Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Xanikk999, Jan 18, 2007.
No death penalty. Besides prison the rest of your life is worse anyway.
What if there was a huge natural disaster, WWIII broke out. Killing them is a way to ensure that they allways will be gone. Plus it is only fair they die.
What if, what if. Jails were doing great during the last World Wars, thank you. Enemy were frequently taken prisoners.
Show us how many murderers get life sentences first.
Already did, Sidhe, but I'll re-iterate. You're alive, and so am I.
Yes and Sidhe lives in a country where we don't have the death penalty, dingbat.
First option, its not right decide who shall be killed.
Cool. Why don't you let us know when that serial killer actually kills you? Oh, I forgot, dead people don't tell tales.
Hmm, well rather than stick to your favoured debate tactic: the silly one liner, i'll respond with a nice little fact: murder rates in the UK didn't change when we abolished the death penalty. Conclusion: Capital Punishment has no deterrant value.
Simple truths are the most profound truths, bren. Listen and learn.
Oh, and deterring the murderers isn't the issue as far as I can see. It's protecting the lives of the innocent from said murderers.
I meant scientific evidence not anecdotal. I appreciate the joke but let's keep it rational not inane
To present this as a valid argument you need to show that the death penalty decreases the number of murders? Otherwise it's just hollow. Do you see the logical fallacy in your argument yet?
Why don't you take your science, Sidhe, and use it to measure all the living protected from the ruthless killers? Please.
The number of murders would not have to decrease as a result of the death penalty for it to be valid argument. It is not used as a deterrent, and if he is arguing that it protects innocent lives from the serial killer in question, he is quite right. There is a greater chance of the person escaping from life imprisonment and killing more people than arising from his grave as a zombie to kill more people.
The vast majority of murders are comitted as crimes of passion. Contrary to your apparent belief murderers are highly unlikely to reoffend. Unless they are psychotic, in which case they require medical attention not a gas chamber.
I fail to see killing people in case they get out of prison as an acceptable alternative to simply keeping them inside.
Well so do I, which is partly why I do not support the death penalty.
No. But some people refuse to allow me to have any sympathy for them, or to think of them as civilized human beings who have a right to life.
To sum up my position, and answer all the questions directed to me:
I do feel that the death penalty is not inherently unjust or inhumane. Society has a right under circumstances to execute people.
But given our current society, it does nothing that life in prison can't accomplish - and it is more expensive and carries a heavier penalty for doing it to an innocent person. Thus it shouldn't ever be used.
In a different society from this, I think occasions may permit it however.
If thay betray there country
You sound like someone in the know, bren. Did you kill someone once, and got re-habilitated? Or did you go to the College of Mind Reading?
For real, your faith in the common murderer is misplaced. They may be guilty of lying to the public about their remorse. Of course, they may not be, but that's impossible to know, even with a polygraph test.
Why don't you present a cogent argument based in reality, so I don't dismiss your opinions out of hand, as everyone else has done?
I am in favour of the death penalty.
Consider the number of people who died because they failed to execute Adolph Hitler when he was captured, convicted and in prison.
Separate names with a comma.