[X] My Assistant

[Blax8192]

I sound like Hitler or something. I know. Get over it. I feel very strongly about this. It has been proven that there are genes that dictate tendencies toward violence, so I won't hear arguements on that part of my "speech" and here it is:

The death penalty is one of the saving graces of our planet. We are too considered with being "humane" that we forget what exactly we are punishing . . . Murderers. Stealers of life. Oftentimes they feel no remorse. When they do feel true remorse they are usually easily caught because it was heat of the moment accidental killing, in which case allowances could be made. But if it there were attempts to conceal it, showing premeditation, it is likely they will kill again. Not only do these people deserve to be executed, but we need to PUBLICLY execute them. Not with the wimpy lethal injection or electric chair either. They didn't show their victim the mercy of a quick death. Not of they planned the murder especially. So why, pray tell, should we show them the same mercy. No. They don't deserve it. Firing squads. Hanging. Guillotine. These are the methods of the past and they were effective at both killing the criminal, but also as a deterrent. Peasants were invited to watch the executions and If I just saw somebody get hung for killing somebody, I sure as hell won't do it. The problem is that it was abused, you stole from the king, off with your head. You offended the royalty, your dead. You are different, you own a cat, you're a witch, let's burn you. These will combine the fairness of modern trials with the efficience of past executions. They need to televise these deaths across the nation, perhaps on a special television station. The crime rate will go down before you can blink. It will show that the Justice system is NOT weak and that we will NOT tolerate murderers.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to keep up a prisoner on death row? It costs as much to execute one prisoner as it does to keep them in jail for life. They spend about 15 years on death row. What does this say that we have 15 YEARS of murderers backed up awaiting execution. For the last meal they get to eat WHATEVER THEY WANT!!! Lobster, Pizza. Expensive food we're talking about here. Why waste the food on them, they'll be dead in an hour or so anyway! HELLO! If we acquit a killer, they can pass on their genes to children who will continue to pass this violence down to rise up at the worst times, it spreads unchecked like a disease throughout the human race. If we stop it now, we will save ourselves in the future.

I have to go, I'll be back to argue another time. Happy Debating

[Guest_Hokkai no Oni_*]

I'd argue with you tonight but I don't have the time, and frankly I need to think a little more logically, because I'd only savage you to the point where I'd need to be punished for abusing you at the moment.

Needless to say, there are so many holes in your logic for me to go spelunking in I might not see daylight or the surface again for some time once I enter.

[MetalHealth]

i have to agree though it sounds brutal people have to be shown and afraid of the consiquences of killing a person. though they HAVE be 100% sure about who did what since they are deciding people's lives but killing some one is the worst possible thing any person could do to any one and it deserves the death as a punishment, you can put some one in jail forever but itll never bring back the person who got killed to any of their family or friends

This post has been edited by MetalHealth: Apr 17 2008, 10:23 PM

[Lester Burnham]

No, no. They didn't "burn" the different people at the stake. Most of the people they burned were tried as heretics and were found guilty of heresy by the Catholic Church (save for a few, like Joan of Arc). They knowingly denied the law (Catholicism wasn't just religion, it was life) and paid for their crimes. However, burning at the stake has never been fair.

I disagree with execution. Let them fucking rot in jail.

At that, PUBLIC execution? The guillotine hasn't even been used since the French Revolution. Nobody today would watch a beheading except for sadists. I'm hemophobic and would never. Lethal injection. Have you ever seen the room they use? They strap the criminal down and bind him/her/it and give the needle. Electric chair? Come on. Use the fucking electricity for good and power some homes. Bastards.

Most hangings (except the ones done by the KKK) were over within a few minutes. The condemned man/woman falls through a board and usually breaks their neck due to the fall. They wouldn't last. The only time hanging has been actually used for true humiliation was the lynchings done by the KKK (and possibly Hussein's execution).

Execution is never used for humiliation. Execution has been mostly used to bring a hardened criminal to justice. However, I disagree. Why kill them? They'll never repent for their crime that way. If they rot in jail, THE ONLY THING THEY CAN DO IS REMEMBER THEIR CRIME.

[Cesium]

Forget capital punishment, let's bring back old fashioned torture. Those bastards need to suffer, not get a one way ticket to 6 feet under, like their victims.

[Lester Burnham]

Forget capital punishment, let's bring back old fashioned torture. Those bastards need to suffer, not get a one way ticket to 6 feet under, like their victims.

And what justice does that bring?

[Blax8192]

If you have an issue with watching it, you wouldn't have to. Just change the channel. It isn't even so much as watching it as the fact that it's there, nobody wants to be on that "channel" or whatever. Some were tried as heretics and burned, some were in fact burned as witches, although not as often as other "methods" like that good old one where they threw you in the river and if you floated you were a witch and if you sank you were innocent. Usually to get witches to admit to it they tortured them. I personally disagree with torture in general, but in some cases it is necessary, but not to extract confessions.

Do they deserve a noble death then? an honorable, clean, polite, painless death then? It is said that the brain, when the head is severed from the living body will continue to think for up to ten seconds after it is "removed". I think that would be plenty of torture.

Who cares how long ago the guillotine was "discontinued"? they were effective.

As for being sure about it, while there are many cases that aren't clear cut as to whodunnit, There are enough. The average time spent in jail for murder is something like two years I think...Somewhere around that. What kind of justice is that? I understand the whole technological advances thing with forensics. But DNA is pretty conclusive and as far as I'm concerned it's enough to prove they did it. Plus the blood splatters, they have different types of how the blood is absorbed by fabric too. They can tell if you're covered in blood because you found them or if you killed them because splattered blood is absorbed into the thread and contact blood adheres to it or something like that.

[Sceptile100]

I dissagree with execution, let them rot in prison. Do you want to quikly die, and never really have to suffer for thier decisions? By executing people, you are just offering them the easy way, a quick painless death. I'm not saying we should torture them or anything, but at least let them think for 40 or 50 years about the murders. If he or she killed your parents, do you want them to die quickly and without remorse, or do you want them to suffer and become remorseful. The only thing that executions are doing is helping the murdrers, providing a one way ticket out of here with absolutly no pain whatsoever.

[MetalHealth]

I dissagree with execution, let them rot in prison. Do you want to quikly die, and never really have to suffer for thier decisions? By executing people, you are just offering them the easy way, a quick painless death. I'm not saying we should torture them or anything, but at least let them think for 40 or 50 years about the murders. If he or she killed your parents, do you want them to die quickly and without remorse, or do you want them to suffer and become remorseful. The only thing that executions are doing is helping the murdrers, providing a one way ticket out of here with absolutly no pain whatsoever.

they dont just rot there thats the problem people arnt scared to go to prison for killing some one cause they know they at least get to live, or choose to live or kill himself cause prison is so hard. but if the consequence for murder was always death people would have to think before killing someone and thus throwing their own life away (though prison should really make them think before doing it anyway)

[Blax8192]

Prison is soft. It isn't the place it used to be, homeless people get themselves arrested on purpose because in prison you get food and shelter.

If somebody killed my parents I would want them killed. Period. No debate on that bit. I would want a public execution. If I ever write a will (long LOOONG ways off) but if I do I'll write it down that I want the killer publicly executed (they have to follow it don't they? I mean it's not technically against the law).

IIRC they publicly hanged Saddam Hussein, because it's humiliating. It shows the people that he was bad, everybody knows he was killed for his crimes now. Everybody knows whats coming if they do the same thing.

Also it's like I was saying, not torture, but not a quick death either. Firing squads, you know how they worked? They had a squad of men and gave them all blanks and one had a real bullet and they all fired at the same time so nobody knew who had actually killed the man and nobody felt guilty.

How many people would want their family to see them beheaded or shot or hung on television? Raise your hand, don't be shy now. No-one? My point exactly, that's how you make somebody think twice about murder, you dangle that in front of their noses.

[axiswarrior]

I think the death penalty is the right way to go. Ever heard the saying: "An eye for an eye?" I think that should apply to lives too. However, I see nothing wrong with showing a little mercy for first time offenders. After all, sometimes people will do really weird/crazy things. Just shove them in jail (or maybe solitary confinement) for 50 years, and if they do it again, then you execute them. I think there's a big difference between a killer and a Serial Killer. A Killer may have a reason like selfprotection, or an accident, but most Serial Killers do it for pleasure.

This post has been edited by axiswarrior: Apr 24 2008, 02:34 PM

[Pumpkin King]

I think the death penalty is the right way to go. Ever heard the saying: "An eye for an eye?" I think that should apply to lives too. However, I see nothing wrong with showing a little mercy for first time offenders. After all, sometimes people will do really weird/crazy things. Just shove them in jail (or maybe solitary confinement) for 50 years, and if they do it again, then you execute them. I think there's a big difference between a killer and a Serial Killer. A Killer may have a reason like selfprotection, or an accident, but most Serial Killers do it for pleasure.

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. death penalties are wrong. we humans should not be the ones to judge whether one lives or dies. instead, criminals should just serve their time in jail.

[Justbman]

Agreed. It isn't our job to bring judgement upon others. And what happened to the saying: "How can we kill to show that killing people is wrong?"

[Blax8192]

We get rid of one person to prevent them killing again/causing more deaths; it's basically choosing the lesser of two evils.

[Pumpkin King]

We get rid of one person to prevent them killing again/causing more deaths; it's basically choosing the lesser of two evils.

thats y u lock em up in jail. the killer no longer has access to society, nobody dies and we all live happily ever after

[Lord Raven]

Capital Punishment should, imo, only be for repeat offenses and if the person in question is 100% guaranteed to have committed a SERIOUS crime. Because you can undo jail time; you can't undo death. Repeat offenses only applying to serious crimes such as murder, etc. Repeat offenses for minor shoplifting don't deserve it.

Capital Punishment shouldn't be handed out lightly, is what I'm saying.

Forget capital punishment, let's bring back old fashioned torture. Those bastards need to suffer, not get a one way ticket to 6 feet under, like their victims.

Please tell me this is a joke post. In all reality, it's a really stupid suggestion. And even despite that, it violates one of the amendments in our constitution (cruel and unusual punishment; no man, murderer or not, deserves what you're suggesting anyway). This is mainly USA, correct?

Agreed. It isn't our job to bring judgement upon others. And what happened to the saying: "How can we kill to show that killing people is wrong?"

That's not the right question to ask. Would you let a mass murderer stay alive in jail where he can break out so he can kill more people or prevent it from happening in the first place?
Yeah, I would go with the latter.

[Blax8192]

We get rid of one person to prevent them killing again/causing more deaths; it's basically choosing the lesser of two evils.

thats y u lock em up in jail. the killer no longer has access to society, nobody dies and we all live happily ever after

sharksarentevil? is that you? you finally got a cool name!

they have access to people who might not be killers, like shoplifters and homeless people who commit crimes to go to jail on purpose so they can get food and shelter.

@ike: I liked raven as a name better personally

there's like a one in a jillion chance that you'll share a DNA fingerprint with somebody else, I know alot of cases aren't clear cut like that, but it's so close, in fifty years we'll probably have abolished capital punishment, know 100% if people committed the crime no matter what it is, and be a society completely made up of killers who escaped from jail and crap because politicians were too prissy to kill one person to save several lives, and sometimes, by killing this person, save hundreds or even (not likely, but I have to consider everything, like suicide bombings, or just bombings) thousands of lives.

[Lord Raven]

Blax, can you put clarity into your typing? Very much appreciated. You're jamming like 10 points into one, and I can't tell what you're trying to say. All I saw was something about DNA fingerprinting, which I don't even think is relevant to what I said.

[Big Bidoof]

I'm completely, 100% against capital punishment. It's a barbaric practise, which I'm happy to say was banned in my country several decades ago.

First of all, the most fundamental of human rights is the right to live. Whether you're a murder or not, that right is universal and not conditional, and regardless of any crime you've committed, you don't lose that right. Obviously, said murderer has no right to take the life of another, but that's not to say that their life should be taken as well.

Any argument about "what would you want to happen if someone you loved was murdered" is completely hypocritical - as sad, angry, etc. as you would be to lose that person, in putting their murderer to death, you're doing the EXACT SAME thing to others. If you've ever lost a loved one to murder, would you want to put someone else through that same suffering?

And finally, when you have someone execute a condemned prisoner, you're making a murderer out of them as well.

As for comments about using the guillotine, I think it's worth noting that the French are so ashamed of that practise, that it's even been made illegal to use the image of the guillotine or anything like that over there, or something to that effect. I don't remember specifically how it is, but I do remember being told that when I was in France last year.

[Blax8192]

I'll try to organize my thoughts here somewhat, and it was relevant as far as I see
(highlights relevant area orange)


they (the murderers) have access to (in jail) people who might not be killers and might actually deserve to live/be capable of turning their life around, like shoplifters and homeless people

Some homeless people commit crimes on purpose to go to jail so they can get food and shelter. So it can't be that bad can it? They are usually good people who can't get back on their feet, the drunk homeless people wouldn't do that because they don't get alcohol in jail. Would you have them be murdured?

there's like a one in a jillion chance that you'll share a DNA fingerprint (the results of a DNA test) with somebody else, I know alot of cases aren't clear cut 100% sure whodunnit , but it's so close and the margin for error is so small it's hardly even worth considering.

In fifty years I predict we'll probably have abolished capital punishment, we will know 100% if people committed the crime no matter what it is, and be a society completely made up of killers who escaped from jail and crap because politicians were too prissy to kill one person to save several lives, and sometimes, by killing this person, save hundreds or even (not likely, but I have to consider everything, like suicide bombings, or just bombings) thousands of lives.

Capital Punishment should, imo, only be for repeat offenses and if the person
in question is 100% guaranteed to have committed a SERIOUS crime. Because you can undo jail time; you can't undo death. Repeat offenses only applying to serious crimes such as murder, etc. Repeat offenses for minor shoplifting don't deserve it.

Capital Punishment shouldn't be handed out lightly, is what I'm saying.

Forget capital punishment, let's bring back old fashioned torture. Those bastards need to suffer, not get a one way ticket to 6 feet under, like their victims.

Please tell me this is a joke post. In all reality, it's a really stupid suggestion. And even despite that, it violates one of the amendments in our constitution (cruel and unusual punishment; no man, murderer or not, deserves what you're suggesting anyway). This is mainly USA, correct?

I agree with ike on this one, torture is unnecessary, I'm sure they didn't show their victims the mercy of a quick death, but we would really be making ourselves into barbarians if we re-instated torture, it'd be the inquisition all over again. Torturing people until they confess just to end the pain, then torturing them to death.

Agreed. It isn't our job to bring judgement upon others. And what happened to the saying: "How can we kill to show that killing people is wrong?"

That's not the right question to ask. Would you let a mass murderer stay alive in jail where he can break out so he can kill more people or prevent it from happening in the first place?
Yeah, I would go with the latter.

Lesser of two evils, that is exactly my point.

I'm completely, 100% against capital punishment. It's a barbaric practice, which I'm happy to say was banned in my country several decades ago.


I thought you lived in America. Nevermind, that isn't important, what I want to know is what the crime rate is and what kind of government you have. Democracy? Dictatorship? Monarchy? What is your crime rate? murder rate specifically.


First of all, the most fundamental of human rights is the right to live. Whether you're a murder or not, that right is universal and not conditional, and regardless of any crime you've committed, you don't lose that right. Obviously, said murderer has no right to take the life of another, but that's not to say that their life should be taken as well.

Any argument about "what would you want to happen if someone you loved was murdered" is completely hypocritical - as sad, angry, etc. as you would be to lose that person, in putting their murderer to death, you're doing the EXACT SAME thing to others. If you've ever lost a loved one to murder, would you want to put someone else through that same suffering?


So you would have the family of 5 innocent victims suffer over that of a murderer, would you put him in jail for him to kill (mostly, at least more so than the murderer I shall call bob) What about when he gets out? Did you know the average time spent in jail (in I think America, it might just be Florida though) is TWO YEARS!!! so Bob gets out in two years and goes and makes 5, 10 15 maybe even 50 innocent peoples families suffer the death of their loved ones and have Bob alive and capable of continuing murdering people?


And finally, when you have someone execute a condemned prisoner, you're making a murderer out of them as well.

I think I talked about this, maybe not here, nevermind. In firing squads they would give ten or fifteen men guns and load all of them with blanks except three or four of them, which had live bullets in them, this way nobody would know if they had been the one who had killed Bob. Leaving their consciences (mostly) unaffected. This could be done with a guillotine with 5 people and 5 levers, the ropes hidden from view so nobody knows who dropped the blade, 5 or 10 switches for the electric chair, etc. etc.

As for comments about using the guillotine, I think it's worth noting that the French are so ashamed of that practise, that it's even been made illegal to use the image of the guillotine or anything like that over there, or something to that effect. I don't remember specifically how it is, but I do remember being told that when I was in France last year.

they went overboard though, thats like saying you feel bad about dropping your computrer out the window because it wasn't working right, then feeling bad about it. Whats done is done it doesn't make all computers taboo now does it? they're a great idea, you just went overboard (I have no clue, it's just an example I made up)