do you understand?

[hitekredneck]

ok...death penalty...for it or against it, do you understand it?....the death penalty isn't about vengance, nor is it about punishment....the death penalty ensures the worst criminals are unable to further plague society...i liken it to rabid dogs...do we give rabid dogs counseling?...do we lock em up for the rest of their lives?....no....we put em down as humanely and quickly as possible....is our judicial system accurate enough to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?...with new dna technology, we can be more sure than ever before....in fact, i would suggest that the technology be one of the requirements of proof along side of actual physical evidence, i.e. video, confessions, etc...this habit we have of housing criminals for the rest of their natural lives is asinine at best...we shouldn't need "supermax" prisons to keep our public safe...if the criminals in there are that bad, and we have proof beyond doubt that they committed the crime they're sentenced for, then we should put em down, end of story...in fact, i'm gonna go one step further and suggest we bring back public executions...yeah, it would be a circus for a bit, but once the public got used to it, it would act as education...hell, for that matter, i wouldn't mind public punishments in general...caning would be demeaning enough to act a deterrent for many misdemeanors....:cool:

[Loseirdo]

ok...death penalty...for it or against it, do you understand it?....the death penalty isn't about vengance, nor is it about punishment....the death penalty ensures the worst criminals are unable to further plague society...i liken it to rabid dogs...do we give rabid dogs counseling?...do we lock em up for the rest of their lives?....no....we put em down as humanely and quickly as possible....is our judicial system accurate enough to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?...with new dna technology, we can be more sure than ever before....in fact, i would suggest that the technology be one of the requirements of proof along side of actual physical evidence, i.e. video, confessions, etc...this habit we have of housing criminals for the rest of their natural lives is asinine at best...we shouldn't need "supermax" prisons to keep our public safe...if the criminals in there are that bad, and we have proof beyond doubt that they committed the crime they're sentenced for, then we should put em down, end of story...in fact, i'm gonna go one step further and suggest we bring back public executions...yeah, it would be a circus for a bit, but once the public got used to it, it would act as education...hell, for that matter, i wouldn't mind public punishments in general...caning would be demeaning enough to act a deterrent for many misdemeanors....:cool:

I'm pro death penalty and pro public beatings. I believe the latter would work well as a crime deterrent and the former would be wrong to outlaw.

I do not, however, think that the death penalty should be used at all frequently. The state reserves the right to use it, but the circumstances need to be just right to merit it. Otherwise we end up executing innocent people.

I can't agree with your rabid dog analogy, though. Rabid dogs are animals that are suffering from a disease. Humans are not animals, no matter how similarly we act sometimes, so we should not simply execute whoever we deem a threat. That's inhuman.

[hitekredneck]

I'm pro death penalty and pro public beatings. I believe the latter would work well as a crime deterrent and the former would be wrong to outlaw.

I do not, however, think that the death penalty should be used at all frequently. The state reserves the right to use it, but the circumstances need to be just right to merit it. Otherwise we end up executing innocent people.

I can't agree with your rabid dog analogy, though. Rabid dogs are animals that are suffering from a disease. Humans are not animals, no matter how similarly we act sometimes, so we should not simply execute whoever we deem a threat. That's inhuman.

tell that to the families of murder/rape victims, mang....no matter what you say, those vermin that perform such actions are nothing better than animals:mad:

[Loseirdo]

tell that to the families of murder/rape victims, mang....no matter what you say, those vermin that perform such actions are nothing better than animals:mad:

Easy, hite. I didn't say that they didn't deserve the sentence -- simply that they are still human, despite the savagely inhuman things they might have done. And there's still the possibility of mental insanity.

[General Septem]

Easy, hite. I didn't say that they didn't deserve the sentence -- simply that they are still human, despite the savagely inhuman things they might have done. And there's still the possibility of mental insanity.

Mental insanity or no, is there any hope for these people anyway?

[Loseirdo]

Mental insanity or no, is there any hope for these people anyway?

Perhaps not, but does that mean we should just kill them? There are more things to consider than just their impact on society.

What if we offered all those sentenced to life without parole the option of death? Would that be satisfactory?

[General Septem]

What if we offered all those sentenced to life without parole the option of death? Would that be satisfactory?

That would definitely be a start. I think it's a great idea.

[WhiteRaven]

"Humans are not animals"

we aren't multicellular organisms that have a central nervous system, and need to consume other organisms for energy and nutrients?

"no matter how similarly we act sometimes"

other animals at their worst do not act as cruel as some humans have.

"What if we offered all those sentenced to life without parole the option of death?"

death is preferrable, to a life that no longer has meaning. It is unspeakably cruel, to force them to remain alive, but never leave their prisons. As cruel as forcing the terminally ill to remain alive.

[hitekredneck]

Perhaps not, but does that mean we should just kill them? There are more things to consider than just their impact on society.

What if we offered all those sentenced to life without parole the option of death? Would that be satisfactory?

no, it wouldn't be satisfactory...first, even with life without possibility of parole, there's the chance of escape, not to mention the prison's population, not that i really care what goes on in there...second, why pay to support these animals, yes, i still say they're animals, for the rest of their natural lives?...what is more important than the safety and well-being of the general public?...los, i think you would be rethinking your stance had you personal experience in this area:cool:

[Loseirdo]

no, it wouldn't be satisfactory...first, even with life without possibility of parole, there's the chance of escape, not to mention the prison's population, not that i really care what goes on in there...second, why pay to support these animals, yes, i still say they're animals, for the rest of their natural lives?...what is more important than the safety and well-being of the general public?...los, i think you would be rethinking your stance had you personal experience in this area:cool:

I'm trying to avoid exactly that kind of thinking, hite. I don't want to take a biased approach to this. If I can't look at it from an objective standpoint, I can't take my own opinions at face value.

Most people who are sentenced to life without parole would still choose imprisonment, but would you at least agree that it's a step in the right direction?

Don't be too quick to cast judgment, hite. Personal feelings lead to vengeance. I believe in justice, but justice is blind. Every case has to be heard separately and objectively. Some people deserve death while others don't. We must take a very conservative approach on the matter.

[something]

ok...death penalty...for it or against it, do you understand it?....the death penalty isn't about vengance, nor is it about punishment....the death penalty ensures the worst criminals are unable to further plague society...i liken it to rabid dogs...do we give rabid dogs counseling?...do we lock em up for the rest of their lives?....no....we put em down as humanely and quickly as possible....is our judicial system accurate enough to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?...with new dna technology, we can be more sure than ever before....in fact, i would suggest that the technology be one of the requirements of proof along side of actual physical evidence, i.e. video, confessions, etc...this habit we have of housing criminals for the rest of their natural lives is asinine at best...we shouldn't need "supermax" prisons to keep our public safe...if the criminals in there are that bad, and we have proof beyond doubt that they committed the crime they're sentenced for, then we should put em down, end of story...in fact, i'm gonna go one step further and suggest we bring back public executions...yeah, it would be a circus for a bit, but once the public got used to it, it would act as education...hell, for that matter, i wouldn't mind public punishments in general...caning would be demeaning enough to act a deterrent for many misdemeanors....:cool:

That's sure to be true, but I think death penalty is for the absolutely worst cases if ever. As it is now when you guys have over threethousand killed, well, that feels a bit too much.

[Walter Weiss]

That's sure to be true, but I think death penalty is for the absolutely worst cases if ever. As it is now when you guys have over threethousand killed, well, that feels a bit too much.

Joseph Stalin used to say to anyone that asked or listened:

"One death is an absolute tragedy. A thousand deaths are merely a statistic."

Sir....will you please define your term: "Worst cases if ever."

I would regard the loss of any human lives....one or more than one....as a worse-case crime. A human life cannot be replaced. Two or more human lives cannot be replaced. Taking a human life during an act of crime...the killing of an innocent victim....is not just, and it is worthy of the penalty of execution, no matter what the personal history of the offender might be. In this world, society cant afford leniency for outright murder. Murder has to have a fair and just penalty. Let it be a life for a life.

The only obstacle would be: Is society sophisticated enough in this day and age to fairly and impartially and without corrupt or unethical practices, be able to adminstrate a death penalty in the criminal justice system?