Death Penalty

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:33 am

So should we just shoot him in the head? It is going to hurt too much??? What??? Did he not hurt those children when he murdered them?

This is complete non sense...

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ki ... 0000000001

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:02 am

I'm all for the death penalty when there is irrefutable DNA evidence to prove guilt.

Fry this guy! :-5

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:18 am

I'm against the dealth penalty in peacetime, though during war its a necessity. Thats a personal opinion and I'm not going to get into the debate on it here, as people have their own I'm sure. What I would say is that if a state does use the death penalty as a penal sanction against its citizens then there is no point in trying to santitizing it by using some sort of "nice" way of doing it, and it just makes it seem less morally objectional than beheading them, hanging them, or shooting them, but the end result is the same, they are dead. The point is that many people feel that its justice to put someone to death after they have committed a henious crime, the way they are put to death after that is pretty much irrelavant, as long as obviuosly its not completely grotesque like being cut open and fed to wild animals or something, though perhaps some people would like that as well.

I think the idea of lawyers trying to stop the carrying out of death sentance becuase the method used "hurts" is bit facile, its supposed to be the ultimate sanction and by its logic its supposed to hurt, its not meant to be a nice, friendly alternative to having to spend money imprisoning people, but then laywers will try anything.

weber · Post by **weber** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:40 am

DesignerGal wrote: So should we just shoot him in the head? It is going to hurt too much??? What??? Did he not hurt those children when he murdered them?

This is complete non sense...

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ki ... 0000000001

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is Old Testament stuff. If a person commits a gross crime, are we to commit a crime as well, two wrongs don't make a right. Just my own opinion. I don't believe in the death penalty and I don't believe in billions of dollars spent for criminals to have TV's and better stuff than many peaceful people have. I have no idea what the answer is. I have this thought of a large island of no escape and put them all there to deal with themselves. Must be something wrong with that

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:52 am

What's "WRONG" with it is it's too logical, I'm afraid! Also, I'm not sure we could find an inhabitable place large enough for all of them. PITY. I'd like to see this fellow turned over to "BUBBA AND THE BOYS!"

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:32 pm

Galbally wrote: What I would say is that if a state does use the death penalty as a penal sanction against its citizens then there is no point in trying to santitizing it by using some sort of "nice" way of doing it, and it just makes it seem less morally objectional than beheading them, hanging them, or shooting them, but the end result is the same, they are dead. The point is that many people feel that its justice to put someone to death after they have committed a henious crime, the way they are put to death after that is pretty much irrelavant, as long as obviuosly its not completely grotesque like being cut open and fed to wild animals or something, though perhaps some people would like that as well.

It's all about perception really. Someone who thinks cutting the guilty persons down his stomach, and feeding his guts to pigs might be grotesque in the same way one may feel about them being beheaded, hanged, or quite simply shot. There's always going to be some sort of lower ground. Eventually, if things continue to move in such a direction the death penalty will be ruled out all together.

If someone wants to cry about the death penalty in relation to brutality, nothing will render them speechless as fast as mandating Lethal Injection in all cases across the country.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:43 pm

K.Snyder wrote: It's all about perception really. Someone who thinks cutting the guilty persons down his stomach, and feeding his guts to pigs might be grotesque in the same way one may feel about them being beheaded, hanged, or quite simply shot. There's always going to be some sort of lower ground. Eventually, if things continue to move in such a direction the death penalty will be ruled out all together.

If someone wants to cry about the death penalty in relation to brutality, nothing will render them speechless as fast as mandating Lethal Injection in all cases across the country.

I think that almost all people in modern society would probably not be comfortable if criminals were hung drawn and quartered, or burned alive as opposed to hanging them or shooting due to reasons of taste if nothing else. Though perhaps if such things were done in public, perhaps popular support for the death penalty wouldn't be so shrill in some quarters. Again, thats all a matter of taste or as you say, perception.

I suppose my basic problem with the death penalty during peacetime is that I don't trust any government enough to provide them with the legisaltive power to kill its own citizens in cases of civil law, and that its a dangerous principal to conced to those in power. Its not the point about justice, (which is certainly arguable as some people undoubtedly deserve to die for what they do), but its the wider question of what the relationship of a government to its people actually is. That goes for any country or any culture. However they try to wrap it up, they are still confering the right of life or death of their citizens on themselves and I don't feel comfortable with it. Like I said there are circumstances where it is necessary, but in general not during peacetime.

weber · Post by **weber** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:49 pm

K.Snyder wrote: It's all about perception really. Someone who thinks cutting the guilty persons down his stomach, and feeding his guts to pigs might be grotesque in the same way one may feel about them being beheaded, hanged, or quite simply shot. There's always going to be some sort of lower ground. Eventually, if things continue to move in such a direction the death penalty will be ruled out all together.

If someone wants to cry about the death penalty in relation to brutality, nothing will render them speechless as fast as mandating Lethal Injection in all cases across the country.

WOW.....K., I don't think the two are comparable. They're two separate issues. No doubt with a common denominator but still separate. If I am understanding what you are saying, I am against the death penalty but if a person's quality of life is so low that they want extra morphine, I figure that is their choice.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, and if I am , I am sorry.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:52 pm

weber wrote: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is Old Testament stuff.

Hiya Weber

I know what you mean; that's why I'm surprised that even *I* am for the death penalty in certain cases.

I know it seems archaic to you, but what gives this guy the right to live after taking several lives? Do you think he can be rehabilitated?

In my book, if there is irrefutable evidence that this person killed someone in cold blood, then his right to live his life should be taken away.

I am a compassionate and understanding person. I am a Democrat.

But I am still for the death penalty.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:07 pm

Galbally wrote:

I suppose my basic problem with the death penalty during peacetime is that I don't trust any government enough to provide them with the legisaltive power to kill its own citizens in cases of civil law, and that its a dangerous principal to conced to those in power. Its not the point about justice, (which is certainly arguable as some people undoubtedly deserve to die for what they do), but its the wider question of what the relationship of a government to its people actually is. That goes for any country or any culture. However they try to wrap it up, they are still confering the right of life or death of their citizens on themselves and I don't feel comfortable with it. Like I said there are circumstances where it is necessary, but in general not during peacetime.

The way I look at it is, not so much taking the life of the person convicted of the crime they have committed out of punishment, rather seeking to preserve life in the future for their inability to behave in a civilized manner. Whether that's another inmate, or an officer who works within prison facilities who just wants to go back home to his beautiful wife and his kids. To be honest, caging people up while being intent on rehabilitating murderers seems to me the equevilent to choking a dead horse. People convicted of murder should be sentenced to life in prison while not being eligible for parole in my opinion, but for the ones who are considered a constant threat to anyone's life within arms reach, I for one am for the death penalty. I have more respect for crocodiles, at least they eat the life they kill.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:14 pm

Diuretic wrote: Sticking my neck out here - there are murderers and then there are murderers. Some can be returned to the community and some should stay in prison until they die.

Uh, i'm sorry maybe you meant that there are people who kill out of self defense and then there are murders and then maybe I can agree with this statement, but if someone were to murder someone without just cause then i'm afraid they should be locked up for the rest of their life. I don't care if this person becomes a preacher...the person they killed will never get to enjoy a smile with the ones they love again, and quite frankly if they were to so much as look my way I wouldn't hesitate to put one through his skull.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:19 pm

cherandbuster wrote: I'm all for the death penalty when there is irrefutable DNA evidence to prove guilt.

It's worth reading up on that.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:25 pm

DesignerGal wrote: So should we just shoot him in the head? It is going to hurt too much???

He seems to be saying that it might be cruel and unusual because he's a fat git

with diabetes, not that he didn't do it. If that's true, then the obvious thing to

do is to ensure that it does *not* hurt, and is not cruel. He could, for instance,

be sat upon a box of blasting gelatine, wrapped with more threaded upon a

length of detonating fuse, and be offed far more quickly than his nerves could

*ever* react. It would save the cost of burying him, too.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:28 pm

K.Snyder wrote: The way I look at it is, not so much taking the life of the person convicted of the crime they have committed out of punishment, rather seeking to preserve life in the future for their inability to behave in a civilized manner. Whether that's another inmate, or an officer who works within prison facilities who just wants to go back home to his beautiful wife and his kids. To be honest, caging people up while being intent on rehabilitating murderers seems to me the equevilent to choking a dead horse. People convicted of murder should be sentenced to life in prison while not being eligible for parole in my opinion, but for the ones who are considered a constant threat to anyone's life within arms reach, I for one am for the death penalty. I have more respect for crocodiles, at least they eat the life they kill.

I understand your view entirely, as its completely understandable. My point is to whom are you giving the legal authority to kill fellow citizens and on what grounds? Its not so much about the rights of a particular indivdual, though obviously the right to life is an extremely important principal, its about what powers do feel comfortable giving to those who exercise authority over you. Thats actually the heart of the matter. I strongly believe that any sort of legislative argument that provides a government with the right to kill its own citizens (except during war, when it is an unavoidable necessity) is highly questionable, and I as a citizen of a republic do not wish to give such powers to my own government. Of course my vote or voice is only one of many, and if capital punishment during peacetime was reintroduced into Ireland I would accept if of course, but I would argue against it.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:28 pm

Galbally wrote: I suppose my basic problem with the death penalty during peacetime is that I don't trust any government enough to provide them with the legisaltive power to kill its own citizens in cases of civil law, and that its a dangerous principal to conced to those in power. Its not the point about justice, (which is certainly arguable as some people undoubtedly deserve to die for what they do), but its the wider question of what the relationship of a government to its people actually is. That goes for any country or any culture. However they try to wrap it up, they are still confering the right of life or death of their citizens on themselves and I don't feel comfortable with it. Like I said there are circumstances where it is necessary, but in general not during peacetime.

I rather disagree. In the UK, the judiciary are (still) supposed to be independent

of government (despite our current mob's attempts). It is not "those in power"

doing it - it's the law.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:30 pm

K.Snyder wrote: People convicted of murder should be sentenced to life in prison while not being eligible for parole in my opinion, but for the ones who are considered a constant threat to anyone's life within arms reach, I for one am for the death penalty. I have more respect for crocodiles, at least they eat the life they kill.

Hm. What about cannibals?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:32 pm

Originally Posted by Diuretic

Sticking my neck out here - there are murderers and then there are murderers. Some can be returned to the community and some should stay in prison until they die.

K.Snyder wrote: Uh, i'm sorry maybe you meant that there are people who kill out of self defense and then there are murders and then maybe I can agree with this statement, but if someone were to murder someone without just cause then i'm afraid they should be locked up for the rest of their life.

But you *can't* murder with just cause. If you "kill someone in self defence" it

is not murder (unless you use excessive force for the situation in question).

weber · Post by **weber** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:37 pm

cherandbuster wrote: Hiya Weber

I know what you mean; that's why I'm surprised that even *I* am for the death penalty in certain cases.

I know it seems archaic to you, but what gives this guy the right to live after taking several lives? Do you think he can be rehabilitated?

In my book, if there is irrefutable evidence that this person killed someone in cold blood, then his right to live his life should be taken away.

I am a compassionate and understanding person. I am a Democrat.

But I am still for the death penalty.

Hi Cher

Once he is dead, he is free of any torment. It is a much more painful thing for him to have to live and possibly even be tortured or killed by his prison roommates. Just my twisted way of thinking. But I just don't like the idea of killing anybody, whatever the reason.....I also said two wrongs don't make a right. Also just my way of thinking.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:37 pm

Galbally wrote: I understand your view entirely, as its completely understandable. My point is to whom are you giving the legal authority to kill fellow citizens and on what grounds? Its not so much about the rights of a particular indivdual, though obviously the right to life is an extremely important principal, its about what powers do feel comfortable giving to those who exercise authority over you. Thats actually the heart of the matter. I strongly believe that any sort of legislative argument that provides a government with the right to kill its own citizens (except during war, when it is an unavoidable necessity) is highly questionable, and I as a citizen of a republic do not wish to give such powers to my own government. Of course my vote or voice is only one of many, and if capital punishment during peacetime was reintroduced into Ireland I would accept if of course, but I would argue against it.

The way I look at that is, quite simply if you don't have anything to hide, what is there to worry about? Law abiding citizens should have no fear in that kind of power their government has over them, of course as long as the judicial system isn't corrupt and they tend to kill off people incarcerated from misdemeanors...and such is far from the case in my view here in America. The death penalty in America is not nearly exercised as much as it used to be, as well as having more technology to rightfully condemn criminals, so I myself see no problem with that. I can't say the same about other countries though.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:40 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: Originally Posted by Diuretic

Sticking my neck out here - there are murderers and then there are murderers. Some can be returned to the community and some should stay in prison until they die.

But you *can't* murder with just cause. If you "kill someone in self defence" it

is not murder (unless you use excessive force for the situation in question).

Yes I know...

That's why I was subtly asking for elaboration from Diuretics post.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:42 pm

K.Snyder wrote: The way I look at that is, quite simply if you don't have anything to hide, what is there to worry about?

(Cough)

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:43 pm

Sikes: Definitions of "murder"

K.Snyder wrote: Yes I know...

That's why I was subtly asking for elaboration from Diuretics post.

Ah. Sorry, I mis-interpreted your psot.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:43 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: Hm. What about cannibals?

I would have no respect for a crocodile if they were to kill and eat a human being...I would consider them one in the same.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:44 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: I rather disagree. In the UK, the judiciary are (still) supposed to be independent

of government (despite our current mob's attempts). It is not "those in power"

doing it - it's the law.

Yes, but who legislates? (i.e., brings law into enactment) and in Britain its parliament, not the judicary. The judiciary brings the law into effect by making judgements in specific cases, and they also have an advisory role in the development of law, (and yes in Britain legal precedent has a large bearing on how the law is used, which is a very good and typical British common sense approach), but its Parliament that is ultimatley soveriegn (not the Queen who rules via an act of parliament going back to 1688) and Parliament ultimately decides what the law is going to be. Don't forget there is no actual constitution or bill of rights in Britain, so in theory there is no legal restraint on parliament (except now of course the European Court of Human Rights does act as a court of appeal, and the European Convention on Human Rights has been given authority in British law for certain types of cases that go to appeal), which is also in general a very good thing for British citizens. But the point remains the same, would you be happy with the state once again reserving the right to kill British citizens during peacetime?, I think that point is more important now then ever, considering whats going on.

Pythos · Post by **Pythos** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:38 pm

Just something to consider for a moment.

The original intent or idea behind the concept of "No cruel or unusual punishment".

Was not to protect the guilty. As is has been stated by others here. The end result is that they are dead, and how they may or may not have suffered in the process as a point is basically meaningless.

It is those who have to carry out that sentence that this concept was meant to protect. It is for the executioner who pulls the switch/lever/trigger/whatever who still has to live, function, and sleep at night. It was to make him to be able to do his job without what he had to do weighing so heavily on his mind. Imagine having to be the guy that has to draw quarter and burn the body of whatever piece of human refuse you choose to apply this to. Any normal person would have a hard time doing that to another person (regardless of their crimes) once much less repetitively.

As an example originally when a firing squad was used as the method of execution.

Only one bullet was live the rest were blanks. No one knew who had the live round. This way the men in the firing squad did not have worry about having killed another human being. They could simply convince themselves that they must have had a blank.

With lethal injection as well three people push a button at the same time, a computer randomly chooses which one starts the process. The rest of it (the actual injections) is all done mechanically. No one has to bear the burden of responsibility.

Somewhere we have become confused into thinking that the guilty need not suffer or feel any pain while being executed. When as long as the executioner believes the executed did not suffer needlessly is all that really matters.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:58 pm

Galbally wrote: My point is to whom are you giving the legal authority to kill fellow citizens and on what grounds? Its not so much about the rights of a particular indivdual, though obviously the right to life is an extremely important principal, its about what powers do feel comfortable giving to those who exercise authority over you.
Go Galbally!:yh_shamrk

I would add that you also tend to get a justice-system trickle-down effect, such that in countries where you get hung or stoned or your hand chopped off tend to have more problems with police brutality and corruption than those countries where the only power the state wields over the people is to remove their freedoms.

If Australia reinstated the death penalty, I'd go back to Aotearoa, and face my student loan.

Australian police with their guns and their [I guess I'd better leave this bit out] were giving me the heebie-jeebies anyway.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:27 am

It appalls me that clowns like this guy think they deserve any iota of human compassion after what they did to their victims. I know, they all go to prison and find Jesus. Apparently Jesus hangs out in jail a lot. :rolleyes: Then they're "reformed" and "forgiven" (by Jesus of course) but I'm not buying it.

Vengeance may be the Lord's but I think justice should be ours.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:43 am

K.Snyder wrote: The way I look at that is, quite simply if you don't have anything to hide, what is there to worry about? Law abiding citizens should have no fear in that kind of power their government has over them, of course as long as the judicial system isn't corrupt and they tend to kill off people incarcerated from misdemeanors...and such is far from the case in my view here in America. The death penalty in America is not nearly exercised as much as it used to be, as well as having more technology to rightfully condemn criminals, so I myself see no problem with that. I can't say the same about other countries though.

I'm not making any issue with the American system, which after all has a very strong tradition in providng its citizens legal protection in a whole range of areas, has a common sense approach to many things, and differs from state to state, though some of the cases that occur, and the way the lawyers act are, I suppose questionable sometimes. This isn't about America, its about every country or government. Obviously the most clear example of the appauling vistas that the death penalty can bring up is in China, where there are questions currently being asked about whether some defendents (or prisoners) recieve the death pelnalty more that the state can subsequently sell their body parts and organs, that than any sense of justice. I mean what does that tell you about that government attititudes to human life?

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:45 am

RedGlitter wrote: It appalls me that clowns like this guy think they deserve any iota of human compassion after what they did to their victims. I know, they all go to prison and find Jesus. Apparently Jesus hangs out in jail a lot. :rolleyes: Then they're "reformed" and "forgiven" (by Jesus of course) but I'm not buying it.

Vengeance may be the Lord's but I think justice should be ours.

Great post :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:57 am

K.Snyder wrote: The way I look at that is, quite simply if you don't have anything to hide, what is there to worry about? Law abiding citizens should have no fear in that kind of power their government has over them, [...]Now THIS would spark a hot debate! Would you mind posting this as a new thread, K?

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:02 am

RedGlitter wrote: It appalls me that clowns like this guy think they deserve any iota of human compassion after what they did to their victims. I know, they all go to prison and find Jesus. Apparently Jesus hangs out in jail a lot. :rolleyes: Then they're "reformed" and "forgiven" (by Jesus of course) but I'm not buying it.

Vengeance may be the Lord's but I think justice should be ours. For me it's not about the presence or absence of compassion, it's about choosing the rules that best create the society that I would like to live in.

And for me the difference in how I use the words "vengeance" and "justice" also follows this.

"Justice" to me is the larger concept, about how the system influences society. Rules of evidence. Access to a lawyer. They scope of penalties that the state can inflict. Justice is not for the benefit of the victim of a crime, nor for the benefit of the accused. It is most to serve those people who had nothing to do with it, but want to be able to get on with their lives in the knowledge that the police won't stop them buying a certain book, and that the state will provide some disincentives to people who murder.

"Vengeance" to me is the personal thing. This particular murderer should not have gotten off on a technicality, they should be locked up forever, and then shot (or vice-versa).

They very seldom align, because they are serving people in different situations.

My personal judgements as to the overall value of each would normally go here, but I'm being confrontational enough for now.

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:05 am

I'm not pro death penalty. Sure there are times when my knee jerk reaction is just get rid of someone but then I use my reason.

Many people think that the death penalty is the ultimate in punishment but I disagree completely. If you really want someone to suffer for their crimes then incarcerate them for life with no hope of release and with minimal contact and meet just their basic requirements. I know that if I was faced with the two choices I'd be reaching for the needle myself!

Tbh I think that the death penalty should be left along with stoning and witch hunting. It also makes me feel very unsettled when I see the marauding crowds of people jeering and holding placards when a prisoner is to be executed. It just makes me wonder how far we've gone with civilisation and how people can revel in the death of someone, however horrible the crime. Funnily enough it tends to be the most religious that get the most gung-ho about it. The same people who would fight tooth and nail for the life of cells lying in the womb tend to be the same people so happy to destroy life as well. Surely that's a decision for God as well? But I digress.

Anyway, if this guy is to be killed then a shot or two to the head should do it. Not this revolting Romanesque lethal injection within a glass windowed amphitheatre.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:08 am

Galbally wrote: This isn't about America, its about every country or government. Obviously the most clear example of the appauling vistas that the death penalty can bring up is in China, where there are questions currently being asked about whether some defendents (or prisoners) recieve the death pelnalty more that the state can subsequently sell their body parts and organs, that than any sense of justice. I mean what does that tell you about that government attititudes to human life?

I couldn't speak for any other country than the U.S. because I really don't know much about what goes on beyond it's borders, but considering the credibility of this post I probably would have to agree. I know that China has a population in and of around 10 peoples to one in the United States, therefore to me it would have to be evident that this statistic doesn't play a role in the amount of people executed in China on a daily bases.

I myself only agree in the death penalty in the event in which officers who work within the facilities as well as other inmates fear for their safety and lives due to the persons in question. I don't believe in the death penalty being a means to control prison populations at all, which seems to be the case on China's behalf. I wouldn't condone a corrupt judicial system, and I sure as hell wouldn't want that very same system controlling my fate at all, but I once again stress my belief that if you are a respectful and law abiding citizen in the eyes of integrity, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:10 am

Pinky wrote: I think things like this have to be thought through very carefully. Don't get me wrong...I can't stand downright evil people. If someone is proven beyond doubt to have say for example tortured, dismembered while alive and killed without remorse, then I reckon the dealth penalty is too good for them. Let them take the places of animals in lab tests.

Steady on now Pinky, you're veering into Nazi territory with the lab testing! Tbh if someone has done the things you mentioned I'd say that a mental institution would be a much better place for them.

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:00 am

Pinky wrote: You may be right, but then I see poor animals as innocent, where as murderers etc have inflicted countless amounts of pain on others. Surely that makes the animals the more deserving creatures?

But in my mind the two aren't linked. I see animal testing as in a completely different box as the punishment/rehabilitation of criminals. For what it's worth I think that in not too long, if effort was really applied we'd have no need to test on animals anyway, they are unreliable test subjects a lot of the time due to their naturally different physiological make-up.

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:12 am

Pinky wrote: I agree you have a good point. I don't think animal testing is an effective way to make sure products are safe, due to a different genetic makeup. However it still goes on. I still think killing is too good for some offenders though. It seems like an easy way out.

That's what I'm saying, I refer to my first post. Why not just have 'life means life' sentences, with minimal outside contact?

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:58 pm

Pinky wrote: Is that practical though? Can we afford to house, clothe and feed so may criminals? Do you think the death penalty would deter some from committing serial crimes?

It has been proved that the death penalty does nothing to deter criminals Pinky. I think that the psyche of serial or mentally unstable criminals are such that it's not an issue that crosses their mind....

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:10 pm

Katy1 wrote: It has been proved that the death penalty does nothing to deter criminals Pinky.

Gosh! It has? Who by? To just throw down a card, have you seen the statistics

for the murder rate per unit number of population since (say) 1900?

Katy1 wrote: I think that the psyche of serial or mentally unstable criminals are such that it's not an issue that crosses their mind

Quite possibly. However, for many criminals, I am sure that if the DP was in force,

it *would* have an effect. Many criminals are highly intelligent. If you were a

criminal, would the prospect of being executed for a crime rather than being

locked up for 12 (or 20!) years influence you?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:40 pm

(I've said this here before...but....) Human beings are incredibly adaptable! It's our strongest point and it's served us through a million generations of social evolution.

So, IMHO, life without parole isn't really that dreadful. Consider this...they have education, body-building/exercise, sex (if they want it,) adequate food, music, they can earn privileges and even earn spending money.

As their freedom shrinks, so does their expectation. They survive within the hierarchy of the prison--some become leaders, some followers. They may not thrive, but they're alive and they enjoy a great deal of what life offers.

Their victims, however, do not!

(I was semi-joking with a friend earlier today...perhaps we could BLIND people who molest children. They'd still be able to find employment--but they'd never get their hands on children again, would they?):sneaky:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:53 pm

Diuretic wrote:

But some murderers can be released with no fear of them committing murder again.

I simply disagree, considering that we will all use the definition of "murderer" as someone who kills another human being in cold blood. I'm sure one may think that there are instances in which they believe someone who has murdered will eventually never do it again, but to be honest there is more reason to assume that they will as opposed to won't due to the simple fact that they have in the passed. I can empathize with the one in which eased his wife's sufferings, which is the only reason why I wouldn't wholeheartedly disagree with this entire logic. A difference of opinion, which I'm sure may not be the last.....and thanks for the elaboration. Murderers should be locked up, and the key should be melted down, in my opinion, with very few exceptions. Not nearly as many as there are today, that's for sure.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:37 pm

K.Snyder wrote: ...considering that we will all use the definition of "murderer" as someone who kills another human being in cold blood. What shall we call someone who kills another human in a rage?