How many times do I have to refute this stupid argument?

Ken McDuff, Texas, 1966 -- murders three teenagers.
Paroled in 1991 (his so called 'second chance') -- Kills five women in a two week period.

James Moore, NY, 1962 -- rapes and murders 14-year-old Pamela Moss.
2005 -- eligible for parole.

Da'wud Mu'min, 1973 -- murders an innocent cab driver.
1997 -- Mu'min escapes a road work crew in his final month of pre-parole rehabilitation and murders a shopkeeper for $4.00.

In all reality, how can you peddle the 'second chance' when the figures point to its ineffectiveness?

What the hell are you talking about? I live in Texas and I never even knew that. And people don't use the electric chair anymore. You really need to read a bit before you decide to post.

Alright, well I really can't argue with what you're saying because I agree that he does deserve death sentence. It would be nice to just kill all the crazy people in the world like Hitler wanted to kill all the "abnormal". I'm putting myself in the shoes of someone who's a killer. Why would you kill, be put in jail, and come back and kill again? On many occasions it's because of his childhood, that he was abused or never really enjoyed living at all. And he's putting out his anger in killing, or something of that sort. It's something you couldn't control and you can't control your urges to kill other people. It's just who you are. And then the police come and take you and kill you. From the perspective of this troubled killer, I think it's wrong, but from the perspective of the rest of the world, they just want him gone because he's threatening other people.

If you look at it overall, it's either save this one guy or save potential victims and I'd say save potential victims and put him to sleep. My only condition is that it's used as a last resort and not used too often. Congratulations, you made me do quite a 180.



And CrackedRearView, you really shouldn't be so hostile about it. It's hard for people to read 20 pages of arguments, find your post and be able to remember it. I'm just writing what I think. A second chance will probably prove more ineffective than effective, judging by the examples you and Fae have given me..

Here goes to prove I'm a terrible debater.

Wouldn't you say killing people with the death penalty is kindof LIKE massmurder?

Not at all.

Believe me, if someone murdered your entire family, you'd be singing a very different tune.

Something tells me you wouldn't hold the murderer's hand and coddle 'It's okay, everyone makes mistakes' into his ear.

It is, but it's for a good cause most of the time. And it's not MASS murder if we can rationalize how often it's used.

no, no! you're awesome! it's just that i am very, very set about the death penalty and it's fueled by thoughts of children i'll have someday and all the bad things people do out there to children... and not only to children, to other human beings.



how so? to even be qualified as murder, the kill has to be an unlawful act. Also, "The USA Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a mass murder as: '[involving] the murder of four or more victims at one location, within one event.'"- wikipedia

Pardon me for stepping in and being the ex-vegetarian hippieboy, but I do believe that the death penalty is murder... to an extent.

Ever read the book, or see the movie 'A Time to Kill?' Yes. I'd kill someon with my bare hands if they ever touched my seed.

Then again, my uncle was unjustly murdered for being "caught in the crossfire" on his way home from work. After 6 painful years, his fugitive killer was apprehended and senteced to serve a double life term without parole. Up until his sentencing, I wanted him dead. I wanted to show him what his entrails looked like, but when I saw him before the sentencing, my feelings changed.

It truly depends on the situation.

I think that it is totally wrong...the death penalty is murder. even though the person has (or has not) done somethin wrong, they aren't gona learn anything from their mistakes because...they'll be dead..:|

whats the point? it obviously hasnt worked. Also, the justice system is f**ked up for hte most part. who knows if the person's even guilty.


There are some (i think) really influential prisons here in ireland and some in the uk which provide the inmates with counselling (best word i can think to describe it) to come to undersand what they've done wrong, and reconcile with the family who their actions have affected..etc. persistin bad behaviour results in the taking away of privilages, or longer sentences.

This seems to work for the most part, but ya know, u cant stop everyone commiting crimes.

I think capital punishment is wrong, primitive and inconsiderate of many facts, the main one being: you're murdering someone. This only continues the cycle of crime, imo.


of course, we hav to think relatively to each and every situation, ya know. i could go wayyyyyyy more into this :S but still...i think there's better ways to deal with people than having them murdered. after all, murdering them is the easy way out

and yes, i agree that if someone abused my kid i;d prolly murder them with my bare hands..

But Brandon, by definition, the death penality can not be murder.




Again, by definition, the death penality is not murder. They may not learn anything but others like them might. How are they going to learn anything being cooped up in prison with cable television?



The point? The point is peace of mind. The point is security. The point is preventing another innocent from being raped/murdered. The point is that there can be no free lunch and that such a crime must be punished. The justice system is f**ked up? Do you know how many acquittals a person gets when he/she is on death row? Why counsel someone who murdered and murdered and murdered? I guess teaching them that the consequence for murdering someone is sitting through a lecture.


... So because we can't stop them from committing crimes, we shouldn't try at all?



Murder IS primative. They killers commit the murders, they are primitive. I don't see you calling them that.

Please get your definitions checked.

Also read the whole thread.

uninspiredfae, how is taking someone's life against their will not murder??

...of course it is. just because hte government say it isnt, doesnt mean they're right

Read the whole thread and look up the definitions of murder and kill. Please.

Not only the government, but people like me, who support it for reasons of our own.

And it's people like you who inspired the idiom "getting away with murder".

Oh, and try to not curse too much, please.

Really, I think that this discussion is pretty much settled unless you have something MEANINGFUL to add.

murder:
noun: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being
verb: kill intentionally and with premeditation
Example: "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
verb: "The tourists murdered the French language"

''Why counsel someone who murdered and murdered and murdered?''


- because they're obviously f**ked up. why kill a mentally challenged person?


''murder'' - the taking of another persons life intentionally. this includes capital punishment, cuz it's intentional.


AkaRyux, you say that murder is ''unlawful''. of course it is. just because someone's committed a crime, doesnt make his life less valuable. im not justifying his crimes, im just goin by the fact all humans are equal and deserve a chance to redeem themselves, by dwelling on their mistakes inside a prison for the rest of their life, thinking about what they've done. not by takin the easy way out and gettin burnt ina chair or internally liquified with a lethal injection.

i dont understand why you'd wana kill someone who's caused so much pain. i understand that u hate them, and want their life taken so they cant enjoy anythin anymore...but that's just giving them the easy way out

thats my opinion.

If I were the victim's mother, you really expect me to want my money to pay for my child's killer's counseling? Really? And even now as a tax payer for the last 3 years, do you think I'm comfortable knowing that my tax money is going to give a child rapist/murderer a chance to be acquitted so he'll have the chance to go at it at someone else's baby? You think I'm comfortable with knowing a killer is eating, watching cartoons when a child could have had that chance? Really?

Edit<< Why kill a mentally challenged person? Because that mentally challenged person murdered someone (in Samantha's case, a child was raped and murdered) in cold blood. Why else?


Where did you get your definition, because it's rather lacking. Actually, it's very lacking. It has left out key words, one being "unlawful" which the basest of all dictionaries should have. I suggest you find a legal dictionary definition instead of one given to you by someone who obviously lived a onesided life. In other words, that definition is pretty stupid.


Why is the death penalty the easy way out? For whom is it an easy way out? Again, if I were the mother's victim, death to the child rapist/killer is the ONLY way I'd want it to be. The kill doesn't make his life worth less than my child's? Are you sure? Actually, it puts him in the category of guilty and with my child being innocent, I'd say he is not worth the life of my child. So, yes, it does make his life less worthy. Between guilty, and innocent, which is more deserving of life? Between humanity, and no humanity which is more deserving?
You are justifying the crime when you say he deserves a second chance. You're basically saying that the crime he committed isn't that bad.


HAH! Again, I don't understand how you could say that it's the easy way out. Death is final and I rather like finality to someone who caused me that kind of pain.

But you know, even if it is taking the easy way out, I'd rather have that, too. I'd rather take the easy way than give the killer an easy life.

I think it should be abolished. I mean, innocent people die because of this. Life imprisonnement is enough.

God fae, i read your arguments, you almost convinced me otherwise. You should be a lawyer...

man, ur puttin it into situations. im only stating my opinion from a general outset.

"unlawful" - in hitler's society, it was ''unlawful'' for a woman to work...''unlawful'' for jews to co-exist with the ''aryans''.

it all depends.



at the end of the day, its about differing opinions, and i respect yours totally.

if my child was raped and murdered by some psyco, i'd take it upon myself to torture the bastard in whatever way possible. i dont EVER wana think what would happen if somethin like this was to happen to my child. i dont know how to judge this situation cuz ive never been in it...


''I think it should be abolished. I mean, innocent people die because of this. Life imprisonnement is enough.''

exactly. and they shouldnt have luxuries...thats where the justice system is failing. ''oh hey mate, u just raped a baby. here's a ps2 to keep you occupied''.

That's exactly what I thought before (if you read the last two pages or so), but when they're let out, don't you think that their neighbors would be a bit nervous? If he was put in jail for killing someone, wouldn't that make everyone he comes in contact with nervous? If he's killed others before, there's still a chance that he hasn't reconsidered his actions and may choose to kill again. If he has before, he must not have thought about his actions. He might just be a careless person which could lead him to killing someone else, and thinking it wasn't as serious as it really was. Like I said before, it's either save this one guy or save dozens of potential victims.



Which is why he was overruled and why people no longer follow by his laws. Which is why people think of him as a horrible tyrant rather than a great leader. Unlawful doesn't necessarily mean right, but if a majority of people feel against it, it most likely will be something of the past.
Communism is not unlawful, but it's unfair. Which is why a lot of countries are trying to pull out of it (China, Russia).

Yeah, what if you're killing a totally innocent person?

I couldn't live with that. I would just say that the death penalty should be reserved to cases where they know 100% that the suspect is guilty.

I've always thought that no one deserved to die, but I'm not really sure about this..
I think that someone should die if they killed someone else purposely, and that person was a totally innocent person.

''when they're let out, don't you think that their neighbors would be a bit nervous?''

he wont get out. i meant LIFE SENTANCE meaning, LIFE. not the 25-years-before-parole shiz.


''I think that someone should die if they killed someone else purposely, and that person was a totally innocent person.''

whats the difference between killing an innocent person and killing a guilty person?

No one gets a life sentence. If you'd have taken the time to read through my arguments, you would have been bombarded with examples of mass murderers who were 'rehabilitated' and paroled only to murder on a mass scale once more.

Here's another great example: Carlton Dotson murdered his Baylor basketball teammate Patrick Dennehy in cold blood in 2003. He was recently sentenced to 35 years in prison, and will likely be paroled after just 15 years behind bars.

You can take the life of someone who was only 21, and walk the streets 15 years later as a free 36-year-old?

Why should someone be given such a luxury? This 'second chance' rubbish really gets to me.

What if the murderer is guilty and there isn't sufficient evidence? Does that mean you have to wait until nonexistent proof shows up? It's a waste of people's time and money. It's hard to tell in some cases whether a suspect is 100% guilty. Either you are guilty or not; there's nothing in between.

Excellent point. People also fail to take in the fact that there is no proof of anyone in the United States ever being wrongfully executed.

Pretty excellent track record, if you'd ask me.

Were you being sarcastic?

I found this story a while ago:
"Leonel Herrera, convicted of murder in Texas, claimed that new evidence available eight years after his conviction showed that he was innocent of the murder and that his brother had committed (and confessed to) it. His appeal to the United States Supreme Court was denied in a 6-3 decision and he was executed."

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.

There is not one instance of someone being executed when there is hard, scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

Not one.