PDA

View Full Version : Capital Punishment?


MissMegano
April 8th, 2008, 01:26 PM
A pretty controversial topic. Are you for or against it? Now, I don't want this to turn into a religious fight or anything. I'm just curious to hear what people from different families, religions, and even cultures have to say.

I'm kind of on the edge. Religiously, I should be against it, but I won't go in-depth. I'm not all for it, either, though. The only time I see it nessessary is when the criminal is PROVEN 100% guilty and/or poses a threat to hurt anyone else. When there's even a shred of innocent evidence, I see it nessessary to go on trial again.

Did you know?
-A vast majority of executed criminals were poor. About 90% could not afford a lawyer and had to rely on one appointed by the court.
-In the U.S., about 70% of people believe there should be a death penalty. This statistic stays relatively the same for people in Canada, a country with the practice abolished.
-Among black defendants found guilty of murdering a white person:
57.5% of defendants with "stereotypically black" features -- broad noses, thick lips, dark skin and hair -- were sentenced to death.
24.4% percent of men who were rated as less stereotypically black were given the death sentence.

Information from http://www.religioustolerance.org/execute.htm

If you see anything I have wrong, please tell. I don't want any misinterpretations. So what do YOU believe?

Allstories
April 8th, 2008, 01:53 PM
Tough call. The main problem is that for some criminals, just flat out killing them would be letting them off easy, and there could always be new evidence and stuff. I reckon I'm against it.

Jaimes
April 8th, 2008, 03:05 PM
Oddly enough, I was thinking about this this morning..


In the UK, the death penalty is completely banned and a life sentence is the strongest penalty.
But there are still issues concerning costs and the lack of space in prison which is resulting in some criminals being released early. There are also convicts (e.g those convicted with assisting or plotting terrorist attacks) who frankly, I think are total scum. And also a large number serving life manage to commit suicide.
From a scientific perspective, individuals are fortunate to live and exist.. once you die, that's it basically. Personally I think that life should be cherished and not be allowed to put into the hands of other people, regardless of what disgusting act you committed.

However, concerning many of the issues, I am not completely against a death penalty, but support a 'voluntary' death penalty. Where the criminal has the choice between a life sentence or a death penalty and does not infringe their right to life. This would also in fact suit many criminals (such as those from extremist religions wanting a fast track to heaven, or those who would attempt suicide anyway). Also any one who was innocent would also never choose a death penalty option- therefore unjust killings would be avoided.

Midnight Beat
April 8th, 2008, 03:33 PM
I am 100% for capital punishment. If there is someone sick and disturbed enough to try to/succeed in taking human life, then why should they be allowed to continue their own. They shouldn't, and concerning the whole "new evidence" issue, the accused are put on death row for extended periods of time, giving them the chance to appeal, and for the potential for new evidence to arise. And chances are, if new evidence is discovered after the sentence(s) are given, than a mistrial is probably not far behind it.
One also has to consider what capital punishment takes away though. The crime has to be strictly examined to make sure that what this person has done is worth stripping their life for.

BREAKINGBEN
April 8th, 2008, 03:55 PM
I think it all depends on the person. Some one like Charlie Manson or a serial rapist/killer deserves the punishment when all evidence is compiled and it is pretty much 100% clear that it was THEIR crime.

Now I'm not saying that I'm COMPLETELY for it. Some innocent people are sentenced to death without proper trials and without the ability to pay for a lawyer. States like Texas pretty much give people the chair because they like to feel supreme, and it also helps their cause in making the death penalty civil (which it isn't). I believe the CIA/FBI/GOVERNMENT are trying to make torture (waterboarding) the same way (civil) even though that isn't either.

Also on the note of the lawyer, I believe in a murder case, the lawyers should work for free, so the sides are even and the right call will be made by the jury.

I drifted a bit off topic sorry :), but those are my feelings on these sort of things.

Gary, the Magic Fairy
April 8th, 2008, 04:24 PM
States like Texas pretty much give people the chair because they like to feel supreme.No, they don't. Lethal injection is the only legal method, so giving people the chair just because they feel like it would be extremely difficult :\ Don't make accusations like that when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know the reasons are to feel supreme.

Anyway, I'm not really against it. If they're totally sure that the person is dangerous and has without a doubt committed the crime, then fine, it's probably for the best.

Jaimes
April 8th, 2008, 04:59 PM
If there is someone sick and disturbed enough to try to/succeed in taking human life, then why should they be allowed to continue their own.
I don't see how an execution isn't equally as sick or disturbing by your standards. It's still taking away a humans right to life isn't it?

Virtual Chatot
April 8th, 2008, 05:09 PM
I don't see how an execution isn't equally as sick or disturbing by your standards. It's still taking away a humans right to life isn't it?

They did the same to another though, how is that morally justified in any way? Simply spending the rest of your life in the Prison system is arguably worse than death, so what could possibly be done to please both the moral and the human right sides?

Prison is supposed to be a balance of both punishment for what you did and to try and reform you into a person who is fit for society. Some people just can't conform to society's standards, because they are either mentally incapable or simply just do not want to conform. What else can be done with them? You can't keep them in prison, that's hell, and a "violation" to human rights. You can't kill them, because that's a "violation".

I would like to hear your alternatives :/

Jaimes
April 8th, 2008, 05:38 PM
You can't keep them in prison, that's hell, and a "violation" to human rights. You can't kill them, because that's a "violation".
I've never heard prison being a "violation" to human rights in any society... as far as EU human rights go, it fits in with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." And "Everyone has the right to life. & No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed" sums up capital punishment nicely.

I and many other people would rather take a life sentence as opposed to death - if you can give some better explanations as to how its worse go ahead. <_<

I would like to hear your alternatives :/
If you bothered to read the earlier posts, I support voluntary death penalties, which allows a guilty person to chose which punishment they would prefer, while not infringing their rights and solving other issues in one shot. ¬_¬

Midnight Beat
April 8th, 2008, 07:07 PM
I don't see how an execution isn't equally as sick or disturbing by your standards. It's still taking away a humans right to life isn't it?

Yes, yes it is. However, if they have taken someone else's right to live away, than that piece of scum doesn't deserve that right them self. Not to mention, they obviously don't see the value of human life enough to respect it if they are willing to kill it.

txteclipse
April 8th, 2008, 07:30 PM
There's a great line in the Bible...some people have caught a woman commiting a sin, and they are about to stone her to death. Jesus comes along, sees this, and says: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Long story short, everybody leaves the woman alone. The general idea is that everyone has messed up, so imperfection can not judge imperfection. Therefore, I'd say that I don't support the death penalty.

Trainer Kat
April 8th, 2008, 07:45 PM
Wow, this is a controversial topic. xD
I'm not picking any fights here, and the homeless comment was something brought up by my English prof the other day.

I am incredibly opposed to the death penalty. In my opinion, I just don't see any benefits to killing someone to tell them that what they did was wrong. I don't believe that it can be justified by telling yourself that 'they did it first' or, even worse, that 'they are scum, it's okay'.

Many people view the homeless as 'scum'. Why not round them up and kill them? This is the sort of logic that's being applied when it comes to the death penalty. We have no right to judge others' right to live. Yes, they murdered someone. Yes, it was wrong. But should we really stoop to the level of a criminal in order to punish people for their actions? If so, that's really disheartening.

Having said that, I agree wholeheartedly with Jaimes. The death penalty should not even be an option unless the accused wants it to be. I'm not saying we should allow criminals to select their punishment, but if they're going to be killed in prison or commit suicide anyway, why shouldn't we make it as comfortable as possible for them?

And just to stop anyone who wants to use the argument that 'it's cheaper to kill them', I learned in debate that it's actually more expensive to sentence someone to death than to keep them in prison for life. Of course, that isn't taking into account the fact that prisons are filling up.

Long story short: I'm opposed to the death penalty, but am perfectly fine with a voluntary death penalty.

Saryka
April 8th, 2008, 08:04 PM
I'm against capital punishment. I mean, I understand that some people think that murderers and such don't deserve to live because they took someone else's life. However, sometimes, we fail to realize that they're human beings, too, and although what they did was horribly wrong, I don't think killing them is going to solve anything. I would be much more satisfied if someone got a life sentence than the death penalty.

Besides, we're merely doing what the criminal was doing in the first place. Like Kat said, we're stooping to their level, and that's not something that should be done for punishment.

Mr.Roserade
April 8th, 2008, 08:06 PM
I personally think it depends on the crime. If there was rape and murder, I think they should get it, whether its injection, the chair, or the firing squad. I dont think its fair that when someone who takes someone's life should just get to sit in a cell....specially when we're the ones paying for his mistakes<Citizens pay taxes to help run prisons>I mean I know money and death are two different things, but still.....I'm going to have think more on this

C Sherbii S
April 9th, 2008, 04:27 AM
I think that it is a tough call. If you kill someone you can't take it back if there is new evidence found, however if you sentence them to life the taxpayers have to pay for them to continue living.

Stalin Malone
April 9th, 2008, 01:17 PM
It's more complicated than yes/no. I'd have a sliding scale of income ranges. From the top incomes where there'd be no capital punishment or prison sentence longer than 5 years it'd also go to the bottom income ranges where capital punishment would be applied for crimes that'd earn a normal person 1-2 years in prison.

Amachi
April 9th, 2008, 02:10 PM
Nup, I don't support it. I see it as the easy way out - instead of actually having to suffer for their crimes, said person is executed and that's it. That said, I can't support Jaimes suggestion, since it allows for criminals to simply run away in some respects.

Jesus Freak Josh
April 9th, 2008, 02:19 PM
I am 100% for capital punishment. If there is someone sick and disturbed enough to try to/succeed in taking human life, then why should they be allowed to continue their own.

Shouldn't everyone be given death for everything? Not that I intend to turn this into a religious fight myself, but Jesus said that if you even hate anyone you've killed them already. You can't honestly tell me you haven't had a major dislike for anyone.

Not to mention our leaders have plenty of lives to answer for themselves. Should they be executed too?

Virtual Chatot
April 9th, 2008, 02:25 PM
There's a great line in the Bible...some people have caught a woman commiting a sin, and they are about to stone her to death. Jesus comes along, sees this, and says: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Long story short, everybody leaves the woman alone. The general idea is that everyone has messed up, so imperfection can not judge imperfection. Therefore, I'd say that I don't support the death penalty.

What Jesus said meant something completely different, and the situation is completely different from this one.

As far as forgiveness goes, adultery does not compare with murder :/

Shouldn't everyone be given death for everything? Not that I intend to turn this into a religious fight myself, but Jesus said that if you even hate anyone you've killed them already. You can't honestly tell me you haven't had a major dislike for anyone.

Not to mention our leaders have plenty of lives to answer for themselves. Should they be executed too?

You have to undersatnd, there is a difference between Murder and Killing. If you read the original Greek text, Jesus said that if you hate someone, you've murdered them already.

Murder is the purposeful killing of someone, killing can be accidental or justifying a murder.

Jesus Freak Josh
April 9th, 2008, 02:28 PM
What Jesus said meant something completely different, and the situation is completely different from this one.

As far as forgiveness goes, adultery does not compare with murder :/

How is it different? Sure, she committed adultery, not murder. But they were about to commit murder too, were they not? Is that not what the judge who sentences the man on death row does?

No sin is greater than another. We're not going to special levels of hell for what we've done. Sure, we will be held accountable for what we've done, but the punishment will be the same for any unsaved sinner.

You have to undersatnd, there is a difference between Murder and Killing. If you read the original Greek text, Jesus said that if you hate someone, you've murdered them already.

Murder is the purposeful killing of someone, killing can be accidental or justifying a murder.

Wasn't it also Jesus who was willing none should perish? I believe He meant that physically (unnaturally) and spiritually.

Stalin Malone
April 9th, 2008, 03:25 PM
All of you with your black and white ideas for capital punishment don't factor in social class. Capital punishment does nothing to help the middle/upper classes but is invaluable in helping the poor find discipline.

Virtual Chatot
April 9th, 2008, 03:38 PM
Wasn't it also Jesus who was willing none should perish? I believe He meant that physically (unnaturally) and spiritually.

You have to remember that God is not just a god of love and peace, he is also a god of Judgment.
The Physical death that everyone is going to have to endure is the result of humanity's mistake of rebelling against God.
The only people who are not going to endure the first death are the Christians who will be raptured before the seven year reign of the AntiChrist.

Taken from Biblegateway.com John 3:16 ( Original Greek Translation )
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
Christ dying on the cross didn't keep people from dying the first Physical death, it merely prevents people from the second death, which is hell.

The Physical Torture of Death will be a prick on the finger compared to the Eternal death.

All of you with your black and white ideas for capital punishment don't factor in social class. Capital punishment does nothing to help the middle/upper classes but is invaluable in helping the poor find discipline.
Excuse me...What? The discipline of Death affects all social classes.

Jaimes
April 9th, 2008, 04:09 PM
As far as forgiveness goes, adultery does not compare with murder :/

You're confusing Biblical doctrine with the viewpoints of society. Obviously the western modern world doesn't see adultery as punishable by death.
In Biblical proportions sexual sin is probably the worse than murder, since it is one of the few sins that is committed inside the body (1 Cor 6:18), the temple of the Holy Spirit. ¬_¬

I'd also like to point out the Bible, being a 1500 year old book where proper Crime & Punishment systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible#Examples_of_the_death_penalty) had not been devloped, explicitly supports the death penalty, for a range of things. Many trivial (Sabbath breaking, horoscopes, false witness, been a rape victim, disobedience to parents, swearing, not worshipping your God etc). Therefore I can hardly see how Biblical text can be used as a reason against capital punishment.

Of course, Jesus would theoretically forgive all sins... a decent court room wouldn't.

I'd also like to point out that approximately 75% of the world population don't believe in your God. Just because you do and quote pages as factual, doesn't mean it's right. ¬_¬

Excuse me...What? The discipline of Death affects all social classes.
A disproportionate number of US people convicted under capital punishment are black.

Virtual Chatot
April 9th, 2008, 04:17 PM
I'd also like to point out that approximately 75% of the world population don't believe in your God. Just because you do and quote pages as factual, doesn't mean it's right. ¬_¬[/qoute]
I'm entitled to my opinion, and I'm also entitled to spread my opinions around as factual. I truly believe them to right, so how are your opinions weighed so much more?

I would like to see the resource where you came up with that percentage.
[QUOTE=Jaimes;3484763]A disproportionate number of US people convicted under capital punishment are black.

...and there is a disproportionate number of white people convicted in capital punishment.
You really can't make a point out of that statement when it comes to race.

Jaimes
April 9th, 2008, 04:35 PM
I'm entitled to my opinion, and I'm also entitled to spread my opinions around as factual. I truly believe them to right, so how are your opinions weighed so much more?

I would like to see the resource where you came up with that percentage.
Being in a massively religious country, it's acceptable for you to proclaim a belief as fact, as long as other people agree with you. Outside your scope, not everyone will agree with your belief and many will think it is just plain ludicrous... and frankly telling people otherwise is massively annoying and highly patronising.

I also dislike having to link to Wikipedia.. the most easily accessible link for sources to prove a simple point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#cite_note-4), especially when someone reckons otherwise. 1.5-2.1 billion Christians, not including denominations which are opposed of each others belief (e.g RCC and evangelical), out of a world population of 6.6billion, is 69% to 77% of non-believers (and increasing).


...and there is a disproportionate number of white people convicted in capital punishment.
You really can't make a point out of that statement when it comes to race.

By 'proportion' I was comparing the number convicted with those that represent the race in the countries population.. I thought that was somewhat obvious. And there's a source as well.. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/executj.htm) It is rather evident that discrimination occurs in handing out death penalties, making it a hardly fair system. ¬_¬

MissMegano
April 9th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Again, please try not to argue about religion. I know it's hard, as this involves so much of it, but try to avoid disputes.

I'm liking your ideas. I'm seeing how opinions really differ from person to person. Opinions come from the individual more than anything. I'm leaning more and more towards the idea of letting the prisoner choose between the death sentence and life in prison.

Amachi
April 10th, 2008, 02:22 AM
What she said^ No one really cares about your religious beliefs, or lack thereof. It sounds preachy and only serves to encourage the sort of arguments I generally detest i.e. religious arguments.

Mind you Jaimes (and a whole heap of other people who reside in this forum), reading the entire bible literally and/or with fundamental views is a dumb thing to do and only makes you look foolish, whether or not you are a practitioner of the faith.

Anything else regarding the matter can be discussed via PM. Note that this is not an invitation to argue about religion. Now just talk about the death penalty, please?

El Gofre
April 10th, 2008, 08:21 AM
I totally agree with capital punishment. If you deny other people human rights you do not deserve them yourself. The case should be unanimous though, or at least a small sentense to give time for new evidence to be brought forwards.

Mooshykris
April 10th, 2008, 08:31 AM
I believe in capital punishment. I believe it is needed. I would go into further detail on why I believe in it, but that would require discussing religion, which I wont.


Mooshykris

Nomaiya
April 10th, 2008, 08:41 AM
I'm inclined to say that I agree with capital punishment for people who have intentionally taken the lives of others, but the more I think about it, I think that capital punishment might be an 'easy way out' for criminals. What better way to make them pay for their wrong-doings than by forcing them to live in a prison with the knowledge of what they have done for the rest of their lives? However, I feel that prisons need to be more like prisons. I don't know if this is the same in other countries, but in the UK, prisoners get television, playstations, xboxes, and money. How the hell is that a punishment? But I'm getting off-topic now, so I'll shut up about that ^^

So, basically, I think that capital punishment is a no, but that murderers should be forced instead to live in squalid prisons for the rest of their lives, with a 'life sentence' actually meaning life, not just eight or nine years.

Zanacross
April 10th, 2008, 09:06 AM
Prison is meant to be punishment but its obviously not working in England so I feel we need more methods. Capital punishment is a way that will stop them for ever which is needed. I'm not against. "Eye for an Eye" as the bible says. Let the victum or victums family choose the punishment

El Gofre
April 10th, 2008, 09:10 AM
Prison is meant to be punishment but its obviously not working in England so I feel we need more methods. Capital punishment is a way that will stop them for ever which is needed. I'm not against. "Eye for an Eye" as the bible says.

It's not that it doesnt work, its that our justice system is hypocritical and spends more time on petty fines and ends up letting the thousands of knife-thugs out there free. But yeah, we need it badly. Im not sure putting killing and the bible together is all too logical though :)

Jesus Freak Josh
April 10th, 2008, 01:15 PM
Im not sure putting killing and the bible together is all too logical though :)
It works, the problem is that it's human nature to only pick out the stuff that suits us and ignore the rest. So where it said "Eye for eye" the government took it. Where Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" the world ignored it. But anyway... :P

However, I feel that prisons need to be more like prisons. I don't know if this is the same in other countries, but in the UK, prisoners get television, playstations, xboxes, and money. How the hell is that a punishment? But I'm getting off-topic now, so I'll shut up about that ^^

Well I could see the Playstation being punishment... :P I think it's so they don't go nuts. I mean, even with all that, they still have bad living conditions, they still aren't allowed to do anything else...

Zanacross
April 10th, 2008, 01:34 PM
Prisons cost to much. Houseing criminals for 1 year costs about £56,000.
This comes from tax payers money. Now if a crook is in prison for 10+ years thats £560,000 Why waste it when if thier crime is serious enough to lock them up for 10 years, why not find another punishment?

This is a punishment for tax payers. I don't want to spend my money on them scum. Why should I? I would rather it go to my and your healthcare.
How about we bring lynching back? A mod with sticks and stones handing them.

Jesus Freak Josh
April 10th, 2008, 01:45 PM
Okay, Zenacross. I'm sure the African-Americans will agree heartedly with you.

Zanacross
April 10th, 2008, 01:52 PM
I know. Wouldnt help a thing really. But CP in england would be better then wasteing money

Stalin Malone
April 10th, 2008, 06:27 PM
None of you 'get' the fact that the poor are at a lower state of mind due to malnutritution and thus should be treated like animals.

txteclipse
April 10th, 2008, 07:42 PM
You don't get the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. No matter what, you always have the final say in what you do. It's just that simple. There are few, few exceptions of people being mentally insane and committing heinous crimes.

I'm going to call that a trolling, in any case. I very much hope that that is not your true take on things.

As for us not discussing this religiously, it dulls the conversation. This thread becomes "do you believe the death penalty should be used? Yes/No."

I think religion plays a crucial part in discussions like this. Religion, or lack thereof, plays a major part in many people's moral code. To dissallow religious discussion is to prohibit people from providing reasons for their viewpoint.

Amachi says: Do you not understand that I said to discuss this via PM?

Stalin Malone
April 14th, 2008, 09:36 AM
Without capital punishment to enforce the law how are the poor going to bring themselves up by their bootstraps?

El Gofre
April 14th, 2008, 09:50 AM
None of you 'get' the fact that the poor are at a lower state of mind due to malnutritution and thus should be treated like animals.

Wow, i dont even know how to describe that other than arrogant and ignorant. I suppose you have a detailed knowledge of maltrition? Because, for lack of a better example, I dont see too many anorexics running round like 'animals'.

Stalin Malone
April 14th, 2008, 09:52 AM
Why do you favor coddling savage criminals who would just as soon rape and murder you and your family as look as you? America needs a new war on crime. We can't fix these things with welfare or even jobs programs.

El Gofre
April 14th, 2008, 09:56 AM
No but I'd rather it be that people are all treated equally, because everyone who commits murder is just as deserved of captial punishment as each other, regardless of social status. I've just read through your arguament and you talk about lower class like a seperate degenerate species, which in my opinion is pretty despicable.

Stalin Malone
April 14th, 2008, 09:57 AM
Equal treatment doesn't work. By any chance, Gofre have you read the book 'The Bell Curve'? It's about how IQ differences cause differences in social outcomes. I'd reccomend reading that book since any sound anti-crime or immigration policy would take into account IQ differences between classes and groups.

El Gofre
April 14th, 2008, 10:00 AM
Regardless of IQ, you said it yourself, its social outcome. The outcome of a political leader stabbing someone is the same outcome as a homeless man stabbing someone- They have commited murder and need to be punished. You cannot tell me social standing makes them any less deserved of punishment?

Stalin Malone
April 14th, 2008, 10:02 AM
The social cost of executing a wealthy man is far more than that of executing a poor man. The poor are more or less expendable.

El Gofre
April 14th, 2008, 10:05 AM
You didnt answer my question:
Is the rich man less deserving of lethal injection than the poor man?

Stalin Malone
April 14th, 2008, 10:06 AM
Yes he is. The rich man contributes far more to the economy and society than a poor man. Those poor who aren't expendable are the ones who get out of poverty via pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

El Gofre
April 14th, 2008, 10:20 AM
Even if a rich man contributes to society, and the poor man doesnt, that money still goes into the economy one way or another. A poor man will not get a job because someone else beat him to it, so the money he would submit still ends up in the economy. That money's not going to disappear, its just distributed more evenly.

I'm not a religious man, but a life is a life. If you take someone elses human rights, you do not deserve your own.

Jaimes
April 14th, 2008, 10:57 AM
Yes he is. The rich man contributes far more to the economy and society than a poor man. Those poor who aren't expendable are the ones who get out of poverty via pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

Just a few points, I'd like to add...

So you're saying; even if someone has a committed a crime worth that of a highest penalty, based upon their income/ inheritance they should be allowed back into society because they supposedly "contribute to it more"? What about rich people that don't 'contribute'? What about well off murderers?


You think that the death penalty should be freely passed out, to 'poorer' individuals for small crimes. Any legitimate reason why? What about poor people who contribute like scientists, cleaners and firefighters?


Have you realized how stupid your ideas are? Your sense of justice / improving society is plain dumb. I'm glad people like you don't have the intelligence to pass off as politicians... your views are comparable to that of a modern-day Hitler.

El Gofre
April 14th, 2008, 12:20 PM
Thankyou Jaimes, you've restored my faith in humanity :P

Stalin Malone
April 14th, 2008, 04:11 PM
1 People who are well off spend more and thus keep the economy humming. Imprisoning people who are well off and murder for long periods of times hurts the economy while using capital punishment on the poor has no similar effect due to them not having money. Try looking into a concept known as Capitalism and also look into the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics.

2 The poor respond better to discipline and force because they don't think like us. Things which are superflous and or negative for the upper/middle classes work well on the poor. Also, for whatever reason they completely lack any form of long-term thinking and predictions. Hence them constantly being bankrupt. Can you just imagine the problems that would result if we put in socialized medicine, expanded welfare or tried jobs programs(Not that any would actually work)?

3 Now don't be silly. Everyone knows Hitler was a leftist and not even remotely conservative. Ever read the book 'liberal fascism'? Its a good book and it goes into detail about the connections the nazis and the modern left have. Remember, conservatism is about freedom and personal responsibility.

Ron Paul
April 14th, 2008, 04:31 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that in tandem with Archon's idea we add a sliding "ethnic" scale to the whole ordeal. After all it's a well known fact that blacks commit more crime and on average have less money, so therefore are not as productive, or important, as whites and Asians or heck even Hispanics.

Jaimes
April 14th, 2008, 04:41 PM
Before you start using pseudo-intellect to back up your claims.. some sources would go a long way in support your twisted opinions. kthx noob.

1 People who are well off spend more and thus keep the economy humming. Imprisoning people who are well off and murder for long periods of times hurts the economy while using capital punishment on the poor has no similar effect due to them not having money. Try looking into a concept known as Capitalism and also look into the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics.
This depends on what you define 'well off', because there will always be a significantly greater number who are 'not as well off'. This mass market will propel an economy. Not a minority who spend a bit more on expensive products.
Many poor people also support the economy via low-paid jobs, such as cleaning, social services and so on.. so don't give me that crap.
Also you didn't answer the rest of my points. There are lots of 'well off' people that do nothing in terms of benefiting society.. e.g someone who is born into rich parents (such as you).

More importantly you have one of the most barbaric and greedy idealogies concerning human life I have ever come across. Your belief that releasing muderers, terrorists and rapists because they have money, wheras slaughtering poorer people for petty crimes is disgusting. These are human lives, not stocks or shares. Human life is not expendable for your idea of 'economy'.

2 The poor respond better to discipline and force because they don't think like us.
Hold on.. who IS the poor then? I'd like a definition if you will or at least some statistics. And not another stupid paragraph full of incorrect assumptions. Who said we were rich?

Things which are superflous and or negative for the upper/middle classes work well on the poor. Also, for whatever reason they completely lack any form of long-term thinking and predictions.
Quoted for utter BS.

Hence them constantly being bankrupt.
By the time I leave university in 4 more years, I will be 25 and have £80,000+ ($160k) debt on my head. I don't believe this will class me as 'poor' though?

Can you just imagine the problems that would result if we put in socialized medicine, expanded welfare or tried jobs programs(Not that any would actually work)?
Can you imagine the problems of mass genocide? and why wouldn't it work at all? You're making a pretty big assumption there..
Being rich and poor is not something that is decided by what families people grow into. It doesn't take much to get an education (which you seem to be lacking in) and most people work to achieve money.

3 Now don't be silly. Everyone knows Hitler was a leftist and not even remotely conservative
It's great how you tried to correct me with something that's completely wrong... especially how Hitler & the Nazi party was one of the biggest anti-communist organisations established. Ever tried reading a history textbook? Idiot.
But anyway, I was comparing your animalistic, barbaric, vile, selfish, greedy, ignorant, predujiced and tyranical attitudes towards human life to Hitlers.

Stalin Malone
April 14th, 2008, 05:07 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that in tandem with Archon's idea we add a sliding "ethnic" scale to the whole ordeal. After all it's a well known fact that blacks commit more crime and on average have less money, so therefore are not as productive, or important, as whites and Asians or heck even Hispanics.
The only way that would fully work is if we also factored in my scale as to reward the socially useful members of those communities and didn't blatantly shut them all out.

Jaimes
April 14th, 2008, 05:49 PM
The only way that would fully work is if we also factored in my scale as to reward the socially useful members of those communities and didn't blatantly shut them all out.

Your 'scale' is biased abusing of an already controversial punishment system, to socially cleanse people in your narrow-minded concept of reality.

Capital punishment is not a tool for genocide. Being poor does not make you useless nor does rich make you useful. Eitherway neither factor should determine who lives and who dies.

Nor can I acknowledge what makes you "socially useful" and why you think you have the right to decide the outcome of millions' lives.

txteclipse
April 14th, 2008, 07:51 PM
There's simply some people you can't argue with. Archon is one of them. He has twisted views, to be sure, and I don't think he's going to be very intent on changing them anytime soon. I say let him spout his nonsense. See how far it gets him in society. He'll probably be put in jail for hate crimes.

Espreon
April 14th, 2008, 08:55 PM
Oddly enough, I was thinking about this this morning..


In the UK, the death penalty is completely banned and a life sentence is the strongest penalty.


Uh, sure yeah...: Life sentence > Death penalty

I am sure no one wants to be in prison until they rot to death, while they can just be fried in 3 secs and be relieved of prison...

Mario The World Champion
April 14th, 2008, 09:31 PM
I have mixed feelings about Capital Punishment. I tend to support it because some people have done something so heinous that they deserve to die a slow painful death, but for some people, death is just too easy for them and it would be much better for them to live the rest of their existence in some small, closed in cell until they die thinking about what they did and how nice it would be to finally be free.

Either way, the whole CP debate is a very razor sharp double-edged sword that will contiune to be a hot button topic for many years.

So, I'm really kind of half anf half about it.

Stalin Malone
April 15th, 2008, 05:14 AM
There's simply some people you can't argue with. Archon is one of them. He has twisted views, to be sure, and I don't think he's going to be very intent on changing them anytime soon. I say let him spout his nonsense. See how far it gets him in society. He'll probably be put in jail for hate crimes.

My views are reasonable and moderate unlike your leftwing radicalism.

Jaimes
April 15th, 2008, 05:28 AM
My views are reasonable and moderate unlike your leftwing radicalism.

NO

You're an arrogant and deluded racist. You're ideas are not only despicable, but only supported by your low mental incapacity. They are completely unreasonable and you have not contributed anything intelligent besides extreme Nazi-like beliefs of using a Punishment system to eradicate people without money.

Being poor is not a crime.

http://www.noobstore.com/prodimages/tshirt-m-gtfo-Green-art-180.gif Considering what you posted on another thread, I can imagine you'll be banned soon.

Stalin Malone
April 15th, 2008, 05:30 AM
Resorting to ad hominem attacks already? Why?

Jaimes
April 15th, 2008, 05:36 AM
Resorting to ad hominem attacks already? Why?

Because I deem them important to illustrate your lack of intelligence (which alone nullifies most of your points), stupid idealogy and your completely inhumane attitudes?
You resorted to attacking millions of people in your first post on this thread.

Stalin Malone
April 15th, 2008, 05:38 AM
Why do socialists attempt to repress those who don't buy into their ideology? I honestly don't get it.

Jaimes
April 15th, 2008, 05:43 AM
Why do socialists attempt to repress those who don't buy into their ideology? I honestly don't get it.

Only bad idealogies are repressed.


I have never seen a 'good' idealogy that encourages mass murder.

Yours is not good.. Yours is psychopathic. Nor can I imagine anyone sane agreeing with you.



Edit: Amachi- meh fine.. I'll try not to stray off-topic here ¬_¬
Though in my defence, he started it and it's hard to not respond/question/bash such an inhumane & sociopathic attitude.

Stalin Malone
April 15th, 2008, 05:45 AM
Ron Paul earlier in this thread agreed me, However he goes further than I would.

Amachi
April 15th, 2008, 06:34 AM
The posts as of late have strayed from the topic of Capital Punishment, and hence needs to return to it immediately. Any further off topic discussion in this thread will lead to the issue of infractions.

El Gofre
April 15th, 2008, 08:33 AM
Ron Paul earlier in this thread agreed me, However he goes further than I would.

To be honest you're as bad as each other. The idea of factoring in social class to punishment is obscene. Jaimes has illustrated this point far better than I can, but resorting to shifting the attention is plain cowardly. Your arguaments are incomplete, mostly because you haven't thought them out past the point of "poor people should die"

flight
April 19th, 2008, 06:20 PM
Okay, here's what I think. Criminals are criminals, just what they are. They should get reasonable punishment, at least be punished, whether they actually did the crime or just participated in it. I have to tell you something, too.

They're deciding, at least around here or something, to give death sentences to those who spread HIV. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this, I don't even care, as long as justice is dealt for those who do wrong. Not I'm not saying they've officially decided on this, however it is in progress.

For me, I feel bad for only certain kinds of criminals who never participated in the crime at all, those are criminals who have mental disabilities and really don't know what the hell is going on. There's been a lot of crap going on lately I mean, at my school, in total, at least 12 people were arrested for violent acts. Now if you ask me, that's a lot, at least, around a school. Now in the school, about 6 were arrested. The more people that get arrested, the more harsher I think they should make the rules.

I would make my post longer, but meh. :|

Wilt
April 19th, 2008, 06:52 PM
-A vast majority of executed criminals were poor. About 90% could not afford a lawyer and had to rely on one appointed by the court.


..... That is offensive to public defenders everywhere *coughmymomcough* Also that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the lawyers fault. Most people actually did do the stuff. I've been with my mom to court millions of times and most people there are poor. They grew up around things like drugs and crap so they don't think it is that bad. Basic psychology actually. Like how racists grew up with people telling them that black people are bad. This case it's drugs are not bad. Lots of them have mental problems.

Anyway, I liked the whole code of Babylon with the whole eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth thing. I think if you kill someone you should die, but only if it can be totally proven, if it can't than I'm not sure. It depends on what degree too. 3rd defentiallyl should be punished. Self-defense should be allowed. I SUPPORT the death sentence.

It's sad though, in Tennessee the jails have become the mental hospitals. No one is funding them and they lowered the level of mentally handicapped you have to be to get in, because of a certain murderer that got out of the death sentence for that reason.

Tapioca
April 19th, 2008, 07:57 PM
It's really hard to say because there are so many cases out there with so many factors, I can't say whether I'm for it or against it. I just want people to get what they deserve, but the only person that knows what happened was the criminal, and let's face it. People lie.

Therefore, I have no opinion on the matter :[

/Circa
April 20th, 2008, 03:08 AM
I dont think people deserve the death sentence, even if he is guilty of doing something, it wont change anything. Plus I reckon living in jail for your whole life would be even worse. Take Salvador Puig Antich for example, he didnt deserve the death penalty, but Franco wanted to show people that if they do the same the same will happen to them.

The death penalty is really a stupid thing. Someone gets killed for killing other people, and then he gets sentenced to death? Maybe the person that did the job should get killed aswell? Its just my opinion :S.

Pinky Diaper
April 20th, 2008, 11:27 AM
I am 100% for capital punishment. If there is someone sick and disturbed enough to try to/succeed in taking human life, then why should they be allowed to continue their own. They shouldn't, and concerning the whole "new evidence" issue, the accused are put on death row for extended periods of time, giving them the chance to appeal, and for the potential for new evidence to arise. And chances are, if new evidence is discovered after the sentence(s) are given, than a mistrial is probably not far behind it.
One also has to consider what capital punishment takes away though. The crime has to be strictly examined to make sure that what this person has done is worth stripping their life for.
I agree totally with you. Why should someone else die for what you did and you shouldn't die?

I couldn't be bothered to write out what was in my mind :D

bna_li
April 21st, 2008, 02:51 AM
Capital punishment<life imprisonment

Jail for the win.

Bug Catcher Nick
May 2nd, 2008, 12:12 PM
Tough call. The main problem is that for some criminals, just flat out killing them would be letting them off easy.

That's pretty much my entire view on it. The Death Penalty is NOT a punishment. There's a reason that the suicide rate in prison is so high, and that's because they can't hack the long sentences. The death penalty may rid our life of these particular criminals, but it sure doesn't act as a deterant.

If I were criminally minded, I wouldn't think twice about killing someone if I knew my life would be ended, it's like getting a game over in GTA. But the thought of the rest of my life behind bars scares the **** out of me.

Amoeba
May 3rd, 2008, 03:06 AM
I can't really see the death penalty as a suitable punishment for any crime. In some cases... it would be too soft.

Personal bias comes in to this, admittedly... but I can't imagine stooping to the level of a murderer. Death will come to them naturally anyway. Let them stew a while first... let nature take its course.

There can often be times when the death penalty is issued only for the criminal to be proven innocent after death. It happens, not all the time, but it happens.

Hat?
May 3rd, 2008, 05:07 AM
I think if people are facing a prison sentence, they should have the option of a death sentence instead. I would prefer death over prison, plus if I really did commit a "horrible crime" I would no longer be able to commit any more.

I think it depends on your views of afterlife though, whether you believe in the Christian "Hell" or equivalent.

I'm guessing alot of people who believe in some sort of torturous afterlife would pick prison so that they can say that they've been punished etc and not go to Hell (which they think will be worse than prison).

Alot of people who believe death means your just dead, no afterlife, might think that prison is a far worse punishment.

El Gofre
May 3rd, 2008, 06:02 AM
I think if people are facing a prison sentence, they should have the option of a death sentence instead.

The idea of incarceration is that you don't have a choice in the matter. But yeah, that's your opinion i suppose.

Life imprisonment is fine for a lot of cases, but it is not a substitution for capital punishment. While the arguament about how they could not stand to be locked away forever is valid, a contrast is also possible. The thought that they are not going to die immediately may give them hope, something to live for, which is kinda the opposite of the original objective. Also, however unlikely, the chance of escape at some point is something that cannot be risked in the case of serial rapists and mass murderers. Finally, without sounding too much like the nazi archon, it costs a lot to harbour a criminal for their entire life, especially those who need to be kept under special circumstances. Sometimes it is just better to rid society of them.

INFOWARRIOR56
May 3rd, 2008, 01:07 PM
The death penalty is terrible and needs to be outlawed. It is medieval. A simple exercise in common sense shows how the death penalty is unnecessary and wrong. It's not unheard of for a person to be convicted and found guilty of a heinous crime, but then new evidence surfaces years later that throws doubt on the verdict or even destroys any chance that the defendant was the perpetrator. If this happens to someone who has been killed as a result of the death penalty, there isn't much left to do except go 'Um.. Oops.'. There is no point in killing the defendant when imprisonment is an option.

Virtual Chatot
May 3rd, 2008, 01:10 PM
The death penalty is terrible and needs to be outlawed. It is medieval. A simple exercise in common sense shows how the death penalty is unnecessary and wrong. It's not unheard of for a person to be convicted and found guilty of a heinous crime, but then new evidence surfaces years later that throws doubt on the verdict or even destroys any chance that the defendant was the perpetrator. If this happens to someone who has been killed as a result of the death penalty, there isn't much left to do except go 'Um.. Oops.'. There is no point in killing the defendant when imprisonment is an option.

How would you deal with overcrowding then?

INFOWARRIOR56
May 3rd, 2008, 01:27 PM
How would you deal with overcrowding then?

As of April 2008, there have been 1,099 executions in the United States since 1976. There aren't many executions, so overcrowding wouldn't be a problem.

Virtual Chatot
May 3rd, 2008, 01:35 PM
As of April 2008, there have been 1,099 executions in the United States since 1976. There aren't many executions, so overcrowding wouldn't be a problem.
Let me ask you this, why should a person who has killed another person have the right to live any longer? What would a proper punishment be? What makes you think that particular punishment would work.

I remind you, that Prisons are supposed to Punish, not just reform, if at all.

In my opinion, you can never really understand what it feels like to have someone you know and love killed in cold blood. My cousin was stabbed in the stomach and died by some punk when he tried to save this guy from being mugged.

INFOWARRIOR56
May 3rd, 2008, 01:45 PM
Let me ask you this, why should a person who has killed another person have the right to live any longer? What would a proper punishment be? What makes you think that particular punishment would work.

I remind you, that Prisons are supposed to Punish, not just reform, if at all.

In my opinion, you can never really understand what it feels like to have someone you know and love killed in cold blood. My cousin was stabbed in the stomach and died by some punk when he tried to save this guy from being mugged.

The thing is, it is not unheard of for someone to be accused of a crime and serve time, only to have new evidence proving their innocence surface later. In a scenario where someone is killed or many people are killed by one guy, is it not better to imprison the perpetrator, as new evidence could later surface that proved their innocence? Or perhaps it later turns out that the crime was a conspiracy and the defendant did not play as big a role in it as they accused him of?

Since there is always a chance that the court missed something, the death penalty is wrong.

Virtual Chatot
May 3rd, 2008, 01:46 PM
The thing is, it is not unheard of for someone to be accused of a crime and serve time, only to have new evidence proving their innocence surface later. In a scenario where someone is killed or many people are killed by one guy, is it not better to imprison the perpetrator, as new evidence could later surface that proved their innocence? Or perhaps it later turns out that the crime was a conspiracy and the defendant did not play as big a role in it as they accused him of?

Since there is always a chance that the court missed something, the death penalty is wrong.

I disagree with you about the blame. It is the courts that are flawed, not the punishments.

Marksman
May 3rd, 2008, 01:54 PM
I'm doing this in Citizenship. Anyways, I think it's one way to put a clamp on Crime and determine the Guilty from the Innocent. However, the Relatives of the Criminal would be facing Grief. What's more, I think there's a better Solution without needing Blood Shed.
*Bleeds Self*
OW! I---mmm...A+ Blood. Sorry about that. I just don't like to let my Blood leave my Body or Sight.

:t152:

El Gofre
May 3rd, 2008, 02:35 PM
I've just finished compulsory education in britain, and I'm afraid to say that citizenship will give you a very limited insight to how this country needs it. They have to remain politically correct and as such do not offer multiple arguaments. The whole concept of the subject was a joke tbh.

Cassino
May 3rd, 2008, 04:56 PM
Stalin once said, "Death solves all problems — no man, no problem."

Simple: execute murderers and such, and you don't have to worry about them escaping, their sentence perhaps ending, clothing them, feeding them, and even keeping a space in prison open for them anyway. Other people who have committed petty crimes can be left in custody for some time as is standard.
If it's an easy way out for them, they must be the deranged sorts, so are better culled anyway.

Of course, having said that, the court or equivilent would need to be undisputably sure that that person had committed the crime at hand.

Storm-DC
May 4th, 2008, 05:32 AM
Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone

INFOWARRIOR56
May 4th, 2008, 08:36 AM
Stalin once said, "Death solves all problems — no man, no problem."

Simple: execute murderers and such, and you don't have to worry about them escaping, their sentence perhaps ending, clothing them, feeding them, and even keeping a space in prison open for them anyway. Other people who have committed petty crimes can be left in custody for some time as is standard.
If it's an easy way out for them, they must be the deranged sorts, so are better culled anyway.

Of course, having said that, the court or equivilent would need to be undisputably sure that that person had committed the crime at hand.

The problem is, you execute Joe Schmoe for murdering Sam Blappers, and then overwhelming evidence surfaces showing that Schmoe was framed by someone else, or played a more minor role in a conspiracy against Blappers. Then everyone just goes 'Oops'. There is no point in killing a person when it is not unheard of for the court to later turn out to be wrong. When imprisonment is an option, execution is not needed.

Also, just make it so prison security doesn't suck. That solves the escaping problem.

El Gofre
May 4th, 2008, 09:00 AM
Of course, having said that, the court or equivilent would need to be undisputably sure that that person had committed the crime at hand.

That solves your "oops" predicament. And as good as prison security is, you can never garrentee that they wont escape. Attempts can also endanger those who get in their way

INFOWARRIOR56
May 5th, 2008, 02:18 PM
That solves your "oops" predicament. And as good as prison security is, you can never garrentee that they wont escape. Attempts can also endanger those who get in their way

It does not. Even if you have indisputable evidence proving the involvement of someone, what if evidence surfaces later proving the crime to be a conspiracy, and showing clearly that the defendant did not play as big a role as they thought, or he was a patsy for a person or persons unknown.

Also, the only people who should be in their way while they are trying to get out of the prison are the prison guards, and dealing with that kind of thing is their jobs. They accept the risks when they become prison guards.

Storm-DC
May 5th, 2008, 03:28 PM
Wow, in Budapest I met this American guy last year and he also had some really strange arguments in certain discussions, just like Gofre about the prison guards. There really are big differences in the way the general American thinks and the general European thinks, never realised that a christian nation could wind itself up in so much strange positions to keep on telling itself death penalty can be a good thing. I mean; there are so many different ways why people killed others, some had a reason, some were out of their minds, etc. Every case needs its own judgement. Anyway, i won't get into this actually, but why does someone who kills his neighbour get capital punishment and a president that killed ten thousands of innocent iraqi's get honoured?

El Gofre
May 6th, 2008, 09:13 AM
It does not. Even if you have indisputable evidence proving the involvement of someone, what if evidence surfaces later proving the crime to be a conspiracy, and showing clearly that the defendant did not play as big a role as they thought, or he was a patsy for a person or persons unknown.
Fair enough.

Also, the only people who should be in their way while they are trying to get out of the prison are the prison guards, and dealing with that kind of thing is their jobs. They accept the risks when they become prison guards.

That second point I disagree with. There's a difference between should and could. People who could get in the way include:
-Other prisoners. As you said, some may be falsely accused or only in for petty crimes like stealing as a teen or whilst homeless.
-Visiting families and children
-Medical, mechanical or administrative staff

Escape plans are not predictable, and nobody knows who could get in the way. None of the above deserve to be inbetween someone helbent on escaping from prison and their way out.

INFOWARRIOR56
May 6th, 2008, 12:20 PM
That second point I disagree with. There's a difference between should and could. People who could get in the way include:
-Other prisoners. As you said, some may be falsely accused or only in for petty crimes like stealing as a teen or whilst homeless.
-Visiting families and children
-Medical, mechanical or administrative staff

Escape plans are not predictable, and nobody knows who could get in the way. None of the above deserve to be inbetween someone helbent on escaping from prison and their way out.

Yeah, you've got a point there. Agreed.

LipstickTraces
May 20th, 2008, 01:46 PM
capital punishment really is a touchy subject. i am aware it is active in america, but but here in england we dont have it. i guess that its the last alternative to putting an end to a problem. whoever the person is, if they are too much of a problem and are causing more harm than needed, then yes im for it. but i personally dont like people dying either way, so i would say im against it. however, its needed in some cases it seems.

Firebird306
May 20th, 2008, 02:27 PM
If there is 100% rock solid evidence that someone has committed a highly inhumane act I believe they should be executed. Personally I feel they don't have the right to be trialled as a human if they are going to commit acts that aren't human.

I once heard a story of a guy (don't know if it's true, if not kick the news XD) who was on death row and went insane after 20 years awaiting his fate. Because of his suffering the government released him. Why should they have that right? If he went insane then that's his problem and didn't deserve a release.

In Australia we don't have capital punishment so... :\

El Gofre
May 20th, 2008, 02:32 PM
If there is 100% rock solid evidence that someone has committed a highly inhumane act I believe they should be executed. Personally I feel they don't have the right to be trialled as a human if they are going to commit acts that aren't human.

I once heard a story of a guy (don't know if it's true, if not kick the news XD) who was on death row and went insane after 20 years awaiting his fate. Because of his suffering the government released him. Why should they have that right? If he went insane then that's his problem and didn't deserve a release.

In Australia we don't have capital punishment so... :\

I think you've misinterperated the story. If he has been declared clinically insane he was most likely moved to a mental institution. Perhaps they hadnt executed him because he was suffering enough- The loss of ones sanity could be deemed as bad as losing your life, I myself deem it worse.

LipstickTraces
May 21st, 2008, 12:13 PM
I think you've misinterperated the story. If he has been declared clinically insane he was most likely moved to a mental institution. Perhaps they hadnt executed him because he was suffering enough- The loss of ones sanity could be deemed as bad as losing your life, I myself deem it worse.

this is true, long suffering is far worse than ending a life. so surley he deserves to lose his sanity as a result of his deeds, and surley he will learn his lesson.

but for population protections sake, capital punishment makes more room for law abiding citizens. lol

Stalin Malone
May 22nd, 2008, 01:08 PM
How would you deal with overcrowding then?

End backwards sin laws(war on drugs, bans on gambling, bans on prostitution, bans on pron, high drinking ages, restrictions on smoking) to clear out a large amount of space in prisons.

El Gofre
May 23rd, 2008, 03:13 AM
End backwards sin laws(
war on drugs,
Yeah, lets make the use of dangerous drugs legal!
bans on gambling,
I myself am 16 and play cash poker regularly. I know that if I was let into a casino I would lose hundreds of pounds very quickly. I don't think it's wise to let children spend money on an industry where they can easily be taken advantage of.
bans on prostitution,
It's a dangerous business, the laws are fine. The organised side may seem safe but there is a far larger industry filled with desperate men and women selling themselves in potentially dangerous situations.
bans on pron,
This is open to opinion. I am not religious but i still believe it is an extremely immoral industry. Besides, most porn crime is aimed at large industries and settled with massive fines rather than prison sentences.
high drinking ages, restrictions on smoking)
Both of these laws are perfectly fine. I know many people who smoke and drink simply because i can. I myself do the latter. Offering these potentially lethal passtimes to anyone is completely laughable.
to clear out a large amount of space in prisons.

So basically, you'd empty prisons by getting rid of laws? Besides, going by your views space would be filled up faster than it was created.

Shadowed Fate
May 23rd, 2008, 03:54 PM
I'm totally against Capital Punishment. We live in a Democracy, not in a Dictatorship like Saudia Arabia, or Iran...

Many countries have almost abolished/made it a rarest-of-the-rare-case punishment. I don't get why US still has it.

And ironically, even after Arnie became the Texan governor and everyone expected the pardons to increase...it has the highest rates of execution. =.=

El Gofre
May 25th, 2008, 11:38 AM
I'm totally against Capital Punishment. We live in a Democracy, not in a Dictatorship like Saudia Arabia, or Iran...

Many countries have almost abolished/made it a rarest-of-the-rare-case punishment. I don't get why US still has it.

And ironically, even after Arnie became the Texan governor and everyone expected the pardons to increase...it has the highest rates of execution. =.=

I fail to see how the introduction of capital punishment creates a dictatorship. So long as it is reserved for suitable crimes, the death sentence would not inspire fear into the entire populace or demand absolute obidience.

Oh, and arnie is the governer of california :S


Woop 100th post :D