Death Penalty

Started by Doom and Gloom88 pages

The death penlty should be mandatory for all sorts of violent crimes, not just murder.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
The death penlty should be mandatory for all sorts of violent crimes, not just murder.

There shouldn't be a mandatory death penalty for any crime.

Tony Blair outlawed the Death Penalty in 98.

Then Saddam Husein got the death penalty 8 years later. ermm

Originally posted by lord xyz
Tony Blair outlawed the Death Penalty in 98.

Then Saddam Husein got the death penalty 8 years later. ermm

It's almost as if Tony Blair was not the emperor of the world. hmm

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There shouldn't be a mandatory death penalty for any crime.

That's your opinion. Mine is different.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
The death penlty should be mandatory for all sorts of violent crimes, not just murder.

1) Violence committed by the state is by definition performed by every person in society. You would be forcing people to be killers even though they don't agree with it.

2) State violence is not justified by the fact it is the state. No person has the right to end the life of another, regardless if the state tells them to.

3) The justice system is not infallible. One innocent person killed through capital punishment is too many, and immediately makes the state and all people within the state guilty of the crime for which they just sentenced someone to death for.

Originally posted by inimalist
1) Violence committed by the state is by definition performed by every person in society. You would be forcing people to be killers even though they don't agree with it.

2) State violence is not justified by the fact it is the state. No person has the right to end the life of another, regardless if the state tells them to.

3) The justice system is not infallible. One innocent person killed through capital punishment is too many, and immediately makes the state and all people within the state guilty of the crime for which they just sentenced someone to death for.

I disagree. Once again, it's your opinion.

in your opinion the state is not the representative of the people?

in your opinion it is ok for the state to kill an innocent person?

in your opinion the justice system is perfect?

in your opinion the actions of the state are immediately justified?

Originally posted by inimalist
in your opinion the state is not the representative of the people?

in your opinion it is ok for the state to kill an innocent person?

in your opinion the justice system is perfect?

in your opinion the actions of the state are immediately justified?

I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate over this. I've done it numerous times on several different forums over the years and it's always the same, no one's mind is changed.

The death penalty should be MANDATORY for any case where there's hard physical evidence for

Pre meditated murder
Forcible rape of a juvenile
The commission of any felony that results in loss of life
Extreme animal cruelty
and probably a few other things too.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate over this. I've done it numerous times on several different forums over the years and it's always the same, no one's mind is changed.

The death penalty should be MANDATORY for any case where there's hard physical evidence for

Pre meditated murder
Forcible rape of a juvenile
The commission of any felony that results in loss of life
Extreme animal cruelty
and probably a few other things too.

You just really like killing people, right?

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate over this. I've done it numerous times on several different forums over the years and it's always the same, no one's mind is changed.

The death penalty should be MANDATORY for any case where there's hard physical evidence for

Pre meditated murder
Forcible rape of a juvenile
The commission of any felony that results in loss of life
Extreme animal cruelty
and probably a few other things too.

so your answer to all 4 questions I asked is 'yes'?

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Pre meditated murder

So . . . you want everyone dead?

Man commits murder. He is executed for murder. The executor must be executed as execution is the mandatory punishment for killing. His executioner must also be killed. And on and on ad infinitum.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So . . . you want everyone dead?

Man commits murder. He is executed for murder. The executor must be executed as execution is the mandatory punishment for killing. His executioner must also be killed. And on and on ad infinitum.


So you'd much rather pay your taxes for them to live in cells, overpopulating prisons, getting to eat 3 meals a day and exercise? I'm sorry but that's luxury compared to what they deserve.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
So you'd much rather pay your taxes for them to live in cells, overpopulating prisons, getting to eat 3 meals a day and exercise? I'm sorry but that's luxury compared to what they deserve.

You realize in his system everyone on the planet would be dead, right? Taxes wouldn't qualify as a problem anymore.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You realize in his system everyone on the planet would be dead, right? Taxes wouldn't qualify as a problem anymore.

Elaborate.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Elaborate.

Premeditated murder with hard evidence must be punished by execution. No exceptions.

Execution typically (well, always) involves killing someone. Tons of hard evidence exists in the form of witnesses and written records.

The executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

And then we run out of people.

If you take out the word mandatory it's fine. You can look at extenuating circumstances. You can look at reasons. You can go see if the person was executed by the state. With a mandatory death sentence for murder you have to kill everyone on the planet, there is no other option.

Im for the death penalty, but only on 2 conditions:

1) it would have to be an extremely evil crime

2) you would have to have an extroardinary amount of proof of the person doing the crime. even the slightest aliby or doubt that the person didnt do it.. then just give that person a life sentence.

For it under 2 conditions:

It has to be the wanton murder of one or more other human beings, and it has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt

I would say in cases of rape aswell (Specifically child rape) but the threat of a death penalty looming over said rapest's head could end up threatening the life of the victim more than said life is already threatened.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Premeditated murder with hard evidence must be punished by execution. No exceptions.

Execution typically (well, always) involves killing someone. Tons of hard evidence exists in the form of witnesses and written records.

The executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

And then we run out of people.

If you take out the word mandatory it's fine. You can look at extenuating circumstances. You can look at reasons. You can go see if the person was executed by the state. With a mandatory death sentence for murder you have to kill everyone on the planet, there is no other option.


Think realistically here though.
For places that still do use the death penalty, they don't sacrifice themselves after using lethal injection on someone. They don't sit themselves down in the electric chair after electicuting someone else down in Texas!
I don't consider self-defense murder so why would I consider executing someone who raped and murdered 19 4 year old girls, an actual crime? It's moreover a 'crime' to let them sit there in their cell with all of their luxuries.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Premeditated murder with hard evidence must be punished by execution. No exceptions.

Execution typically (well, always) involves killing someone. Tons of hard evidence exists in the form of witnesses and written records.

The executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

That executioner has now killed someone and hard evidence exists. He must be executed as it is mandatory.

And then we run out of people.

If you take out the word mandatory it's fine. You can look at extenuating circumstances. You can look at reasons. You can go see if the person was executed by the state. With a mandatory death sentence for murder you have to kill everyone on the planet, there is no other option.

You know g*ddamn well what I mean. Quit twisting things around. The executioner is not comitting murder.