Death Penalty

Started by Victor Von Doom88 pages

Logically, shouldn't the death penalty only be applicable to cases of killing with intent?

Otherwise it seems disproportionate. The extra portion seems to be criminal.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Logically, shouldn't the death penalty only be applicable to cases of killing with intent?

Otherwise it seems disproportionate. The extra portion seems to be criminal.


Maybe for hitmen and serial killers, absolutely PROVEN cases of murder.

Originally posted by eggmayo
Maybe for hitmen and serial killers, absolutely PROVEN cases of murder.

In Britain you can only be put to death by order of the Queen for High Treason.

Originally posted by eggmayo
Maybe for hitmen and serial killers, absolutely PROVEN cases of murder.

Yeah. I was just saying though, for anything below murder the death penalty seems to be a disproportionate response.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
In Britain you can only be put to death by order of the Queen for High Treason.

That's gone now, there is nothing for which you can be put to death in England and Wales.

Originally posted by eggmayo
Maybe for hitmen and serial killers, absolutely PROVEN cases of murder.

you can't do that. they keep on getting more and better ways to investigate something etc, what used to be absolutely proven today could well be shown as wrong in 15 years...

How many people are not in the usa? Yes death penalty

Burn them alll......they broke the law now make them pay

Bit stupid.

-AC

I am for the death penalty where the evidence is absolutely conclusive that the person is guilty. There's no such thing as life without parole. Even when such a sentance is handed down the person can be pardoned or have their sentance commuted. The death penalty isn't barbaric, letting a brutal killer live at taxpayer expense however is.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I remember reading some research on this topic..and it seems that once "Public" execution stopped and Jail systems were set up along with private executions., crime rose quite significantly...

The jail/prison systems were existing as long as there has been execution and or military of any kind.
Crime didnt rise because of the jails - if you remember the history, every feud was setteled between the families - why? Because there was no such thing that resembeled police order.
The judges were Christian clerics - thus, if you commited a crime which had to do with something church disagreed with, or something which has damaging the goverment, you were publically executed.

The feuds between families were setteled by duels, blood feuds etc etc etc.
People who were poor were more likely to be executed. To assume that all crime came from the poor is a misconception.

The reason public executions stopped is because they caused riots and extreame disorder. It had nothing to do with humans growing spiritually or getting more enlgihtened to ''barbarianism''.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I am for the death penalty where the evidence is absolutely conclusive that the person is guilty. There's no such thing as life without parole. Even when such a sentance is handed down the person can be pardoned or have their sentance commuted. The death penalty isn't barbaric, letting a brutal killer live at taxpayer expense however is.

There will never ever be that much conclusive evidence. There will always be margin for error and with a DEATH sentence, that much is too much.

How can you say the death penalty isn't barbaric?

"Ok so, we think you've been extremely barbaric so we're going to kill you."

"Quickly right?"

"No, we're going to strap you to a metal chair and run extreme electricity through your entire body, sending you into violent and horrific convulsions until dead."

-AC

Very much against

Nobody should be allowed to kill another, not even a government

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The jail/prison systems were existing as long as there has been execution and or military of any kind.
Crime didnt rise because of the jails - if you remember the history, every feud was setteled between the families - why? Because there was no such thing that resembeled police order.
The judges were Christian clerics - thus, if you committed a crime which had to do with something church disagreed with, or something which has damaging the goverment, you were publically executed.

The feuds between families were setteled by duels, blood feuds etc etc etc.
People who were poor were more likely to be executed. To assume that all crime came from the poor is a misconception.

The reason public executions stopped is because they caused riots and extreame disorder. It had nothing to do with humans growing spiritually or getting more enlgihtened to ''barbarianism''.

Well it was on the History channel, and did read things about this, but I know also that in history, if someone committed a crime against the family, THAT PERSON would be owned by the family it wronged......depending on the crime...and for "death"...that family would own the person who committed the crime for life....Making that person pretty much a slave forever......

The death penalty is killing. All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong.

Here's a list of countries with the most executions last year:

China, Iran, Vietnam, USA, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Nice.

What does the law say? You will not kill! How does it say it? By killing!

Originally posted by lord krondor
The death penalty is killing. All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong.

Here's a list of countries with the most executions last year:

China, Iran, Vietnam, USA, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Nice.

[b]What does the law say? You will not kill! How does it say it? By killing! [/B]

Exactly

Amesty International Report 2006:

"By 2005, 122 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.

In 1977, the year when the USA resumed the use of the death penalty and AI convened a groundbreaking International Conference on the Death Penalty, only 16 countries were abolitionist.

1…. Country known to AI that still executed juvenile offenders in 2005."

Four countries account for 94% of the total estimated number of government condoned executions around the world:

China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and...the US.

A communist state, a nation whose constitution is fundamentally anti-democratic as it is based on a supreme 'rule of the clergy', a Islamic Monarchy ruling over a closed society where the population at large support militant orthodoxy and al-Qaeda, and...the United States of Freedom. Funny. Sad. Funny. Sad. Sad.

i do not support the death penalty only because torture is much MUCH more satisfying. what fun can u have if the person dies that quickly??

Originally posted by ðµhµl gê†ñåh
i do not support the death penalty only because torture is much MUCH more satisfying. what fun can u have if the person dies that quickly??

Oh, very good. I get it. That's funny.

Yes, killing other people because they kill, is a bit contradictory and also not setting a very good example.