Blushes big time*.
QUOTE(xquizit @ May 13 2004, 12:39 PM)
I disagree with playing God. I believe that when you take a life, there will be consequences one way or another, even if its a person who "deserves" to die. So my answer is no.
Ok going from the bible point of view. I do not believe it is playing God. He gave us rules to follow and said to follow the government and if you don't you will be punished by the laws. Here it is Romans 13
1Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience
So...I suppose you can't use any arguments involving God for the anti-death penalty side.
yess! there are sum crazy ppl in this world who juss go out and do insane things! like MURDER! KILLING LIFE! if its reasonable then the verdict should be DEATH!
example: MURDER(if u kill... its karma)
example: MURDER(if u kill... its karma)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.