Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

castille · Oct 17, 2003, 04:31 am

Insane or not, its far better to execute those accused of committing crimes while "pleading" insanity.

Maybe they have their super special reason for killing (ie. the Mothership is coming and their mission is to exterminate humankind), but it is impractical (and suicidal) to simply release them back into society.

We can discuss philosophy and morality all we want, but maybe we should release a few of those serial killers into your home and see whether you want to accept their beliefs.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 17, 2003, 04:33 am

Chalk one up for humanity, Castille, ole' boy! Man am I suddenly disappointed that you and I share the same species!

Waychel · Oct 17, 2003, 05:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Chalk one up for humanity, Castille, ole' boy! Man am I suddenly disappointed that you and I share the same species!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Was that really relevant to this debate? I mean come on. =PpP

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)

Actually, 25 states still permit it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am finding this rather interesting. What states exactly?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)

What, those state-ordained desk jockeys who care as much about you as the shit they took not half an hour before? Who get paid the same whether you get off free or get the chair? Oh, yeah, they'll be reeeal interested in long, drawn-out trials that look over the evidence with a hawk's eye when there were 40 million similar cases just preceding yours and that was just this morning.

Conversely, as Robert Shapiro will tell you, money makes all the difference in the world.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Nobody wants to stay as a court-appointed attorney forever. They want to get a name for themselves, start their own practice. Its not a matter of them caring for who they are defending, because attorneys rarely do; its a matter of how badly they want to win. For attorneys to do their job in a criminal case, they more or less have to be impartial to whether or not the person they are defending committed the crime they are accused of or not. That not only means they wont care if the person is indeed guilty, but if they are also innocent. Its a game to them, and nobody likes to lose.

I think you are cutting them far too short. Not just them, but the judicial system in general: people are innocent until proven guilty.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 17, 2003, 11:47 am

Unless they're poor. Look, the justice system is overcrowded with case after case after case, with long wait times and harried nerves. The average suspect isn't hardly given the time of day in the name of expediency, and the DA isn't about to hold up the works. Both Judges and DAs want quick trials, or barring that quick settlements. Juries are rarely impartial in the matter, and in the face of crime statistics would rather see somebody go to jail than have the case unsolved. It's no shock that the poor (and minorities especially) are heavily over-represented in the prisons, and that the rich - ie: those who can afford their own lawyers - more often than not get off scott free.

Waychel · Oct 18, 2003, 09:32 pm

The rich do not always get off "scott free." It is true that the rich can afford better attorneys, but an attorney does not always mean success. Even the rich can be found guilty, it has been known to happen when they are, and the best that $1000 an hour attorney in his Armani suit can offer is to attempt getting an easier sentence for them.

Also, I think you are embellishing quite a bit because criminal trials are required to and do go to court typically within 60 days (I can't recall the exact timeframe). If the case doesn't go to court within that amount of time then it is dropped.

Settlement = solved. You can't have a case if you don't have somebody pressing charges, therefore no issue, no legal action and no accusation to convict of a crime upon.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 19, 2003, 12:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel)
The rich do not always get off "scott free."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You're exaggerating my claim, which was "more often than not."
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel)
Settlement = solved. You can't have a case if you don't have somebody pressing charges, therefore no issue, no legal action and no accusation to convict of a crime upon.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No, settlement = fewer court fees. People don't go to settlement unless they (1) think they're going to lose, (2) can't afford the legal fees, or (3) don't want to spend a month in court. It's not because the case is solved.

Waychel · Oct 19, 2003, 12:52 pm

A settlement is a mutual agreement, so I would say that the problem has been solved. :p

Scribbler1 · Nov 4, 2003, 01:15 am

It's a tough call, for sure. But like most national debates the logical middle ground is lost somehow. Some people have such contempt for the lives of others (and boy do they show it) that killing is too good for them, and for them the DP is more than satisfactory. On the other hand the anti DP folks don't like the idea at all, so it should be abolished. The DP is necessary, but not with the present court system. I humbly suggest a few changes to the DP before any innocents are taken out.

The recidivism rate is far too high, as prisons are too "humane". Prisons for certain kinds of killers should be unbelievably miserable hell-holes. Society in general has given up on the idea of rehabilitation and has committed to warehousing. If that's so, treat them like a UPS package and then after maybe 2 appeals kill them with no fanfare or media hype. Make damn sure the word gets out that NOBODY is such a tough guy that they can take prison "like a man". If you believe prison is 500 times worse than anything outside this might change a few minds.

ANY testimony by jailhouse "snitches" should be eliminated immediately. IMO these bums who would contribute to the execution of another while expecting lighter sentences for their "testimony" are no better then the killers they testify against and should be recognized as such. What's needed if possible is witnesses unknown to each other and with nothing to gain from anything they say. No books, no interviews, just go home after the trial and keep your mouth shut.

FAR less reliance on "expert testimony". For every shrink you find who says a defendant ought to be fed to the sharks you can easily find another shrink who says the poor killer would have not done the deed if his daddy didn't yell at him for not taking out the garbage.

More reliance on videotape and development of tamper-proof tape cartridges, for use during interrogations. If you admit to committing certain kinds of murders, you die, period. Maybe only ONE appeal in this kind of case. If you're stupid enough to confess to a crime you didn't commit and know there's a death penalty involved, off you go.

A more watchful eye on judges, and removal of many of them. Some of these guys would hang a man for an expired parking meter, and some are so bigoted they would have some people in a noose the first time they lay eyes on them.
Similarly, the judges who wouldn't even sentence Darth Vader to death because they believe any DP is wrong and will damn sure use their power to stop it need to go too.

Premeditated murder: definitely DP. If you plan a killing (especially of innocent strangers), I don't want them breathing the same air we breathe. Colin Ferguson (who calmly shot a bunch of rail commuters) comes to mind.

Although this contradicts the previous statement about no media, some executions should be televised on prime time depending on the type of person. Like in the old movie where James Cagney was so tough he didn't even sweat the last walk to the electric chair, until he saw the Dead End Kids in their cells watching him with admiration. In a great bit of acting, to keep the kids from emulating him he deliberately broke down like a sniveling coward. Find a particularly nasty murderer who shows any sign of weakness and tape THAT guy's last mile walk and distribute tapes in crime infested neighborhoods.

The DP is still a terribly complex argument but I believe these suggestions are a good start.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 4, 2003, 09:49 am

Of course, I am anti-DP, but I do have this to say about your argument:

1) In the two "extremes" you give, you are far more towards the former than the middle. Televised executions? Dungeons and an expanded DP? Man, I wouldn't want to live in a state where you're governor.
2) Doing hard hard time is not going to make anybody think twice about committing crime. Hell, DP didn't make anybody think twice about committing crime. No matter how harsh the punishment, most people do not expect to be caught.
3) You seem to ignore Life Meaning Life in your list of choices, which would certainly help dealings with retrials down the line after new evidence has been found.
4) You seem to ignore mistrials and biased judges, courts, juries. Bobby Seale, 1971, for example.

castille · Nov 7, 2003, 08:03 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Doing hard hard time is not going to make anybody think twice about committing crime. Hell, DP didn't make anybody think twice about committing crime. No matter how harsh the punishment, most people do not expect to be caught<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

In that case....make it known those people can be caught. Technology can analyse a single breath particle to identify someone....make it known the law will use those to identify and exterminate criminals. Use cameras, offer rewards for ratting out criminals.

There is no real law, however, that can deal with mentally unstable criminals. They CAN'T be discouraged from crime....best to kill them quickly and prevent future crimes.

Weren't many criminals in Stalin's Russia, was there? Fear is a bigger motivator than pleasure (people prefer NOT to lose $10,000 rather than get $100,000).

G. Adams · Nov 7, 2003, 08:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Of course, I am anti-DP, but I do have this to say about your argument:

1) In the two "extremes" you give, you are far more towards the former than the middle. Televised executions? Dungeons and an expanded DP? Man, I wouldn't want to live in a state where you're governor.
2) Doing hard hard time is not going to make anybody think twice about committing crime. Hell, DP didn't make anybody think twice about committing crime. No matter how harsh the punishment, most people do not expect to be caught.
3) You seem to ignore Life Meaning Life in your list of choices, which would certainly help dealings with retrials down the line after new evidence has been found.
4) You seem to ignore mistrials and biased judges, courts, juries. Bobby Seale, 1971, for example.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Now I came to this last night when I was drunk, and I didn't read DP as death penalty, but as double penetration. If there is anything that would stop me committing a crime it is the thought of being dp'd by a couple of big guys. Cruel and unusual but it would damn well stop any crime that was one of passion.

Mia · Apr 14, 2005, 04:32 am

Quote:

Quote by: Geoff332

Sorry to go on about this, but if you are referring to the US specifically, then this is not a valid argument. It costs considerably more to execute a prisoner than it does to imprison them for life. This is based on their time on death row vs general population in a maximum security prison. These costs could be reduced by shortening the appeals process (hence reducing the time on death row), but this would increase the number of "innocent prisoners ... being executed - which is absolutely not acceptable."

<edit>
I should give some sort of facts to back up what I have said. I can't find the original sources, but these two pages have information about death penalty costs.
World Policy (about half way down)
Amnesty USA
A brief summary is:
LA County: death penalty costs $ 2 M vs $ 1.4 M for Life Without Parole (LWOP).
Texas: $ 2.3 M for death, about three times the cost of LWOP.
North Carolina: death costs 2.16 M more than LWOP.
Florida: $ 3.2 M for death, $600 K for LWOP.
New York: death is about three times the cost of LWOP.
Similar studies in Kansas and Maryland give similar results.
</edit>

Tman, at least I and Geoff are putting something concrete out to argue with. All you're putting on the table to argue with is your personal opinion.

Care to join in a debate?

tman_ndsu08 · Apr 14, 2005, 08:15 am

Again, the "sources" you've posted are from pro rights groups that frankly don't even care to hide their bias.

I'll be happy to join if you ever get any actual sources.

Samildanach · Apr 14, 2005, 08:50 am

Just chip em. any murderer gets a chip implanted in their brain connected to a cyanide capsule. You wouldn't even really have to chip them. Just publicise a few false cases in the paper of people being killed by the chips put them under give them a few scars on their head tell them they have had surgery and if they commit any kind of assault in the future they will be terminated by remote.
Cheapest kind of prison there is, one made in their own mind.

IndieC · Apr 14, 2005, 08:59 am

That is a bit barbaric. The whole point of fighting the death penalty, in my opinion, is so that some miscarriages of justice can be rectified, and people dont die for something they didn't actually do, not to mention that it's called murdering in cold blood under any other circumstances.

What you are saying, Samildanach, is that if they are reported to have commited an assault, they can be terminated just like that, without a trial if they have a chip implanted into them. That is called a dictatorship. Execution without trial, all your rights go out of the window, and you're worse off that the people in Guantanamo Bay.

tman_ndsu08 · Apr 14, 2005, 11:41 am

An eye for an eye is the simplest and the fairest form of punishment in the universe. There simply can't be any fairer way to punish someone.

If a person murders another person, they don't deserve to live anymore. Plain and simple.

I understand that wrongful convictions are possible and it is quite tragic when they do happen. But doing away with the fairest punishment for murderers simply because the fear that every now and then one might be convicted wrongfully is ridiculous.

IndieC · Apr 14, 2005, 12:02 pm

Wait, are you seriously agreeing with Osama Bin Laden? That is exactly his ideology."Our innocents die, so we kill their innocents." An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for life, from what you are saying. I'm sorry, i can't agree with that. How can the world's largest democracy, a country fighting, supposedly, for others' freedom, suddenly advocate that. Its immoral, and frankly, i dont understand how you can think that way, the same way as a mass murderer, and a terrorist.

tman_ndsu08 · Apr 14, 2005, 01:40 pm

Killing an innocent person is murder.

An eye for an eye is a basis for punishing murderers. They simply did the punishment for us.

That doesn't mean the murder was justified, obviously, just that they got the punishment they deserved.

ericsp23 · Apr 14, 2005, 02:09 pm

So if it is later discovered that someone who was executed was, in fact, innocent of the crime he was convicted of, would you advocate the execution of his executioner and anyone else involved in his conviction?
After all you do concede that the killing of an innocent person is murder, so anyone involved in that murder would be subject to the same "eye for an eye" justice.

IndieC · Apr 14, 2005, 03:06 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08

Killing an innocent person is murder.
That doesn't mean the murder was justified, obviously, just that they got the punishment they deserved.

So, what you are saying is that you are in favour of unjust punishments, from what i gather.

Oct 17, 2003, 04:31 am	#41 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Insane or not, its far better to execute those accused of committing crimes while "pleading" insanity. Maybe they have their super special reason for killing (ie. the Mothership is coming and their mission is to exterminate humankind), but it is impractical (and suicidal) to simply release them back into society. We can discuss philosophy and morality all we want, but maybe we should release a few of those serial killers into your home and see whether you want to accept their beliefs. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 17, 2003, 04:33 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Chalk one up for humanity, Castille, ole' boy! Man am I suddenly disappointed that you and I share the same species! . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 17, 2003, 05:24 am	#43 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Chalk one up for humanity, Castille, ole' boy! Man am I suddenly disappointed that you and I share the same species!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Was that really relevant to this debate? I mean come on. =PpP </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Actually, 25 states still permit it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am finding this rather interesting. What states exactly? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) What, those state-ordained desk jockeys who care as much about you as the shit they took not half an hour before? Who get paid the same whether you get off free or get the chair? Oh, yeah, they'll be reeeal interested in long, drawn-out trials that look over the evidence with a hawk's eye when there were 40 million similar cases just preceding yours and that was just this morning. Conversely, as Robert Shapiro will tell you, money makes all the difference in the world.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nobody wants to stay as a court-appointed attorney forever. They want to get a name for themselves, start their own practice. Its not a matter of them caring for who they are defending, because attorneys rarely do; its a matter of how badly they want to win. For attorneys to do their job in a criminal case, they more or less have to be impartial to whether or not the person they are defending committed the crime they are accused of or not. That not only means they wont care if the person is indeed guilty, but if they are also innocent. Its a game to them, and nobody likes to lose. I think you are cutting them far too short. Not just them, but the judicial system in general: people are innocent until proven guilty. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 17, 2003, 11:47 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Unless they're poor. Look, the justice system is overcrowded with case after case after case, with long wait times and harried nerves. The average suspect isn't hardly given the time of day in the name of expediency, and the DA isn't about to hold up the works. Both Judges and DAs want quick trials, or barring that quick settlements. Juries are rarely impartial in the matter, and in the face of crime statistics would rather see somebody go to jail than have the case unsolved. It's no shock that the poor (and minorities especially) are heavily over-represented in the prisons, and that the rich - ie: those who can afford their own lawyers - more often than not get off scott free. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 18, 2003, 09:32 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	The rich do not always get off "scott free." It is true that the rich can afford better attorneys, but an attorney does not always mean success. Even the rich can be found guilty, it has been known to happen when they are, and the best that $1000 an hour attorney in his Armani suit can offer is to attempt getting an easier sentence for them. Also, I think you are embellishing quite a bit because criminal trials are required to and do go to court typically within 60 days (I can't recall the exact timeframe). If the case doesn't go to court within that amount of time then it is dropped. Settlement = solved. You can't have a case if you don't have somebody pressing charges, therefore no issue, no legal action and no accusation to convict of a crime upon. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 19, 2003, 12:25 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel) The rich do not always get off "scott free."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're exaggerating my claim, which was "more often than not." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel) Settlement = solved. You can't have a case if you don't have somebody pressing charges, therefore no issue, no legal action and no accusation to convict of a crime upon.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, settlement = fewer court fees. People don't go to settlement unless they (1) think they're going to lose, (2) can't afford the legal fees, or (3) don't want to spend a month in court. It's not because the case is solved. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 19, 2003, 12:52 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	A settlement is a mutual agreement, so I would say that the problem has been solved. :p Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Nov 4, 2003, 01:15 am	#48 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	It's a tough call, for sure. But like most national debates the logical middle ground is lost somehow. Some people have such contempt for the lives of others (and boy do they show it) that killing is too good for them, and for them the DP is more than satisfactory. On the other hand the anti DP folks don't like the idea at all, so it should be abolished. The DP is necessary, but not with the present court system. I humbly suggest a few changes to the DP before any innocents are taken out. The recidivism rate is far too high, as prisons are too "humane". Prisons for certain kinds of killers should be unbelievably miserable hell-holes. Society in general has given up on the idea of rehabilitation and has committed to warehousing. If that's so, treat them like a UPS package and then after maybe 2 appeals kill them with no fanfare or media hype. Make damn sure the word gets out that NOBODY is such a tough guy that they can take prison "like a man". If you believe prison is 500 times worse than anything outside this might change a few minds. ANY testimony by jailhouse "snitches" should be eliminated immediately. IMO these bums who would contribute to the execution of another while expecting lighter sentences for their "testimony" are no better then the killers they testify against and should be recognized as such. What's needed if possible is witnesses unknown to each other and with nothing to gain from anything they say. No books, no interviews, just go home after the trial and keep your mouth shut. FAR less reliance on "expert testimony". For every shrink you find who says a defendant ought to be fed to the sharks you can easily find another shrink who says the poor killer would have not done the deed if his daddy didn't yell at him for not taking out the garbage. More reliance on videotape and development of tamper-proof tape cartridges, for use during interrogations. If you admit to committing certain kinds of murders, you die, period. Maybe only ONE appeal in this kind of case. If you're stupid enough to confess to a crime you didn't commit and know there's a death penalty involved, off you go. A more watchful eye on judges, and removal of many of them. Some of these guys would hang a man for an expired parking meter, and some are so bigoted they would have some people in a noose the first time they lay eyes on them. Similarly, the judges who wouldn't even sentence Darth Vader to death because they believe any DP is wrong and will damn sure use their power to stop it need to go too. Premeditated murder: definitely DP. If you plan a killing (especially of innocent strangers), I don't want them breathing the same air we breathe. Colin Ferguson (who calmly shot a bunch of rail commuters) comes to mind. Although this contradicts the previous statement about no media, some executions should be televised on prime time depending on the type of person. Like in the old movie where James Cagney was so tough he didn't even sweat the last walk to the electric chair, until he saw the Dead End Kids in their cells watching him with admiration. In a great bit of acting, to keep the kids from emulating him he deliberately broke down like a sniveling coward. Find a particularly nasty murderer who shows any sign of weakness and tape THAT guy's last mile walk and distribute tapes in crime infested neighborhoods. The DP is still a terribly complex argument but I believe these suggestions are a good start. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 4, 2003, 09:49 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Of course, I am anti-DP, but I do have this to say about your argument: 1) In the two "extremes" you give, you are far more towards the former than the middle. Televised executions? Dungeons and an expanded DP? Man, I wouldn't want to live in a state where you're governor. 2) Doing hard hard time is not going to make anybody think twice about committing crime. Hell, DP didn't make anybody think twice about committing crime. No matter how harsh the punishment, most people do not expect to be caught. 3) You seem to ignore Life Meaning Life in your list of choices, which would certainly help dealings with retrials down the line after new evidence has been found. 4) You seem to ignore mistrials and biased judges, courts, juries. Bobby Seale, 1971, for example. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 7, 2003, 08:03 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Doing hard hard time is not going to make anybody think twice about committing crime. Hell, DP didn't make anybody think twice about committing crime. No matter how harsh the punishment, most people do not expect to be caught<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> In that case....make it known those people can be caught. Technology can analyse a single breath particle to identify someone....make it known the law will use those to identify and exterminate criminals. Use cameras, offer rewards for ratting out criminals. There is no real law, however, that can deal with mentally unstable criminals. They CAN'T be discouraged from crime....best to kill them quickly and prevent future crimes. Weren't many criminals in Stalin's Russia, was there? Fear is a bigger motivator than pleasure (people prefer NOT to lose $10,000 rather than get $100,000). Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 7, 2003, 08:20 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Of course, I am anti-DP, but I do have this to say about your argument: 1) In the two "extremes" you give, you are far more towards the former than the middle. Televised executions? Dungeons and an expanded DP? Man, I wouldn't want to live in a state where you're governor. 2) Doing hard hard time is not going to make anybody think twice about committing crime. Hell, DP didn't make anybody think twice about committing crime. No matter how harsh the punishment, most people do not expect to be caught. 3) You seem to ignore Life Meaning Life in your list of choices, which would certainly help dealings with retrials down the line after new evidence has been found. 4) You seem to ignore mistrials and biased judges, courts, juries. Bobby Seale, 1971, for example.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Now I came to this last night when I was drunk, and I didn't read DP as death penalty, but as double penetration. If there is anything that would stop me committing a crime it is the thought of being dp'd by a couple of big guys. Cruel and unusual but it would damn well stop any crime that was one of passion. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Apr 14, 2005, 08:15 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Again, the "sources" you've posted are from pro rights groups that frankly don't even care to hide their bias. I'll be happy to join if you ever get any actual sources.

Apr 14, 2005, 08:50 am	#54 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Just chip em. any murderer gets a chip implanted in their brain connected to a cyanide capsule. You wouldn't even really have to chip them. Just publicise a few false cases in the paper of people being killed by the chips put them under give them a few scars on their head tell them they have had surgery and if they commit any kind of assault in the future they will be terminated by remote. Cheapest kind of prison there is, one made in their own mind. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Apr 14, 2005, 08:59 am	#55 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	That is a bit barbaric. The whole point of fighting the death penalty, in my opinion, is so that some miscarriages of justice can be rectified, and people dont die for something they didn't actually do, not to mention that it's called murdering in cold blood under any other circumstances. What you are saying, Samildanach, is that if they are reported to have commited an assault, they can be terminated just like that, without a trial if they have a chip implanted into them. That is called a dictatorship. Execution without trial, all your rights go out of the window, and you're worse off that the people in Guantanamo Bay.

Apr 14, 2005, 11:41 am	#56 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	An eye for an eye is the simplest and the fairest form of punishment in the universe. There simply can't be any fairer way to punish someone. If a person murders another person, they don't deserve to live anymore. Plain and simple. I understand that wrongful convictions are possible and it is quite tragic when they do happen. But doing away with the fairest punishment for murderers simply because the fear that every now and then one might be convicted wrongfully is ridiculous.

Apr 14, 2005, 12:02 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	Wait, are you seriously agreeing with Osama Bin Laden? That is exactly his ideology."Our innocents die, so we kill their innocents." An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for life, from what you are saying. I'm sorry, i can't agree with that. How can the world's largest democracy, a country fighting, supposedly, for others' freedom, suddenly advocate that. Its immoral, and frankly, i dont understand how you can think that way, the same way as a mass murderer, and a terrorist.

Apr 14, 2005, 01:40 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Killing an innocent person is murder. An eye for an eye is a basis for punishing murderers. They simply did the punishment for us. That doesn't mean the murder was justified, obviously, just that they got the punishment they deserved.

Apr 14, 2005, 02:09 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
ericsp23 Pragmatic liberal Posts: 421	So if it is later discovered that someone who was executed was, in fact, innocent of the crime he was convicted of, would you advocate the execution of his executioner and anyone else involved in his conviction? After all you do concede that the killing of an innocent person is murder, so anyone involved in that murder would be subject to the same "eye for an eye" justice. Economic Left/Right -5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarion -4.41