Why does it matter? And most likely, the former, if by "fail" you mean "were too stupid or naive to know where their kids can and cannot get to". Generally, it's not that someone "gave" the kid a gun, it's the the kid found it, took it, and did what they wanted with it.

Really? So when you were 8 you knew about murder, the justice system, and capital punishment?

I don't exactly remember, though I do remember that the children were in a suspicious position, as in they didn't look like they'd been trying to get out, when firemen found them. They realized it wasn't arson when further tests revealed there was no excellerant and there were several possible fire sources. Of course, you'd think that someone running back into a burning house and nearly dying would tell them he likely wasn't at fault, but whatever.


However, forced labour has almost always been strictly about punishment, and it would be in this instance as well. And who says it's the 'best thing in life'? We're talking about the death penalty here. We can't just accept other people's morality on any issue.

Don't get all pissy. I didn't insult you and you know it. I said the "people in charge". Are you in charge of anything involving the justice system or executions or prisons? No? Then obviously I wasn't talking to you. And what 'special trait' are you talking about? I said we shouldn't kill people without reason, and since the death penalty does no good whatsoever, the only explanation for those who could likely get it stopped or at least fuel a larger movement to get it stopped not only aren't, but act as though their rights are being infringed on I can think of is sadism.



Don't go back to that. I've shown you that your 'accounting' principle fails in the face of reality. It is never implemented. Ever. And while you say it "should" be, you aren't doing anything to get it implemented while you're getting all upset about people trying to end the death penalty, and would likely be rather upset if someone accused you of, say, burglary and the state confiscated your property.

No, because studying actually does improve quiz scores. Killing one person doesn't make another person not commit murder or treason or desertion. It makes the person killed stop killing, true, but death tends to make anyone stop doing anything, and there's often nothing to suggest they'd ever do it again, and there are other ways of going about it.

...Tell me. If I'm against the death penalty, in my best-case scenario, what would happen to executioners? Answer: they wouldn't exist. I'm not asking anyone to do this "dirty job". I hoped that would be pretty obvious.

How so? I always hear your sort yelling about how it should be a 'life for a life' and whatnot, and you completely ignore deserters and traitors, who often take no lives but are killed regardless. I say it's time we address it.

That has fuck-all to do with what I said. You stated that an innocent person wouldn't act suspiciously around cops. They do, end of point.

You said "Unless the State gives that person medicines so they can control themselves, why keep someone who isn't going to serve not even themselves?". By "keep someone", I assumed you meant "keep someone alive", unless you randomly switched topics and are proposing kicking some people out of the country or something. Since the default tends to be 'don't kill' and no one's keeping us alive as a favor, I assumed you meant 'Why should we not execute someone who doesn't serve themselves?". As it was directly following the bit about people who act "guilty" in your eyes but are innocent, I believed it was referring to them. Thus, my statement that you can't just kill people because they're not living their life the way you want them to.

Now, please clarify any part of that I misunderstood.

I did not in any way say that, although it could be considered a lifestyle (good thing I don't think all lifestyles are completely harmless personal decisions, huh?). I said how they 'live their life'.

And I don't think that, and I didn't say that, and since you seem perfectly capable of reading comprehension, I'd venture to say you know I didn't say that.

And I can't believe you're saying I said that.

"I can't go shoot the hobo on the corner because I don't think he's doing what he should be with his life. I can't go around killing druggies because they're "wasting" their lives. It doesn't work that way, ever."

Now, at any point in that, did I even mention the word "you"? I don't believe I did. Considering that before now there has been no mention of drug addicts or homeless people, and in the context of that paragraph, it's quite obvious that I was using an example and not accusing you of murder. Kindly stop pretending to 'misinterpret' my words. If you don't have a response to something I've said, just leave it out. Because this crap is making the atmosphere unnecessarily hostile.

You both make valid points and I can appreciate a good debate, but please remember that this is a debate and personal remarks should be left out of it.

I have not made a "personal remark". She thinks I did because she misread my post.

I wish we had a way of wiping their brains and making them into zombies and having do hard physical labor for community service for the rest of their natural lives if they are murderers, or child rapeist, or chronic violent offenders. It all depends on the circumstances. I do feel that there are different types of murderers, some are simply on the spur of the moment snap but really heinous violent murders deserve the harshest penalty we can give them. Since we cant make them into zombie slaves then yes I do believe they deserve the death penalty. They contribute nothing to the society they have wronged by living their lives in a place where they dont have to work, get to watch tv and have gyms, 3 meals a day and free health care at our expense.

I like the death penalty, but medieval style. There are so many people who murder and get away with it. What I mean by that is that they don't even get life. The parents who brutally murder their daughter back in 2002 only got 25 years. Just like the guy who killed his step-daughter, who was only 3, back in 2005. My cousin went to jail for stealing and got 25 years. Now what the hell is wrong with that picture?! I am pretty sure the guy in London who killed his 17 month old step-son didn't get life for brutally murdering him or the mother for letting him do it.

Unless you are an infant or have a muscle problem, it doesn't take much to shoot someone. Some hand guns are quite light, even when loaded. Also, unless you're far away from your target, the aim isn't usualy much of an issue. Most people seem to be shot at a fairly close range, when they aren't done by professionals.
Speaking of that, any person trained to kill, the skill and the emotional training, or just anyone desensitized to death, probably should get the death sentence.. they also would seem to not feel guilt of their actions.
Sorry if this was a bit off-topic, just replying.

Well, I see things as eye for an eye. If a man kills someone with a hammer, he should be killed in a manner that would be as painful if not more than the person's death. It is too easy to just kill a man with a shot. The death penalty is IMHO a great way to get rid of those who are just taking up space. It costs too much of our money to keep those monsters in there and the idea of a man who raped/killed somebody getting out on parole makes me furious. What if he does it again? It could have been prevented if he had been "dealt" with in the first place. Now someone would have to deal with 2 homocides in paperwork. I used the term "man" because of the less likely chance that it is a woman. That's just my opinion though...

You realize that people get "life without the chance of parole" sentences, yes? This idea that if we don't kill off people, they'll be let out and start doing it again is ridiculous, in my opinion. It's just a huge leap in logic.

Also, rape isn't a crime eligible for the death penalty. Rapists do get out, and they do rape again. Of course, a large percentage of them don't get caught in the first place, but that's another subject entirely.

The electric chair isn't that bad. The Iron Maiden would be better or that wheel they put you on and have sharp spikes on the bottom and spin you into them, that is MUCH MUCH better.

Okay do any of you actually realize there is a reasont he give the death pentalty more then once..? Remember the electric chair? Well if you could survive you one death sentence you were allowed to go free.. Same thing with needle.. Just so you know. But I must admit this way s more human then electrocution cause at least they have a chance of being normal afterwards.

Now I live in Canada we don't have the death sentence.. personally I think we should. Why? Cause all the people sentenced to life? Drain our money which could be going to my child's health care, helping the homeless and the schools in my community.. They are all in deed leechs on society once in jail.

Now I do also know some people who are innocent are convicted and killed... Like the one thats been on CNN most recently. It's a tradegy.. but mistakes happen, they happen every day. But what we must do is trust in our law systems to find the truth, cause if we don't more innocent people will be killed.

Now some people should be killed, why? Cause if it's not in self defence or your not insane and know completely what your doing? And you enjoy doing it? It make syou feel satsified in someone.. then yes death pentalty.. But again we must trust in our law system to figure this out. We can not pass judgement on cases or people unless we have all the informtion. Anythign else is hear say and gossip.

That seems like an incredibly dangerous thing to do, Nightshade. If we know the justice system fails -- a lot -- just "trusting it" to not fail is risking a lot of avoidable deaths and miscarriages of justice. If it were never challenged, classism, racism, and sexism would still be even more prevalent than they are now in how suspects and convicts are treated, at least in the US. Judges have a lot of power as well -- recently, a judge in I think Illinois or Ohio dismissed a female witness' testimony because she was a single mother and her "stress levels" rendered her testimony invalid, in his opinion. Can you imagine if things like that went completely unchallenged?

If you just "trust" things that you know are rather terrible at what they do, you're essentially giving up your rights. You might as well be living in a fascist state if you can't challenge the people who might someday make life and death decisions regarding you or someone you love.

As a single I can agree with the judge our stress levels are a lot higher.. not syaing for this particular woman..

And no it's not.. Why? Simple. Because with out them to begin with where would we be? There is corruption and yadah yadah in our systems.. but there is also people who work on taking itout of our lawsystems.. it's why we have appeals, the ability to change judges on a trail...And again we must TRUST in our law system not let that happen.. We as people help them get to postions they are in..we pay their salary.. And iwasn't refering to petty crimes.. I was refering to major cases, like rape, child molestation, killing..assult close to death.. those..

I think you're missing the important part of that. He threw out her testimony. She was an important witness to a crime and he threw everything she said out, simply because she was a single woman.

And those fail. That is a fact. They fail, all our "safeguards" fail, and innocent people are killed for crimes they didn't commit while the person who actually committed the crime goes free for years, perhaps forever.

You can say it all you want, but trusting a system not to do what we know it does, a lot, is stupid. I'm not saying you're stupid, but that statement is. I'd be better off trusting a murderer not to murder more people. At least most of them only kill a few innocent people each. The American justice system has killed a few hundred.

...We pay their salaries because their salaries are paid with tax payer money. It's not like we can choose to not pay them if we think they suck. If they get voted in, we're stuck with them, and unless we want to get sued or go to prison, we have to keep paying them.

Oh, so in cases where the only thing at risk is a fine or a few months in jail or prison, we can fight them all we want, but when a human life is at stake, we should just let things run their course? Seems a little messed up if you ask me.

I'm glad my state doesn't have the death penalty, since I don't agree with it.
First of all, you are getting off extremely easy by dying, you'd suffer much more if you had to rot in a prison for the rest of your life.
Secondly, most people get the death penalty for murder. How can you convict a person on the baises that murder is wrong and unjust and then kill them? Aren't you then doing the very thing you argued to be wrong? What makes you right?
Thirdly, I don't believe anyone has the right to decide who lives and who dies.
Also, what about those people who were innocent and got the death penalty? Then years after they were put to death were proven to be innocent, but we've already killed them, and that has happened before. How fair is that?
Would you like to get the death penalty for something you didn't do, be killed, and then found to be innocent?

I will say this more clearly then. Unless you your self are going to go out there and fight against every crime that you beleive is unjust in it's sentencing don't say anything.. Why? Cause you are already relying them to put murders and killers away. Your right some murderers go free.. But for the most part with how advantance our crime systems our now we catch them with in 24 hours..

AND it's the judges call to do that based on her mentality at the time.If they have proof she was under a lot of stree then yes it is a good reason to throw out her testimony again as a single mom I have forgotten and imagined things under high stress times. And until you know that those are like don't question the judge. And again.. Unless you think you are capable of sending people to jail.. then please go do so.

Yeah well the world isn't perfect my dear get over it. Honestly. I mean we can go over if he was or wasn't innocent the whole time..It doesn't make a difference.. Bad things happen.. people get hurt.. and die every day..People die knowing thier innocent personally If I could convicted of murder, and sentence to the death plentalty.. I would state my innocence until my last breath. And I would understand that a mistake had been made.. But I also understand that people risk thier lives every day to catch those murders.. It would also help with the families of the murdered to know the 'killer' of thier loved one or ones was and is dead.

Actually we do decided.. the people who pick them to get voted in.. or taught them everything.. who make up thier lives.. who they work for.. which is the public and people like us. I pay my taxes because they do thier job, and more criminals the innocents to jail every day.. and if you have a problem with that.. go live in a country where you wouldn't even get trail.. go to a country where someone can say you murdered someone and because they have mroe power then you with out question your instantly get shot in head..Please.

Yes fight them, because we can..because they are with in our reach fighting.. they aren't serious crimes.

No, I'm relying on them to do their damn jobs. They can do said jobs without occasionally killing innocent people. They're paid, so this isn't negotiable. I don't have to "appease" them by treating them like they're untouchable.

That sexist fucker would not have tried that with a man, I can guarantee you that much. Having a kid doesn't make you imagine things. And I WILL question scumbags like him, thank you very much. Judges can be complete numbskulls. They can be unjust. They can be sadistic. They can be sick, miserable excuses for humanity worse than the people they judge. They are not gods.

Then those families are sadistic just like the murderers they had killed. Oh, and while we're talking about what the families want, why aren't the families even *considered* when it comes time for sentencing? Oh, it's "all about the families" if they're into revenge and want to see him hanged, but if they don't want him executed, they're ignored at best, publically mocked at worst. It's not about the families.

And I won't get over it, dear. All this could be prevented if we just stopped acting like barbarians. Oh sure, people might go to prison, but you would *never* have to tell a family that they had to see their loved one die for a crime someone else committed. That alone is worth a whole lot more than being able to act out your revenge fantasies.

You know, your arguments sound a lot like ones used to support dictatorships. "If it wasn't for our blessed, perfect government, you'd be dead! So you have no right to complain that we're killing innocent people, that we have laws and punishment that make no sense, that we ruin more lives than we help. And if you don't like it, go to some lesser country and try to live! Now move along, citizen." It's complete fearmongering and I'm sorry to tell you, it's not going to work on me. Especially since, you know, I could just go live in a country that has a far better Justice System than America's and doesn't kill innocent people and isn't North Korea.

And they're not worth fighting because the punishments for them are nothing compared to death. I'm not going to devote my time and energy to trying to prevent some kid from getting an ankle monitor. And too many countries have abolished the death penalty for you to tell me it's out of reach.

I believe in fair punishment. Even ancient laws follow that logic. If someone killed another person with murderous intent, they themselves would be executed. That was the law. And it's point was to discourage people from braking it. Their would be less evil in the world if people weren't allowed to get away with murder, rape , and other thing like that. You can't imagine how many people get away with horrible things because they know they can with plenty of money and a corrupt lawyer.

hmm... let's see, do i want to pay my hard earned tax dollars so someone can eat, shit, and sleep without having to put out effort? hell no!
Death penalty
1. is more humane
2. isn't wasting taxes

My points on the matter:

1) Prison is not that terrible of a punishment. Due to laws regarding humane treatment, the only real sources of suffering are the other inmates and the criminal's own mind.

2) Because of prison not being that terrible, the prospect of prison is (usually) less of a deterrent that the prospect of the chair / firing squad / lethal injection.

3) Prisoners can break out of jail or go on parole, and then repeat whatever landed them there in the first place. The only situation where a corpse can do that is in a zombie movie.

This is why the death penalty should be retained (or, in countries where it was abolished, reinstated) for first-degree murder cases.

In cases that are *not* murder cases (including unintentional killing, which is filed as "manslaughter"), imprisonment becomes the preferable option. Accidental killers don't need deterring, because accidents are - by definition - not intentional.

That's actually not true.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/disc...rrence-studies

The threat of death doesn't seem to be much of a deterrant, and the reason why is what I was talking about earlier: they don't think they'll get caught. When you "train" people to not do things because of the threat of punishment, you only teach them to try very hard to not get caught so they don't suffer that punishment. It's not enough of a deterrant to keep them from actually committing the crime in the first place.

And besides that, I think the people who end up in shootouts or hostage situations with police because they would rather die or kill someone than go back to prison would disagree with it not being horrible.