Death Penalty?

paul_valaru

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
Ok, I'm sure this has been done before, but I don't want to bump an old thread.

So here is the question.


Sitiuation one.

You have a man that has killed (or woman). They are not insane, per say, as in they know what they did was wrong, but they did it anyway. They will do it again, they enjoy the power it gives them.

Death or no?

Situation 2

A person who does not know right from wrong kills because (insert inane reason here, I'm using in my head, someone butted in line).

They are totally sociopathic, sick, uncurable.

Death or no?

Sitiuation 3

A prostitute who knows she has aids is having unprotected sex to pass on the virus.

Death or no?
 
1 and 2 are easy. If three results in death, I'd say off the whore.

My only problem with the death penalty is that innocent people have been put to death. I think the rules of evidence need to be more stringent in capital cases.
 
if you took a human life with the intent of taking a human life and you were not protecting yourself or another individual then you deserve the death penalty.
 
I don't think of it as a penalty, I think of it as putting someone down, like you would a dog, it's not punsihment, it just going it for the greater good of society, why should we pay tons of money to hold them for the rest of there lives?
 
paul_valaru said:
I don't think of it as a penalty, I think of it as putting someone down, like you would a dog, it's not punsihment, it just going it for the greater good of society, why should we pay tons of money to hold them for the rest of there lives?
Click to expand...

That's the same way I look at it. Some animals (including human ones) need to be put down.
 
chcr said:
That's the same way I look at it. Some animals (including human ones) need to be put down.
Click to expand...


a kindred spirit, lol

that is how I viewed it, not as a penalty, or a deterrent but as "It's my dog ma, I'll do it"

it's not nice, and it's not pleasent, but sometimes you just gotta do it
 
I'm for the death penalty, but I want to shit stir a little

so where do we draw the line?

califonia (and other states) have a 3 strike rule, should teh death penalty be applied on the thrird strike, instead of life in prison?

if no, what if all 3 crimes where violent, but no one died.

what about the mentally ill, who can't be treated?
 
I believe in death to certain violent & hopelessly unrepentant offenders. I do not accept the right of a government to have that authority.

If a victim or an immediate family member of the victim were the one "pulling the trigger", then so be it. Legal vengeance, under controlled situations, works for me.

How's that for a monkeywrench in you smoking pipe :D
 
Just to further cement the idea that I am a tree hugging lefty socialist (which quite disturbingly I'm not...) I strongly believe that the death penalty is never justified.

Killing is either wrong or it isnt. For once an issue is either black or white to me.

Quite worryingly for me I almost agree with Gonz on this one though...
 
if its any comfort almost isnt quite agreeing wiht him ;)




now to answer your other question: its a grey area for me there since they didnt know what they were doing(they were psychotic), but at the same time its not an easy answer as they prolly arent repentant and they are a threat to society. I may get a lot of slack but either lock them away or the death penalty. id go more for the death penalty tho.
 
Saudi Arabia has the death penalty. They also have one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. Singapore has the death penalty. Also one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. The US has the death penalty, and we have a constant problem with crime. Hmmm...another monkey wrench...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Saudi Arabia has the death penalty. They also have one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. Singapore has the death penalty. Also one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. The US has the death penalty, and we have a constant problem with crime. Hmmm...another monkey wrench...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure The death penalty is indicative in these cases. I think it's the "lesser" punishments. They still cut off your hand for being a thief in Saudi Arabia? I know they caned an American kid a few years ago in Singapore for writing graffiti (got what he deserved, IMO). My take on the whole crime and punishment business is if it isn't "cruel and unusual" it's not really punishment.
 
chcr said:
I'm not sure The death penalty is indicative in these cases. I think it's the "lesser" punishments. They still cut off your hand for being a thief in Saudi Arabia? I know they caned an American kid a few years ago in Singapore for writing graffiti (got what he deserved, IMO). My take on the whole crime and punishment business is if it isn't "cruel and unusual" it's not really punishment.
Click to expand...

True about the "lesser punishments". I just stuck with the death penalty because that was the main topic. Truth be told, if you punish as soon as possible after a crime, and let that punishment be very public, then most folks would be cowed from attempting, or repeating, such an offense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top