I thought I would start this because a lot of people didn't think it belonged in the swamp.

Originally posted by IG-64
Owned. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6385208/?GT1=5809)

I say he should get life in prison. which is worse? being killed quickly and painlessly or having to think about what you have done for the next 50 years? killing him will release him from his suffering (unless you are religious and beleive he will spend eternity in hell, in which case 50 years or so waiting wont matter)

death should be a release, not a punishment.

Are we talking about what Scott Peterson shoud get, or if we should have the death penalty at all?

Here are my basic thoughts on it:

Death- Most people it seems would rather get life in prison then the death penalty (convicts work really hard to avoid getting it). So I believe that having the death penalty is likely to deter crime. Also, I think it gives some piece of mind to the victims friends and family.

Life- My main problem with the death penalty is that it is irreversible. If new evidence were to come up, I would rather the person be sitting in jail then laying in the ground. Also, I understand that it is actually more expensive to have someone serve a death sentence then a life sentence.

The two sides about balance out for me, so I am undecided on the issue for now. If we are talking about Scott Peterson specifically, then I think he deserves the death penalty if anyone else does.

Well its about the death penalty in general, it just came up because of IG's thread.

i think a far better thing to do would be to put them in isolation and have them never see another living soul for the rest of their lives. that would be hell.

The death penalty has never shown any reasonable effect on lowering the rate of murders in this country, and I agree that it actually seems more humane than isolating them. I personally agree with Messiah, that solitary confinement for the rest of their lives is a suitable punishment for a crime so great as the taking of another humans life.

I say good riddance.

I don't see anything inhumane about it either when you consider that it's no secret what the penalty for commiting such crimes would be. It is so narrow minded to argue against it when you think about the fact that the criminal chose to commit that crime. In that sense, the criminal volunteers to commit a crime that carries such consequence.

There are homeless people in society who have no guarantee of food or shelter on a daily basis. Why should an idividual who takes the life of another human being then be given a lifetime of guaranteed food, clothing, shelter and medical care on the burdan of the society which he offended?

Society is better off without them.

Originally posted by ronbrothers
I say good riddance.

I don't see anything inhumane about it either when you consider that it's no secret what the penalty for commiting such crimes would be. It is so narrow minded to argue against it when you think about the fact that the criminal chose to commit that crime. In that sense, the criminal volunteers to commit a crime that carries such consequence.



surely it would be narrow minded to argue against the death sentence having not given thought to the opposing point of view, but its not narrow minded simply to disagree with it. in fact the view that it is narrow minded to oppose the death sentence is itself narrow minded because it refuses to consider the opposing point of view *pauses for breath :D* indeed in a society with the death sentance in effect if a criminal does commit a crime warrenting it then they are indeed laying themselves open for the consequences, but that is not the issue, the issue is whether it is right for a society to have a death sentence in effect at all. conveniently for me thats where the second part of your post goes :D


There are homeless people in society who have no guarantee of food or shelter on a daily basis. Why should an idividual who takes the life of another human being then be given a lifetime of guaranteed food, clothing, shelter and medical care on the burdan of the society which he offended?

Society is better off without them.

well as has been said elsewhere we're not talking about putting people up in the hilton. my suggestion is solitary confinement for the rest of their life with nothing whatsoever except possibly a matress to sleep on. that would be sufficently hellish for any person i think, to never so much as set eyes on another human being again. many i am sure would attempt suicide (and should be prevented from doing so), and that brings me to my next point.

believe me im not asking for the "humane approach" here, i want such people to suffer and i think giving them death is a cop out (especially in the case of lethal injection, not exactly a scary prospect is it?) - i dont think it fits the crime they committed at all, in the case of murder they can cause years or even lifetimes of grief for the loved ones of their victims and giving them death is not repayment of their debt. a lifetime of solitude, i personally cannot imagine the horribleness of, and that makes it fitting punishment for such terrible crimes.

Originally posted by Leper Messiah
i think a far better thing to do would be to put them in isolation and have them never see another living soul for the rest of their lives. that would be hell.

some would say that hell is other people, they are wrong.

Originally posted by ronbrothers
I don't see anything inhumane about it either when you consider that it's no secret what the penalty for commiting such crimes would be. It is so narrow minded to argue against it when you think about the fact that the criminal chose to commit that crime. In that sense, the criminal volunteers to commit a crime that carries such consequence.


Invalid argument. People in Nazi Germany knew the punishment for having sympathy with the left, so you might say socialists "chose" to be put in concentration camps and work to death. Does that make that cruel and inhumane law any more just? Not at all.

Besides, killing without good reason goes against the definition of being mentally normal. Do you want to kill and torture people, just because they're mentally ill?
Barbaric.

There are homeless people in society who have no guarantee of food or shelter on a daily basis. Why should an idividual who takes the life of another human being then be given a lifetime of guaranteed food, clothing, shelter and medical care on the burdan of the society which he offended?

Because this individual is still an individual human being, with emotions and feelings and conciousness. Taking care of everyone is the most important issue of a civilized society.

Old folks and people with chronical diseases do nothing but burden the society and take the tax-payers money. But is that a reason to kill them off? Yes, according to Hitler. No, according to me.

Originally posted by Breton
Invalid argument. People in Nazi Germany knew the punishment for having sympathy with the left, so you might say socialists "chose" to be put in concentration camps and work to death. Does that make that cruel and inhumane law any more just? Not at all.



invalid comparison. nazi germany did that to people who had comitted no crime as such. in the society which we are in (well actually im in the uk) execution is a punishment for serious crimes. peoples actions rather than beliefs are what brings the death sentance upon them.


Besides, killing without good reason goes against the definition of being mentally normal. Do you want to kill and torture people, just because they're mentally ill?
Barbaric.

what torture would this be exactly? man in cell gets lethal injection. theres no torture inflicted by the state during that process. and its not killing without reason at all, and where did ronbrothers state anything about the mentally ill? you just made an assumption to fit your argument.


Because this individual is still an individual human being, with emotions and feelings and conciousness. Taking care of everyone is the most important issue of a civilized society.

Old folks and people with chronical diseases do nothing but burden the society and take the tax-payers money. But is that a reason to kill them off? Yes, according to Hitler. No, according to me.

another mention of hitler/nazism, seems to me your trying to make the reader of your argument think that anybody pro death sentance is a nazi which is of course untrue. im anti death sentance but only because i think it is too lenient for murderers. your comment about the elderly and sick has no bearing on what is to be done with convicted murderers. the elderly and sick can be cared for because theyve done nothing harmful to society, you cant stretch that example to people who have done things so terrible as take another persons life away.

invalid comparison. nazi germany did that to people who had comitted no crime as such.In any society that employs the death penalty, there will be instances in which innocent people are sentenced to death, and killed. So there is a comparison of sorts.

And I don't know how anyone can claim that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to criminals. America has a huge crime rate when compared to other western nations, so there's little evidence to support such a claim.

Originally posted by Spider AL
In any society that employs the death penalty, there will be instances in which innocent people are sentenced to death, and killed. So there is a comparison of sorts.

And I don't know how anyone can claim that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to criminals. America has a huge crime rate when compared to other western nations, so there's little evidence to support such a claim.

well in the case of innocents, thats another reason for my solution.

i didnt claim it to be a deterrent, i said those committing crimes warrenting it know what theyre letting themselves in for

i didnt claim it to be a deterrentAye, I wasn't addressing that second paragraph to you, but to the others in the thread who have claimed that it's a deterrent. There's plainly no evidence to support such a claim.

well in the case of innocents, thats another reason for my solution.What, you'd lock innocents up in a room a-la Oldboy for the rest of their natural lives? It's no solution at all.

The trouble with inflicting punishments onto others is that those who are certain that they're punishing the right man are usually the people who are so judgemental and biased that they shouldn't be allowed to decide such things. I'm not referring to you here Leper, but to certain other individuals who shall remain nameless.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Aye, I wasn't addressing that second paragraph to you, but to the others in the thread who have claimed that it's a deterrent. There's plainly no evidence to support such a claim.

What, you'd lock innocents up in a room a-la Oldboy for the rest of their natural lives? It's no solution at all.

The trouble with inflicting punishments onto others is that those who are certain that they're punishing the right man are usually the people who are so judgemental and biased that they shouldn't be allowed to decide such things. I'm not referring to you here Leper, but to certain other individuals who shall remain nameless.

in all circumstances, there will be wrong convictions and that is extremely unfortunate and unpleasent for those concerned but that doesnt mean we should go easy on convicted murderers just in case in my opinion.

Quick painless death is punishment enough for the guilty and minimises suffering if they're innocent victims. The course of action you prescribe is both tortuous, non-therapeutic and twice as dastardly if the convict is unjustly accused.

Also what punishment would you prescribe if a felon had kept someone alive and alone in a room for say... twenty years? Unpleasant crime, no? And that's what you're talking about inflicting on others. There's a reason we make our punishments as humane as possible: We don't sink to the level of the criminals.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Quick painless death is punishment enough for the guilty and minimises suffering if they're innocent victims. The course of action you prescribe is both tortuous, non-therapeutic and twice as dastardly if the convict is unjustly accused.

Also what punishment would you prescribe if a felon had kept someone alive and alone in a room for say... twenty years? Unpleasant crime, no? And that's what you're talking about inflicting on others. There's a reason we make our punishments as humane as possible: We don't sink to the level of the criminals.

i simply dont think execution is a fitting punishment, its lets them out of paying for their crimes in any meaningful way. therapy isnt the objective of what im suggesting, i am saying execution is too lenient. i think that we need to have a little more faith in the authorities ability to get the right man. im not saying it would never happen that there be a false conviction but we cant treat every decision a court makes as suspect.

maybe you might think im being quite harsh by wishing such a fate as im suggesting on someone but i really think that to pay for a crime like we're talking about you cant just be given an injection that sends you off to sleep

What does it accomplish to torture a criminal? Does it accomplish anything? If not, then why do it?

Originally posted by Leper Messiah
invalid comparison. nazi germany did that to people who had comitted no crime as such. in the society which we are in (well actually im in the uk) execution is a punishment for serious crimes. peoples actions rather than beliefs are what brings the death sentance upon them.


That wasn't my point. My point was that "they choose to do the crime, so they choose to take the punishment" is in no way justification of brutal and unjust punishment.

I suppose a better comparison would be: In some muslim countries, you can get your hand cut off for stealing. Do you think this is fair? After all, the thieves "choose" it by stealing in the first place.

what torture would this be exactly? man in cell gets lethal injection. theres no torture inflicted by the state during that process. and its not killing without reason at all,

If you read some of the posts, you'll se that many (included ronbrothers) thinks death is too easy, and wants to torture the criminals.

and where did ronbrothers state anything about the mentally ill? you just made an assumption to fit your argument.

What do you mean?

I say it again: To kill without reason goes against the very definition of being mentally normal. These are people who need all the help they can get to be able to live normal lives, but what do they get? Death and torture. Brutal.

another mention of hitler/nazism, seems to me your trying to make the reader of your argument think that anybody pro death sentance is a nazi which is of course untrue.

The comparison is very much alive. Death sentence is an extreme rightist issue, and it creates a very brutal society. Nazism supported death sentence warmly.

your comment about the elderly and sick has no bearing on what is to be done with convicted murderers. the elderly and sick can be cared for because theyve done nothing harmful to society, you cant stretch that example to people who have done things so terrible as take another persons life away.

Ronbrothers argued that death sentence is right because it's so expensive to keep the criminals alive and they only burden the society.
I said that any humane society will care for the induvidual, and if we are to kill people off because it's so expensive to keep them alive, then we'd also have to kill old and sick since they only burden the society.


All punishment should be based around that the criminal should be able to live a new and better life when he gets out. This is a very important principle.
Death penalty and life imprisonment beats up and spits on this principle.
What is the point in punishment if the criminal can't get out as a new and better man?

USA is the western country with the most cruel and brutal punishment, it is the only western country who still practises death penalty. USA is also the western coutnry with the worst crime statistics, and most murders per capita.
Death penalty and cruel punishment doesn't work, if anything it only adds to the problem.

Remove both death penalty and life imprisonment, and set the max penalty at 15 years. More psychological treatment of serious criminals. Better follow-up of multiple-times criminals.
I'm positive these simple steps will reduce crime to a minumum, and it will also make a far more humane society.

The death penalty always reeked of revenge to me. Sort of a "we got the last word! Ha ha har!" I don't think killing a murderer is going to bring any victims back.

Now, if there's a truly utilitarian purpose to the execution I could reconsider. In other words, if it's absolutely necessary.

Lethal injections aren't always the quick and painless thing the state likes people to think either. Sometimes they're anything but. Not that I'd cry if some serial killer feels like he's burning alive for twenty minutes before he dies, just thought it was an interesting fact.

But my blood thirsty side has always been partial to firing squads. I guess Utah is the only member of the Union to do those anymore, and they only use semi-automatic rifles.

Originally posted by Breton
That wasn't my point. My point was that "they choose to do the crime, so they choose to take the punishment" is in no way justification of brutal and unjust punishment.

I suppose a better comparison would be: In some muslim countries, you can get your hand cut off for stealing. Do you think this is fair? After all, the thieves "choose" it by stealing in the first place.



If you read some of the posts, you'll se that many (included ronbrothers) thinks death is too easy, and wants to torture the criminals.



What do you mean?

I say it again: To kill without reason goes against the very definition of being mentally normal. These are people who need all the help they can get to be able to live normal lives, but what do they get? Death and torture. Brutal.



The comparison is very much alive. Death sentence is an extreme rightist issue, and it creates a very brutal society. Nazism supported death sentence warmly.



Ronbrothers argued that death sentence is right because it's so expensive to keep the criminals alive and they only burden the society.
I said that any humane society will care for the induvidual, and if we are to kill people off because it's so expensive to keep them alive, then we'd also have to kill old and sick since they only burden the society.


All punishment should be based around that the criminal should be able to live a new and better life when he gets out. This is a very important principle.
Death penalty and life imprisonment beats up and spits on this principle.
What is the point in punishment if the criminal can't get out as a new and better man?

USA is the western country with the most cruel and brutal punishment, it is the only western country who still practises death penalty. USA is also the western coutnry with the worst crime statistics, and most murders per capita.
Death penalty and cruel punishment doesn't work, if anything it only adds to the problem.

Remove both death penalty and life imprisonment, and set the max penalty at 15 years. More psychological treatment of serious criminals. Better follow-up of multiple-times criminals.
I'm positive these simple steps will reduce crime to a minumum, and it will also make a far more humane society.

1) your comparison is still not valid, what on earth does a muslim country cutting someones hand off got to do with someone being executed in the west? they know the likely penalty for their crimes so yes they do choose that path for themselves.

2) death is too easy, theres no payment for a crime in being put to sleep by an injection.

3) only its not killing without reason, is it? somebody murders someone else, therefore they will be executed or put in prison for life. that is a reason (notice i didnt say good or bad reason, i am stating simply that this is by definition, a reason, so there is not as you claim, no reason).

4) so you're saying that all people who support the death sentence are Nazi's. im beginning to see a little lack of reason or purchase of reality in your argument.

5) youre statement that ronbrothers is in fact arguing for the death sentance to be widened to the elderly and sick is incorrect. some burdens on society are acceptable, more than acceptable. convicted murderers are not, according to those who support the death sentance, it doesnt mean they are in favor of killing elderly and sick people, thats just an attempt to make them appear like nazis and its not working.

6) fifteen years is unacceptable, release from prison for such criminals is unacceptable. after all murder victims dont come back to life after fifteen years do they?

Originally posted by Spider AL
Quick painless death is punishment enough for the guilty

you see, thats where we disagree. I don't think it is punishment at all. why is it a punishment? It stops them having to live with the consequences of their actions, all it does is punish their familly and they have (probably) done nothing wrong.

Originally posted by Leper Messiah
1) your comparison is still not valid, what on earth does a muslim country cutting someones hand off got to do with someone being executed in the west? they know the likely penalty for their crimes so yes they do choose that path for themselves.

Most people would agree that this hand-cutting practice is terrible and unjust, yet it can be supported by the same arguments you use to support death penalty (another terrible and unjust practice).

3) only its not killing without reason, is it? somebody murders someone else, therefore they will be executed or put in prison for life. that is a reason (notice i didnt say good or bad reason, i am stating simply that this is by definition, a reason, so there is not as you claim, no reason).

Well, that's what you get when you only skim through the post rather than reading it closely :).
I was talking about the criminals killing without reason.

A mentally normal person can't kill without good reason, because the two issues contradict each other.

4) so you're saying that all people who support the death sentence are Nazi's. im beginning to see a little lack of reason or purchase of reality in your argument.

I'm saying that death penalty represents much of the cruel and cold avengeful society that nazism does. No more, no less.

5) youre statement that ronbrothers is in fact arguing for the death sentance to be widened to the elderly and sick is incorrect. some burdens on society are acceptable, more than acceptable. convicted murderers are not, according to those who support the death sentance, it doesnt mean they are in favor of killing elderly and sick people, thats just an attempt to make them appear like nazis and its not working.

What I am saying is that in a civilized society, you can't choose who are to live or die based on how much money they would cost to keep alive.
You say that criminals shouldn't be allowed to live, based on the actions they have commited. Punishment as revenge. That's a completely different argument.

6) fifteen years is unacceptable, release from prison for such criminals is unacceptable. after all murder victims dont come back to life after fifteen years do they?

Fifteen years is what I feel is best for society, it gives the criminal the chance to start anew.
You'll have to ask yourself: Will this man become less of a murderer if we lock him into a hole for 50 years? The answer is, he won't.
However, with the correct punishment (not too long) with good psychological treatment and well follow-up of the individual, there's a fair chance he will be able to return to society.

And how does cruel punishment help the murder victims in any way? Do they magically come back to life if their murderer is killed? You lost me there.



Alright, a person is dead, killed. What's the point in taking another life? That makes two people dead, rather than one. Isn't that, like, twice as bad?

Originally posted by Breton

I was talking about the criminals killing without reason.

A mentally normal person can't kill without good reason, because the two issues contradict each other.

I'm saying that death penalty represents much of the cruel and cold avengeful society that nazism does. No more, no less.

You say that criminals shouldn't be allowed to live, based on the actions they have commited.



well much of what youve said in that post i can only repeat what ive said before in response because my arguments are still valid. the two points above are the only ones i have anything new to say on:

1) i hope you are not suggesting that all murderers kill without a reason. many murders are calculated, premeditated crimes.

2) ill be blunt, the death sentence is not exclusively a nazi practice, it has existed in all societies however civilised at some point. your effort to assosiate the death sentence with nazisim in the mind of your reader is not working

3) only i didnt say that. read my posts, i am against the death sentence.

i simply dont think execution is a fitting punishment, its lets them out of paying for their crimes in any meaningful wayYou've probably never seen anyone fight for their life then. Life is the most precious thing we have. Precious beyond words, and there's nothing more terrifying than to TRULY contemplate one's own death. To take life is the ultimate punishment... short of amoral torture FOLLOWED by death.

Secondly, killing them swiftly accomplishes two other important things: It stops them from committing any other crimes ever, and saves the taxpayer wodges of cash that would otherwise be spent on feeding and clothing the wretch for the rest of their life.

maybe you might think im being quite harsh by wishing such a fate as im suggesting on someone but i really think that to pay for a crime like we're talking about you cant just be given an injection that sends you off to sleepYou wake up, from sleep. Death is a whole new ballgame mate. Trust me on this.

What you're after with your Oldboy idea, isn't justice, nor practicality, it's revenge. And that's amoral.

3) only i didnt say that. read my posts, i am against the death sentence.That's because you're pro-torture, THEN death. lol. :D

Originally posted by Spider AL


That's because you're pro-torture, THEN death. lol. :D

well thats where compromise comes in, and the middle ground between those in favor of the death penalty and those for rehabilitation and release back into society is life inprisonment (the regular kind not my uber-nasty kind :D) because that way nobody gets executed but the murderer doesnt get to live his life the way he did before the crime ever again.

Originally posted by Breton
And how does cruel punishment help the murder victims in any way? Do they magically come back to life if their murderer is killed? You lost me there.



Alright, a person is dead, killed. What's the point in taking another life? That makes two people dead, rather than one. Isn't that, like, twice as bad?

No, it does not help the murder victims. It simply prevents the person from getting off scot-free. It helps prevents the development of people who kill people at the slightest provocation, thinking there to be no punishment or consequences for their actions.

The person is dead, yes. Killed, yes. The murderer is not. The reason why he has to be killed is: to prevent him from killing more people. He has a violent nature, and therefore nobody can say that he will not kill more people. We Chinese have a saying here, meaning that one is killed/disposed of to save another hundred from death.

I personally think we should just do a battle royale kinda thing with murderers and rapists. Send em off to antarica with weapons and just let em do whatever and kill eachother off. And the winner gets a something. *shrugs*

now it's time for me to sleep.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
I personally think we should just do a battle royale kinda thing with murderers and rapists. Send em off to antarica with weapons and just let em do whatever and kill eachother off. And the winner gets a something. *shrugs*

now it's time for me to sleep.

And then the survivor comes back to us in a boat made of bear skin, and seeking to have his revenge on us for causing his exile, starts shooting us, and we reel like someone getting robbed in a pleasant meadow.

Great idea man.

Seriously; I like it. ;)

MANHUNT!

We really should do a reality show with IS' Battle Royale idea :D

Ahhh violent media...feels like Japan...

well thats where compromise comes in, and the middle ground between those in favor of the death penalty and those for rehabilitation and release back into society is life inprisonment (the regular kind not my uber-nasty kind ) because that way nobody gets executed but the murderer doesnt get to live his life the way he did before the crime ever again.So now you're in favour of non-tortuous life-imprisonment? :confused: Oh well, either way torture is amoral.

Originally posted by Spider AL
So now you're in favour of non-tortuous life-imprisonment? :confused: Oh well, either way torture is amoral.

no but thats the clear compromise between our positions

Originally posted by Druid Bremen
And then the survivor comes back to us in a boat made of bear skin, and seeking to have his revenge on us for causing his exile, starts shooting us, and we reel like someone getting robbed in a pleasant meadow.
nah man, he has that explosive collar on him, cept it's on his leg. So if he leaves the premises his leg blows off. Then he's crippled.

I know, the winner shall recieve a black and decker heater. We'll give the bastard a tent too.

no but thats the clear compromise between our positionsCompromise? BAH! We're not legislators, we're debaters! we don't need to compromise! :p

Originally posted by Spider AL
Compromise? BAH! We're not legislators, we're debaters! we don't need to compromise! :p

very well *begins extermination of population*

hmmmm wait, that wasnt the idea....

*continues extermination*

Originally posted by Druid Bremen
And then the survivor comes back to us in a boat made of bear skin

there are just two problems with that:

1: there are no bears in antarctica

2: there are no bears in antarctica

I realise that was the same as the first problem but it was such a big one it seemed worth saying it twice.

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I personally think we should just do a battle royale kinda thing with murderers and rapists. Send em off to antarica with weapons and just let em do whatever and kill eachother off. And the winner gets a something. *shrugs*


I do like the idea of a penal colony though I don't think you should give them weapons. I don't think antarctica is the place to do it though. It would upset pingoo I mean the natral habitat, the last unspoilt wilderness. I think the moon is a better bet, they wouldn't get out of that one!

Guys, lets watch the spammy posts... I know I set a bad example in another thread somewhere recently, but I'll flog myself later :cool:


In regards to the Death Penalty, I have some mixed feelings about this. It seems appropriate from victim's (or victim's family) point of view to execute someone who has commited murder, particularly in the process of doing something so worthless as stealing less than a $100 from a taco bell or or a McDonalds (both of which have occurred in Dallas, where I live, the latter involved the shooting of a teen behind the counter in the face).

But, then I start thinking about the problem in other perspectives. Crime in the United States seems to be treated like a response to a leaky roof... when the roof isn't leaking, it isn't a worry. But once it rains, you put buckets under the leaks... can't patch the leaks right now since it's raining outside.

Except its always raining with crime. Sooner or later, someone has to brave the weather and fix the roof. Instead of being reactive to crime, society should become more proactive and treat the majority of crime as a symptom of other processes.

It doesn't take a major study to see the correlation between violent crime and the absence of education. Indeed, when people do commit crimes, we're more interested in the punishment than the possibility of reform. While this seems logical on the surface: criminals don't deserve education advantages and to have tax-payer money wasted on their reforms... they made their own decisions after all; there still exists a deeper logic that is in opposition. Reforming and educating criminals might ensure that the crime rates are reduced.

Lets face it, unless someone has a life sentance (or a death sentance), then they will eventually get out of jail. They have to go somewhere afterwards... and that "somewhere" is the neighborhoods, towns and cities where they came from... where they have family or friends to help them. Our neighborhoods, towns and cities.

Would we rather have criminals released that have been punished by the system and have only the educations and experiences they went in with when they get out? Or would we rather have them return to societies with increased educations and trades in their back pockets that will enable them to have some economic advantage or ability to become productive members of our society instead of continued criminal members?

Now you might be wondering what this has to do with the Death Penalty, but I recall reading somewhere (the info could be wrong, but it seems intuitive) that the majority of death row inmates have histories of inprisonment.

I think the Death Penalty should be an option for the courts, but one that is rarely used. Unlike my home state of Texas, where it is so commonplace that we are compared to the worst despotic nations in executions. The real kicker: violent crime in this state has not shown a decline and may even have increased in spite of the records we set with the death penalty.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Guys, lets watch the spammy posts... I know I set a bad example in another thread somewhere recently, but I'll flog myself later :cool:


I was being serious. :\

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Unlike my home state of Texas, where it is so commonplace that we are compared to the worst despotic nations in executions. The real kicker: violent crime in this state has not shown a decline and may even have increased in spite of the records we set with the death penalty. it has increased, by about 4% I think.

Here is MY to cents:

Why slay a killer? Will it bring the victims back? Won't slaying the killer make us as bad as HE is?

If you look in Genisis 4/13-15, when Kain killed Abel. God set the punishment to make Kain a vagabond. kain said "whoever finds me shal slay me?" god put some sort of mark on him saying that whoever kills kain shall "suffer vengance seven times over" that means god din''t want anyone killing Kain.

In another place, they were about to stone a woman and christ said "Those who had not sinned lat he cast the first stone." they all walked away one by one, each knowing they all sinned.

Killing and torturing them won't help. thats just revenge!

Skinwalker, to be honest, I can't disagree with what you are saying here at all.