Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing is wrong?

Comments

• That's called prison.....I don't think 'inaction' is what would happen here....'force' is imprisoning them against their will as punishment, and as a preventative measure.....forever if necessary.

  • Report
  

  by suzycue on January 24th, 2008

• People can escape from prison. It is possible. The only way to guarantee 100% that someone doesn't re-offend is to end that person's life. Prison is full of prisoners, who can also be harmed and murdered. I'm not saying I agree with the death penalty, but it is true that death is the only guarantee that a person won't re-offend.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 24th, 2008

• On the day when there is no wrongfully convicted 'murderer' I may see things differently....but there are 100's of people convicted of dastardly deeds who are later shown to be innocent. The system isn't fool proof......there are no guarantees on either side.
  Also, statistically, there are far more people shown to be wrongfully convicted and later released, than there are escapees from a federal penitentiary...One wrongful death by execution is a horrendous miscarriage of justice....and there have been many over the years.

  • Report
  

  by suzycue on January 24th, 2008

• Again, I've never said I agree with the death penalty. My agreement or disagreement with the death penalty is not what the question asks. The question asks why we kill people, and that is what I answered, period. The question does not ask for personal opinion.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 24th, 2008

• Sorry. I assumed that asking this 'why' question would require a personal opinion response.

  • Report
  

  by suzycue on January 24th, 2008

• I can understand why people do what they do without agreeing with it.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 26th, 2008

• This is basically a cost cutting measure hidden behind the emotive "eye for an eye" group mind mantra. Of course it is laced with hypocrisy and discards alternative punishments.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 14th, 2008

• Institutionalizing the murderer in prison or a mental asylum ensures the killer will stop, and it's less drastic.

  • Report
  

  by sssquib on June 25th, 2009

• unless he kills other inmates

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on June 15th, 2010

• @Anonymous ... ironically, it's not really a "cost cutting measure" to execute a prisoner ... it's actually cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to execute them because of the legal expense involved in all the appeals and other legal maneuvering they go through to delay the execution

  • Report
  

  by Tom Slick on December 17th, 2010

• True, true. In the long run it cost more to execute someone than life in prison.

  • Report
  

  by medicgirl on December 17th, 2010

• Killing a person, because he killed is another person ain't helping nobody! in anyway.. the only way to stop the people from killing people is to make that person suffer.. Blood bath is not going to stop, the only thing we should do all stop, its a hard thing to do but its the only fucking way

  • Report
  

  by Metallica5000 on March 11th, 2011

• The same reason when corrupt businessmen are sentenced by the courts to give lectures in business ethics to university students. The reason for the death penalty to exist in the states is not to prevent the murderers from murdering again, or to act as a deterrent. The primary business of prisons is in the manufacture of products such as licence plates, furniture etc., for domestic markets. The prison-product economy amounted to $37 billion in 2007 and has grown by ten percent each year since, and in times of recession the prison workforce increases. As prisoners recieve no pay and conditions the price of the products can remain very low. The increase in prison population mirrors that of an increase in unemployment, but has absolutely nothing to do with violent crime. In fact the US statistically has a very low violent crime ratio, but that is not reflected in the population that is in prison.
  Death Row inmates unlike the rest of the prison population are more unlikely to yield to the force labour and therefore are considered a drain to the prison budget, whereas a young detainee thrown in for a three strikes you out, is considered a high yield worker.

  • Report
  

  by robroy12 on April 17th, 2011

• ...so... the prison system is now about slavery? If one believes in an afterlife, it would seem that capital punishment would be a 'gentler, kinder' way of dealing with criminals.
  Do you suppose this is why we are making so many 'victimless crimes' punishable by time in prison?

  • Report
  

  by LarryH54 on September 21st, 2011

• Yep - It is a modern day structure of slave labour, and considering the ratio of blacks and hispanics, it has a serious implications. Plus the slave labour within prison do not heed to any health and safety, or have any legislation as such. The main retailers that benefits from the prison system in the US are Walmart and Target. It is a rather startling figure to look at. Now consider this statistic - on 9/11 about 3000 people were killed. In the US for the same month that year over 3000 were killed by guns, and every year since 9/11 the average number of people killed by guns is 30,000 people. So within a decade over 300,000 Americans have been killed by their fellow Americans, with in the US, by both legal and illegal firearms.

  • Report
  

  by robroy12 on September 23rd, 2011

Comments

• I hate it when people compare animals to humans. There is no comparison.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on July 29th, 2009

• I think if you kill an animal you're supposed to do it humainly, in a way that it doesn't know that it's going to die. Also, he doesn't usually have a family that's going to grieve for him. The idea of killing a murderer is to frighten other people from doing the same thing, but then you could also say that if the state can kill then life no longer can be considered sacred in the mind of a potential killer, so he might be more inclined to kill. I think that things have changed, now that we are being attacked by countries who like to consider us as evil. In The Euopean Community at least, we can show that even our governements no longer have the right to kill. How many such countries can claim that.

  • Report
  

  by helpyourself7447 on May 20th, 2010

• There are a few problems with this person's reasoning.
  A. It actually costs more money to execute a prisoner through lethal injection than to lock them in a cell for life (with all the food and clothes included.)
  
  2. The person who posted this implies that execution is humane and that death is better than living a life in prison. If this is true than why have all prisoners on death row (with one exception) appealed numerous times in order to avoid their executions?

  • Report
  

  by johnsmith1 on January 21st, 2011

• Very true, Jonhsmith, but I think when you consider a complicated issue like this you have to first of all suppose you're talking about someone who is cleary guilty of intentionally taking someone's life in a premeditated way, and that his death will be carried out in an immediate way. From then on, the question is, will his death save other peoples lives, or not.
  In France, capital punishment still existed in the 60's, but there was only about one person guillitined a year, and then only when it was someone particullarly brutal.
  (In which case you could also ask the question, would such a person ever be able to, or want to get over the terrible act that he had committed).

  • Report
  

  by helpyourself7447 on January 23rd, 2011

• you're right anon, there is no comparison between humans and animals... animals are mortal and humans, oh... well animals eat and humans, hmm... animals breathe oxygen and, crap. well I have seen animals kill for pleasure and the humans in question, wow, I guess your "there is no comparison" is absolute bubkis.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 27th, 2011

Comments

• This is a good answer. I am in support of the DP for child molestors/killers but the DP is a very flawed system which is not only racially motivated but the indigent get the shaft as well. It is true however, that it is a form of punishment .. not revenge or murder and the laws are clear.. if you do the crime.. you do the time .. or you get put to death. They made a choice.

  • Report
  

  by Snooch on August 30th, 2007

• Many do not want to be rehabilitated and/or cannot adjust to rehabilitation.

  • Report
  

  by Rollie on November 28th, 2010

Comments

• We reach the height of our creative potential when we try to rationally justify things we basically 'just want to do' (instructions from the limbic portion of our brains)

  • Report
  

  by odel on December 8th, 2007

• True ; )

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on December 8th, 2007

• True two wrongs don't make a right. However, putting some one to death is not to show them it's wrong - it's for legal punishment.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 27th, 2008

• they know its wrong (most) and they keep doing it, those people should get the chair, its ok, were over populated and theres no room for those types of people and its OUR tax money that feeds these killers :/

  • Report
  

  by Jaheira2016 on September 23rd, 2010

Comments

• That was my thought.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymoose on November 26th, 2007

• I totally agree.

  • Report
  

  by AnaContessa on November 26th, 2007

• GMTA ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Jade on November 26th, 2007

• GMTA?

  • Report
  

  by AnaContessa on November 26th, 2007

• great minds think alike

  • Report
  

  by Jade on November 26th, 2007

• Ah got it, thanks.

  • Report
  

  by AnaContessa on November 26th, 2007

• To the one who rated me a -5..I wonder if you would feel this way if someone took the life of someone you love...or a helpless child. I remember hearing of a couple who left their 3 year old daughter with a trusted friend. He raped her and threw her off a bridge while she was still alive to be suffocated in the mud of the river below. Yeah...this person "deserves" all the compassion we can muster. People actually protested his execution.

  • Report
  

  by Jade on January 31st, 2008

• Why are people so blind. Your comment is on the mark! Maybe if these candle-holding, bleeding hearts were faced with a serial killer about to torture and murder them they would feel differently.

  • Report
  

  by jan on January 22nd, 2009

• That's my thought, too. I guess the idea dates back before the "Code of Hammurabi" that if you do something to harm someone, the government should do the same harm to you. Of course, this code is from something like 1700 BC, so people were a little more barbaric back then.

  • Report
  

  by bostjan64 on September 23rd, 2011

Comments

• Yup, it IS revenge. I for one, am glad that my country has no death penalty any longer. If we had, several people would have been put to death for crimes that they were later exonerated for through DNA testing. One was a 14 year old kid, that although his sentence was later commuted to life, still spent 10 years in prison for something he didn't do. Imagine that, a 14 year old being hung. There's a good side here though. Because there is no death penalty, stupid mistakes in justice can be undone a bit. The death penalty can't be undone. I shudder to think of how many innocents have been executed in Texas as that state seems to be hell bent on state sponsored killing.

  • Report
  

  by scubabob on December 2nd, 2007

• The death penalty is a huge deterrent,the perp will never re-offend.
  not in this plane at least.

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on December 2nd, 2007

• It's not a deterrent at all. How can you explain statistics that show that having the death penalty on the books doesn't result in a lower rate of offences that are punishable by it? How is it a deterrent if it's a wrongly convicted person being executed? How about those that have been convicted and actually ARE guilty, wanting their sentences to include death, rather than life imprisonment. Doesn't that speak volumes on how they feel about being locked away forever, that they would rather die, than face that type of punishment? Sounds to me that life in prison is the worst that these particular people see as a punishment and to them, death is a more favorable option.

  • Report
  

  by scubabob on December 2nd, 2007

• http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
  http://truthinjustice.org/dpissues.htm
  How about the economic of the whole thing? It actually costs more to apply the death penalty than it does to keep that person in prison for life. Not to mention the law suits that can fly after a wrongfully convicted person has been put to death.

  • Report
  

  by scubabob on December 2nd, 2007

• Kolkanuck: A detrrent is meant to keep someone from acting on something, as in, "They just put a guy to death in my state...I'd better not go out and murder someone." To kill someone after that fact is a punishment, not a deterrent. There is absolutley no way to prove someone will kill again.

  • Report
  

  by Gideon on December 4th, 2007

• Tell that to jeffry dahmer's victims
  Tell that to David berkovitch's victims
  tell that to...
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country#USA
  once you are executionalized guaranteed 100% you will never reoffend
  I say bring back the dp sooner the better.
  100 years or so ago they were hanging cowboys for stealing horses
  they stopped doing that now they are stealing cars with impunity start that old school punishment i guantee again car theft stats will drop.

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on December 4th, 2007

• One, you mention serial killers, which account for a tiny fraction of all murders. Second, no country will enact the death penalty for stealing property. The punishment should at the very least fit the crime, not exceed it. Again, a deterrent is something that keeps me from committing a crime, not a form of punishment.

  • Report
  

  by Gideon on December 4th, 2007

• Hmm, Ya know, Koldkanuck sounds like he/she may have committed a serious crime. Let's have a mock trial,convict, execute and then sort it out afterwards. That IS after all, going to be ok with him/her, by the sounds of their argument.

  • Report
  

  by scubabob on December 4th, 2007

• Don't chew it!Do it!

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on January 26th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• im sure what they did to deserve it was mean and inhuman.

  • Report
  

  by Shurie.Smile on February 25th, 2011

• Torturing or raping or making someone suffer is inhumane, people do have rights including innocent people who fall victim to someone able to commit such unspeakable acts. I personally don't want my taxes to pay to keep someone comfortable in prison for the rest of there life to enjoy eating, sleeping, watching tv, something many of there victims will never be alive to enjoy. Such as the little girl that was sexually molested, throat slit and then dumped. I saw the mother and the girls twin brother on the news the other day to address the killer it was sad. When people do things like this it is too late for them.

  • Report
  

  by tamm on February 10th, 2012

Comments

Comments

• lol

  • Report
  

  by giotorrent on May 25th, 2009

• FUCKING KILL EVERYONE!!! :)

  • Report
  

  by Symbeline on May 25th, 2009

• DO IT FAGGOT

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on May 25th, 2009

Comments

• Or, Bubba!

  • Report
  

  by Texaspete on December 3rd, 2011

• lmao

  • Report
  

  by countryboy2009 on December 3rd, 2011

Comments

• In Canada, we believe in correcting behavior, not punishing it. That's why our murderers get life sentences and spend years in jail. There is quite a difference in an 18 year old man who murders someone and that same man 25 years later, who is then 43. If the system believes he is a risk, they keep him in, and if not, and he appears to have changed, he gets a chance.
  
  There is NOTHING civil about killing someone. You don't need to kill anyone to maintain public peace and order. Jail works quite well for that reason, confining a person for the safety and protection of society. People who want vengeance are usually satisfied with the idea that the person will rot in jail and lose their freedom for many years to come. People who talk about "An eye for an eye" usually forget that important last part, "Revenge is mine sayeth the Lord."
  
  And, as for vengeance, I can understand. If someone killed someone I loved, I would want to put them in the ground too, but don't want to spend my life in jail...That's my deterrent!

  • Report
  

  by Sunshine on March 30th, 2011

• As a free man who believes others should be free men as well, I have no desire or respect for a government that thinks it has the right or obligation to treat adults like children. If I wrong another, I'll pay the justly due penalty; but keep a busybody effeminate totalitarian nanny-state out of my face, with its attempts to reform my character as if I was some angst-ridden, numbskulled testosterone-fueled adolescent with low impulse-control and an inability to anticipate consequences. I demand that respect from my government and insist that it grant the same to all others: treating adults like adults.
  
  You will perhaps be gratified to know that it is precisely for the same reason that I find trying and punishing anyone under the age of TWENTY-ONE as an adult (as well as giving them the right to vote) to be appalling and idiotic. And those 21-25 are still not quite fully responsible (mentally and thus morally) for their actions, and sentencing should reflect that. By all means, try to reform THEM. But trapping them in a free-for-all cage-fight with other predators even worse than they are for 20 years to life isn't likely to do that.
  
  >"There is NOTHING civil about killing someone."
  
  That's mere empty rhetoric. Prove it. History is against you.
  
  >"You don't need to kill anyone to maintain public peace and order."
  
  The fact that police, federal agents, bank guards, bodyguards, court bailiffs, and soldiers carry guns would seem to disprove your assertion. The THREAT of lethal force is the very basis of all government.
  
  As for "Vengeance is mine sayeth the LORD" - no need to quote Scripture to me: I have an MDiv and MA in Biblical Theology (and have spent many years ministering to troubled and adjudicated kids, and campaigned heavily for sweeping reforms of our juvenile court system, and an end to the trying of any minor as an adult ever). But the same LORD commanded judges and civil authorities to execute convicted 1st Degree Murderers (over 20 years old) without clemency or exception, even if it meant violating the sanctuary of the Cities of Refuge or "tearing them from the very horns of the Altar!" Clemency, restitution, absolution, and reconciliation were always available to all other PENITENT offenders, but NEVER to adults who committed premeditated murder. (Granted, they had to be convicted on the basis of the testimony of at least TWO eyewitnesses ... but then they didn't have modern forensic science and CSIs.)
  
  (And FYI, “An Eye of an Eye …” was the instruction to judges on how to penalize PERJURERS: if a man’s perjured testimony caused an innocent man to be punished – or would have caused one to be punished if the perjury hadn’t been discovered in time – the perjurer was to suffer the exact same fate WITHOUT EXCEPTION once the perjury was discovered, though if the perjurer himself confessed and recanted his testimony before sentence was carried out, he could receive absolution through the Levitical penitential system, as with all other offenses – EXCEPT 1st DEGREE MURDER – providing the penitent made restitution (usually by payment of money, not by physical injury) to the wronged party. It was centuries later when rigorist Rabbis of the school of Shammai decided “An eye for an eye …” justified personal retaliation – an interpretation rejected by Hillel, both Gamaliels, and Judaism post AD 135, as well as Jesus.)
  

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on March 30th, 2011

• Now, one may argue that:
  
  1) GIVEN OUR CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITION AND OVERALL AFFLUENCE, we can afford to keep murderers in prison (or on parole) for life, and …
  2) GIVEN THAT OUR CITIZENS HAVE LONG BEEN CONDITIONED AGAINST PRIVATE JUSTICE (unlike certain honor/shame societies and those with a long tradition of vendetta, such as are still found in much of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa), that however much they may want vengeance against the perpetrator, they're not likely to take it themselves, nor is it likely to erupt into a blood feud if they do;
  
  ... and thus societies so "blessed" can afford to forego the death penalty, at least in most cases.
  
  Whether or not they should is another question entirely. The GIVENs above merely remove two factors that historically have made Capital Punishment a practical necessity. But there's still the moral question and the issue of justice, which all the sentimental handwringing in the world does not counter.
  
  The possibility of convicting and executing an innocent is a counter-argument, but if the citizens are willing to bear that risk (since it could be them or a loved one wrongly convicted and executed) in return for the benefits Capital Punishment generally confers upon them and the rest of society, that's they're call.
  
  My great problem with Capital Punishment AS TYPICALLY PRACTICED IN THE US is that it most often is applied not to pre-meditated murderers but to perpetrators of sensationally brutal killings but who were evidently emotionally or mentally disturbed - either permanently or just in the situation (crime of passion/heat of the moment type of thing, or high on drugs) AND couldn't afford a good lawyer, or to some young dumb hood who winds up committing felony murder in a botched robbery. But that's not an argument against Capital Punishment itself, but merely an argument against it in the US until the US learns how to use it properly.
  
  All that being said, Capital Punishment is extremely rare in the US (when one compares it to the total numbers of people convicted of 1st Degree Murder). But having the THREAT of the death penalty on the table is evidently a VERY effective way to get a plea bargain and thus secure a conviction, get a killer off the streets, save huge amounts of tax dollars, and alleviate an already catastrophically backlogged court system. More importantly, it is an incredibly effective tool for getting the person facing a capital murder charge to give-up his accomplices and bosses in return for a lesser penalty. That's why detectives and prosecutors love having the option. This is, of course, a purely pragmatic justification of Capital Punishment, and as with all other weapons in the government arsenal, it is susceptible to abuse and misuse.
  
  That Capital Punishment is morally justifiable, even required, I need only point to the Divine mandate for it in Scripture.

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on March 30th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I really don't think prison really gives three hots and a cot. Prisoners are fed the same amount that a child in the first grade would receive. The only difference is that the first grader doesn't have to work like a slave to earn his/her keep. Television prison and real prison are totally different! Hope you never have to go. If you should be caught drinking and get in a car accident, you could find yourself in prison...you have to be careful what you say about people. If you killed a person in an accident, would you have the same views?

  • Report
  

  by wmartin819@yahoo.com on June 24th, 2011

• But Cori is talking specifically about murderers, a car accident is not murder.

  • Report
  

  by Unicorn Man on September 20th, 2011

Comments

• life in prison = about $800,000
  death sentence = about 2-3 million$$ (true facts, look it up)

  • Report
  

  by dragos89357 on December 13th, 2009

Comments

• Good Answer!

  • Report
  

  by Sugar-licious a bellydancing rum maiden on February 24th, 2008

• Thanks Sugar. Isn't it a nice day today!

  • Report
  

  by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on February 24th, 2008

• Yep! I just sat outside on the porch swing!

  • Report
  

  by Sugar-licious a bellydancing rum maiden on February 24th, 2008

Comments

• Abhorrent is giving more thought to murderers and rapists than to their victims. A civilized society is one with courts of law where those who hurt others are brought to justice. You cannot bring a murderer to justice without putting him to death.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on December 7th, 2010

• "A civilized society is one with courts of law where those who hurt others are brought to justice.
  
  But there is only one so-called civilised country that still uses capital punishment and even in that country not all states use it. All other so-called civilised countries abolished capital punishment as a form of "justice" decades ago.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on December 7th, 2010

• I can certainly understand that in countries with horrendous murder rates, Mexico, U.S.A. and Russia being at the top of the list, getting murdered would be a big fear of the man in the street and feeling vulnerable, he would want to fight violence with violence - and of course that is exactly what happens. The other contrast with more civilized countries is that excuses and self-justification by the killer is the norm there, whereas in other countries self-recrimination for a killing leads to a high percentage of remorse suicides. U.S.A. recently had 26 times the male murder rate of England & Wales according to figures published in 1993, though the U.S.A. had half the murder rate of Mexico.

  • Report
  

  by Mr Sloan on December 8th, 2010

• There is nothing civilized about a country that protects murderers and murders children as most European countries allow. We unfortunately live in a world that is not even remotely civilized. Authoritarian? Often. Civilized? Hardly.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on December 8th, 2010

• I don't understand your allegation that most European countries murder children.
  
  I believe that capital punishment is barbaric and uncivilised, which automatically means that I believe at least that aspect of any country that resorts to it must, by definition, be barbaric and uncivilised. You seem to believe capital punishment to be the epitome of civilisation and a refusal to resort to it to be uncivilised.
  
  There is no common ground there, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on December 8th, 2010

• Christine is not alone in her thoughts of course. There are so-called civilised people across the globe who condone state killing of those who have killed (and state rape of those who have raped and beating almost to death of they who had perpetrated such a crime). An eye for an eye is an alluring solution - except in a thinking compassionate world where violence is not simply allowed to spawn still more violence.

  • Report
  

  by Mr Sloan on July 14th, 2011

• The purpose of the death penalty is not to bring justice, only G-d can do that. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop an injustice from getting worse.
  
  A murderer living while his innocent victim is dead is an injustice that a civilized society should not allow to continue so long as it can prove the murderer's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
  A rapist continuing to live with the memory of what he did to his victims is an injustice that under the U.S. Constitution can only be ended by death since castration and brain surgery would be pretty cruel and unusual.
  
  It is to be expected in a civilized society that some murderers will go free for lack of evidence. Prosecutors couldn't even convict Casey Anthony, and would have even greater limitations in trying to prosecute a couple for abortion. That does not mean we should not have the death penalty for those who are convicted.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on July 14th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I don't trust the state, but, I do belive in the death penalty.
  Everybody is going to die, sooner or later.
  I'd prefer it to be sooner for someone who makes it sooner for another person.

  • Report
  

  by Texaspete on December 3rd, 2011

• And the executioners? By your logic they should be killed to?

  • Report
  

  by Cal on December 3rd, 2011

• I know what you mean Pete.
  
  I think there are a few different questions.
  1) In an idealized situation where guilt is assured should we always execute people who have committed a sufficient crime?
  2) How do we address the complexities of the notion of justice? (for example, if the victims relatives do not want the death penalty and so it cannot not seen as justice for the immediate victims then do we have justice for the state instead, and what does that mean if it overrides justice for the victims?)
  2) How do we decide the morality of what crimes deserve death and which don't?
  3) If we do not trust the state how do we determine that it is not being abused, such as through corrupt police officers or judges managing to permanently silence people they do not like?
  4) What do we do when innocent people are executed?
  
  With any punishment it should always be considered that it might happen to you by accident.
  
  Note that I don't find these killer arguments against the death penalty, after all it is democratic consensus that defines average justice, but they are the realities of the death penalty around the world and so it is the responsibility of any civilised country that is prepared to use the death penalty (and especially baring in mind that doing so will result in being watched very carefully and critically by other countries who do not) to address these issues with the fullness innocent victims and members of the public deserve.
  
  Remember that it is the responsibility of the people in a state to protect themselves through the democratic process from the errors and biases of the state. Which means that whether you agree with the death penalty or not it is still your responsibility to protect yourself from it by not allowing it to impinge on your freedoms - and that means defining its use in a way proportional to its size, less you find yourself or a relative on trial for something they didn't commit and facing it because the law was not developed sufficiently to make the burden of proof high enough to not land you facing it.

  • Report
  

  by BenUK78 on December 3rd, 2011

Comments

Comments

• I've BEEN started on weed for a long time!
  But, if you don't want to get started on weed, then stand your ground!
  Nobody is going to hold a gun to your head and force you to smoke weed!
  BUT, if you're smart you'll let me hold a gun to your head and make you smoke weed! Then, you can hold the gun on me! LOL
  Of corce, an empty gun! I don't want anyone getting hurt! (over a little weed!) LOL

  • Report
  

  by Texaspete on December 3rd, 2011

• Lol, nah man. Don't get me wrong. I smoke weed. But you know, the government likes to waste our money on officers finding weed smokers instead of finding rapists.
  
  Relevance, lol

  • Report
  

  by Dio_G on December 3rd, 2011

Comments

Comments

• There's a big difference between killing an innocent person and killing a certainly guilty murderer or rapist.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on December 7th, 2010

• It's killing nonetheless.

  • Report
  

  by Zack on December 7th, 2010

Comments

• There's a big difference between killing an innocent person and killing a certainly guilty murderer or rapist. They are not the same thing.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on December 7th, 2010

• There's no difference.That person killed someone they didn't have to.And then the State turns around and kills someone they don't have to.It's just spreading the pain...not making it better.BTW some innocents HAVE been put to death.You can't bring those people back once their names have been cleared.

  • Report
  

  by Yoami on February 13th, 2011

• A civilization that respects right and wrong cannot willingly let a murderer live so long as his victim is dead. If the murderer repents, resurrects his victim and compensates her for her pain, suffering, and lost time, then a prison sentence would be sufficient. If he cannot resurrect her and is truly repentant, he wouldn't want to keep living anyway. The only murderers who don't want to be put to death are the ones who aren't truly sorry for their crimes.
  
  I realize that in practice, innocent people are sometimes put to death, and I have no problem at all with murderers being kept alive on death row until there is no doubt of their guilt. The important thing is that we sentence the guilty to the sentences they deserve.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on February 14th, 2011

• Not all convicted killers get death.Some get LWOP(life w/o parole).Some may get just a dozen years if it's dropped down to Manslaughter.The Death penalty is not applied equally.It's usually the poorer & less educated that get it.The higher priced your attorneys the less likely you are to get it.

  • Report
  

  by Yoami on February 14th, 2011

• All people who deliberately commit murder or rape or adultery should be sentenced to death, and the only reason to delay is if there is any doubt about their guilt, or in the case of rape or adultery, if the survivor decides to spare the life of the offender. Socio-economic class should make no difference. That it does is just another example of how far we have to go in becoming a civilized society.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on February 14th, 2011

• Putting people to death is not the way to civility.

  • Report
  

  by Yoami on February 14th, 2011

• Recognizing right and wrong is essential to civility.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on February 15th, 2011

• On THAT we can agree. ;)

  • Report
  

  by Yoami on February 17th, 2011

Comments

• Most of your "civilized" countries protect murderers and murder children.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on December 8th, 2010

• Please give me some examples of any so-called civilised country that murders children.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on December 8th, 2010

• I'm guessing you don't consider abortion to be murder. In a desperate attempt to find at least a deserted island of common ground I will say that capital punishment as it is currently practiced in the U.S. spares the wealthy and well-connected, while at the same time often disallowing evidence that might exonerate less well-connected defendants. I'd rather everyone on death row die of old age than let one innocent person be executed.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on December 8th, 2010

• In another comment thread you wrote, "There is nothing civilized about a country that protects murderers and murders children as most European countries allow.
  
  Having already read that, I thought that you were adversely comparing Europe with the USA in terms of what I realised must be abortion. Abortions are carried out in the USA, as well as in Europe - in fact I think a greater percentage of pregnancies in the USA result in legal abortion than in any Western European country, so I still don't understand how you come to single out Europe.
  http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp334pd.html

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on December 8th, 2010

• You are right about the U.S. and abortion unfortunately. The U.S. is also far from civilized. They murder the unborn and let rapists live. The U.S. might be marginally more civilized in that it at least theoretically punishes murderers, but 'more civilized' is still far from civilized.

  • Report
  

  by Christine on December 8th, 2010

• Like I said elsewhere, we'll have to just agree to disagree on what constitutes 'civilised'.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on December 8th, 2010

• What , may I ask Brian (just curious) should be done with serial killer's, baby killers, mass-murderer's? life without parole?

  • Report
  

  by canbfrisky on February 1st, 2011

• got it in one canbfrisky

  • Report
  

  by Ruairí_A on April 10th, 2012

• yeah, I 'think' so, ty - Ruairi_A...peace.

  • Report
  

  by canbfrisky on April 10th, 2012

Comments

• Yeah, except, it doesn't. No one thinks, "Gee, I really want to kill that guy, but I guess I won't because I don't want the state to execute me."

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• Can you both give me proof of that. I think it is a deterrent. Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by Nancy on May 25th, 2009

• Yeah, I can. People still kill people. If it was a deterrent, people wouldn't kill people. It's called "crime and punishment," not "crime and deterrent." The only person capital punishment stops from killing people is the person that is executed.

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• That's your opinion; not proof. It doesn't matter to me anyway because someone who takes a life for any reason other than self-defense or crime of passion deserves to be executed. Even if the only person it keeps from killing is the person that is executed; it means the psycho won't have a chance to ruin anyone else's life ever again; yay! And that is my opinion; which I am also entitled to. And it carries just as much proof as yours does.

  • Report
  

  by Nancy on May 25th, 2009

• It's not an opinion - it's basic logic. If executing people deterred people from killing people, then people wouldn't be killed. If jail deterred people from committing crimes, then people wouldn't commit crimes. This is very simple logic to follow and is not a matter of opinion. Your statements indicating people who kill based in reasons you think are justified, now that's an opinion - if someone is the type of person to "just snap" and passionately kill someone, I honestly don't want them on the streets any more than someone who methodically plots out a murder; people who kill are dangerous to society - this, again, isn't an opinion - this is basic logic. But I think executing people is a bad idea - that is an opinion - because I believe that according to our Constitution it deprives citizens of their rights. And, as it turns out, my opinion is backed up by Supreme Court judgments. So I have logic and the Supreme Court on my side; what do you got?

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• To weareallhypocrites and misterknowitall:
  
  I didn't read your replies because I already know you are a bunch of religious freaks who, no matter what I say is going to be wrong in your eyes; the same way no matter what you say I think is wrong. I believe fully in the death penalty for the reason I originally stated above; that you also failed to read before you replied. So we'll just have to agree to disagree because I'm right.

  • Report
  

  by Nancy on May 25th, 2009

• Wow your level of retardation is EPIC. I directly addressed your argument. You're pathetic and stupid - I don't know which is worse.

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• I do, you're a f***** a$$hole, and that is worse; you religous, psychotic, f***** up freak. Bite me.

  • Report
  

  by Nancy on May 25th, 2009

• What, about any of my comments, have been even remotely religious, you f'ing nutjob? lmao I'm talking logic and you're acting like a child holding your ears yelling "la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la!!!" It's seriously hilarious. You're so dumb, it hurts. lmmfao

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• To tell you the truth a$$hole, I didn't even feel like replying to your B.S. I didn't want to have any discussion at all. I don't care how you feel or what your opinion is. Believe me, I've been around enough religious freaks to know one; it's like instinct. I can guarantee you've worked in a church and spent at least some time in the bible belt. Your daddy was probably a freaking preacher! Probably North Carolina. I know the ignorance when I hear it. You are probably 1/2 way around the world doing missionary work because you grew up rich and don't really have a clue what it's like to grow up the hard way or see the violence of someone killing someone you loved; or you wouldn't feel the way you do. You're are a f***** panzy and I would kick your a$$ if you were sitting close enough. I don't think you'd be talking sh*t to me if we were face-to-face you little conflicting, probably schizophrenic a$$wipe. You think you know it all, but you don't know sh*t in reality.

  • Report
  

  by Nancy on May 25th, 2009

• Now go somewhere and pray.

  • Report
  

  by Nancy on May 25th, 2009

• lmao You are RETARDED. I'm a Taoist, don't pray, don't have any family in the clergy, never worked in a church, and you are a complete moron. It's utterly hilarious. I'm sitting here talking about logic and Constitutional law and you bring up religion - which one of us is the nut? lmao Keep talking your nonsense, because it just illustrates my point that you don't know a thing about what you're talking about.

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• F.O. & Die.

  • Report
  

  by Nancy on May 25th, 2009

• You're pathetic. I feel sorry for people like you. And especially sorry that you've been allowed to procreate. The real pity goes out to your offspring.

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• I received the following e-mail from Nancy (who, apparently, didn't get her fill here) - I've edited it down as she is one profane human being:
  .
  "You may think you know it all, but you don't. I guarantee the biggest thing on you is your ego. You're a pathetic a**hole and you know it. You just want to have the last word. I wish you were here so I could beat the living fuck out of you and teach you not to fuck with people. You are truly an a**hole who will always be alone, unless you're lucky enough to find an equally psychotic b*tch that is brain dead, admires arrogance and is masochistic. You try to believe that you are better than everyone else, but the truth is you know you are just a retarded, schizophrenic loser who tries to be something he is not. I don't care what you say, underneath; whether you admit it or not, you are a religious freak.

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• I think you should take a flying leap out of your balcony window and do everyone a favor. And whatever you do, don't procreate. You'll just make more psychos and there are enough of those in the world.
  
  F*CK YOU"
  .
  Isn't she lovely, ladies and gentlemen?

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• Yeah, she's about a dozen different kinds of bonkers...

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• Ditto. I've been accused of being a nut, to be sure, but never a religious one, especially when I haven't said anything at all about religion. lmao But it's really hilarious to look at all this stuff she "knows," when it's all completely false. It's even funnier that she thinks it hurts me or something - the reason I'm not getting pissed is because the stuff she's saying isn't true. But, note, she is clearly upset with what I'm saying; I must have hit a nerve. Or two. Or twenty. lol

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• Actually, it's also the first time I've been accused of being schizophrenic, come to think of it...
  .
  Well, except by the voices in my head, but what do they know?

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

• I wish I could say she's just another whack-job that spouts nonsense online, but I really do fear that it seeps into her real life and if that is the case, I'm certain people around her suffer, which is unfortunate. At the same time, I don't really care all that much, as it doesn't actually effect me. I'm in a sort of ethical limbo about the whole thing...lol

  • Report
  

  by MisterKnowItAll on May 25th, 2009

Comments

• that WE is kinda subjective. In a lot of countries, you can be executed for a lot less than murder

  • Report
  

  by king of ellipses on November 8th, 2008

• True enough. There are also states in the US that allow for the execution of persons convicted of certain sexual assaults, but I only addressed murder because that was what the questioner asked about.

  • Report
  

  by raindancer on November 8th, 2008

• ya i know, I was just sayin'...hell, in Texas they execute retarded people

  • Report
  

  by king of ellipses on November 8th, 2008

• Raindancer: I believe this is no longer the case. If I remember right, I think the Supreme Court recently held that the death penalty for non-murder violates the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 8th, 2008

• True enough, king. According to their law, they aren't retarded enough.
  
  
  Anon, it looks like you are correct. The case in particular that I had heard about involved the rape of a child, but it was struck down by the US Supreme Court. It looks like some other states may have laws like that on the books, but the Supreme Court would overturn such a conviction.

  • Report
  

  by raindancer on November 8th, 2008

• What is wrong with sentencing a retarded person to death? The fact that they were convicted of murder indicates that the jury found the defendant had sufficient mental capacity to meet the mens rea of murder. Thus, it is not like we are saying we are going to put to death people who were not competent to understand the act of killing is wrong.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 8th, 2008

• Soz to be pedantic Anonymous but you've just contradcted yourself. "Wha is wrong with sentencing a retarded person to death? It is not like we are saying we are going to put to death people who are not competent to understand the act of killing is wrong." That's exactly the same thing. If a killer is mentally - subnormal or mentally ill, then they should be deemed as being of diminished responsibility.

  • Report
  

  by sssquib on June 25th, 2009

• There is nothing contradictory about my statement. Someone could have diminished mental ability and still know that killing is wrong. Just because you have diminished mental capacity does not mean you get a free pass to do what you like. Rather, all it means is that WHEN your diminished mental capacity makes it so you did not realize what your were doing was wrong, then in that case you won't be held accountable for that action.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 26th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• But think about this, Isn't the person who killed the murder just as bad? He took a life, Shouldn't he die too? Well you'll say that's diffrent, but its not really, you might say that the guy had a reason to die, but how do you know that the person the guy killed didn't deserve to die?

  • Report
  

  by klutzy on December 5th, 2009

Comments

• Actually, certain scholars are currently arguing that the original translation may have been slightly inaccurate. Current thought is that the meaning of the word was actually closer to "murder" than "kill"...think about it: God commands that people be stoned to death as punishment all throughout the Old Testament! Why would he do this, and then turn around and say its wrong?

  • Report
  

  by Michelle_P8740 on June 21st, 2011

Comments

• Indeed. If killing is wrong, why is abortion legal?

  • Report
  

  by LarryH54 on July 27th, 2008

• This answer is a ridiculous copout. What is "lawful" depends on the daily whims of the elected officials of a given country. What is lawful today could be outlawed tomorrow, and vice versa.
  
  "Lawful" is an arbitrary judgment on an act. Laws are written by human beings. In fact, even today many preposterous laws exist in certain places. An act, whether "lawful" or otherwise, is still the same act.
  
  "Lawful" is a copout, an excuse used by ProDeathers to justify their vicious and blood-thirsty need for revenge. It amounts to their way to get their jollies off legally by harming someone else.
  
  When it comes right down to it, capital punishment is for cowards and repressed psychopaths.

  • Report
  

  by Ultimist on February 4th, 2011

• The same can be said for abortion then.

  • Report
  

  by LarryH54 on February 4th, 2011

Comments

• I agree, if anything it shows people its ok to kill people.

  • Report
  

  by klutzy on December 5th, 2009

Comments

• Very good answer Talim.

  • Report
  

  by sssquib on June 25th, 2009

Comments

• Guaranteed the fool won't reoffend it cuts down on frivolous appeals.

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on January 26th, 2008

• Only if they kill the dirtbag.

  • Report
  

  by Vampyre Bat on January 26th, 2008

• R U 4 it or agin it? confused?

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on January 26th, 2008

• I am for it. I am a lawyer. I am trained to argue both sides. I can argue with myself and amuse myself for hours.

  • Report
  

  by Vampyre Bat on January 27th, 2008

• That is good to know.

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on January 27th, 2008

Comments

• ..and much more cost effective,than the 'legal' death penalty.!! living in the uk,we dont actually have the death penalty option..we do have a life sentence,this usually means 4-5 years in a prison..(you know the type..locked doors etc..)then its of to an 'open' prison.where we'll get you employment,give you a car..to get you to the place of employment(dont worry if you cant drive..we'll get you a taxi.there and back.!!)..silly me,i almost forgot..would you like macdonalds/kfc vouchers or cash for your lunch?? and i know you finish work at 5pm.but could you please be back for 7.30pm,as ill have so much paperwork if your late..have a lovely day. OH DONT FORGET TO SMILE..at(TRUSTING,GOT NO REASON TO FEAR YOU)Mr Joe Public...???

  • Report
  

  by Lorraine_S on March 26th, 2011

Comments

Comments

• This much is true.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 8th, 2007

• Prevention is good.

  • Report
  

  by odel on December 8th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

• good enough reason for me

  • Report
  

  by countryboy2009 on December 3rd, 2011

Comments

Comments

• Eather way, they are dead!

  • Report
  

  by Texaspete on December 3rd, 2011

• im actually for killing if its a serious enough crime.
  I found this question and had to see what everyone thought.

  • Report
  

  by countryboy2009 on December 3rd, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I love your ideas.

  • Report
  

  by angelisback on December 3rd, 2011

Comments

• Are you saying Yarnlady that murder is genetic and perhaps we should kill their off - spring, just in case they follow in their mother or father's foot - steps?

  • Report
  

  by sssquib on June 25th, 2009

• Unfortunately, by then it's already too late.

  • Report
  

  by Yarnlady is happy every day on June 25th, 2009

Comments

• well, the deterrent effect ain't working because people are still murdering and people are still being sentenced to death

  • Report
  

  by king of ellipses on November 8th, 2008

• That is an erroneous conclusion. Just because something does not deter 100% of people does not mean that it does not have a deterrent effect. Moreover, a dead person cannot kill again, and many capital murder defendants have killed multiple people. Thus, we can say 100% that it does deter at least some future killings.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 8th, 2008

Comments

• Yeah...making it even worse...

  • Report
  

  by Heo1. on July 27th, 2008