As for my own opinion on this, I'm personally againt the death penalty since IMO it takes away the right to life from someone else ...

I understand that the person probably committed henious acts to earn this penalty in the first place, but do we have the right to decide when another human being will die? I don't think so ...

Also, what about a person that has been wrongly sentenced to death? Re-opening his case a few years later would not help someone that is dead.

Undecided on who exactly should help support those on life sentences and the such, though ...

Well as i stated, no, it isnt a deterrent. It was never intended to be.

The death penalty, like any other punishment, isnt supposed to deter others from committing similar crimes. It is there to punish the one who did.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

The criminal forfeited his right to live the moment he committed the crime.

We, as a society, are not deciding he has to die - HE is, by committing those acts.

Using that logic, it would be wrong to even send someone to jail. After all, do we have the right to decide that another human being has to live with no freedom?

As far as someone being wrongly sentenced, every single person who has been sentenced to death has been found guilty of a crime deserving the death penalty. That, my friend, is an absolute fact. (at least here in the US anyway).

We can play the "What if they're really innocent" game all day long, but it ignores the fact that they are not.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I'll get back to my own reasons later (I beleive in a different version) But let me c ite "A" reason, (not necessarily the only one) why people post a question rather than their initial opinion. ____Because whatever opinion is posted first colors the conversation rather than letting it grow it's own accurate way on it's own. People tend to ANSWER the opinion of the OP rather than make their own points.

What rights would you say we DO have when it comes to forcing something upon someone else? 'Not trying to be argumenative but I'm curious how one's "right to decide" is determined.

Do we have the right to kill someone if they're trying to kill us? Technically they haven't yet committed a crime, whereas a convicted killer (who might get the death penalty) has.

Do we have the right to confine people permanently in prisons? Or even temporarily? What gives us that right as opposed to the right to kill them?

Perhaps its merely a remove dangerous elements of society (much as prisons are) without forcing society to pay for them.

Optimally, one would reform all convicts and make them happy, productive, safe citizens. However, if that proves to be impossible, one must do something with those who commit society's worst crimes. One must either release them back into society, confine and pay for them until they die of natural causes, or execute them.

Says who?

I don't think he is agreeing to die by committing those acts. He dies because society would want him to after he committed those acts but not because he himself wants to.

Taking someone's life away is on an entirely different scale from locking him up behind bars, where he can cause no harm to others.

Somehow, I doubt it, even in the US.

Cases are erroneously decided a lot of times - there is no hard and fast rule saying that the person HAS to be guilty.

We have those rights which are essential to protect ourselves against harm from others. But killing a person is no more effective than putting the person behind bars for life.

Yes, of course.

Their actions are putting you in danger though ... That is enough reason.

Killing someone = Taking someone's life away from them. This is entirely different from putting the person behind bars.

By killing a person sentenced to death for say, murder, how different would the sentencers be from the sentenced?

Yes, we have the right to put people behind bars to protect others from their actions.

I say bring back public executions…..There are many that I’d enjoy seeing dangle from the end of a rope and it would make people think twice before murdering someone.

As for rape, I think we can build a machine for the “eye for an eye” justice.

Child rape, I have an idea for that too but I am sure most on this forum do not the stomach to hear it.

IMO, give them 5 years to find evidence of innocence…..after that, your toast.

Reasons….Why should I pay to support those bastards while they are in jail.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Well, Rahul.......

So far, besides a token statement that wouldn't have come without some nudging, I see you doing nothing to discuss your thoughts and beliefs. All you've done is attempt to scrutinize and minimize the thoughts of those who've responded. You are nothing but a pseudo intellectual who thinks responding with a multi-quote criticism of others supports his self importance.

We'll just consider that my first post is a prophecy fulfilled.

hogwart

__________________
.
Visit my military photo album, Vietnam 68-69....

http://www.picturetrail.com/taipan22alpha

Well, hoggie boy ...

I don't owe you shit.

What I discuss is my problem. You dont like this thread, stay the f*** out.

And all you've done is moan and groan.

And I think you are nothing but a psedo troll who is on here to insult others, and to provoke others into making statements that they may or may not want to make. :

Gee. Go cry to mama.

It sounds like you'd like to bring the Gladiators fighting against animals too? You sound quite the bloodthirsty and violence loving sort.

Nope, I just believe in justice being served......Far too many violent criminals get a chance (and succeed) to be repeat offenders because of the bleeding hearts that keep letting them back out.

Besides, like I said, Why should I and others have to pay to support those whom do not want to behave in society.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

And you seem like the pacifist pussy sort. Whats your point? Did you have one or were you just starting this thread to attack and insult?

You may not agree with positions such as mine, hogs and prousa's, but you have yet to offer a single thing in response other than to attack us or our view.

Do you have a position other than just to disagree like a 4 year old?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Says common sense.

When one does anything, one accepts the consequences of those actions - good or bad. In the case of committing a crime, you are saying you are willing to accept the consequences if you get caught.
Awww - too fucking bad. So a criminal gets to decide to kill someone else at no similar risk to himself?

Gee, what an amazingly consequence free world you live in.
I would argue that because he wanted to commit the crime, he was willing to accept the consequences. That makes his execution his own damn fault.

You know what? I dont LIKE the fact that I have to pay a fine when i get a speeding ticket, but I assume the risk and accept the consequences when i speed. I can blame nobody but myself.
You're right - its kinder and less expensive. The only way you could prevent him from causing harm to another would to have him live out his days in solitary confinement. Prisoners can and do harm others all the time.

Just execute the bastard and save me the money. His feelings are irrelevant on the matter.
You can doubt 2+2=4 as well, but that doesnt change the facts.

There isnt a single person on death row who was not found guilty of a crime deserving such a sentence. PERIOD. There is no gray area there.

When you understand why that statement must be taken as a given, then and only then can we continue this discussion.
Actually yes there is. The person MUST be found guilty to be sentenced. Where did you get the idea that it was otherwise?

He may not actually BE guilty - although that possibility is remote - but he must be FOUND guilty. Do you not understand what I have said? I cant explain it any further.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.