Check out some similar questions!

Beachgrl · Nov 6, 2007, 02:28 AM

My view is that the world is overpopulated enough. If someone is definitely guilty of murder, child molestation or something along those lines then I say just kill them. We don't want them back in our society anyway and we don't want to pay for them while they're in jail. The major problem with the death penalty is that we don't use it enough and that the prisoners wait too long on death row. Once they are convicted and there is no doubt about their guilt, that should be it. Do it right then and there.

firmbeliever · Nov 6, 2007, 02:28 AM

Where I am,
As per Islamic law, murder is treated as a civil crime and is covered by the law of qisas (retaliation), whereby the relatives of the victim decide whether the offender is punished with death by the authorities or made to pay diyah (Weregild - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as compensation.

There was a murder in a relatives family and the man who admitted to being responsible was jailed,
But the family did not ask for compensation or death penalty because they felt that the man was not the only one involved and they did not wish to take his life without proper evidence even if he had confessed.

iAMfromHuntersBar · Nov 6, 2007, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Beachgrl

If someone is definately guilty of murder, child molestation or something along those lines...

See, you're been very vague there - "something along those lines"... where do you draw that line?

What about Euthenasia?
What about crimes of passion?
What about someone like Excon who would kill someone if they hurt his family?
What about the mentally ill?
What about people defending their property?
What about self defence?

What about statutory rape in a consensual relationship?

What about the person who's throwing the switch for electric chair or pumping that lethal fluid into the accused... are they murderers too!

Beachgrl · Nov 6, 2007, 03:07 AM

Well it would need to be a case by case basis. Rape by itself - no, I don't think it deserves death (tho I'm sure I'll hear a lot about that comment) Rape and murder - yes. If its your job like in the case of euthanasia or the guy throwing the switch then no its not murder. Self defense is not murder - you have the right to protect yourself. I don't really know how to define it but case by case I could tell you my opinions. Crimes of passion - yes its murder and maybe it does deserve the death penalty but at the same time it is justified. Retaliation for crimes against your family – yes also murder, but also justified. Maybe just those people who are killers, those people who do it because they want to, for no other reason then to kill or rape or just hurt someone else.

iAMfromHuntersBar · Nov 6, 2007, 03:14 AM

But there will always be grey areas, and cases that don't fit into that systematic ideal!

My point is then you're giving that decision to either a judge or jury to decide... and they make mistakes!

I think for someone to send someone else to death for a wrong they have committed is the adult equivalent of whining "Well HE STARTED IT!"

And if you call yourself a Christian and think this is OK, that's even worse in my opinion!

albear · Nov 6, 2007, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Beachgrl

My view is that the world is overpopulated enough. If someone is definately guilty of murder, child molestation or something along those lines then I say just kill them. We don't want them back in our society anyway and we don't want to pay for them while they're in jail. The major problem with the death penalty is that we don't use it enough and that the prisoners wait too long on death row. Once they are convicted and there is no doubt about their guilt, that should be it. Do it right then and there.

Thank you, finally somebody here who I can completely agree with,

Beachgrl · Nov 6, 2007, 03:24 AM

Well I definitely don't call myself a christian and yes there will always be grey areas. But no I don't think it's the equivalent of "he started it." When people commit certain acts they should not ever be allowed the chance to come back into society. And instead of giving them life in prison and making the public pay to keep them alive why not just kill them and do everyone a favor?

albear · Nov 6, 2007, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by Beachgrl

Well I definately don't call myself a christian and yes there will always be grey areas. But no I don't think its the equivalent of "he started it." When people commit certain acts they should not ever be allowed the chance to come back into society. And instead of giving them life in prison and making the public pay to keep them alive why not just kill them and do everyone a favor?

YES!

Beachgrl · Nov 6, 2007, 03:30 AM

Lol!! albear I love your picture

albear · Nov 6, 2007, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by Beachgrl

lol!!! albear I love your picture

Lol, it makes me chuckle

iAMfromHuntersBar · Nov 6, 2007, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Beachgrl

When people commit certain acts they should not ever be allowed the chance to come back into society.

So no second chance, no rehabilitation then?

albear · Nov 6, 2007, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by iAMfromHuntersBar

So no second chance, no rehabilitation then?

Notice the word 'certain'

iAMfromHuntersBar · Nov 6, 2007, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by albear

notice the word 'certain'

Yep, which takes me straight back to my previous posts! Lol! :rolleyes:

charlotte234s · Nov 6, 2007, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Beachgrl

Well I definately don't call myself a christian and yes there will always be grey areas. But no I don't think its the equivalent of "he started it." When people commit certain acts they should not ever be allowed the chance to come back into society. And instead of giving them life in prison and making the public pay to keep them alive why not just kill them and do everyone a favor?

I've done research that says that the death penalty costs more than keeping the person in prison for life because of the person's endless appeals and legal battles and all the money they cost.

I was shocked too.

charlotte234s · Nov 6, 2007, 05:58 AM

So no second chance, no rehabilitation then?

Some people feel that a rapist, murderer, or child molestor cannot be rehabilitated and should be, basically, exterminated.

Thanks for all your help guys, but this is just to help me out, please don't actually fight, no one is judging anyone else I hope and it's just for informative purposes so I know the arguments I will have to address.

charlotte234s · Nov 6, 2007, 06:05 AM

See, you're been very vague there - "something along those lines"... where do you draw that line?

What about Euthenasia?
What about crimes of passion?
What about someone like Excon who would kill someone if they hurt his family?
What about the mentally ill?
What about people defending their property?
What about self defence?

What about statutory rape in a consensual relationship?

What about the person who's throwing the switch for electric chair or pumping that lethal fluid into the accused... are they murderers too!

Euthanasia isn't really having anything to do with the death penalty..
Crimes of passion are still crimes of passion.
People who kill for revenge are killing anyway.
The mentally ill need to be medicated and hospitalized/institutionalized, they don't sentence mentally ill people to death.
In my state at least, (THANK GOD) if you are defending yourself or if someone breaks into your home/car/apartment/personal space and you kill that someone, you are not liable.
Statutory rape of girls in consensual relationships is rarely taken to court and when it does, the process takes so long that the girl either becomes an adult in that time, or the parents (who usually press charges) drop the charges, however, I don't see where a jury would give the death penalty for a person who is 18 having sex with a person who is like, 15, 16 or something, usually a lesser sentence is given. I think that the death penalty is not given to people unless they are accused of something really horrible, for the most part.

I don't necessarily agree with all that, but those are counterarguments..

EXCEPT the one I said "Thank God" too, if someone breaks into my house they're getting a gut full of lead... XD

iAMfromHuntersBar · Nov 6, 2007, 06:23 AM

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point slighty there. I was trying to point out that if you are going to sentence someone to death for murder or rape that you can't easily categorise these terms, there are massive spectrums and reasons behind every crime!

Skell · Nov 6, 2007, 03:39 PM

The Death Penalty doesn't work. I agree with excon. It is barbaric and the fact that there is evidence showing it doesn't work should mean it is outlawed again.

See my post on another thread that quotes an article dealing with the death penalty. You may find it interesting.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...tml#post701031

Recently the European Union pushed the US Federal Governments and States to abolish (or at least reconsider) the death penalty. It feel completely on deaf ears and the EU was told to butt out of American politics and keep their views to themselves. I wonder what would happen if Pakistan told Bush and Rice the same thing recently when she called to tell the Pakistani pres to hurry and hold his elections...

inthebox · Nov 6, 2007, 08:53 PM

The Death Penalty, Questions and Answers - Amnesty International

"Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "... research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis".

If the crime is that heinous/ would otherwise warrant the death penalty:
Life without chance of parole. Hard labor. No TV, no weight room, no internet, no recreation, no conjugal visits. Work and perhaps books.
Just my 2 cents.

charlotte234s · Nov 6, 2007, 10:02 PM

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point slighty there. I was trying to point out that if you are going to sentence someone to death for murder or rape that you can't easily categorise these terms, there are massive spectrums and reasons behind every crime!

I suppose but I don't think there's ever an excuse to murder or rape...

Thank you for those articles, I will be reading them!

Life without chance of parole. Hard labor. No TV, no weight room, no internet, no recreation, no conjugal visits. Work and perhaps books.
Just my 2 cents.

But the problem is just that, life without parole isn't given out enough, and these people who commit horrible crimes (rape, murder, child molestation) get out of prison where a lot of them do it again, and a lot of times, the people are better off in prison than they were out in the world, have shelter, food, and they have too many privileges for my taste, but maybe I'm just really strong about punishment being actually a punishment. I'm not 100% about the privileges given but from what I've heard, it's pretty cushy for what is supposed to be a punishment. Maybe someone knows something about the privileges they have? An article or something?