Now it's always one of the biggest of debates, at the moment in the UK there is only one act of crime that "can" result in the death penalty and that's high treason. Of course when it comes down to it, it would never actually come to the death penalty, unless perhaps it was a member of the RF. I believe the one thing that the death penalty should be 100% definate is if someone is tried and successfully convicted of being a pedophile. I think this is the altimate crime, and believe the death penalty is the only 1 answer to it.
Or perhaps not an answer, but a tederant. I don't think that there is anyway or answer to solving and stopping this crime, but perhaps i think the death penalty should be served in this case as a deterant for those thinking likewise.
I totally agree there, persionally I think you mess with kids you deserve to burn in hell. Not many crimes would come to the death penalty (if it was ever brought back) as the government would be afraid of uproar and violence over what people think is an innocent person.
I believe in the death penalty but i do not believe in the death penalty SENTENCE and the US governments version of it. Why ??? why can't we have cruel and unusual punishment??? Why not eye for an eye in terms of the death penalty?? If ur gonna KILL the guy don't give him a lethal injection. It's not like the little girl he raped then killed was spared curelty and unusual behavior. Let him get raped in prison for 3 days, then kill the bastard. None of that "death row" crap where he is incarcerated for 10 years then finally they inject him. Unless the injection is pure liquid cheese then it's different.* *These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This statement is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. edit** Sounds like a joke, but i would like to propose the DEAF penalty where the criminal is given surgury to remove his ability to hear and see and is forced to live the rest of his life this way. He gets to live, but like the victim he left behind, he will never be the same! Obviously this would be for extreme cases like pedophiles and blue collar crimes like enron...
Meh, I would feel much more comfortable with the death penalty instated for any crime involving some one taking some one elses life. (Forcefully, or willingly, ie murder...a car accident is tragic, but those sort of situations should be exempt. This also brings further problems with instating the penalty). So the arguement, how can you justify killing with killing, springs to mind. I believe it would set an example to many, many people. And I think that anyone should be subject to the death penalty for ending someone elses life. Even children. You may have heard of the Jamie Bulger case? The children who commited that act deserve death. But instead, they will/are released from a prison...and you think that this will have 'fixed' them, or any offender, for that matter? No. And those who may argue that killing for killing is morally wrong and unacceptable...picture yourself at your own child, wife, parents funeral, knowing that some one wrongfully and brutally ended their life. I think that we would be lying if we said we would not want to seek retribution in some form or another. I probably share a limited view on this matter...but I think the world has gone mad with the things that go by unpunished in the world today.
I don't know for a lot of people the death penalty is the easy way out, they don't have to live with their crimes or do anything to repay the massive debt in some form. Some form or life imprisionment (and I don't mean 25 years) in a crappy solitary prison and a bunch of nasty stuff thrown in seems like a better idea.
Witha ll due respect current prison are better than low end homes round here. They get three quare meal have tvs and satellite in rooms and if not certainly in a communal room. They get spends trips out. It pathetic Ive been punished harsher for staying out too late.
Guys! (and girls) How can you be so blind? the "lethal injection" is a horrible way to die, do any of you actually know what it does? Its two injections, one completely paralyses you.... the other attacks all of your organs, it kills you from the inside out. do you really think that is painless? and it takes a long time to kill you... that's torture, but they paralyse you first so that no one See's the pain. whats the point of that? I'm atheist, to me there is no afterlife....and if your are religious, then they will be punished in the after life, for Christians they will burn in hell forever for breaking the boldest commandment, thou shalt not kill. And that's a good point, as 75% of the worlds population is christian (or something like that) the chances are that the executioner would be christian, and i would guess that George Bush is (I'm sating America as its the largest christian landmass) so why has he legalized the death penalty, he has made it possible and he is therefore responsible (because the executioners are acting under his law/command) so does that mean he will burn in hell? (if you ignore everything else he has ever done, and that questions rhetorical) I work looking after disabled children (mainly mental disorders such as autism), Ive worked with them long enough to know how confusing the world must be (and quite often scary), quite a few of them panic when they don't know whats going on, they lash out.... are you saying that if one of thees kids grows up and kills someone they deserve to be killed? If someone deliberately sets out to kill someone, then yes they should be punished, but in most situations its a panic, just like that of the kids i work with... there are much better ways than just taking a life for a life. Make them dig the grave, arrange the flowers, LICK THE STAMPS on the envelopes informing relatives and friends of the funeral.... physiological is more effective than physical, it leaves a mark.... and they will be truly sorry for what they have done. and no, I'm not saying that if you kill someone you can arrange the funeral and it will all be OK..... obviously it would be more than that. If you have ever cried for two days solid, you know the sort of punishment i am talking about. Maybe I'm mad for caring so much about people that i don't even know, caring for about everyone who has never caused me harm (and many that have and still do) but this world is all ready bad enough, lets not make it any worse. We need to help thees people, not kill them. I wont even eat meat, why do we have the right to eat something beacuse we belive we are more intelligent than it.... what would you think if aliens farmed humans? And what happens if there wrong, you can never be 100% sure, another innocent person has been MURDERD.... and this has happned. Flame away, but this is my opinion
Impotence I'm with you on this one. "If everything were an eye for an eye the world would be blind." Mohatmas Gandhi
Thanks, i was kinda worried that i was gona get ripped for admitting to crying for 2 days (she was special ok! still is....) here's another way of looking at it, County A nukes Country B and kills 900,000 people, should Country B nuke Country A and kill 900,000 more? two wrongs will never make a right, murder is wrong . (notice the big FULL STOP)
I believe that it is a duty of governments to perform executions for murder, where murder is a deliberate act of killing someone, not accidental. I don't believe that it's wrong for a murderer to be executed, as murder and killing are different. While, yes, I'm sure that some innocent people have been convicted of murder and executed, no matter how you go about it, you're going to have these happen, and I don't feel that the small instances are enough to justify staving the execution for murderers who should be taken out and promptly shot after the sentance is handed out.
Is someone else's life (the criminal in this case) worth YOU going through the psychological torture? I mean you said psych is the worse way Impotence, well thats what he is doing to you when he takes away your beloved one. Some people are crazy and really don't care what you "psychologically" do to them and they won't cry for two days. So what happens to them? I'm not saying throw the death penalty around for every single crime that involves death. But some people deserve to die. And quite frankly i dont' care if the person who kills my mother did it in a panic...he would pay one way or another. and here's what is used in the US death penalty, a combo of three drugs. You can read more here http://people.howstuffworks.com/lethal-injection4.htm The first one puts the person in a deep sleep. The second one is a muscle relaxant, which paralyzes the lungs, and the third one is potassium chloride which stops the heart. Thats like having a heart attack while in a coma, doesn't sound devastatingly painful especially with the first one anesthetic. Dunno how the lethal injection works in the UK
Why is everyone allways after revenge, do you not see what it says in ninja's post? again, County A nukes Country B and kills 900,000 people, should Country B nuke Country A and kill 900,000 more? no of course not, were *phooked* swear: ) enuf as it is! If there a crazy nutter, then surely they should of had a carer with them / there not responcible for there own actions as there a crazy nutter
So a psychopath killer murders 12 people in a small town, ur saying he should live b/c he's not responsible for his actions? And that he should have a carer? Not all psychopaths have carers, and we're not talking ultimate revenge here, just the death penalty. Whether the death penalty is enstated or not, murders will happen. The death penalty as well as all other punishments are about "Justice" as such Justice should not have anything to do with whether the person is crazy or not. "Well he slaughtered my whole family but he was crazy, let him go he wasn't of sound mind" c'mon some people deserve the death penalty and some don't. Personally i don't like the current court system b/c yes you do lose innocent people not just to death but to jail. But regardless i agree with Big B and Metallica, Kill 'em All!
Just do add, i don't see why this was moved into the "War Zone", this is not a rant or an arguement, it's general conversation & debate. There's a difference. perhaps we should have a debate forum for things like this?
I guess because it's a potentially controversial subject that may cause a heated debate where as most things in general chat are casual like "I got a new dog", "It's Procals B-day!" etc. Just how I look at it.
:guns: :sniper: The problem would be miscarriage of justice, okay, fair enough, pedophiles, murders and rapists are the scum of the earth, and yes maybe they do deserve to die, but that is just an opinion. Even if the Uk ever did go back to captial punishment, imagine how you would feel if you were acused of a crime you really did not commit, imagine it was a crime as ugly as molesteringa child, but imagine that you had not commited the crime, and you were killed by the state. I agree that these sorts of people should get life sentences, sentences that mean life. Okay paedophiles, on the news recently here in the UK a 3 year old girl was obducted and raped, then the police chased them and they crashed http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4579802.stm. Now thay are obviously sick people, but if say a 25 year old man had consenting sex with a 14 year old girl, would the same death penalty rule apply??, because a legally there is nothing to differentiate the two ages. Obviously both scenarios are very sick, but one is obviously very differnt from the other. I agree that certain crimes should be punished severely, life should mean life. but if the death penalty was reintroduced to the UK i personaly think it would be a step backwards. Who would define the line of clarification when deciding weather or not the the death penalty was an appropriate solution, what i mean to say is wher would the line be, what would the difference be between a case where no death penalty were used and a cse where it is used, taking into account mental stabilty, the situation and so forth. Its a very very hard subject , with many different aspects to take into account, politically and ethically, and one that would be very hard for the UK to socially accept as a nation. Its very easy to sit there and say i think its okay, but think about it, it really is not as easy as saying okay he killed this person, so okay lets kill him, its just not that easy ** cheack out my new pc pics** let me know hwat u all think!!! http://www.hardwareforums.com/gallery/browseimages.php?c=2&userid=3205
WOW loaded issue or what? Deffo death penalty. Nothing to do with revenge, eye for an eye or any other biblical mumbo-jumbo. Crimes call for removing the offenders from society for a period of time which will allow the offenders to reflect on their behaviour and decide if and how they would like to rejoin society. All this while staying away from their victims. [ot]Any person who was affected by a crime is a victim![/ot] Unfortunately, some crimes are so heinous, that it can be shown in a court of justice that a person who committed such a crime cannot possibly form a part of society. I am sure we all know what sort of crimes we are talking about. It is now up to the court to decide whether this person will serve the rest of his natural life in prison/mental institute, becoming a financial burden on the tax payer or removed from society in the most explicit of ways. I really believe that supporting the death penalty is down to one’s belief and trust in the justice system in one’s own country. I believe and trust the UK’s system and therefore will be happy to see the death penalty back for crimes such as murder one and killings such as terror attacks.
I completely agree with you JimBowen, my original post was deliberately vague with the intention of provoking a range of thoughts. I believe the justice system in the UK needs to seriously sort it's self out, at the moment someone will get 7-8 years for murder, and yet someone will be given 25 for stealing cash, cars or jewelry. The difference in my opinion is a great one, the loss of life compared to the loss of an object of materialism. I believe that pedophiles should recieve the death penalty, and yes you mention the example of perhaps a 25 year old having consented sexual intercourse with a person of 14/15. But you've answered your own question.. the law defines rape as that of forced or unconsented sexual activity. For example: if a 25 year old person is having consented sexual intercourse or activity with a 14/15 year old person.. "key word being consented" it may not be socially acceptable and taken upon as a social taboo (which i believe it is) but at the end of the day both parties are not going to admit that they are having sexual activity due to the fact that it would then be classed as sexual intercourse with a minor (under 16) which is therefore rape, as anyone under 16 is classified as not being mentally nor physically mature enough to make their own decision as to whether they actually want to have any sexual activity. If a couple are having what is believed to be "consented" sexual activity at 25 yrs & 14/15yrs old and the younger persons involved say that they didn't want to or did not consent it, through spite or truth, then this is the problem obviously of the 25yr old involved, as he/she is an adult and knows the risks involved. Whether the relationship was through true love / effection from both parties or not. That i believe is the difference. And therefore the death penalty would be easily defined in different situations, also bare in mind that if the death penalty was a result of pedophiala then the above would not happen so much (a 25 yr old with a 14/15 yr old), as people would not be so willing to take the risks. And those that did would take the risks knowing the possible consequences.
