The Death Penalty

[ryanman]

Its terrible.

Sorry, really busy. But its terrible. I hate everyone that supports it. Bye.

[AdamGB]

Haven't read the thread but here's my pitch on it:

The justice system isn't perfect, innocent people do get wrongly convicted sometimes. It may be reletavly rare but I don't think the odds will ever be low enough when you're gambling with a life.

If you believe in an after life then fair enough, you may feel that death is the begining punishment... but if you don't then a relativly painless death is little punishment compared to a life sentance.

I believe that those guilty should have to exist for the rest of their lives, not living - in punishment. If there's no afterlife then they've been punished as much as possible withouyt physical torture... if there is an afterlife then not only have they lived their mortal life in punishment but now eternity.

I do understand that a lot of the victims may want death to get closture, but if the prison system is right (which tbh it's not) then I'd rather have them existing and suffering then at peace.

[Master]

Its terrible.

Sorry, really busy. But its terrible. I hate everyone that supports it. Bye.

Thanks for your intellectual input. You can converted me.

[ryanman]

Sorry, Haven't got time to bore you all with a long essay, but i get the impression for most people its a question of which is the worst punishment between death and a life sentence.

Are there any other people who, like me, actually are against it because its too much of a punishment?

It seems that most people that are against it is for the reason that the offender would suffer more by being kept alive in prison serving a life sentence.

Is there anyone against it simply because its wrong?

[yvonne]

Bring it back yesterday!!!It'll stop all the sick bastards ever thinking of raping kids.May i add that all the druggies and waste of skins who choose to sponge off tax payers money and cause a pain in the arse for other normal citizen be sent to fight for queen and country,that way their can fooking die for a good cause.....waste of fucking skins!!!!

But is it a good enough deterrent? I've not seen any research or evidence to support that fact that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than jail.

Secondly, how would you turn druggies and spongers into soldiers? If they can't be arsed finding a job, how are they going to physically cope with being forced to kill for a living? Is being lazy deserving of being forced to carry the responsibility of ending another man's life? Then of course you have to question the morality of war and decide whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are what you would deem as a good cause.

Questioning the morality of the death penalty is interesting it itself. First and foremost DNA evidence often isn't sufficient enough to convict somebody of a crime. Circumstantial evidence and statistical evidence also needs to analysed. The bad thing is, this evidence is analysed by a jury; a jury who often don't have the necessary skills to correctly analyse statistics. Incorrect convictions have occured in the past, whereby innocent people have been sentenced to death.

Even assuming the Jury have correctly analysed the evidence, statistical evidence is only as good as the statitician who has formulated the probabilities of person X being guilty. A case a few years ago in the UK is an example of this. A woman was sentenced to prison for allegedly smothering her two children 2 death. The statisitcal evidence suggested that there was a 1 in 73million chance of both babies dying by natural causes. This had a profound effect on the jury and they found her guilty. On appeal, it emerged that the statistics were wrong. There was infact a 1 in 130,000 thousand chance of 1 baby dying from natural causes/cot death. In cases of child death, the odds of a 2nd child from the same household dying was only 1 in 60. Given the amount of babies born every year, probability suggested that there are bound to be a few double cot death incidents every year in the UK. She was released on appeal a few years later. If the death penalty was in force, she'd have been killed.

That's the problem, no 2 convictions are ever the same. There is always variables in every criminal case.

In cases where there is absolutely no doubt (if that's possible), then the idea of the death penatly takes on new ground. Does killing the guilty, erase the memory of the crime? Does it reverse the effects of the crime? Who has the power to decide to end somebody's life? Does that person then become a murderer? Will he be given the death penalty?

The idea of my post is not to dismiss other people's opinion. The Death Penalty is always an interesting point of debate. Opinion is divided. I personally think it's barbaric and has no place in civilised society. With that said, neither do murderers and rapists etc...that's why they should spend their time in jail.

No doubt you have some realistic views on how the death penalty can be floored in wrongly convicting people that have not been clearly caught red handed in their crimes,but were the DNA comes into effect on a case of a Pedo raping or killing a young child or a adult grown woman for that matter then i'd clearly want to see the scum die,"A eye for a eye!"Does killing the guilty person of crimes of rape and murder reverse the effects of the crime after DNA of their's have been found at the scene?"Of course it does,cos if we already had the old hanging penalty brought back on over here in the uk,then these sick fookers would think twice before even thinking about raping or murdering women and kids.Its like going into the tigar inclosure at the zoo,there's a sign on the fence warning you not to climb over,otherwise you get your arse beaten off,soo if you choose to climb over the fence after you've been warned then you suffer the concequences of death!!

BRING IT BACK NOW!!

[ono]

Bring it back yesterday!!!It'll stop all the sick bastards ever thinking of raping kids.May i add that all the druggies and waste of skins who choose to sponge off tax payers money and cause a pain in the arse for other normal citizen be sent to fight for queen and country,that way their can fooking die for a good cause.....waste of fucking skins!!!!

But is it a good enough deterrent? I've not seen any research or evidence to support that fact that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than jail.

Secondly, how would you turn druggies and spongers into soldiers? If they can't be arsed finding a job, how are they going to physically cope with being forced to kill for a living? Is being lazy deserving of being forced to carry the responsibility of ending another man's life? Then of course you have to question the morality of war and decide whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are what you would deem as a good cause.

Questioning the morality of the death penalty is interesting it itself. First and foremost DNA evidence often isn't sufficient enough to convict somebody of a crime. Circumstantial evidence and statistical evidence also needs to analysed. The bad thing is, this evidence is analysed by a jury; a jury who often don't have the necessary skills to correctly analyse statistics. Incorrect convictions have occured in the past, whereby innocent people have been sentenced to death.

Even assuming the Jury have correctly analysed the evidence, statistical evidence is only as good as the statitician who has formulated the probabilities of person X being guilty. A case a few years ago in the UK is an example of this. A woman was sentenced to prison for allegedly smothering her two children 2 death. The statisitcal evidence suggested that there was a 1 in 73million chance of both babies dying by natural causes. This had a profound effect on the jury and they found her guilty. On appeal, it emerged that the statistics were wrong. There was infact a 1 in 130,000 thousand chance of 1 baby dying from natural causes/cot death. In cases of child death, the odds of a 2nd child from the same household dying was only 1 in 60. Given the amount of babies born every year, probability suggested that there are bound to be a few double cot death incidents every year in the UK. She was released on appeal a few years later. If the death penalty was in force, she'd have been killed.

That's the problem, no 2 convictions are ever the same. There is always variables in every criminal case.

In cases where there is absolutely no doubt (if that's possible), then the idea of the death penatly takes on new ground. Does killing the guilty, erase the memory of the crime? Does it reverse the effects of the crime? Who has the power to decide to end somebody's life? Does that person then become a murderer? Will he be given the death penalty?

The idea of my post is not to dismiss other people's opinion. The Death Penalty is always an interesting point of debate. Opinion is divided. I personally think it's barbaric and has no place in civilised society. With that said, neither do murderers and rapists etc...that's why they should spend their time in jail.

No doubt you have some realistic views on how the death penalty can be floored in wrongly convicting people that have not been clearly caught red handed in their crimes,but were the DNA comes into effect on a case of a Pedo raping or killing a young child or a adult grown woman for that matter then i'd clearly want to see the scum die,"A eye for a eye!"Does killing the guilty person of crimes of rape and murder reverse the effects of the crime after DNA of their's have been found at the scene?"Of course it does,cos if we already had the old hanging penalty brought back on over here in the uk,then these sick fookers would think twice before even thinking about raping or murdering women and kids.Its like going into the tigar inclosure at the zoo,there's a sign on the fence warning you not to climb over,otherwise you get your arse beaten off,soo if you choose to climb over the fence after you've been warned then you suffer the concequences of death!!

BRING IT BACK NOW!!

But there's no research to back up the opinion that the death penalty would be a better deterrant than jail.

It doesn't reverse the effect of the crime. The victim is still the victim.

Even if the death penalty was in use, you'd be surprised how rare DNA evidence, on it's own, would be sufficient enough to try somebody.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Sorry, Haven't got time to bore you all with a long essay, but i get the impression for most people its a question of which is the worst punishment between death and a life sentence.

Are there any other people who, like me, actually are against it because its too much of a punishment?

It seems that most people that are against it is for the reason that the offender would suffer more by being kept alive in prison serving a life sentence.

Is there anyone against it simply because its wrong?

yes, me.

Let's get this straight - we are teaching people it is wrong to kill by um, the state killing you. Sound logic, not a single flaw I can see, no not one.

[Andre]

Sorry, Haven't got time to bore you all with a long essay, but i get the impression for most people its a question of which is the worst punishment between death and a life sentence.

Are there any other people who, like me, actually are against it because its too much of a punishment?

It seems that most people that are against it is for the reason that the offender would suffer more by being kept alive in prison serving a life sentence.

Is there anyone against it simply because its wrong?

Yeah me.
An eye for an eye is old testament stuff, it makes both sides as bad as each other.

[Andre]

"How about an open season"?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Sorry, Haven't got time to bore you all with a long essay, but i get the impression for most people its a question of which is the worst punishment between death and a life sentence.

Are there any other people who, like me, actually are against it because its too much of a punishment?

It seems that most people that are against it is for the reason that the offender would suffer more by being kept alive in prison serving a life sentence.

Is there anyone against it simply because its wrong?

Yeah me.
An eye for an eye is old testament stuff, it makes both sides as bad as each other.

A step back to the savages we really are. Nice one.

[JazMerkin]

Sorry, Haven't got time to bore you all with a long essay, but i get the impression for most people its a question of which is the worst punishment between death and a life sentence.

Are there any other people who, like me, actually are against it because its too much of a punishment?

It seems that most people that are against it is for the reason that the offender would suffer more by being kept alive in prison serving a life sentence.

Is there anyone against it simply because its wrong?

yes, me.

Let's get this straight - we are teaching people it is wrong to kill by um, the state killing you. Sound logic, not a single flaw I can see, no not one.

I could write a long paragraph detailing my views, but that sentence said everything that needed to be said.

[Dark Lord Al]

Sorry, Haven't got time to bore you all with a long essay, but i get the impression for most people its a question of which is the worst punishment between death and a life sentence.

Are there any other people who, like me, actually are against it because its too much of a punishment?

It seems that most people that are against it is for the reason that the offender would suffer more by being kept alive in prison serving a life sentence.

Is there anyone against it simply because its wrong?

Ok then lets have it from now on , eg. make it law that if u kill someone ( murder ) , or rape , then you get swung by the neck , then if anyones stupid enough to do it , then thats life., end of story.
Or we could make it into a TV show like the running man , and all the money raised goes to the family of the victim's.
I d pay PPV for sure.

[ryanman]

I really want to get into this thread properly but haven't quite been able to.

But my views can be summed up thusly -

Whatever the opposite to what Hammer has said/is going to say.

[Andre]

On another note, Personally some people would rather die, than be held under continual threat of death or be locked down 22 hours of the day with people they hate. Maybe a choice would be righteous.




Like that Hiati tribe that treated it captives thus: you got to choose death or ubba ubba.

Ubbu ubbu was rape by all the tribal members.

If you chose death the tribal leader would grin and yell " DEATH ! by ubba ubba".


Apparently cousin Frump did three rounds and they just gave up and moved camp on him.

[yvonne]

Sorry, Haven't got time to bore you all with a long essay, but i get the impression for most people its a question of which is the worst punishment between death and a life sentence.

Are there any other people who, like me, actually are against it because its too much of a punishment?

It seems that most people that are against it is for the reason that the offender would suffer more by being kept alive in prison serving a life sentence.

Is there anyone against it simply because its wrong?

Ok then lets have it from now on , eg. make it law that if u kill someone ( murder ) , or rape , then you get swung by the neck , then if anyones stupid enough to do it , then thats life., end of story.
Or we could make it into a TV show like the running man , and all the money raised goes to the family of the victim's.
I d pay PPV for sure.

WORD!!!Im with you on that one mate,get all the murders and pedo's onto the runningman