|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:10 pm
I sort of agree with insert comment, these days criminals aren't that afraid of death because the know they'll be able to go peacefully.
On the other hand there are some criminals who are capable of reform and don't deserve death. Though even without a death penalty I think they should establish some more harsh punishements.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:51 pm
I'm against the death penalty for many reasons.
1. I feel as if it is a contradictory act. We condemn them to death for killing another. If killing a person is a crime, then it should not be legally done by the state. Also, it may or may not give satisfaction to the families of the victims; however killing the murderer/rapist/whatnot will never bring their loved one(s) back, thus making it pointless and only feeding into the natural faults of human beings. Somebody hits us, we want to hit them back.
2. In many cases I think it is letting the criminal off easy. The time of the person at fault would be much better spent in contemplation of their deed. If someone wants them to suffer for their crime, then put them in jail. There they will face possible rape, humiliation, and perhaps even guilt. A life of guilt is much more of a punishment than allowing that person to escape into death.
3. Personally, I do not believe in the killing of any human being. I am pro-life. I do not only detest abortion, but also the death penalty, euthinasia, and war without cause. Sometimes war is needed, but much of the time it could be easily avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 8:25 pm
I'm honestly not sure.
Pro-death would be that the criminal is not suitable for any type of society ... and has repeatingly committed crimes with not signs of change.
Anti-death would be the whole forgiveness and retribution and second chances thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:54 pm
I don't like the idea that some of these people could get out and kill, rape, or torture again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:59 pm
Halduras I don't like the idea that some of these people could get out and kill, rape, or torture again. That's why I tend torwards pro-death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:36 pm
why do we seem to keep believing that we are killing the guilty?
please go to the first page and read what beaulolais says.
DNA evidence has proved and continues to prove that many convicted and awaiting death are innocent!
even ones who confessed!
do you want the death penalty for the innocent?
that is what they now do in Florida,, where they have outlawed the use of DNA evidence in cases comparable to those in Illinois.
they don't care if they kill innocent people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:18 pm
phantomchild2891
1. I feel as if it is a contradictory act. We condemn them to death for killing another. If killing a person is a crime, then it should not be legally done by the state. Also, it may or may not give satisfaction to the families of the victims; however killing the murderer/rapist/whatnot will never bring their loved one(s) back, thus making it pointless and only feeding into the natural faults of human beings. Somebody hits us, we want to hit them back.Thank you! You're the first person to make that point! I know that someone should not commit a crime twice, but couldn't he serve life in prison? Also, a few (undetermined) facts from my history teacher: he said that in the old days, in prison, you worked for your meals. You worked for everything that you had, and nowadays, you lie in your cell for 23 hours a day. Your meals are brought to you. Prisoners seem to do nothing all day except get a little excersize and "try" to rehabilitate! If a person is truly cruel and heartless, committing again, a crime that he was convicted and released for, then he should receive a life sentence or something. The government shouldn't stoop to their level and kill them, or they would all have to be convicted as well. What gives them immunity? They just took a person's life! Isn't that in the constitution somewhere? Also, if the death penalty is taken away, it relieves the innocent from the threat of wrongly dying at the hands of the government for something that someone else does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:38 pm
I am interested to find that so far I am in the minority. 1) I would like to point out to all those who think that a death penalty will deter people from committing crimes, that Texas has legalized the death penalty and currently has one of the highest crime rates in the country. 2) Murder is a crime punishable by death. dictionary.com - murder Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). under this definition, the enactment of the death penalty would be considered first-degree murder, seeing as it is committed with malicious aforethought and is most certainly premeditated. So if we keep the death penalty, what are we to do with the executioners? For they most certainly fall into the category of murderers. Should we try them for first-degree murder and execute them? 3) Additional railing on the act of capitol punishment. By sentencing someone to die, you are also sentencing someone to kill the person condemned to die. Is this something we should be asking people to do? 4) The innocence issue as mentioned multiple times earlier in this thread. 5) I'm going to ask you to do something. Ignore all of the arguments for and against capitol punishment. Spend some time thinking, If someone were condemned to die, and the government asked you to be the executioner, would you do it? Would you strap the man to the chair? Would you inject the poison? Would you stand by as he slowly died? Would you watch as his eyes clouded over? would you be able to walk away from the experience without so much as a pang of guilt? Think about all of that before you chose what side to take in the argument, for if you cannot do it yourself, what right do you have to say others should?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:39 am
calcifer9 I am interested to find that so far I am in the minority. 1) I would like to point out to all those who think that a death penalty will deter people from committing crimes, that Texas has legalized the death penalty and currently has one of the highest crime rates in the country. 2) Murder is a crime punishable by death. dictionary.com - murder Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). under this definition, the enactment of the death penalty would be considered first-degree murder, seeing as it is committed with malicious aforethought and is most certainly premeditated. So if we keep the death penalty, what are we to do with the executioners? For they most certainly fall into the category of murderers. Should we try them for first-degree murder and execute them? 3) Additional railing on the act of capitol punishment. By sentencing someone to die, you are also sentencing someone to kill the person condemned to die. Is this something we should be asking people to do? 4) The innocence issue as mentioned multiple times earlier in this thread. 5) I'm going to ask you to do something. Ignore all of the arguments for and against capitol punishment. Spend some time thinking, If someone were condemned to die, and the government asked you to be the executioner, would you do it? Would you strap the man to the chair? Would you inject the poison? Would you stand by as he slowly died? Would you watch as his eyes clouded over? would you be able to walk away from the experience without so much as a pang of guilt? Think about all of that before you chose what side to take in the argument, for if you cannot do it yourself, what right do you have to say others should? depends on what the person did. I know it sounds horrible, but whenever I think of the man who kidnapped a 6 year old from her bedroom, sexually molested her for weeks, and then buried her alive in his backyard (this happened in florida a couple of years ago), I'd love to strangle the b*****d with my own two hands. I wouldnt want this person living on my taxes for the rest of his life. someone like that is best removed from society altogether. but for someone like this, death is too good for. I'd prefer to see him doing hard labor, like mining work for the rest of his life, shut off from the rest of society, than sitting pretty in some cell like charles manson for the rest of his life. some say that is cruel and unusual punishment, but what the man did was cruel and unusual as well, so why shouldnt he get treated as such?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:31 pm
Ko-wala
He never does it in the first place. He's too afraid of death.
The problem with that argument is that studies show that a presence or lack of a death penalty doesn't affect crime rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:17 pm
I am most definately against the death penalty and here's why...
1. It's hypocritical of a government to declare that it is illegal to kill someone and if you're crime of killing is of a high degree...then we will kill you. This logic is horribly flawed.
2. People are using the example of child rapists, and I agree that crime is disgusting and horrible. I would rather those convicted of rape suffer in prison and I'll happily pay the tax money to do it.
3. For those who say and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth...I wish to quote Fiddler on the Roof "Then the whole world would be blind and toothless"
Rather than sink to the level of murderous criminals we should improve the non-lethal punishments that already exist. Child rapists should not be allowed parole and they should be confined to solitary for the rest of their lives. Murders should be setenced to life without parole. No deals with the attorneys...no exceptions because they've never commited a crime before...life with no chance of government granted freedom (unless later to be proven innocent through DNA evidence)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:55 pm
we are not smart enough to avoid killing innocent people.
we make ourselves hypocrites in front of our children:
"killing is wrong, so to prove it, we're going to kill somebody we don't like."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:18 am
Death Penalty should be prohibited.
One innocent is enough to drop the system. I absolutely refuse it. It's better to lock them away until they're dust. Of course, I'd seek revenge if someone hurts my family, but even in that case I have to hold back myself and wait for the judgement.
To come back to the child rapists: Death penalty to them is an absolute waste of money. Just lock them into a normal prison. That crime is disgusting enough, that even guards "go out and have a cigarette". My father has already been in prison, and they got a child rapist, who didn't survive three days!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:52 am
there are a lot of problems with our legal system. it's not perfect. innocent people do go to jail for crimes they didnt commit. but because of things like DNA evidence, that will be happening a lot less in the cases where DNA evidence is present. I wouldnt be surprised if some of the time the wrong person goes to jail because all the police are interested in is putting someone behind bars.. especially in difficult cases, because it would look good on the dept. on the flip side that could be me reading too many crime dramas, but the cops are human too and a lot of people care more about appearances than truth if it means a promotion or raise.
I'm for the death penalty when it comes to especially horrible crimes. crimes against children, serial killers, cannibals.. those types. the point of the death penalty isnt to punnish the criminal... it's to remove the person from society. if they could contrive another means of doing this that would NOT use my tax dollars to keep him up for the rest of his life in a cushy prison cell with cable tv and a fitness center, then I'd be all for it. bring back the chain gangs and hard labor if people dont want the death penalty, otherwise I see it as a necessary evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:32 pm
Calypsophia it's to remove the person from society. Ok, what does it mean to lock someone into a cell? Yes! A seperation from society. Either for a time or until the jailor is dust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
