PDA

View Full Version : Capital Punishment



Macedon
05-13-2005, 13:00
I just read the news about the execution of some serial killer in usa. The guy murdered 4 kids, confessed of several more.
Now, there is an ongoing battle about morality and ethics of executions: some say that "killing as a punishment for killing" is doing the same thing that killer has done and cannot be justified, others say that death is the only punishment a killer deserves.
I myself believe that, say, a person that kidnapped, raped and skinned alive hundred children should be removed from the biosphere. Period.
He sure (or she) does not deserve the life sentence with access to clean, dry cell, maybe books and cable TV, good healthy food, and occasional sex :hide:

Templar Knight
05-13-2005, 13:03
The death penalty is too easy as is jail nowadays - send them on a nice holiday in the sun...

Lazul
05-13-2005, 13:39
Killing them is to let them get away easy. Id say Slave Labour camps untill they die. No mercy.

And if theese scum-of-the-earth people are proven innocent, well then they are alive to be free once more.

Templar Knight
05-13-2005, 13:46
I don't agree with the death penalty for the reasons as you have stated Lazul - its the easy way out and if they're not guilty then they're still alive to be set free. Prison on the other hand is not a punishment, sitting doing nothing and watching digital TV? So what would be a realistic punishment for the 21st century for child killers?

Fragony
05-13-2005, 14:00
I agree with death penalty, you give back what you take. If you are man enough to finish the life of someone else, there is no reason you should be allowed to live yours. Qui pro quo.

Productivity
05-13-2005, 14:02
I agree with the death penalty, provided there is a higher standard of proof for convicting someone. So instead of beyond reasonable doubt, beyond all realistic doubt or somethign like that.

Proletariat
05-13-2005, 14:10
I hate it. Seeking vengeance is basest and disgusting, and you can't commute a death penalty. Also, you're not unkilling/unraping those kids, so what's gained? A bunch of bloodthirsty self righteous people pat themselves on the back?

I'm always shocked that the Christian Right in my country is so pro-capitol punishment. Where are the WWJD bracelets then?

Don Corleone
05-13-2005, 14:16
As long as we have the death penalty, we have a culture of death. We cannot sanction murder by the state. As hard as it was to come to this place, I think we are free to punish a child-rapist/murderer any way we see fit short of this.

I think we've been looking at this all wrong. We're trying to come up with 'something' to 'do' to these sickos that somehow equates to the horrible acts they've done, a quid pro quo approach:

But the fact of the matter is, giving a lethal dose of potassium chloride to an evil, evil .......(I so want to say it...) ....guy lying on a gurney is in no way equivocal to what he did: taking a child into his house, repeatedly torturing & sodomizing them, then killing them in a slow and painful fashion when he finally got tired of the child and wanted a new plaything. As the final insult, burying them naked and degraded under the floorboards of his house, without a decent burial (as in the case of John Wayne Gasey). What could we possibly do to a man like that that would be equivocal, and if we found something and did it, what would that say about us? Would we even be human anymore ourselves?

You're right that prison isn't really punishment, and 'the rest of your natural life' really means 3 years beause parole boards don't have any cojones.

I say perform a minor lobotomy on these people. They're still functional, they can still exist and sustain themselves, but you're guaranteed that they won't be doing it anymore.

Fragony
05-13-2005, 14:21
I hate it. Seeking vengeance is basest and disgusting, and you can't commute a death penalty. Also, you're not unkilling/unraping those kids, so what's gained? A bunch of bloodthirsty self righteous people pat themselves on the back?

I'm always shocked that the Christian Right in my country is so pro-capitol punishment. Where are the WWJD bracelets then?

It is not about vengeance, it is about drawing a line. If you kill one person you get life in prison, kill ten and you also get life in prison? Death penalty is a good way of letting the people know what really shouldn't be. And do you feel sorry for the kind of people that get it? Some people just don't deserve to live.

Productivity
05-13-2005, 14:31
Reading Proletariat and Don Corleone's thoughts, I'm not sure about my initial view now. I'll think a bit more upon it.

Proletariat
05-13-2005, 14:40
It is not about vengeance, it is about drawing a line. If you kill one person you get life in prison, kill ten and you also get life in prison? Death penalty is a good way of letting the people know what really shouldn't be. And do you feel sorry for the kind of people that get it? Some people just don't deserve to live.

No, I don't feel sorry for anyone in the news, honestly. I can't put emotional investment in people's lives that have absolutely nothing to do with me.

I see what you mean about how death provides another degree of punishment, but I don't see what is gained by it. It's not worth a damn as far as a deterent. The damage the crime has caused has already been done, and I've never heard of a rape victim who felt peachy once their assailant has been put to death.

I used to be a big kill-'em-all-gal until I read an essay of Dostoievsky's on Anna Karenina where he discussed morals and consequences. When I'm at home later I'll try and post an excerpt or a link because he put it much better than I ever could.

Fragony
05-13-2005, 14:51
No, I don't feel sorry for anyone in the news, honestly. I can't put emotional investment in people's lives that have absolutely nothing to do with me.

I see what you mean about how death provides another degree of punishment, but I don't see what is gained by it. It's not worth a damn as far as a deterent. The damage the crime has caused has already been done, and I've never heard of a rape victim who felt peachy once their assailant has been put to death.

I used to be a big kill-'em-all-gal until I read an essay of Dostoievsky's on Anna Karenina where he discussed morals and consequences. When I'm at home later I'll try and post an excerpt or a link because he put it much better than I ever could.

He did that before in guilt and consequence ~;) And you gain nothing by punnishing putting them to death, but it helps putting things in perspective, nothing is ever gained. You could also do that by lowering the punnishment for murder to 5 years, and giving the guy that killed 10 50 years. But is that an honest thing to do? If you don't draw a line somewhere you get this grey area of what is acceptable. There are always circumstances, in france they call that a 'crime passionel'

PanzerJaeger
05-13-2005, 15:00
Kill them and save us all the trouble of having to support them the rest of their lives so they can watch cable, play on the internet, and get buff.

And dont tell me it costs more to kill these people than to support them for forty years. We as society have made it that expensive, we can fix it. Rope doesnt cost much..

Theres nothing wrong with justified retribution.

:hanged:

Drisos
05-13-2005, 15:12
I agree with death penalty, but not in the way that lazul sais. ~:eek: ~;)

I think death penalty should be hard-to-get and the convicted must be able to retry the trial once. But then, it should certainly be there, no mercy for a serial killer!

Al Khalifah
05-13-2005, 15:24
If I was the condemmed, I'd rather have the death penalty than spend the rest of my life in prison.

But that would be what I would want as a condemed man... go figure.

Drisos
05-13-2005, 15:30
If I was the condemmed, I'd rather have the death penalty than spend the rest of my life in prison.


Me too. But the convicted should be done the same harm as they did theirselves, and they didn't put someone in prison for the rest of their lives.
Somehow the morale behind a kill should be important too, don't know how. . .

Al Khalifah
05-13-2005, 16:00
You mean crimes of passion would be treated differently to premeditated killings. Absolutely agree there.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-13-2005, 16:06
Im firmly against the death penalty. As has been said its to easy on them. Plus if you find out later they were innocent its hard to bring them back.

Ronin
05-13-2005, 16:12
i´m against the death penalty...i think it´s an incorrect form of punishment....the courts are suposed to be about justice....not revenge....

having said that i think if the bastards resist arrest the police shoud be allowed to just blow them away......but once they´re arrested and removed from society there is no need to resort to the death penalty.

Macedon
05-13-2005, 16:14
I don't see the point of death penalty as a punishment for the murderer. I see it as an "You don't deserve to live among the human society anymore" act. It's not about the murderer, nor the victims, it's about the rest of the society.
I repeat: Take him out of the biosphere!
Right to live is something you are granted at birth but for the rest of your life you are responsible for your actions.


And PanzerJager has a point: I don't want my tax money spent on some animal's cable TV, and take note: that little girl's father is paying taxes too!..........

Gawain of Orkeny
05-13-2005, 16:18
And PanzerJager has a point: I don't want my tax money spent on some animal's cable TV, and take note: that little girl's father is paying taxes too!..........

Yes all prisoners have cable tv in their cells LOL. Right now it costs more money because of the appeal process than it does to incarcerate these people. Im all for making their lifes a living hell but not killing them.

Kanamori
05-13-2005, 16:21
The problem is that, when a death sentence is carried out, there is no bringing back an innocent person wrongfully convicted. Juries, when they are ignorant of how the forensics work, and are just plain dumb - it happens when you select people from the populace - are not entirely good to have deciding your fate. In the US there have been many people released from death row, after finding that they are really innocent, and many people that have been proven innocent, or at least reasonable doubt, after they have been executed. It is inexcusable for the state to end innocent lives. Not to mention, the worst of the criminals get a blind eye turned to them when he is getting gangraped or beaten up in prison. Prison isn't exactly a free ride for them. Dahmer had his head beat in by a lead pipe and was sodomized with a broom handle. No reasonable person thinks that should be done to people, regardless of what crime they were convicted of. Do you want to find out if you are capable of being a monster just like him?

Macedon
05-13-2005, 16:23
Yes all prisoners have cable tv in their cells LOL. Right now it costs more money because of the appeal process than it does to incarcerate these people. Im all for making their lifes a living hell but not killing them.
I meant - they live anyway...

Fragony
05-13-2005, 16:32
Yes all prisoners have cable tv in their cells LOL. Right now it costs more money because of the appeal process than it does to incarcerate these people. Im all for making their lifes a living hell but not killing them.

But what is the difference then? You seem to care enough to wish them the worst possible life, but you are unwilling to end it. They are already dead, yet they just won't stop eating. Do you want them to be punnished and feel good about their misery? Because I don't, I want them gone, as swift and silent as possible. As uneventfull as possible.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-13-2005, 16:36
But what is the difference then? You seem to care enough to wish them the worst possible life, but you are unwilling to end it.

Yup I want to make an example of them and punish them. How many murderers take their own lifes? Many could care less that their gong to die and in fact some even get to the point where they ask to be exectued. I would rather die than spend say my life in solitary confinment with nothing but say some books to read to keep your sanity. There are far worse things than death.

Fragony
05-13-2005, 16:44
I would rather die than spend say my life in solitary confinment with nothing but say some books to read to keep your sanity. There are far worse things than death.

But why care what they would want? Their wanting days are over, they spoiled that. By all means suffer, but it is no capital punishment, it is euthanisia. I don't want them to suffer, I want them gone.

Don Corleone
05-13-2005, 16:44
But what is the difference then? You seem to care enough to wish them the worst possible life, but you are unwilling to end it. They are already dead, yet they just won't stop eating. Do you want them to be punnished and feel good about their misery? Because I don't, I want them gone, as swift and silent as possible. As uneventfull as possible.

Well Fragony, I see two differences between Gawain's scenario and yours....

1) Exculpatory evidence wouldn't be too late in his case. What would you do if you found concrete evidence the guy you just executed was innocent?

2) Gawain isn't using the act he's being punished for as punishment. Isn't there a little hypocricy in doing that?

My big problem with lifelong imprisonment is that it never is. If we did it, and we abolished capital punishement, now the Leftys would talk about how incarceration is cruel and inhumane. Some are already there: Doing all they can to keep criminals out of prison (http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJusticelist.cfm?c=52)

Fragony
05-13-2005, 16:51
Well Fragony, I see two differences between Gawain's scenario and yours....

1) Exculpatory evidence wouldn't be too late in his case. What would you do if you found concrete evidence the guy you just executed was innocent?

2) Gawain isn't using the act he's being punished for as punishment. Isn't there a little hypocricy in doing that?

My big problem with lifelong imprisonment is that it never is. If we did it, and we abolished capital punishement, now the Leftys would talk about how incarceration is cruel and inhumane. Some are already there: Doing all they can to keep criminals out of prison (http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJusticelist.cfm?c=52)

I see what you mean.... I'll be back ~D

(why isn't it ever easy)

JAG
05-13-2005, 16:54
I think it is safe to say that people know where I stand. I do not only believe it is wrong for some of the reasons others have stated - you cannot bring an innocent back, it is in many ways far easier on the criminal than making them face up to what they have done and change - OK that is slightly different to others.

But on top of that there is clear moral objections. Firstly you are putting great power into state hands, I do not think the state should have the ability to arbitrarily sign death sentences, that is not only very dangerous but a clear breach of civil liberties and rights every human has. Secondly it is not morally acceptable to kill someone because they have killed someone else. Just because they have taken someones human rights it does not give you any more right to abuse theirs.

Kanamori
05-13-2005, 17:20
"My big problem with lifelong imprisonment is that it never is."

That's a huge load of crap. Dahmer got 15 consecutive life sentences, and he died in prison, meaning, among other examples, he served his sentence until his death. "In South Dakota, all those given life sentences serve without possibility of parole. The only chance for release is through the commutation process requiring unanimous approval of the commutation board and the governor. No one convicted of homicide has been commuted since 1974." (J. Kerkhove, Lifer?, The Messenger, July-Sept., 1992, at 19. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=481#sxn5)

Pindar
05-13-2005, 17:25
As long as we have the death penalty, we have a culture of death.

We have a culture of death insofar as we have an army.

BDC
05-13-2005, 17:25
I think the day human society uses the courts for rehabilitation rather than revenge is the day the human race grows up a little.

Needless to say, that's centuries off. And assuming you can actually make someone who is a psychopath and feels no feeling responsible.

PanzerJaeger
05-13-2005, 17:25
Yes all prisoners have cable tv in their cells LOL. Right now it costs more money because of the appeal process than it does to incarcerate these people. Im all for making their lifes a living hell but not killing them.

We as a society made the appeals process so long and costly, we can change that.

Pindar
05-13-2005, 17:30
That's a huge load of crap.

That's a disturbing image.
:thinking2:

Kanamori, what are you doing with a quote from a Straussian?

Leet Eriksson
05-13-2005, 17:32
Death penalty is one way to send a message to future criminals to not commit a crime, look at Singapore, they have the lowest crime rate in the world, becuase of their death penalty, i'm not even sure but i think i heard they also execute people who smoke pot.

JAG
05-13-2005, 17:43
Death penalty is one way to send a message to future criminals to not commit a crime, look at Singapore, they have the lowest crime rate in the world, becuase of their death penalty, i'm not even sure but i think i heard they also execute people who smoke pot.

It has been proven in studies that it doesn't work. There is a short term decline but over time the rate of crime merely goes back to what it was.

And woudl a society where you are killed for any crime - as minimal as smoking pot - a fair, just and good society? I think not.

Byzantine Prince
05-13-2005, 18:38
WOW, how did I miss this thread?!?! ~:eek:
It's like a dream come true!

I'de like to see people have the balls to commit any more murder/rape if I was in power. I would torture, stab, and burn them before I execute them. Also a nice crucifixion is not a bad idea either. Let them find out what Jesus felt like.

I'de like to hear if you still think that the 'easy' way out. ~D

JAG
05-13-2005, 18:50
WOW, how did I miss this thread?!?! ~:eek:
It's like a dream come true!

I'de like to see people have the balls to commit any more murder/rape if I was in power. I would torture, stab, and burn them before I execute them. Also a nice crucifixion is not a bad idea either. Let them find out what Jesus felt like.

I'de like to hear if you still think that the 'easy' way out. ~D

What a great society that would be. You are destroying the thing you, apparently, want to defend. Seems completely contradictory and absurd to me.

Kanamori
05-13-2005, 18:53
"That's a disturbing image."

Indeed, it is.


"Kanamori, what are you doing with a quote from a Straussian?"

Citing a fact.

Byzantine Prince
05-13-2005, 19:11
What a great society that would be. You are destroying the thing you, apparently, want to defend. Seems completely contradictory and absurd to me.
I'm trying to defend: Non-killers, non-rapists, innocent people
I'm trying to destroy: killers, rapists, non-innocent people

Yes that would also make me a killer wouldn't it? But to me that's all subjective. What some consider killing I consider destruction and execution.

Templar Knight
05-13-2005, 19:12
so you would take it upon yourself to kill evil people so other may live in peace?

Kanamori
05-13-2005, 19:21
The most heinous serial killers and child rapists would be almost unaffected by a death penalty. They are not thinking about the possible reprecussions when they do what they do. It is also equally ridiculous to say that it will deter nobody or an insignificant number of people from crimes.


"Death penalty is one way to send a message to future criminals to not commit a crime, look at Singapore, they have the lowest crime rate in the world, becuase of their death penalty"

Texas has the highest rate of execution and the highest rate violent crime. Obviously, the dettering factor is not the only variable.


Besides possible moral objections, the death penalty is carried in an inefficient and unjust sytem of judgement. Similar crimes do not always result in similar punishments. Before I could even begin to consider the death penalty as a viable choice to detterence, the system would need a huge structural change.

JAG
05-13-2005, 19:23
You miss my point BP. Society is more than the people in it, it is the mood of the people, the reasons why they do things, the background music. A society for instance in Saddams Iraq, could have been perfectly innocent and forgiving and just, but you cannot escape the fact that the background music is that there is great injustices in other parts of the society. In your society the people might be perfectly fine legal wise and not commit horrible crimes to each other, but the REASONS for this and the background music is just as important for society. Your background music would be just as bad as Saddam's if not worse, people would be doing good even more out of fear than under Saddam. That is not a healthy and working society. Thus you are destroying the thing - a good society - which you state you actually want to defend. It is wholly contradictory.

The reason why extreme free market capitalist societies are so unjust is not that the people themselves act out of complete murderous ways, it is the system and the background music of the system is unbelievably unfair on some of the members of society. Your system would be just as bad and not lead to a good society.

Lazul
05-13-2005, 20:12
atleast in my perfect society ( =D ), my labour camps has no cable tv, no music unless its approved, same for books.

the inmates would work everyday, EVERYDAY, even newyears and christmas and they would do all kinda of hard labour. The get enough food to survive and so on.

Death penalty is for weak rulers. And IF we had to have a Death Penalty, the Judge should carry out the punishment, not put it on someone ells. :bow:

Byzantine Prince
05-13-2005, 21:58
You miss my point BP. Society is more than the people in it, it is the mood of the people, the reasons why they do things, the background music. A society for instance in Saddams Iraq, could have been perfectly innocent and forgiving and just, but you cannot escape the fact that the background music is that there is great injustices in other parts of the society. In your society the people might be perfectly fine legal wise and not commit horrible crimes to each other, but the REASONS for this and the background music is just as important for society. Your background music would be just as bad as Saddam's if not worse, people would be doing good even more out of fear than under Saddam. That is not a healthy and working society. Thus you are destroying the thing - a good society - which you state you actually want to defend. It is wholly contradictory.

I think I might sound insane because I didn't go into more depth into my plan. I wouldn't keep executing people forever. I would take it away from society by causing fear at first and then remove it slowly. By then people would have forgotten how to commit crimes and there would no more of it. Crime is a chain, people are taught by seeing other people oding things. Just like talking, if no one ever talks the chances of you ever talking are pretty minimal as well.

These punishments don't need to be permanent. I don't think any law should be permanent. Society changes all the time and laws should reflect that.

DisruptorX
05-13-2005, 22:02
We have a culture of death insofar as we have an army.

We have a culture of death insofar as people still die.

The death penalty isn't any more "revenge" than a prison sentance is. And someone mentioned state-sanctioned murder....that's the whole point of the state. The idea behind government is that it should hold a monopoly on violence so that social order can be upheld. That isn't set in stone, but you get the idea.

Don Corleone
05-13-2005, 22:09
I disagree that an army is an indication of a culture of death. An aggressive army certainly is, but would you call the Japanese army, which is strictly defensive in nature, indicative of a culture of death?

There's a world of difference between defending yourself and attacking somebody else. I'm not advocating that you can't kill a psycho in the act of trying to kill somebody else, to prevent the death of the innocent. That's a defensive act. But once you've subdued him, strapping him into ole' Sparky or shoving cyanide into his veins is an aggressive act.

Pindar
05-13-2005, 22:34
"


"Kanamori, what are you doing with a quote from a Straussian?"

Citing a fact.

How droll.

Pindar
05-13-2005, 22:43
I disagree that an army is an indication of a culture of death. An aggressive army certainly is, but would you call the Japanese army, which is strictly defensive in nature, indicative of a culture of death?

If one recognizes a nation's right to arm, one recognizes the nation's right to kill. Even a self-defense posture still justifies state sanctioned killing. In this case to protect the state. This rubric would also apply to capital punishment.

Pindar
05-13-2005, 22:47
We have a culture of death insofar as people still die.

.

This notion is dependant on whether culture is simply defined as an aspect of community or something fostered by community.

It is also strained by say, hermits who are outside of the community but yet die.

Devastatin Dave
05-13-2005, 23:02
Killing them is to let them get away easy. Id say Slave Labour camps untill they die. No mercy.

And if theese scum-of-the-earth people are proven innocent, well then they are alive to be free once more.

I'm with that. I am against the death penalty because I would prefer them to suffer and suffer long, not go quietly into a gentle sleep...

Proletariat
05-13-2005, 23:47
Kanamori, Dahmer was murdered in jail a few years after his sentencing.

To think some of you imagine prison is just cable and internet. Give me a break. If I was a male with the typical physique of most men who sit behind a keyboard for hours on end, I'd beg for capitol punishment instead of a few years of rape and brutal fist fighting.




I'de like to see people have the balls to commit any more murder/rape if I was in power. I would torture, stab, and burn them before I execute them. Also a nice crucifixion is not a bad idea either. Let them find out what Jesus felt like.


And with that, I bid this thread adieu.

Devastatin Dave
05-13-2005, 23:50
WOW, how did I miss this thread?!?! ~:eek:
It's like a dream come true!

I'de like to see people have the balls to commit any more murder/rape if I was in power. I would torture, stab, and burn them before I execute them. Also a nice crucifixion is not a bad idea either. Let them find out what Jesus felt like.

I'de like to hear if you still think that the 'easy' way out. ~D

Not to pass judgement on you my good friend BP, but you sound like a sick little monkey. :dizzy2:

Byzantine Prince
05-14-2005, 00:38
All you tough conservatives showed your real colors in this thread. You are all a wimpy as the liberals you bash every day.

Kanamori
05-14-2005, 01:23
"How droll."

How ironic.

"If one recognizes a nation's right to arm, one recognizes the nation's right to kill. Even a self-defense posture still justifies state sanctioned killing. In this case to protect the state. This rubric would also apply to capital punishment."

There's a difference. In one spot, the case of the military, killing is during the action of self-defense, and in the other it is ex post facto.

Pindar
05-14-2005, 02:27
"How droll."

How ironic.

~;)



"If one recognizes a nation's right to arm, one recognizes the nation's right to kill. Even a self-defense posture still justifies state sanctioned killing. In this case to protect the state. This rubric would also apply to capital punishment."

There's a difference. In one spot, the case of the military, killing is during the action of self-defense, and in the other it is ex post facto.

The state sanction remains. Further, in the case of war a soldier may very well be expected to kill the enemy simply because of the designation and position. For example, an enemy platoon crossing a field could be attacked and eliminated by one's own state forces even though there was no particular overt action. This is preemptive and deliberate.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-14-2005, 02:35
All you tough conservatives showed your real colors in this thread. You are all a wimpy as the liberals you bash every day.

Why because we want to prolong their suffering?

Kanamori
05-14-2005, 04:08
"For example, an enemy platoon crossing a field could be attacked and eliminated by one's own state forces even though there was no particular overt action. This is preemptive and deliberate."

I could say its a continued threat in war...but we know where that is going ~;)

Pindar
05-14-2005, 07:26
"

I could say its a continued threat in war...but we know where that is going ~;)

Yes.

The key component remains state sanctioned killing. Once that is granted all that remains is setting parameters.

Byzantine Prince
05-14-2005, 07:56
Why because we want to prolong their suffering?
What suffering, Charles Manson has a website. Oh and not to mention his numerous books. Also he has stated he doesn't want a parole, he likes it in jail. It's quiet and confortable.

If you think I don't know what I'm talking about since I've never been to jail, I can argue you don't what your talking when you say knowing that your gonna die is a piece of cake. If I was in power I would slip in some torture for my own amusement as well. :p

sharrukin
05-14-2005, 09:54
The state is not an individual, nor does it have the rights that an individual has. It cannot just walk away from it's responsibilities. It takes away the right of everyone to seek private vengeance and in it's place promises justice. Would the state bear any responsibility for the mayhem if they decided to cut costs by giving the police a month's holiday? The answer is clearly yes because the state is also responsible for what it choses not to do.

Will the state execute the innocent along with the guilty? The answer to that is yes, without a doubt! The state will also draw up guidelines for food safety that will result in a certain number of deaths yearly. If it chose to draw up stricter guidelines it could reduce the annual number who will die. At some point they will stop because they must and that is reality.

The state has always been responsible for death both in what it chooses to do and in what it chooses not to do. Should we ban cars because we know that people will be killed in them to the tune of 30-50,000 in the USA every year? We accept the death of ten's of thousands of innocents on the roads but get constipation at the thought, that some handful among those executed will be innocent.
This is not about preventing the death of the innocent because we accept that by the trainload. This is about not accepting personal responsibility!

Gawain of Orkeny
05-14-2005, 14:13
What suffering, Charles Manson has a website. Oh and not to mention his numerous books. Also he has stated he doesn't want a parole, he likes it in jail. It's quiet and confortable.

Didnt all us conservativs say that life in jail for them is too easy and that they should be put a hard labor or solitary confinement. Dont just take half of what we say and twist it to fit your post.

bmolsson
05-15-2005, 05:09
Just for the record. Indonesia shoot a murderer in Jambi this week. It also seems clear that most of the 9 australians found with 11 kg of heroin is going the same way.....

Gawain of Orkeny
05-15-2005, 06:23
Wow Heroin must be expensive over there.