Death Penalty

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What exactly did that link supposed to prove to me? How prisons are funded? What kind of prisons there are?? I know that already, i study criminology, remember...your post had nothing to do with my last reply...

Of course it had nothing to do with your last post, because it wasn't directed at you. You've already stated that you're agains't the death penalty and I've already stated that I approve it. Our arguments have been said well enough in this thread. I posted the link so that other ppl could see the basis of my argument.

You're right.

Anyway...like you said, already been done..in the last closed thread too, i shall stop arguing here 😛

We agree to disagree WD! ✅

"BF> ok, lets say you are right, so let me ask you again, if the death penalty is so effective, why does America have the highest crime rate in the industralised world?
If killing people to prevenet other murders, why are there still people killed, muged and raped in America daily?"

You've misunderstood me. I didn't say it would stop other people from commiting crimes, nothing can do that. I said it stops the person who gets executed from commiting anymore crimes. And it's the only 100% way to make sure they will not kill again.

Originally posted by Tex
I think that life in prison is far worse then the death peanlty! Let the bastards suffer, that's what I say.

i think this is a first 😐 but i agree with Tex 😐

in Persia/Arabic regions, there use to be this rule

if u steal something and get caught, they would ask you "what hand did u steal with"

then they would cut your hand off 😂

I've always liked that punishment.

Oh...i see.

But then again, killing a theaf will 100% ensure he never steals anything ever again, killing a bunch of kids will make sure they never vandalize anything ever again, in fact, killing anyone who defys a law in any way, is basicly the way of stopping them from doing it again.

Most industrialised world countries, the first world countries, do not use death penalty anymore, yet their crime rate is far lower than in America. Just because you sentence a man to his death, that doesnt mean the murder will never happen again, not by that man, but certanly by many more.
You cant defend the capital punishment until you have a flawless goverment system, which is what America is far far far away from. Its only when the right people are sentanced to death, that you can begin to defend the death penalty.

Do you know who ends up on death row? People who cannt afford a lawyer, not people who have commited terrible crimes.

Yes. But most people who get on death row have killed someone. I'm aware that there are mistakes being made, but there is no way of stopping that unfortunately.

Also, yes, if you kill a thief they won't steal again, if you kill kids, they won't vandalize anything ever again. If they don't want the punishment, then don't commit the crime. Not difficult in any way, and I have no pity for people who break the law then moan and complain about the punishment. If you don't want to get executed, then don't kill people. Holy shit, it's so simple that it's mind boggling.

Again, I never said the death penalty would stop other people from commiting the crime, I know this is not the case. But, as I said, it is the only way to ensure that a convicted murderer will never get the chance to kill an innocent person again. This is why I am for the death penalty. Insurance. If you throw a convicted murderer in prison, there is always that chance that he may escape and kill again. There is always a chance that he will get parolled by people who think he's cured, only to allow him to kill again. The only way to be absolutely sure he will never hurt or kill anyone again is to kill him. And lets be honest here, who cares if he dies? He serves no purpose to humanity, so killing him is a victimless crime.

I think the crime rate and the death penalty are completely seperated. They have nothing to do with eachother. With or without our current death penalty I think people would still commit murder. So might as well punish them if they do, and make sure they are never able to do it again.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Do you know who ends up on death row? People who cannt afford a lawyer, not people who have commited terrible crimes.

What? People that can't afford a lawyer? That's nonsense! Every suspect of a crime gets a lawyer.

Everytime a Police Officer makes an arrest the officer has to read him/her the Miranda rights!

If an Officer arrest a suspect (By law) he/she has to inform these rights to the suspect:

1. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
2. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?
5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Read #4 again, It clearly says that if you cannot afford an attorney. ONE will be provided.

😂 OMG!

Do you think a good lawyer is appointed by the governemtn!! haha!! Yeah, because that lawyer is going to provide as good of a service as a $2 000 an hour one! If that was the case, no one would ever higher their own lawyers, who cost a shit lots just to give you an advice!

Please dont make me laugh! Yet again, you quote all that stuff.... i know ALL of that, i study that shit!

But see now we are getting to subject of how good a lawyer can be in the trial. A good lawyer only needs proof that his client is innocent. That's it!

Look at the OJ Simpson case. The man got off the hook because obviously he had the best lawyers. So, if you have the money to afford a good lawyer is your luck.

You brought that subject up, i was talking to BF, and i explained why i brought my point in my post above.

There is a reason why a good lawyer is a good lawyer and why he/she takes vast amounds of money for his/her services.

The reason I brought up the subject of an attorney is because he/she is responsible for keeping the client from being executed. In the end it comes down to how good an attorney represents his/her client in the case.

Not always the attornys fault if the person is convicted of a crime.

“You obviously dont know a first thing about the prison system, so im not going to even bother with that.”

What don’t I know?? I was stating my opinion on how I think certain things should be handled….In my opinion rapist and pedophiles should be executed period.

There is a man down in San Diego on death row for killing an 8 year old boy in a men’s restroom, slashed his throat, cuz he said he wanted to see the boys blood squirt out, nice real nice I really want him out again, rehabilitated. And In Texas; Criminal homicide with 1 of 8 aggravating circumstances will get you the death penalty, that is where I got the Joe Some reference from.

My father shot an intruder in OUR HOUSE at 2 in the morning…the man was high on Angel Dust (this was back in the day), he wanted to kill all of us in our sleep. He said we were cops because we weren’t black… 😑 ….after getting outta prison he killed our dogs and tried to steal my dads truck and sell it for drugs (I guess)…He was killed months later in a bad drug deal….and guess what…We Weren’t bothered by him no more…I wonder why??? and it was not because he was sent to prison numerous times and decided to change..

“America - the only industrialised country which still practices death penalty! Tell me something, even though your ever so great death penalty is still in paractice, i dont see any improvemnt in crime rates in America, DO YOU?”

Improvement??? The death penalty is not effective??? Well if you say that, then PRISON’S are not effective. People still commit crimes and don’t care what the circumstances are…(prison)…There is no vacant prison, even in the UK right??…so hell lets get rid of the judicial system entirely according to you ...since there is no IMPROVEMENT? Crime rates fluctuate so there is no real proof of improvement…all crimes are not made by the same person if they were then what you said would be a true statement.

You talk about the murders family that they have a right to retaliate if their murdering husband, father, etc is executed well then they have a right to put you in prison too if they feel their loved one is innocent…where do we cross that line and say this is right this is wrong, go here or go there??? 😕

Everyone views criminals differently because hearing/reading about criminals and actually being around criminals are 2 entirely different things…if you look at pictures, read stories, learn about criminal behavior, theories of social order, and analyze different characteristics of the criminal mind for a couple semesters that is completely different then actually living, seeing, and being around criminals. There will be no end to their mayhem and for those who do heinous crimes several years in prison wont change them…(I mean no disrespect to your education)

Life in prison is a waste of space, time, and money…
😠

Wait a second there, why then have courts?? Wy have courts and triels when in your world its eye for an eye?? what is the point of having a justice system.

And yeah, i repeat yet again, America has the highest crime rates 😱 yet its the only one still having death penalty!

Backfire:

''I think the crime rate and the death penalty are completely seperated. They have nothing to do with eachother. ''

No, youre wrong. The goal for every justice system is not to punish more and more people but to prevent people from commiting a crime. Hey, thats why the sentances exist, isnt that too logical, huh?

The world you are talking about BF is black and white, and unfortunately that isnt so in the real life. Some people which are sentanced to death are not with out families and even children. Everyone's surcumstance is different for commiting a crime.

''If you don't want to get executed, then don't kill people. Holy shit, it's so simple that it's mind boggling.'' <---thats your view, and may i add, its very very simple and does not work in real life.

Lets have an example of that, shall we...

Lets say a girl is brutal raped by 4 men, beaten absolutely ripped apart, she'll never again be able to look the same, and her father goes and killes those 4 boys after they are not found guilty, and hes sentanced to death.
You sould say that this man has no purpose in society? No one would miss him? Who would care if he dies? Well how about his whole family!

Im sorry, but after that reply, i fail to see your point too.

"No, youre wrong. The goal for every justice system is not to punish more and more people but to prevent people from commiting a crime. Hey, thats why the sentances exist, isnt that too logical, huh?"

Bullshit, sentancing exists for the sole purpose of punishing the criminals responsible for the actions they have been accused of. There is no way to stop criminals before they commit their crimes. This is obvious, if people are going to commit crimes, then they're going to commit crimes, there is no way around it. Sentancing in this day and age is for punishment, not a deterent for others. If it was meant to be a deterent, then they would have more drastic punishments for crime in order to scare people from doing it.

"The world you are talking about BF is black and white, and unfortunately that isnt so in the real life. Some people which are sentanced to death are not with out families and even children. Everyone's surcumstance is different for commiting a crime."

Tough shit, just because they have families isn't an excuse to avoid justice and punishment, they should have thought about their families before killing someone. It's their fault, not the systems.

"Lets have an example of that, shall we...

Lets say a girl is brutal raped by 4 men, beaten absolutely ripped apart, she'll never again be able to look the same, and her father goes and killes those 4 boys after they are not found guilty, and hes sentanced to death.
You sould say that this man has no purpose in society? No one would miss him? Who would care if he dies? Well how about his whole family!"

Again, tough shit. He shouldn't go off killing people because they were accused of a crime and were found innocent. Again, his own fault, no one elses. Yeah, his family would miss them, but he should have thought of them before taking such drastic actions against people who were found innocent in a court of law. What proof does this man have that these people actually DID rape his daughter? If that proof didn't hold up in court then it must not have been very much.

Also, chances are this guy would not get the death penalty. It's usually reserved for people who have premeditated their crime and were completely sane and calm while doing it. This man could easily plead insanity and get off with just a few years in prison, seeing how it was an attack caused by pure rage and emotion and not rational thought. But, in this case, no I don't think he should get teh death penalty. Just thrown in jail for a while.

The people who I think should get the death penalty are the people like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy, that lady who killed her 4 babies in a bath tub because "god told her to do it". People who are truley horrific and worthless. These people serve no purpose to society other then causing problems.

''Bullshit, sentancing exists for the sole purpose of punishing the criminals responsible for the actions they have been accused of. There is no way to stop criminals before they commit their crimes. This is obvious, if people are going to commit crimes, then they're going to commit crimes, there is no way around it. Sentancing in this day and age is for punishment, not a deterent for others. If it was meant to be a deterent, then they would have more drastic punishments for crime in order to scare people from doing it. ''

^^ No, it is not! Im telling you this as someone who studies criminology, the goal is NOT to punsih more and more people, but to prevent others from doing it. An textbook example of this, is the carrying of a gun sentance. It used to be 3 years in jail, now its 5 years in jail for carrying the weapon in the UK. The reason for it, is so that criminals who calculate the propability of crime versus jail, find themselfs less likely to carry a gun. (all criminals calculate the probability of crime versus jail, its how they work)

''Also, chances are this guy would not get the death penalty. It's usually reserved for people who have premeditated their crime and were completely sane and calm while doing it. This man could easily plead insanity and get off with just a few years in prison, seeing how it was an attack caused by pure rage and emotion and not rational thought. But, in this case, no I don't think he should get teh death penalty. Just thrown in jail for a while.

The people who I think should get the death penalty are the people like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy, that lady who killed her 4 babies in a bath tub because "god told her to do it". People who are truley horrific and worthless. These people serve no purpose to society other then causing problems.''

No. People like Gacy, Bundy and such CAN claim insanity because their crimes are so extreame. Its people like them that plead insanity. How can someone who killed the other person in rage plead insanity? Insanity pleading is for people like that women who drowned babies in the bath tub because ''god told her so'' those kind of people get the insanity pleads...because they are sick and crazy.

About my example, you are contradicting yourself, you are preaching an eye for an eye thing here, yet when someone goes and does something that is eye for an eye, then its not ok? Hows that?
The man killed those 4 boys because they are cut loose, and there is a probablity of them coming after his daughter again and kill her. Was it you that said ''the only way to stop murderes and rapists to never kill or rape again is to kill them'' ?? Well this man has, and now you are sentancing him to death?? I dont get your logic.

Ever heard of life in prison with out a parol? Yeah, theres that too. Also, life in prison with 40 yeas with out a parol. People would much rather be killed than spend the remaining of their life in priosn where they are raped and beaten on daily bases. Death is always a better answer....heck, better kill me now then let me suffer another 40 years. So I repeat again, you're not serving justice, you're serving revenge.

"No. People like Gacy, Bundy and such CAN claim insanity because their crimes are so extreame. Its people like them that plead insanity. How can someone who killed the other person in rage plead insanity? Insanity pleading is for people like that women who drowned babies in the bath tub because ''god told her so'' those kind of people get the insanity pleads...because they are sick and crazy."

So not only do citizens have to support prisoners in Prison by paying taxes. They also have to support the lunatic prison inmates in the nut-house? Nah! is a waste of money. As stated before these ppl don't serve any purpose to society. Much less contribute to society since they are extremely dangerous and more deadlier than an average person. No, is too risky keeping them lock up. Better end their life before they kill again. What do you do with a dog that has rabies? Put it to sleep forever. Same with a derange murderer.....put it to sleep forever.

I am all for the death penatly I want murders,rapiests,pedofiles to get the electric chair. And anybody that is agaisnt it obviously hasnt had a family member murdered. Some people just dont deserve to live.

“Wait a second there, why then have courts?? Wy have courts and triels when in your world its eye for an eye?? what is the point of having a justice system.”

Again let me state “Crime rates fluctuate so there is no real proof of improvement…all crimes are not made by the same person if they were then what you said would be a true statement.” Why have a justice system…well that statement is also true…laws were and are made by people …people with their own damn opinion and views…loop holes etc.

”And yeah, i repeat yet again, America has the highest crime rates yet its the only one still having death penalty!”
yea we may have the highest crime rate NOW but lets not forget who it was 2 years ago shall we…hmm ya’ll better watch out before you’re #1 again… “ya’ll better behave”

England has worst crime rate in world
By David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 01/12/2002)
England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.
The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.
According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.
During the period 1998-2000, Britain went from fifth to fourth worst in the world league table. An analysis of total recorded crime figures before 1998 also suggests that England and Wales have moved sharply up the league table since Labour came to power in 1997. Crimes fell from 5.5 million in 1993 to 4.5 million in 1997. By 1999, total crimes had risen again to 5.3 million.
Last night Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, said: "This does rather blow a hole in David Blunkett's claim that New Labour has crime under control. It is a damning picture."
The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population.
~~damn those United Nations folks what about AMERICA?? I demand a recount…

But guess whose neighborhood those violent ex-cons, parolee’s etc. are dumped at? Not suburbia, not middle class to upper class neighborhoods, NO they let them loose at “lower class” neighborhoods, the ghetto, projects, etc. People who were raised in good neighborhoods don’t see that…they only see what they learn, read, hear, or see from T.V. about criminals…They only have to deal with the “stories” they are reading/hearing about…. that is not everyday life for them…they make up dozens of solutions on how to solve “the problems in the hood” or how to handle criminals but they have never lived in that environment to be making these solutions or to know there are no real solutions. Some of their worries in life are if they want mochachino or a latte in the morning not if I get robbed today I hope I have enough money to satisfy a drugged up thief whose pointing a gun to my head.

It is easy to say time in prison will cure all but it wont, it never will. There is no solid solution on how to handle violent criminals but there are solutions on what to do to certain ones who deserve the worst of the worst punishment and to me that IS rewarding knowing they will no longer hurt children, the elderly, women, etc.

That is enough quarreling for me…I have put my 2 cents in…it was interesting hearing everyone’s view.
🙂