Death Penalty

Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
you have a point, but at least the exectutioners are venting their love of murder through a way that helps society rather than hurts it.

True. I would prefer that over a public serial killer, if i was forced to choose one.

But it still makes the Death Penalty hypocritical.

Don't forget that many murderers and serial killers have families. An executioner usually ends up hurting the family more than anyone else.

(why did I return to this cycle thread? oh, this statement did...)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

Don't forget that many murderers and serial killers have families. An executioner usually ends up hurting the family more than anyone else.

See, that's absurd. The executioner did NOT put the criminal in the chair in the first place. It was the criminal HIMSELF/HERSELF who is responsible for his/her own actions. It's the criminal who hurts his/her own family. No excuses....

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
(why did I return to this cycle thread? oh, this statement did...)

See, that's absurd. The executioner did NOT put the criminal in the chair in the first place. It was the criminal HIMSELF/HERSELF who is responsible for his/her own actions. It's the criminal who hurts his/her own family. No excuses....

Nope. But the Executioner is the person killing the criminal.

He/she is just as responsible as the state and the criminal him or herself.

You can't just pick one to blame.

and you cannot disregard the ACTUAL PERSON who is carrying out the execution.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nope. But the Executioner is the person killing the criminal.

He/she is just as responsible as the state and the criminal him or herself.

Why?

Why is he partially responsible for the pain of the family members of the criminal ?

Because he is killing the criminal, that's why.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Why is he partially responsible for the pain of the family members of the criminal ?

Because he is killing the criminal, that's why.

Why is he just as responsible as the guy who murdered people and was therefore caused all it?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nope. But the Executioner is the person killing the criminal.

He/she is just as responsible as the state and the criminal him or herself.

The Executioner is doing his job which has been giving by the state according to the laws of the land.

Let's use your logic here.

If for some reason a criminal breaks into your home. Threatens to kill your love ones. You defend yourself to the point in which you kill the criminal.....base upon YOUR logic...YOU just kill a human being. It doesn't matter if you call it self defense. You kill a human. Thus you're a murderer. Since the murderer didn't kill anyone...he's therefore innocent. The victim (in this case the criminal) is dead because of your actions. You are the murderer for killing an innocent man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why is he just as responsible as the guy who murdered people and was therefore caused all it?

Is the Executioner responsible for the criminal's actions and the fact that the criminal is ON Death row ?

No.....he or she is not.

Is the Executioner partially responsible for the pain of the family members who have to see thier criminal relative die ?

Yes.....

Especially since the executioner is the one who is delivering death to the criminal relative.

If you still don't get it, i give up.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The Executioner is doing his job which has been giving by the state according to the laws of the land.

Let's use your logic here.

If for some reason a criminal breaks into your home. Threatens to kill your love ones. You defend yourself to the point in which you kill the criminal.....base upon YOUR logic...YOU just kill a human being. It doesn't matter if you call it self defense. You kill a human. Thus you're a murderer. Since the murderer didn't kill anyone...he's therefore innocent. The victim (in this case the criminal) is dead because of your actions. You are the murderer for killing an innocent man.

Nope my freind that is NOT my logic at all.

To me killing is only justifiable in self defense.

The executioner is not defending himself.

He is killing a criminal who is tied down.

There's a difference buddy

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is the Executioner responsible for the criminal's actions and the fact that the criminal is ON Death row ?

No.....he or she is not.

Is the Executioner partially responsible for the pain of the family members who have to see thier criminal relative die ?

Yes.....

Especially since the executioner is the one who is delivering death to the criminal relative.

If you still don't get it, i give up.

You were trying to set the Serial killer and the executioner equal...that is just plain stupid....you see that, right?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nope my freind that is NOT my logic at all.

To me killing is only justifiable in self defense.

The executioner is not defending himself.

He is killing a criminal who is tied down.

There's a difference buddy

No! I'm using your logic step by step.

You clearly said:

Which ONE OF US is SO GOOD and so much better than we have the right to deliver this death onto them ?????

Thus killing in self defense is murder and criminal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err...I suppose he is partly responsible (a rather small part) for whatever influences the death of the criminal has......but, what is your point.

You were trying to set the Serial killer and the executioner equal...that is just plain stupid....you see that, right?

No, why do you think it's stupid ?

They are Ultamately doing the same thing.

These are the notable differences:

1) A serial killer has more options on how to kill his victim
An executioner must kill the criminal within the confines he has

2) An executioner gets paid to kill
A serial killer does it for free

3) A serial killer usually enjoys his kill
Actually, I'd bet executioners enjoy it just as much .

4) A serial killer kills for his or her own reasons
An executioner kills for someone else's reasons

5) A serial killer has to HUNT his prey
An Executioner gets his prey given to him

6) A serial killer is usually selective over who they kill
An executioner kills whoever he is told to kill

Similarities:

They both kill repeatedly.

How is comparing them stupid ?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No! I'm using your logic step by step.

You clearly said:

Thus killing in self defense is murder and criminal.

NOPE....which one of us has the right to kill a criminal on death row ?

When someone is attacking you on the spot, you have every right to kill them to defend yourself.

If you read my other posts, instead of defining me by one or two posts, you will see where i fully stand.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
No, why do you think it's stupid ?

They are Ultamately doing the same thing.

These are the notable differences:

1) A serial killer has more options on how to kill his victim
An executioner must kill the criminal within the confines he has

2) An executioner gets paid to kill
A serial killer does it for free

3) A serial killer usually enjoys his kill
Actually, I'd bet executioners enjoy it just as much .

4) A serial killer kills for his or her own reasons
An executioner kills for someone else's reasons

5) A serial killer has to HUNT his prey
An Executioner gets his prey given to him

6) A serial killer is usually selective over who they kill
An executioner kills whoever he is told to kill

Similarities:

They both kill repeatedly.

How is comparing them stupid ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
NOPE....which one of us has the right to kill a criminal on death row ?

When someone is attacking you on the spot, you have every right to kill them to defend yourself.

There is the hypocracy I was looking for you to bring out. So you kill in self defense? By all means it's complete flawed to say "killing is wrong". I'm reading you loud and clear here.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
No, why do you think it's stupid ?

They are Ultamately doing the same thing.

These are the notable differences:

1) A serial killer has more options on how to kill his victim
An executioner must kill the criminal within the confines he has

2) An executioner gets paid to kill
A serial killer does it for free

3) A serial killer usually enjoys his kill
Actually, I'd bet executioners enjoy it just as much .

4) A serial killer kills for his or her own reasons
An executioner kills for someone else's reasons

5) A serial killer has to HUNT his prey
An Executioner gets his prey given to him

6) A serial killer is usually selective over who they kill
An executioner kills whoever he is told to kill

Similarities:

They both kill repeatedly.

How is comparing them stupid ?

Biggest flaw in your entire twisted logic there.....The criminal always kills first....why should the criminal kill first? Who gave him that right? You throwing the whole issue of "who has the right" to the state, the law, and the executioner....throw that to the criminal before you throw it at the state, law, and executioner.

There is the hypocracy I was looking for you to bring out. So you kill in self defense? By all means it's complete flawed to say "killing is wrong". I'm reading you loud and clear here.

Oh God, what hypocrisy?

I do think killing is wrong. But in a matter of self defense WHAT CHOICE do you have ?

In the matter of Death Penalty vs Life in prison, there is a choice that can be made.

Biggest flaw in your entire twisted logic there.....The criminal always kills first....why should the criminal kill first?

He has no right. He shouldn't. But who has the right to execute him ?
(other than the victim in order to save his or her own life?)

If you have the criminal apprehended, you don't NEED to kill him....its just a matter of "oh i thnk he deserves to die, so lets kill him"

Who gave him that right?

Nobody. He has no right to kill.

But no one has the absolute RIGHT to kill him once hes apprehended and under control.

You throwing the whole issue of "who has the right" to the state, the law, and the executioner....throw that to the criminal before you throw it at the state, law, and executioner.

I even said before that some criminals Do indeed DESERVE to die....but who does have the right to deliver their death? Once the criminal is contained, who has the right to kill him ?

Originally posted by Philip_ll
I dont think anyone should get a lesser punishment just becuase they have pleaded insanity. Especially after theyve kidnapped a small child, molested the child, then afterwards..chopped the child up, cooked, and ate the child. Now, if that child was your child, what would you want to occur?

I, for one, believe that Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in a bathtub, should be put to death. Ever since I first heard about what she had done, I wanted her to receive nothing less than death, because I strongly believe she deserves it.

the death penalty should be kept and enforced in all states, yet to minimize the murder of the falsley accused, before the person is put to death their case should be reopened and reviewed in a fair trail one final time.

Then let the asshead burn

I DO think there are people who deserve the Death Penalty.

But WHO has the RIGHT to ADMINISTER the death penalty is what i am asking.

The Executioner is no more innocent than the criminal, because he is killing someone as well.

Did i ever say the the victim can't kill for self defense and it won't be justifiable? NO...so moderator, please stop shoving that $#@$ in my mouth ok ?