Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Moderator
I think the best justice a murderer could have is to be put in a room with the family of their victim for 15 minutes, and the family could be allowed to do whatever they wanted to him.
Not true BackFire! Yerssot is right, but that idea they would have to kill you too.
You are killing someone who has killed someone else, you are murdering a helpless human being, no matter what his/her crimes were, you therefore become a murder you are trying to get rid of.
A family member or a friend of a person you killed on a death row has A EXACTLY AS MUCH RIGHT to murder you, as you had to murder their friend or a family member.
You're view is black and white, and world isnt so, im afraid!
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Moderator
I know the world isn't black and white like my view is, if it were it would be a much safer place.
Bottom line is this, if they don't want to get killed, they shouldn't kill other people. There is no reason to leave these people alive where they can possibly hurt or kill again. They give up their human rights when they take someones life for no reason.
If they were ot get the death penalty, it would be out of justice, not cold hearted murder for no reason, as theirs was. That's the big difference here, and surely using any sort of logic you would be able to see the difference.
Also, no. A family member has no right to kill the executioner for his actions, he's simply serving cold hard justice to the murderer, who frankly deserves to die for taking an innocent life.
Heres the law I would make: If you kill or rape someone for no reason other then your own screwed up head, you will die. If you accidentally kill someone (car accident or whatever) you won't die, the same law will apply that applies right now. If you kill someone in self defense, then you get the normal penalty. Basically I'm saying hte only people who deserve to die are the ones who have predetermined their murderous actions, knowing that what they are going to do is wrong, yet they do it anyways. These people have no right to live, they have no right to any human rights. If you kill someone, the insanity plea would be void. It's a stupid plea that allows evil people to often go free and go to a mininum security prison, get treatment, get out of prison and back into the free world, and then kill again, which is what usually happens to these people. Insane people would get the same death penalty as "sane" people who commit the same actions.
If we took these people and just threw them in prison and didn't feed them, clothe them, wash them, or give them midicare, I would be all for that. But we don't, we give them these luxuries that many free people don't even have. That's even a worse crime then murder to me, accomodating these murderering pieces of human waste by giving them these things after they took an innocent person life. We should just throw them in a hole an let them die.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on May 10th, 2004 at 07:21 PM
The murder rate, in the south, where 87% of executions occurred in 2003, is still the highest, at 6.7 per 100,000 people. You'd think that with so many executions, that there'd be some deterrent, but there isn't at all. One study there even shows that the murder rate in Oklahoma increased after the resumption of executions in the state.
__________________ With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.These words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie -- as awisdom, and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.-----Sir Winston Churchill
Then you are absolutely not familiar with the prison system.
Again, your views are simple! You cant make that laws BackFire and expect them to work. Do you know who goes on a death penalty?? People who cant pay a good layer, those people die! A murderer with rediculous amounts of money who can/will pay the best layer in where ever he is WILL GET AWAY WITH IT!! And its not the first time that happened.
Death penalty is barbaric! Its rediculous that people cant think beyond simple revenge!
''Also, no. A family member has no right to kill the executioner for his actions, he's simply serving cold hard justice to the murderer, who frankly deserves to die for taking an innocent life.''
What are you talking about? Hes serving justice?? To the executiner, this person has done NOTHING wrong, think about it logilcy BF, hes killing, to him an innocent person. What if a killer on a death row killed and raped female serial killer? What then? You are wrong BackFire! Hard Cold justice, is what a family member would be serving to you when you killed their father or sister or mother or whoever!
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
__________________ With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.These words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie -- as awisdom, and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.-----Sir Winston Churchill
Registered: May 2003
Location: Sailing the seas of cheese.
Nah, I think there is a way things are, and a way things should be. Backfire is just saying how it should be. I've been to courts when I had my news job, I've seen families of innocent murder victims yell at the killer more than once. Every time the killer just sits there, expressionless, and I never got the feeling that justice was being served.
Registered: May 2003
Location: Sailing the seas of cheese.
There is a difference between young gang members who have a chance to be changed and hardcore murderers who are beyond help. Please keep your negative comments to yourself, thank you.
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Folks, let's keep the personal comments out. Let's be courteous to each other. Okay, let me just say this:
To keep a murderer in prison serving a lifetime sentence isn't the right idea. Why? Because to keep one means to keep many. To overcrowed a prison is not a good idea. Plenty of criminals pack together into a prison can create a riot. As proven many times, Prison riots leave more than one Corrections officer injured or even kill. Murderers that have been convicting of comitting more than one murder should be executed. They kill before, and mostly like kill again if given the chance to escape.
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: San Jose CA United States of Murrka
1. What is the advantage to society gained by putting such evil people to death?
I'd say less violent people makes for a better society. According to Darwinism, the weak are weeded out so the species may prosper. Less murderers able to pass their genes on sounds good to me. Also, its one less convict our taxes have to pay for. Motherf---ers get plasma screen TVs in their cells in Oregon now...with cable.
2.How is is better then a "Natural Life" verdict without the possibility of parole that would ensure the criminal died in prison?
On the other hand, death is an easy way out for some of these scumbags. I would say that the REALLY bad ones, the serial killers and child-rapists and whatnot, should be put in solitary for the rest of their lives. Let them live and be haunted by what they have done while slowly losing their minds due to sensory deprivation. Death is too good for them.
3.Is the "benefit to society of putting the worst human animals to death worth the risk of potentially putting the innocent to death?
No one should be put to death without irrefutable proof. The problem is, in todays crooked justice system, its all too often about silly loopholes and working the system to your advantage. The term 'irrefutable proof' may no longer apply in modern courts.
Our system is flawed. We can debate all we want but thats the rub.
__________________
"Did Braveheart run away? Did Payback run away?"
First of all, that is called Social Darwinism. It is the belief that Darwin's evolutionary theory applies to humans, as well--for example, it was long thought by ignorant Europeans that Africans were literally inferior, both physically and mentally. Darwin did not believe in Social Darwinism. Also, why do you call murderers "weak"? Sure, what they did was wrong and everything, but the ability to kill a person does not make you somehow inferior. Anybody can do it, as sick and twisted as that makes me seem.
Second, evilness is not inherited, no matter what Dr. Hibbert from the Simpsons says. See, there's genotype and then there's phenotype. I assume you've taken high school biology, in which case you should know this. Environment affects phenotype just as much as genotype does. You're not born evil, you become evil. Just because your daddy was a rapist doesn't mean you will be one, too.
Finally, how in the hell is a guy in prison going to even HAVE kids?
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: in a double decker bus...
I'm completely against the Death Penalty. After they have been executed, it has then been proved that some victims were inncent. Anything that kills innocent life ((or any life for that matter)), I am against
May 10th, 2004 06:47 PM
Mostly.
