Death sentence : an eye for an eye

[shotgun188]

@marharth

I am stating facts. The moment someone kills a child or equally heinous act, their days are numbered. If Prison doesn't kill them, someone else will for their atrocity. Then it will be emotional and drawn out. However, the State has the power to kill them with mercy. The State isn't emotion and it will be quick and painless.

 

What's more merciful? A quick, painless end with lethal injection or being locked up with inmates that WILL make the convicted suffer for what they did?

 

@Mattlittlej

Any system headed by humans will be flawed. However, some people are locked up for life because of a crime they did not commit and are never released.

How about we make a more humane prison system then?

What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better.

[marharth]

@marharth

I am stating facts. The moment someone kills a child or equally heinous act, their days are numbered. If Prison doesn't kill them, someone else will for their atrocity. Then it will be emotional and drawn out. However, the State has the power to kill them with mercy. The State isn't emotion and it will be quick and painless.

 

What's more merciful? A quick, painless end with lethal injection or being locked up with inmates that WILL make the convicted suffer for what they did?

 

@Mattlittlej

Any system headed by humans will be flawed. However, some people are locked up for life because of a crime they did not commit and are never released.

How about we make a more humane prison system then?

What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better.

Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone.

[HeyYou]

@marharth

I am stating facts. The moment someone kills a child or equally heinous act, their days are numbered. If Prison doesn't kill them, someone else will for their atrocity. Then it will be emotional and drawn out. However, the State has the power to kill them with mercy. The State isn't emotion and it will be quick and painless.

 

What's more merciful? A quick, painless end with lethal injection or being locked up with inmates that WILL make the convicted suffer for what they did?

 

@Mattlittlej

Any system headed by humans will be flawed. However, some people are locked up for life because of a crime they did not commit and are never released.

How about we make a more humane prison system then?

What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better.

Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone.

 

Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world.

 

My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice?

[marharth]

@marharth

I am stating facts. The moment someone kills a child or equally heinous act, their days are numbered. If Prison doesn't kill them, someone else will for their atrocity. Then it will be emotional and drawn out. However, the State has the power to kill them with mercy. The State isn't emotion and it will be quick and painless.

 

What's more merciful? A quick, painless end with lethal injection or being locked up with inmates that WILL make the convicted suffer for what they did?

 

@Mattlittlej

Any system headed by humans will be flawed. However, some people are locked up for life because of a crime they did not commit and are never released.

How about we make a more humane prison system then?

What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better.

Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone.

 

Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world.

 

My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice?

Perhaps it isn't justice, but do you think it is okay to take someones life simply due to your emotions? Does that make you any better then someone who kills out of rage?

 

The question should be why they should not be allowed to live. Not why should they be allowed to live.

[HeyYou]

@marharth

I am stating facts. The moment someone kills a child or equally heinous act, their days are numbered. If Prison doesn't kill them, someone else will for their atrocity. Then it will be emotional and drawn out. However, the State has the power to kill them with mercy. The State isn't emotion and it will be quick and painless.

 

What's more merciful? A quick, painless end with lethal injection or being locked up with inmates that WILL make the convicted suffer for what they did?

 

@Mattlittlej

Any system headed by humans will be flawed. However, some people are locked up for life because of a crime they did not commit and are never released.

How about we make a more humane prison system then?

What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better.

Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone.

 

Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world.

 

My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice?

Perhaps it isn't justice, but do you think it is okay to take someones life simply due to your emotions? Does that make you any better then someone who kills out of rage?

 

The question should be why they should not be allowed to live. Not why should they be allowed to live.

 

Why do you assume it is an emotional decision? Is that the only possible motivation for the death penalty? How about "Fairness" for instance? You deprive someone of their life, some family of a loved one, whom they may have depended on to support the family, be prepared to give up your own life in return.

 

Sure, it would be better to put them to work, and have them support the living victims of their crime, as a form of restitution, but, it seems the ACLU came to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional to do so..... Convicted criminals have more rights than their victims.

[Syco21]

Because it is too expensive to keep them around. Because some might pose a great risk of escape and if they escape will pose great risk to the rest of society.

 

Yes, it is expensive to execute people currently. But that just means there are issues with the methods. A rope and a tree is all that is required. Don't cost much either. Could also use a knife, hang them upside down and slit their throats. It's good enough for cattle.

[marharth]

@marharth

I am stating facts. The moment someone kills a child or equally heinous act, their days are numbered. If Prison doesn't kill them, someone else will for their atrocity. Then it will be emotional and drawn out. However, the State has the power to kill them with mercy. The State isn't emotion and it will be quick and painless.

 

What's more merciful? A quick, painless end with lethal injection or being locked up with inmates that WILL make the convicted suffer for what they did?

 

@Mattlittlej

Any system headed by humans will be flawed. However, some people are locked up for life because of a crime they did not commit and are never released.

How about we make a more humane prison system then?

What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better.

Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone.

 

Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world.

 

My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice?

Perhaps it isn't justice, but do you think it is okay to take someones life simply due to your emotions? Does that make you any better then someone who kills out of rage?

 

The question should be why they should not be allowed to live. Not why should they be allowed to live.

 

Why do you assume it is an emotional decision? Is that the only possible motivation for the death penalty? How about "Fairness" for instance? You deprive someone of their life, some family of a loved one, whom they may have depended on to support the family, be prepared to give up your own life in return.

 

Sure, it would be better to put them to work, and have them support the living victims of their crime, as a form of restitution, but, it seems the ACLU came to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional to do so..... Convicted criminals have more rights than their victims.

What does fairness have to do with it? It is still a emotional decision. An eye for an eye is not fairness.

 

I still propose the thing I proposed in my previous topic. I don't see how it can be considered unconstitutional, and I don't really care about what the US law system thinks is right on the subject. Obviously the US law system isn't working very well with the death penalty.

 

It is not logical to kill captured criminals, that is for sure. The only real argument for it in my eyes is to remove the threat. It seems just as safe, and better for society as a whole, if you lock them up and have them work.

 

Can people quit with the whole "just hang them" thing? I already explained why a long appeal process is required. We have a long appeal process to be sure we don't kill innocents. Do you seriously want to kill criminals so much you are willing to risk innocent lives?

 

I am still a bit confused on what people mean when they say criminals have more rights then their victims. It shouldn't be up to the victims to make legal decisions. That is the entire reason we have a legal system.

[ita]

Why is he even getting a court case?

 

Why wouldn't he, Norway has signed and ratified article 6 of the European convention of human rights.

[HeyYou]

@marharth

I am stating facts. The moment someone kills a child or equally heinous act, their days are numbered. If Prison doesn't kill them, someone else will for their atrocity. Then it will be emotional and drawn out. However, the State has the power to kill them with mercy. The State isn't emotion and it will be quick and painless.

 

What's more merciful? A quick, painless end with lethal injection or being locked up with inmates that WILL make the convicted suffer for what they did?

 

@Mattlittlej

Any system headed by humans will be flawed. However, some people are locked up for life because of a crime they did not commit and are never released.

How about we make a more humane prison system then?

What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better.

Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone.

 

Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world.

 

My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice?

Perhaps it isn't justice, but do you think it is okay to take someones life simply due to your emotions? Does that make you any better then someone who kills out of rage?

 

The question should be why they should not be allowed to live. Not why should they be allowed to live.

 

Why do you assume it is an emotional decision? Is that the only possible motivation for the death penalty? How about "Fairness" for instance? You deprive someone of their life, some family of a loved one, whom they may have depended on to support the family, be prepared to give up your own life in return.

 

Sure, it would be better to put them to work, and have them support the living victims of their crime, as a form of restitution, but, it seems the ACLU came to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional to do so..... Convicted criminals have more rights than their victims.

What does fairness have to do with it? It is still a emotional decision. An eye for an eye is not fairness.

 

I still propose the thing I proposed in my previous topic. I don't see how it can be considered unconstitutional, and I don't really care about what the US law system thinks is right on the subject. Obviously the US law system isn't working very well with the death penalty.

 

It is not logical to kill captured criminals, that is for sure. The only real argument for it in my eyes is to remove the threat. It seems just as safe, and better for society as a whole, if you lock them up and have them work.

 

Can people quit with the whole "just hang them" thing? I already explained why a long appeal process is required. We have a long appeal process to be sure we don't kill innocents. Do you seriously want to kill criminals so much you are willing to risk innocent lives?

 

I am still a bit confused on what people mean when they say criminals have more rights then their victims. It shouldn't be up to the victims to make legal decisions. That is the entire reason we have a legal system.

 

Well, you could reason that every/any decision was emotional then. So, it's pointless debating it further.

[marharth]

It is pretty simple. Is there a practical reason for killing them or not?