Death Penalty.

[something]

For or against death penalty? I'm against it, but sometimes it may be neccesery, like when they hanged Saddam. Please, I'm open for comments.

[hitekredneck]

For or against death penalty? I'm against it, but sometimes it may be neccesery, like when they hanged Saddam. Please, I'm open for comments.
people seem to think of the death penalty only as a deterrent, when it's actually the ultimate punishment. I believe wholeheartedly with the death penalty for high treason, serial murder, rape, pedophilia, and poor taste in music........:D

[something]

people seem to think of the death penalty only as a deterrent, when it's actually the ultimate punishment. I believe wholeheartedly with the death penalty for high treason, serial murder, rape, pedophilia, and poor taste in music........:D

Well it have to be really fuckin extreme cases then. And they have to make sure that they wont make an innocent person to die.

[General Septem]

I only believe in it when it's the only way to keep society safe.

[hitekredneck]

Well it have to be really fuckin extreme cases then. And they have to make sure that they wont make an innocent person to die.
tho our system ins't perfect, the technology we have now should make it easier to determine if the suspect is actually guilty beyond reasonable doubt. if there's dna evidence showing physical proof, regardless of how it was obtained, then the most severe penalty should apply

[General Septem]

tho our system ins't perfect, the technology we have now should make it easier to determine if the suspect is actually guilty beyond reasonable doubt. if there's dna evidence showing physical proof, regardless of how it was obtained, then the most severe penalty should apply
DNA evidence can be planted. Granted it would be one hell of a feat to obtain someone's DNA and manage to plant it, but it can be done, and any doubt is unreasonable when someone's life is at stake.

[something]

tho our system ins't perfect, the technology we have now should make it easier to determine if the suspect is actually guilty beyond reasonable doubt. if there's dna evidence showing physical proof, regardless of how it was obtained, then the most severe penalty should apply

Yes, but about 20-25 people of the one who was executed since 1976 in America were innocent, for sure, and it was maybe more that not were guilty, but that hasen't been proved.

[theicidal maniac]

I definitely think that execution is a better option than incarcerating a person for their entire life, so in a sense I think it is OK. In fact, many prisons in this country are privately owned BUSINESSES...and they have a lot of political leverage with lawmakers, which is part of the reason that you can see people doing life sentences for minor drug charges; it's PROFITABLE to keep someone locked up, to deny parole, to deny the death penalty. Joe Arpayo (Arapaho Joe) in Arizona brags about being able to feed a prisoner for less $$ per day than it costs to feed a dog. It's all about money. But I think I'd rather be executed than locked up for life.

BUT, Some sociology and biology students from Berkley recently did a project where they looked at the cases of all of the death row inmates at a nearby prison, and they were able to exhonerate more than HALF of them based on dna evidence and othersuch proofs. So I guess the question is, is it better to kill an innocent, or to let a guilty man go? I don't have an answer to that.

[tocrayzay]

i'm only for it if it is scientifically proven 100% not because 12 people think the person is guilty because of the things said
now as a deterrent its crap
i am for killing the person the way they killed
say the bastard raped, tortured, and then stabbed the person to death
then he should get raped, tortured and stabbed to death
i think using this method would also keep a lot of psychotic potential killers from killing random people because of course they'd be the ones to get hired, they get to live out ther brutal fantasies and get paid
and people don't give me shit about only god can judge, i'll say it now fuck you because if that was the case we wouldn't have a judicial system

[hitekredneck]

I definitely think that execution is a better option than incarcerating a person for their entire life, so in a sense I think it is OK. In fact, many prisons in this country are privately owned BUSINESSES...and they have a lot of political leverage with lawmakers, which is part of the reason that you can see people doing life sentences for minor drug charges; it's PROFITABLE to keep someone locked up, to deny parole, to deny the death penalty. Joe Arpayo (Arapaho Joe) in Arizona brags about being able to feed a prisoner for less $$ per day than it costs to feed a dog. It's all about money. But I think I'd rather be executed than locked up for life.

BUT, Some sociology and biology students from Berkley recently did a project where they looked at the cases of all of the death row inmates at a nearby prison, and they were able to exhonerate more than HALF of them based on dna evidence and othersuch proofs. So I guess the question is, is it better to kill an innocent, or to let a guilty man go? I don't have an answer to that.
this is scary, but for once i agree with you...the prison business has become HUGE money, and it's just gonna get worse...luckily, with today's technology, we can prove a lot of cases beyond a doubt, tho the risk of "planted" dna evidence does exist. as for your question of killing an innocent man or letting say a severely violent serial killer go free?...man, i just don't know

[General Septem]

It's better to let ten killers go than it is to kill one innocent, at least in an ideal society where everyone can protect themselves. But unfortunately, most people in this country are weak and can't do shit. They don't even like the sight of guns.

[hitekredneck]

It's better to let ten killers go than it is to kill one innocent, at least in an ideal society where everyone can protect themselves. But unfortunately, most people in this country are weak and can't do shit. They don't even like the sight of guns.
don't include me in that catagory...lmfaooo

[Ape-Shit]

It's better to let ten killers go than it is to kill one innocent, at least in an ideal society where everyone can protect themselves. But unfortunately, most people in this country are weak and can't do shit. They don't even like the sight of guns.

I disagree...! You let 10 killers go and they (each) kill another 10 people. Now you have 100 innocent people killed vs 1.

[something]

I disagree...! You let 10 killers go and they (each) kill another 10 people. Now you have 100 innocent people killed vs 1.

True, true. But if the killers wont kill anyone is it better to let them go then kill the innocent guy.

[Ape-Shit]

True, true. But if the killers wont kill anyone is it better to let them go then kill the innocent guy.

If is a big word. What makes you think that if you let 10 killers loose that they would not kill again? Statistics show that once a killer always a killer. I wouldn't won't to become one of those statistics.

Think of it this way. You have a pack of Dogs. All of the Dogs have Rabies except one, you don't know which Dog doesn't have the Rabies, but in order to save the one Dog you must release the total lot. Knowing that most of the Dogs have Rabies, would you let them go? Even if they promised not to bite anybody.

In my opinion, I would kill the complete lot of Dogs. Sacrificing the one Dog to the safety of the community of many is far more important that the one little Dog. There again, do we really know for sure that even that dog doesn't have the Rabies too.

As to the innocence, The Dog would have to prove that he didn't have Rabies too.

Military personnel refer to this type of strategy as the Sacrificial Lamb.

[General Septem]

That's where the nation of weaklings comes in. I would never turn into a statistic because if some crazy motherfucker comes in here with a gun, he's liable to get "punk'd". :D

[theicidal maniac]

That's where the nation of weaklings comes in. I would never turn into a statistic because if some crazy motherfucker comes in here with a gun, he's liable to get "punk'd". :D
LOL...yeah right...As if Genny could handle himself against anyone who is over 3 years of age...he couldn't even handle my criticism so he blocked ME...and I'M on the other side of the country!

[something]

If is a big word. What makes you think that if you let 10 killers loose that they would not kill again? Statistics show that once a killer always a killer. I wouldn't won't to become one of those statistics.

Think of it this way. You have a pack of Dogs. All of the Dogs have Rabies except one, you don't know which Dog doesn't have the Rabies, but in order to save the one Dog you must release the total lot. Knowing that most of the Dogs have Rabies, would you let them go? Even if they promised not to bite anybody.

In my opinion, I would kill the complete lot of Dogs. Sacrificing the one Dog to the safety of the community of many is far more important that the one little Dog. There again, do we really know for sure that even that dog doesn't have the Rabies too.

As to the innocence, The Dog would have to prove that he didn't have Rabies too.

Military personnel refer to this type of strategy as the Sacrificial Lamb.

Well, I would take the dogs to a doctor to see wich one of them who doesn't have rabies, and BTW if you have nine dogs with rabies, an one without in the same bag, can you be sure that it's going to get rabies.

[Nobody]

Redneck! Where do you truck to in your travels? What type of wagon do you drag? First avatar on this site,sporting a farmall.

[beatniks-and-politics]

Well, I would take the dogs to a doctor to see wich one of them who doesn't have rabies, and BTW if you have nine dogs with rabies, an one without in the same bag, can you be sure that it's going to get rabies.

well do you think if you locked one man up with nine schizo's..he would eventually become schizophrenic? Murdering people is something that goes on in the persons head..it is not a disease like rabies. If you lock one man up with nine murderurs, he probably wouldnt think as they do.

[hitekredneck]

Redneck! Where do you truck to in your travels? What type of wagon do you drag? First avatar on this site,sporting a farmall.

i pull a pneumatic from co to nv and back 3x a week...you must be old school, haven't heard an int called a farmall in years:D

[England Expects]

I'm for the death penalty but only in exceptional circumstances.

Reasonable doubt isnt good enough. You would need to be found guilty beyond ANY doubt.

Also Septem, its not necessarily a case of execution or freedom. If a murderer is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he can be sentenced to a lifetime in prison.

Statistics show that where guns are legal and there is the death sentence there is a much higher murder rate. We've had this debate before and if an armed civilian population the death sentence actually were a deterent to crime then I would support both whole-heartedly, but they dont, and no-one can provide statistics that prove otherwise.

[Nobody]

i pull a pneumatic from co to nv and back 3x a week...you must be old school, haven't heard an int called a farmall in years:D....I've pulled different trailers, but never pulled dry bulk. Always wondered about it.

I started beating the road in 79. Took a couple 1-2 year breaks in between from burnout. You nkow how it goes. Cant stay away from it.

[theicidal maniac]

well do you think if you locked one man up with nine schizo's..he would eventually become schizophrenic? Murdering people is something that goes on in the persons head..it is not a disease like rabies. If you lock one man up with nine murderurs, he probably wouldnt think as they do.

Schizophrenia is a physical disorder which I am pretty sure is not contageous.

[beatniks-and-politics]

Schizophrenia is a physical disorder which I am pretty sure is not contageous.

Schizophrenia is a PHSYCOLOGICAL disorder and is most definatley not contagious. Same with the flaw in a murdurers mind.

[theicidal maniac]

Schizophrenia is a PHSYCOLOGICAL disorder and is most definatley not contagious. Same with the flaw in a murdurers mind.

It's a psychological disorder like murder??? Then why can they fix Schizophrenia with a pill, but not murder? Psychosis of that sort has many physical causes and symptoms, and psychotic states can be induced with certain drugs, such as clinical LSD. It's a state of being. Murder, on the other hand, is an outcome of scenario, and there is an infinite range of scenarios that may have this outcome, it is not as simple as, "oh this lady has a chemical imbalance." Schizophrenia is chemical, therefore it is physical. Murder isn't a condition the way dimentia is.

There is no clear flaw in a murderous mind. Maybe a schizo murdered because he thought he was being threatened, and in his psychotic mind, it may have been quite real. Someone may have killed because they needed or wnted what someone else had. Someone else may have killed because their country called on them to do so. Some others may have killed because they believe that their god demanded it. Some kill by accident. Some kill in the heat of the moment. Some kill to hide other crimes. Which "murderous condition" were you referring to???

[beatniks-and-politics]

serial killers. They kill because they choose to. And I realize schizo can be induced by drugs but it is still changes that are happening in the persons mind.

[Ape-Shit]

People do things for a reason. Some serial killers my be schizo while others are not. Charles Manson may have been schizophrenic, Pee Wee Gaskins definitely was not.

Pee Wee was one mean SOB. To this day, no one knows how many people he has killed. The numbers may be over 230. This guy actually killed another person while in prison (for a fee).

Pee Wee is considered to be the worst serial killer of all times. If you pissed Pee Wee of...he would kill you. If Pee Wee didn't like you..he would kill you. If someone paid Pee Wee..he would kill you.

When he was put to death, in my opinion, the whole state of South Carolina was relieved. I know I was!

Killers should be Killed.:mad:

[something]

People do things for a reason. Some serial killers my be schizo while others are not. Charles Manson may have been schizophrenic, Pee Wee Gaskins definitely was not.

Pee Wee was one mean SOB. To this day, no one knows how many people he has killed. The numbers may be over 230. This guy actually killed another person while in prison (for a fee).

Pee Wee is considered to be the worst serial killer of all times. If you pissed Pee Wee of...he would kill you. If Pee Wee didn't like you..he would kill you. If someone paid Pee Wee..he would kill you.

When he was put to death, in my opinion, the whole state of South Carolina was relieved. I know I was!

Killers should be Killed.:mad:

Or being cured, locked and punished, but not get killed. Killing someone, is like saying that, "Let's do something to him so he will stop exist", and that doesn't work.
The police are supposed to prevent people from killing, robbing, have unprotected anal sex on public places, and so on. Not to fill the prisons and kill people. Punishments aren't supposed to punish the criminals, it's to keep them away from the society.

Threating them to their lifes if they do something, will never help, it will just make them more pissed of, and once they get free, they will peobably go back some other time, because they didn't learn anything, they were just locked up, for several years, forever or killed! And that's a system that doesn't work anymore.

[theicidal maniac]

serial killers. They kill because they choose to. And I realize schizo can be induced by drugs but it is still changes that are happening in the persons mind.

So you agree then that they are very different? That seems to be what you are saying now. You don't "choose" to be schizo, it's a defect. Murder is commited by choice or by accident, never by defect. It can be a result OF a defect, but other people with those same defects may still choose NOT to murder, so murderousness itself is not a mental defect, the way psychosis is.

[beatniks-and-politics]

So you agree then that they are very different? That seems to be what you are saying now. You don't "choose" to be schizo, it's a defect. Murder is commited by choice or by accident, never by defect. It can be a result OF a defect, but other people with those same defects may still choose NOT to murder, so murderousness itself is not a mental defect, the way psychosis is.

I think if they choose to kill it must be because of something in their brain, something that causes their thought capacity to weaken further than any other human when they get angry. If this is so, it would not be completely their fault for killing, although they could eventually learn to subdue their rage.

[General Septem]

It is entirely possible for someone to do something without their own consent. For example, when one is addicted to meth, or cigarettes for that matter. It may still be a choice, but it's the only choice they feel like they can make.

[theicidal maniac]

It is entirely possible for someone to do something without their own consent. For example, when one is addicted to meth, or cigarettes for that matter. It may still be a choice, but it's the only choice they feel like they can make.

But that isn't a conclusive argument because there are people who are addicted to meth and cigarattes who DON'T engage in such activity, and there is nothing ABOUT those drugs that specifically cause you to want to end another person's life.

[theicidal maniac]

I think if they choose to kill it must be because of something in their brain, something that causes their thought capacity to weaken further than any other human when they get angry. If this is so, it would not be completely their fault for killing, although they could eventually learn to subdue their rage.

No. They may be responding to what they were TAUGHT growing up, but it's not genetic. Where does self-defense fit into your theory? Where does a hit man fall in? Having a genetic disorder that causes RAGE...sure, that's a universal emotion. And rage can lead each person to different things, because each person has been raised (programmed) in a different way, even to murder in some people. That is wholly different than the suggestion that a genetic defect can elicit a specific thought and course of action. I can imagine though, a defect where the smell or taste of blood will effect the brain in a certain way that makes a person seek blood. THAT would be diagnosable, and therefore, eventually curable.

[MrJim]

Does anyone remember this guy?

http://www.courttv.com/trials/pittman/020405_ctv.html#continue

Defense argues that the medicine he took to "cure" depression (if you believe depression is a condition) actually caused his mental behavior to turn violent. Without the medication, from their viewpoint, he would have been depressed, but not dangerous.

[beatniks-and-politics]

schizophrenia is most definatley not genetic.

[beatniks-and-politics]

Does anyone remember this guy?

http://www.courttv.com/trials/pittman/020405_ctv.html#continue

Defense argues that the medicine he took to "cure" depression (if you believe depression is a condition) actually caused his mental behavior to turn violent. Without the medication, from their viewpoint, he would have been depressed, but not dangerous.

Alot of medication taken for depression has this side effect. Same with the meds people with bi-polar disorder take. Some patients have gone deeper into their mania when they took their subscribed medication rather than coming out of it

[MrJim]

Alot of medication taken for depression has this side effect. Same with the meds people with bi-polar disorder take. Some patients have gone deeper into their mania when they took their subscribed medication rather than coming out of it

Which just goes to show that science can also be fallable.

[theicidal maniac]

Alot of medication taken for depression has this side effect. Same with the meds people with bi-polar disorder take. Some patients have gone deeper into their mania when they took their subscribed medication rather than coming out of it

"The new study, reported in today's issue of Nature, a British scientific journal, finds a link between schizophrenia and an abnormally functioning gene or cluster of genes on a part of chromosome 5, one of the 46 human chromosomes that contain the complete archive of heredity for every person. The gene itself is still unidentified, but the discovery of its approximate location may help scientists identify the specific gene that is abnormal in these cases. In people who had the abnormality in chromosome 5 there were also cases of schizophrenia-like mental disturbances that were not classed as true schizophrenia. " - NY Times

I posted that in case by "genetic" you meant hereditary.

I did not mean that, but hereditary predisposition is being investigated. But it is definitely a genetic defect. Genes are blueprints for your body to build cells, hormones, etc...these things directly affect both your physiological make-up as well as your chemical and hormonal balance. They are, of course, influenced by external factors as well, for instance it is believed that use of psychadelic drugs will expedite the emergence of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It absolutely IS a genetic disorder.

As far as your statements about the fallability of medicine, I absolutely agree. You don't start with the perfect drug, you work toward it. And the fact that the drug can worsen the disease only strengthens my case that it is a physical, chemical disorder.

[Walter Weiss]

Death Penalty.....yes it is a form of justice.....but is a permanent act carried out against the convicted, and there is no way to reverse it once the convict is executed. When I see us struggle with an election due to corruption, and when I see us suffer repeated acts of corruption, croneyism, jury tampering, and even organized crime within the law enforcement and criminal justice system, I am afraid to offer up my vote for a justice tool that is irreversible. Until we are sophisticated enough to put the ethics back into government and justice, and sophisticated enough to keep it there, we may not be ready to safely administrate the death penalty. Many guilty and deserving criminals have received the death penalty....and many innocents have gone to death as well. Until we can effectively prevent the sword from falling on the neck of the innocent, we should consider not executing. There is too great of a risk. DNA for example has shown us how many innocents were executed for being in the wrong place and the wrong time. But DNA has also shown us how many times executions were justified. If we execute innocents in error, should we be executing at all???