Death Penalty, is it right or wrong? Options

[*NatiMarie*]

What do you all think? Should there be a death penalty?

Why or why not?

[dukesoccer07]

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...

[whomps]

I'm FOR the death penalty. I wrote frikken' essay about this.

[kirbymuixo]

the death penalty is a way to intimidate people so they won't commit any illegal crimes and such...so i'm for it...

[*Kathleen*]

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.

[WhiteChocolate]

Totally and completely FOR the death penalty.



Toldja I was a conservative republican.

[*CEP*]

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

[Spirited Away]

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.

[*AngelicEyz00*]

so what happened to everyone deserves to live?

[*CrackedRearView*]

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...

[InfamousOwen]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[whomps]

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.”

[strice]

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.

[Note]

i say it's a cruel and unusual punishment.

::jerry::

[Spirited Away]

i say it's a cruel and unusual punishment.

::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.

[xjjajeengx]

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.

[likeachild]

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

[casssy]

im for it..

[shawty_redd]

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??

[triipinfserious]

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

[rivendell]

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.

[*Kathleen*]

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*

[rivendell]

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.

[WildGriffin]

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?

[xquizit]

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.

[dasturbd]

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...

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.

[xscore]

i dont believe in the death penalty...cuz no matter what someone did wrong, their life shouldnt be taken for it..

[dasturbd]

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

[*Kathleen*]

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!

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...

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.

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!

[Mireh]

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?

[*AngelicEyz00*]

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

[*Kathleen*]

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.

[Jiggapin0]

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!

[*Kathleen*]

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

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.

I know I'm double posting.

[AmesBond]

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...

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.

[*Kathleen*]

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?

[divinity_star]

I always view it as the death penalty is justice for the victims family...

[onenonly101]

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.

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

[*Kathleen*]

Hehe thank you! Think about it: why waste money keeping these murderers alive?

[WildGriffin]

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

[initial-seven]

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......

[*Kathleen*]

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?

[Spirited Away]

"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?

[WildGriffin]

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.

[*Kathleen*]

Ah yes! I've never thought about that before...wow...I've been enlightened! I told you you were my hero!

[Spirited Away]

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.

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.

Ah yes! I've never thought about that before...wow...I've been enlightened! I told you you were my hero! 

*Blushes big time*.

[onenonly101]

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

[*Kathleen*]

So...I suppose you can't use any arguments involving God for the anti-death penalty side.

[LiNHy POO]

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)

[Spirited Away]

Here it is Romans 13

Whoa, I'll have to remember that one for future references.

I suppose reading the Bible does have its rewards.

[*CrackedRearView*]

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.

Just needed to make a comment on Rivendell's remark...

Since when has the United States EVER followed in the footsteps of another country?

That's the whole point of our existence...we broke away. We have never, and will never, follow the example of the rest of the "civilized" countries because we have a pretty damn civilized nation already.

My two cents.

[shawty_redd]

yes that is a commandment, but were not talking religion and there is seperation of church and state

ya but arent religon laws in some way part of state laws?? another commandment is u shall not steal so we have laws about stealing....

[Spirited Away]

ya but arent religon laws in some way part of state laws?? another commandment is u shall not steal so we have laws about stealing....

Well, it could be religion or it could be an innate sense of morality.

I don't necessarily have a religion, but I grew up knowing that stealing is wrong because my parents (who do not necessarily have a religion neither) taught me that. I'd say it's more morals than religion.

[tkproduce]

What happens to the feelings of the people that actually have to carry out the death penalty? (like Tom Hanks in Green Mile)

[pandatotherescue]

yes, i beleive if you kill someone then you deserve to be killed.

[tkproduce]

yes, i beleive if you kill someone then you deserve to be killed.

Can people stop posting these "loose" opinions without backing them up? The forum is called "Debate" for a reason. It's not called "Opinions".

[Spirited Away]

yes, i beleive if you kill someone then you deserve to be killed.

Well, if you say it that way, what of the person who must carry out the death sentence, as TK had asked before?

[onenonly101]

governments become corrupt. like the time when Jesus came, and the government was against him because he "worked" on the Sabbath, the day of Rest.

But he didn't work on the sabbath so they couldn't condem he of rthat, because if they did he would've been stoned, but the way he spoke his words hie never incriminated himself and he didn't work on the sabbath.

God is saying you know what is wrong and what is right. If you kill osmeone that is wrong therefore you should be punished justly acorroding to the laws

[*Kathleen*]

What happens to the feelings of the people that actually have to carry out the death penalty? (like Tom Hanks in Green Mile)

You're going to have flaws in every system. There aren't that many people that are truly innocent that get the death penalty. Are you going to risk the chance of all of those true murderers not having the death penalty (and can later kill more people) just because of those few people? I sound evil saying this, and probably sound as if I don't care for other humans, but think about it - there are more deaths from criminals that get off easy compared to how many innocent people are killed by capital punishment. Besides, how many capital punishment cases are there, anyways? Not many.

[onenonly101]

^exactly most of the time they sit on death row for years and years not to mind wasting our money then they eventually die.

[juliar]

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)

Taking one person's life doesn't mean that person's life should be taken away. Would you like to sink to that murderer's level? No one deserves to die. No matter what they do in life, because we don't live in en eye-for-eye society, do we? If someone gives you a penny, will you give a penny back?

[onenonly101]

The thing is I KNOW i would want that person dead if they killed one of my loved ones, no questions asked. Shoot, i may do it myself. I thank God for forgiveness

[*Kathleen*]

Taking one person's life doesn't mean that person's life should be taken away. Would you like to sink to that murderer's level? No one deserves to die. No matter what they do in life, because we don't live in en eye-for-eye society, do we? If someone gives you a penny, will you give a penny back?

Read this:

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.

Uninspiredfae said this just last page.

[FlyingFries]

same here, i had 2 write a report on it.......buh i dun think the death penalty is right, they should jus give the person life in prison

[onenonly101]

prison is paradise to some people because they need someone telling them what to do in life. Also they get a free college educatuion, free meals, free cable, free work out places so when they get paroled they are stronger and can go kill some more people...

[*Kathleen*]

same here, i had 2 write a report on it.......buh i dun think the death penalty is right, they should jus give the person life in prison

Please, if you're going to say something, support it with something.

[*NatiMarie*]

Well, I guess the death penalty sucks, but I mean, if you do the crime, do the time. I mean, although it sucks taking away another person's life...wait what am I talking about. Maybe they shouldn't be put to death. Just leave them in jail but somehow make them suffer. Well, not torture or anything (although, that wouldn't be such a bad idea..*cough* j/k). I don't know, I guess it's good to give them time to think about what they did. For example, that Jamie Bulger story where this toddler was killed by two young boys. Should they be given the death penalty too? Here's a link: http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Jamie+Bul.../bulg-n08.shtml

a better link about the story is here:
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Jamie+Bul...s/uk-bulg.shtml

Another BETTER LInk (the other ones don't explain story, just opinion. Here's story:)
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=Jamie+Bul...s/uk-bulg.shtml

[iheartsimba]

nobody deserves to die..but I mean even if it is a capital murder....I still think something like jail for life would be better than KILLING the person. I don't think ANYONE should be put to the chair unless they are POSITIVE that they PURPOSLY killed people and wern;t drunk or have metal or stress issues. But I hate thinking about "the chair" ..

[*Kathleen*]

Natalie - but if you would torture them, Supreme Court wouldn't allow it because it would be cruel and unusual punishment...you won't know how far to go with torture, you know?

[onenonly101]

With the Jamie case: They deserve the punishment fitting which is death. They knew what they were doing. Plus if they start at a young age killing people they are going to get older and kill more people. I'd rather stop it now Because even if they get a 25 year sentence they will still be able to be parolled or serve the entire term and get our of jail and possible kill someone else

[*NatiMarie*]

Yeah I agree. Oh I know Kathleen. I was just joking about torture stuff because that's just cruel and it would just be doing the same thing that they did. Hehe, wow, I read my post and I sounded like such a cruel person but I'm really not.
Oops!

[LatinaLady]

i thihk its wrong no one has a right to klill anyone

[iheartsimba]

^ but also think of someone, without mental or stress issues and murders 3 little kids. With no reason, no excuse....then they goto jail and attempt to kill everyone they have contact with, or osmehting like that.

WHat are you supposed to do?


In general I think it's wrong,....but there are times when it is the only thing to do.
A capital offense is the only time they use the death pentalty, but I just hope that they have complete evidence that they really did commit the crimes....

[juliar]

Alright, what if someone was convicted wrongly? Death penalty was given? The guy dies. Poor guy.
All because of a stupid jury and an evil judge. and a evil law.

[m@dcow]

yes!... people who have committed murder should be executed. I'm saying this because i don't know anyone who actually had been executed... but there is also a right to plee that you're inisint by saying that you were mentally ill.. or somehting... and had brain damage... so you wouldn't act like a normal perosn... ppl have actually gotten away from murders like that... civilized is an opinion

[*Kathleen*]

As I say, there are flaws to every system, and they are inevitable. I mean, why stop the death penalty which sentences a million (not really, but still you get the point) guilty criminals to death simply because there's a few who are innocent or get away? It's impossible to stop all. We can only try our best. I know I sound cruel, but that's just how it is. I don't like the fact that there are innocent people that get killed, but hey...

[ComradeRed]

What do you all think? Should there be a death penalty?

Why or why not?

I'm undecided.

I don't think it's wrong morally and I believe that death is sometimes a just punishment, but I do think it's stupid, as it isn't a proven deterrent and costs more.

[*Kathleen*]

as it isn't a proven deterrent and costs more.

Who says we have to kill the people in the same way as we do now? Perhaps find some...cheaper way of doing so... Haha.

[ComradeRed]

Who says we have to kill the people in the same way as we do now? Perhaps find some...cheaper way of doing so... Haha.

I like burying personally (inside joke)

[tkproduce]

I know it's only a movie, but "The Life of David Gale" shows exactly how the justice system could fail. Like, what if the supposed "murderer" was innocent?

[*Kathleen*]

I know it's only a movie, but "The Life of David Gale" shows exactly how the justice system could fail. Like, what if the supposed "murderer" was innocent?

As I say, there are flaws to every system, and they are inevitable. I mean, why stop the death penalty which sentences a million (not really, but still you get the point) guilty criminals to death simply because there's a few who are innocent or get away? It's impossible to stop all. We can only try our best. I know I sound cruel, but that's just how it is. I don't like the fact that there are innocent people that get killed, but hey...

[annchovie]

well, i guess that the death penalty not only lowers the risk for more murder, but saves the prison money on food, bedding, clothing, etc. there arent that many good things about it though.

[T00000]

i dont understand how those of you who are against abortion are for the death penalty... i believe the american justice system can make mistakes. like, those accused who aren't wealthy enough to buy their own lawyer gets one appointed by the court... there have been many cases where court appointed lawyers have been found to not bring up all the facts, because they didn't care. i mean nowadays it's pretty easy to convict the right person, but there have been cases... also, i don't think they should be killed for what they did. the government should try to work with the criminals.

i dont understand how anyone who is "pro life" can be for the death penalty...

[Spirited Away]

I don't see anything wrong with being pro life and pro death penalty at the same time. After all, they're two different things.

One is to kill an innocent, the other is to kill someone who's most likely committed an awful crime.

I'm pro choice, but I disagree on topics that would contradict my stand on pro choice. But that's normal because you're entitled to hold more than one opinion on different subjects. It's not set in stone that once you've declared your stand in one direction, you can't go to the other.

[*Kathleen*]

I don't see anything wrong with being pro life and pro death penalty at the same time. After all, they're two different things.

See, this is what I was just going to say. It's different because the majority of these people are guilty, heartless criminals who have committed a crime of at least murder. On the other hand, the baby is completely innocent.

Also, I think this is the third time I said this...I really need to get a statistic: As I say, there are flaws to every system, and they are inevitable. I mean, why stop the death penalty which sentences a million (not really, but still you get the point) guilty criminals to death simply because there's a few who are innocent or get away? It's impossible to stop all. We can only try our best. I know I sound cruel, but that's just how it is. I don't like the fact that there are innocent people that get killed, but hey...

[tkproduce]

I think it's worse to convict an innocent person rather than acquit a guilty one, because in the prior one, the justice system itself is commiting a crime. How the hell would you feel if you were innocent and get convicted of murder? Are you really going to think "oh well, I don't like the fact that some innocent people like me are getting the death penalty, but I know the law is trying it's best so I guess I'll hop off to the gas chamber"?

[*Kathleen*]

There's not many people that are innocent that get convicted for murder. There are many ways in today's modern world to target the real criminal. Besides, if he or she is innocent, there are things such as appeals. It's quite hard to be proven guilty when you're innocent nowadays. If you're innocent, you'll find a way to prove such.

[T00000]

There's not many people that are innocent that get convicted for murder. There are many ways in today's modern world to target the real criminal. Besides, if he or she is innocent, there are things such as appeals. It's quite hard to be proven guilty when you're innocent nowadays. If you're innocent, you'll find a way to prove such. 

this isn't always true. if you don't have an alibi, it turns to be your word against someone else's. in lots of cases there's no way you can prove yourself innocent. and i agree with tkproduce. it just seems wrong that the government is willing to risk the lives of a few (a tiny number, but still a number) of innocent people just to be able to get rid of some criminals. i mean it is wrong for us to act like we're god and kill already living people, guilty or not, but to add to the fact that they also risk killing innocent people to do so, it's wrong.

[*Kathleen*]

Yes, but it's not like they don't try as best as they can. Like I said, it's saving future victims of the accused as well. Heh I suppose this leads back to my other thread of good and evil...it balances out.

[tkproduce]

Yes, but it's not like they don't try as best as they can. Like I said, it's saving future victims of the accused as well. Heh I suppose this leads back to my other thread of good and evil...it balances out.

So you're saying that somehow, killing a lot of guilty convicts are going to conpensate for the few innocent ones that get killed? How many dead guilty convicts per dead innocent one do we need for things to "balance" out? 50? 100? 200? I really don't understand your "balancing" argument.

[*Kathleen*]

No...I'm saying that when those convicts get out (which they often do, if you would've read more into this topic) and murder some more people, by killing the murderer from the start, none of those future victims would be killed.

[ComradeRed]

this isn't always true. if you don't have an alibi, it turns to be your word against someone else's. in lots of cases there's no way you can prove yourself innocent. and i agree with tkproduce. it just seems wrong that the government is willing to risk the lives of a few (a tiny number, but still a number) of innocent people just to be able to get rid of some criminals. i mean it is wrong for us to act like we're god and kill already living people, guilty or not, but to add to the fact that they also risk killing innocent people to do so, it's wrong.

...

In America's fine justice system, you NEVER have to PROVE that you're innocent. It's up to the prosecutor to prove that you're guilty. It's called burden of proof.

If the jury can't decide whether someone is innocent or guilty, that person is LET FREE, because he has a presumption of innocence. If that person is PROBABLY guilty, but you aren't sure, then he is INNOCENT.

A guilty person must be convicted guitly beyond all reasonable doubt in America. At least in the old America.

[juliar]

A guilty person must be convicted guitly beyond all reasonable doubt in America

What about being wrongly convicted? Yeah, they may say they have the evidence and whatnot. But alot of innocent people are being put to the death penalty.

[*Kathleen*]

Yeah, I think he wanted to clarify the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" people. But as I was saying before...this is the same argument over and over again. Here, Julia, read the last few posts by me and tk as well as tbolztbabe.

This is my 3,800th post!

[ComradeRed]

What about being wrongly convicted? Yeah, they may say they have the evidence and whatnot. But alot of innocent people are being put to the death penalty.

Sure that happens. It's not a perfect system.

But, IN THEORY, our system errs on the side of caution. When in doubt, we release.

[*Kathleen*]

Sure that happens. It's not a perfect system.

EXACTLY what I've been trying to say. Heh. No one understands me, or they ignore my posts. Haha.

[ComradeRed]

EXACTLY what I've been trying to say. Heh. No one understands me, or they ignore my posts. Haha.

None of the judges in real life do either .

[*Kathleen*]

Thanks, Minda. You're so kind. You'll see...once you and Dan are gone...I'll own...the total of...five people that are still in debate...

[stryker76]

I am very for the death penalty...i actually think we she us it for more crimes...and none of this appeal shit....they get the death penalty fry them, hang them, poison them, and in some states shoot them(montana) in singapore the punishment for drunk driving is death...i think we should do that here....did you now Drunk driving is the leading cuz of death between the ages of 15-44...after that its heart disease....i know this because i just got home from my 5 Hour pre lisencing course....but i think that if we cracked down harder then people with get the message...