Poll: Death Penalty

[Di22y]

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other another, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

Thats up for the democracy of Britain to decide, if enough people want it then it's correct and if enough people don't want it then it's not.

Many of you are saying maybe it would better of locking offenders up for life, my response to locking people up for life is "wouldn't we be better of 'killing' them?".

I have to disagree and answer with a Tommy Lee Jones quote "A person is smart, people are stupid", we are starting to get a mob mentality with the emphasis no longer on justice but vengeance.

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

We don't have the right to take their lives, doesn't that make us guilty as well or do you believe in legal murder?

When I'm talking about mob mentatlity I mean people now turn into snarling packs of animals screaming for blood when they have been wronged.

We don't have the right to take their lives yet we have the right to lock them up for the rest of their lives does not figure with me I'm afraid. Yes we should turn into a snarling animal when we have been wronged because, in essence we are animals.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other another, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

Thats up for the democracy of Britain to decide, if enough people want it then it's correct and if enough people don't want it then it's not.

Many of you are saying maybe it would better of locking offenders up for life, my response to locking people up for life is "wouldn't we be better of 'killing' them?".

I have to disagree and answer with a Tommy Lee Jones quote "A person is smart, people are stupid", we are starting to get a mob mentality with the emphasis no longer on justice but vengeance.

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

We don't have the right to take their lives, doesn't that make us guilty as well or do you believe in legal murder?

When I'm talking about mob mentatlity I mean people now turn into snarling packs of animals screaming for blood when they have been wronged.

We don't have the right to take their lives yet we have the right to lock them up for the rest of their lives does not figure with me I'm afraid. Yes we should turn into a snarling animal when we have been wronged because, in essence we are animals.

It's called the sanctity of life where life is respected.

No we shouldn't turn into snarling animals because we are civilized and we have a justice system.

 

[Di22y]

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other another, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

Thats up for the democracy of Britain to decide, if enough people want it then it's correct and if enough people don't want it then it's not.

Many of you are saying maybe it would better of locking offenders up for life, my response to locking people up for life is "wouldn't we be better of 'killing' them?".

I have to disagree and answer with a Tommy Lee Jones quote "A person is smart, people are stupid", we are starting to get a mob mentality with the emphasis no longer on justice but vengeance.

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

We don't have the right to take their lives, doesn't that make us guilty as well or do you believe in legal murder?

When I'm talking about mob mentatlity I mean people now turn into snarling packs of animals screaming for blood when they have been wronged.

We don't have the right to take their lives yet we have the right to lock them up for the rest of their lives does not figure with me I'm afraid. Yes we should turn into a snarling animal when we have been wronged because, in essence we are animals.

It's called the sanctity of life where life is respected.

No we shouldn't turn into snarling animals because we are civilized and we have a justice system.

So locking somebody up in a concrete hole for the rest of their life is respecting the sactity of life. This doesn't ring true with me. what I am saying is that if you are going to lock somebody up for the rest of their life wouldn't it be more respectful to just 'murder' them?

 

[Dele]

But this is dangerously close to a derail, so I think we'll stop here, k?

Probably. Although I'm tempted to start up one to work out stats for all the great dictators of the world, for a kind of Top Trumps of Death.

Total kills:
Percentage of own population killed:
Countries invaded:
Years in power:
Average GDP growth per year of reign:

Could this formula be used on "democratic" countries? Would love to see statistics on how many Bush has killed )

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other another, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

Thats up for the democracy of Britain to decide, if enough people want it then it's correct and if enough people don't want it then it's not.

Many of you are saying maybe it would better of locking offenders up for life, my response to locking people up for life is "wouldn't we be better of 'killing' them?".

I have to disagree and answer with a Tommy Lee Jones quote "A person is smart, people are stupid", we are starting to get a mob mentality with the emphasis no longer on justice but vengeance.

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

We don't have the right to take their lives, doesn't that make us guilty as well or do you believe in legal murder?

When I'm talking about mob mentatlity I mean people now turn into snarling packs of animals screaming for blood when they have been wronged.

We don't have the right to take their lives yet we have the right to lock them up for the rest of their lives does not figure with me I'm afraid. Yes we should turn into a snarling animal when we have been wronged because, in essence we are animals.

It's called the sanctity of life where life is respected.

No we shouldn't turn into snarling animals because we are civilized and we have a justice system.

So locking somebody up in a concrete hole for the rest of their life is respecting the sactity of life. This doesn't ring true with me. what I am saying is that if you are going to lock somebody up for the rest of their life wouldn't it be more respectful to just 'murder' them?

I can see your point, all the disabled people out there who are home bound, perhaps we should just send them on their way, becasue if you're locked up but alive you can't enjoy life, isn't that the message your trying to put across?

 

[Di22y]

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other another, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

Thats up for the democracy of Britain to decide, if enough people want it then it's correct and if enough people don't want it then it's not.

Many of you are saying maybe it would better of locking offenders up for life, my response to locking people up for life is "wouldn't we be better of 'killing' them?".

I have to disagree and answer with a Tommy Lee Jones quote "A person is smart, people are stupid", we are starting to get a mob mentality with the emphasis no longer on justice but vengeance.

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

We don't have the right to take their lives, doesn't that make us guilty as well or do you believe in legal murder?

When I'm talking about mob mentatlity I mean people now turn into snarling packs of animals screaming for blood when they have been wronged.

We don't have the right to take their lives yet we have the right to lock them up for the rest of their lives does not figure with me I'm afraid. Yes we should turn into a snarling animal when we have been wronged because, in essence we are animals.

It's called the sanctity of life where life is respected.

No we shouldn't turn into snarling animals because we are civilized and we have a justice system.

So locking somebody up in a concrete hole for the rest of their life is respecting the sactity of life. This doesn't ring true with me. what I am saying is that if you are going to lock somebody up for the rest of their life wouldn't it be more respectful to just 'murder' them?

I can see your point, all the disabled people out there who are home bound, perhaps we should just send them on their way, becasue if you're locked up but alive you can't enjoy life, isn't that the message your trying to put across?

You misconstrue my point purposefully and entirely. Do we choose who to lock up or execute, yes. Do we choose who becomes disabled, no.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other another, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

Thats up for the democracy of Britain to decide, if enough people want it then it's correct and if enough people don't want it then it's not.

Many of you are saying maybe it would better of locking offenders up for life, my response to locking people up for life is "wouldn't we be better of 'killing' them?".

I have to disagree and answer with a Tommy Lee Jones quote "A person is smart, people are stupid", we are starting to get a mob mentality with the emphasis no longer on justice but vengeance.

Dont take this the wrong way but how is locking somebody up for life better than executing them and how is one anymore just than the other, what does it have to do with mob mentality?

We don't have the right to take their lives, doesn't that make us guilty as well or do you believe in legal murder?

When I'm talking about mob mentatlity I mean people now turn into snarling packs of animals screaming for blood when they have been wronged.

We don't have the right to take their lives yet we have the right to lock them up for the rest of their lives does not figure with me I'm afraid. Yes we should turn into a snarling animal when we have been wronged because, in essence we are animals.

It's called the sanctity of life where life is respected.

No we shouldn't turn into snarling animals because we are civilized and we have a justice system.

So locking somebody up in a concrete hole for the rest of their life is respecting the sactity of life. This doesn't ring true with me. what I am saying is that if you are going to lock somebody up for the rest of their life wouldn't it be more respectful to just 'murder' them?

I can see your point, all the disabled people out there who are home bound, perhaps we should just send them on their way, becasue if you're locked up but alive you can't enjoy life, isn't that the message your trying to put across?

You misconstrue my point purposefully and entirely. Do we choose who to lock up or execute, yes. Do we choose who becomes disabled, no.

In your previous message you said wouldn't it be more respectful to send them on their way, why? becasue you think a life without freedom is worse than death so my analogy still stands.

You're right the opinion of a few people doesn't matter it's the democracy that decides, like if you travelled to the Sudan and in an offhand comment you insulted Islam I'm sure you'd take your whipping like a man.

 

[Di22y]

Lets get one thing straight before we continue. You belive it is fair to lock somebody up until they die but it is not fair to execute them.

revival!

I don't believe it should be about making them suffer horribly, it's punishment not torture.

 

[Zac_Dai]

Its always an interesting debate and people have said mostly what there has to be said.

But I feel another point to be made is the fact that death isn't really that much of a punishment for the worse case criminals.

A lot of lifers in UK prisons constantly try to commit suicide because they can't face living the rest of their lives in prison. A good example is Harold Shipman who killed over 200 people and then committed suicide in prison after receiving a life sentence. If he had been executed the state would of been doing him a favour, is that making him pay for his crimes?

Other good examples are the Columbine high school killers, wouldn't you of rather see them rot in prison instead of them taking their own lives like the cowards they were?

I don't think I even need to mention failed suicide bombers.

This also shows you that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent either if serial murderers are going to end their own lives anyway.

I feel life imprisonment is a better punishment.

As for prisons themselves, their fundamental purpose is take away a persons liberty as punishment and for lesser offences rehabilitate. Arguing whether prison is too soft or too harsh is pointless as long as it takes away the prisoners liberty. I also think there are greater dangers in making prison to harsh as opposed to making them too soft. If you treat prisoners like savage animals then savage animals is what you are going to get.

But in reality prisons are not 5 star hotels like the tabloids say, my good friend works as a prison officer and the way he describes its not somewhere anyone would want to spend a lot of time.

FUN FACT: Did you know the first modern prison designed as a system of punishment was established in London in the 19th century?

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

I my self believe in Retribution. Or as some call it, poetic justice. Basically put. If someone takes a life then they must pay with their own. The only flaw in Death Penalties I find is the fact that the people they kill might JUST be actually innocent. and clearly, someone that never did a crime should die. Let alone go to jail in the first place.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Actually, I agree greatly with what you say Zac_Dai!

 

[rossatdi]

But this is dangerously close to a derail, so I think we'll stop here, k?

Probably. Although I'm tempted to start up one to work out stats for all the great dictators of the world, for a kind of Top Trumps of Death.

Total kills:
Percentage of own population killed:
Countries invaded:
Years in power:
Average GDP growth per year of reign:

Could this formula be used on "democratic" countries? Would love to see statistics on how many Bush has killed )

What? You mean as compared to Mao's 20-30 million, Stalin's 15, HItler's 10? I think Bush is probably pretty safe. You know, in comparison to JFK (Vietnam escalation), Truman (Firebombs over Japan, the two nuclear bombs, Korean intervention), Churchill (Dresden firebombing).

Leaders are required to make shit choices as part of their remit. That is not to particularly defend Bush, I think he is an awful President, but over playing it is counter productive.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

Its cheaper to let them live than execute them.

Is it? I had a quick look on the internet and found this [http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm]

the especially relevant part is this:

Lethal Injection Consists Of:

Sodium Thiopental (lethal dose - sedates person)
Pancuronium Bromide (muscle relaxant-collapses diaphragm and lungs)
Potassium Chloride (stops heart beat)
The offender is usually pronounced dead approximately 7 minutes after the lethal injection begins.
Cost per execution for drugs used : $86.08

That's basic monetary cost. Doesn't include the human cost of actually doing it. There's also a number of cases where the chemicals haven't reacted as planned. Imagine watching someone who is fully aware for those seven minutes; because at least two people have to.

And what about the dependants of the murderer, or actually storing those drugs in prison?

For $32,000 a year, would you be willing to watch a man die every couple of weeks? And have the chance of your life being ended every day?

I suppose it depends on how old and healthy someone was. If they are young and healthy execution is probably cheaper. Also even with old people they try to keep them alive by giving them top quality medical care. I think overall execution is cheaper and decreases prison overcrowding, as well as keeping them from orchestrating crimes from behind bars or even escaping.

 

[hypothetical fact]

There are billions of people in the world as long as nimby applies the death penalty can only be a good thing.

 

[Pseudonym2]

No
1 There's always the chance the person is innocent and therefore can't be released.
2 The justice system should be designed to protect the innocent, not punish the guilty. Ideally the prison system should reform criminal (usually it doesn't but that's another thread.)We don't have to punish murderers, we just have to make sure that they don't kill anyone else.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

No
1 There's always the chance the person is innocent and therefore can't be released.
2 The justice system should be designed to protect the innocent, not punish the guilty. Ideally the prison system should reform criminal (usually it doesn't but that's another thread.)We don't have to punish murderers, we just have to make sure that they don't kill anyone else.

And the only sure fire way to ensure they don't kill anyone else to get rid of them because if they stay behind bars there is a chance they can orchestrate more crimes and it is a drain on the prison system

 

[Pseudonym2]

No
1 There's always the chance the person is innocent and therefore can't be released.
2 The justice system should be designed to protect the innocent, not punish the guilty. Ideally the prison system should reform criminal (usually it doesn't but that's another thread.)We don't have to punish murderers, we just have to make sure that they don't kill anyone else.

And the only sure fire way to ensure they don't kill anyone else to get rid of them because if they stay behind bars there is a chance they can orchestrate more crimes and it is a drain on the prison system

We shouldn't kill them because of reason one. The drain on the prison system is mostly because of the war on drugs where possession of weed can result in decades of prison time. In some cases there isn't even not even enough THC to get high on.

Unfortunately more and more of the US prison systems are being turned over to cooperations who hire cheap inexperienced labor which results in more guards being killed and more money from the taxpayers because the police have to become involved every time there's a riot.

If they would hire enough guards and lock up the murders, then we wouldn't have any wrong executions and the public would be safe from convicted murders.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

What's the difference between the old days where mobs of villagers gathered, stood jeering and shouting as a prison made his way to the noose and then cheered when his neck was broken, and the world of today where people cry for the blood of those that do wrong?

Imo there is no difference, if you support execution why not just bring back the Circus Maximus where crowds cheer as the condemned are ripped apart by lions, because it's literally the same sick ideals.

 

[Baonec]

I personally am against the death penalty. It is inhumane and cruel, no matter who it is directed towards. And if the person gets a life sentence, they have to suffer and think about what they did each day until they die.

Making someone suffer for a long period of time seems cruel and vindictive which regardless of the crime committed makes us as a society seem too vengefull, a structured community such as the U.S.A shouldn't wish to condemn people to long bouts of incarseration to make them suffer they should do it to keep the main populas safe. On another note eventually life sentences prove useless as people stop feeling remorse start feeling more anger then eventually stop feeling all together become a husk of human being.

 

[Dele]

But this is dangerously close to a derail, so I think we'll stop here, k?

Probably. Although I'm tempted to start up one to work out stats for all the great dictators of the world, for a kind of Top Trumps of Death.

Total kills:
Percentage of own population killed:
Countries invaded:
Years in power:
Average GDP growth per year of reign:

Could this formula be used on "democratic" countries? Would love to see statistics on how many Bush has killed )

What? You mean as compared to Mao's 20-30 million, Stalin's 15, HItler's 10? I think Bush is probably pretty safe. You know, in comparison to JFK (Vietnam escalation), Truman (Firebombs over Japan, the two nuclear bombs, Korean intervention), Churchill (Dresden firebombing).

Leaders are required to make shit choices as part of their remit. That is not to particularly defend Bush, I think he is an awful President, but over playing it is counter productive.

Quite the contrary I find it a lot more just that way. Or might it be a taboo to criticize the sitting president? Is it a taboo to criticize war heroes like Churchill or Eisenhower?