If you support the death penalty - does than mean you should support the following as well?
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm...0331159230
Serious question.
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm...0331159230
Serious question.
Death Penalty - contradiction?
Quote: (04-04-2013 11:14 AM)cardguy Wrote:
If you support the death penalty - does than mean you should support the following as well?
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm...0331159230
Serious question.
Technically, the alternative to a crime serious enough to get a death penalty would be life imprisonment.
Now, forcing a guy to live and grow old and die in a jail cell is to my mind pretty inhumane. It's hypocritical to say 'remove a guy from society' and then instead of giving him an honourable death, you lock him up to rot. The death penalty is more humane in comparison. (I suppose one could argue that being denied a good death is a punishment in and of itself, but I don't see the point of giving 2 punishments where 1 would do).
Paralysing another guy is inhumane, so I can't say I'd support it. If you support making a person suffer for the rest of his natural life for his crime, the proper equivalent is not the death penalty, but life in solitary.
I think a more fair ruling would be that the guy in question would be legally bound to hand over a set amount of whatever money he earns, almost like child support/alimony. Now instead society will have to support 2 cripples instead of 1.
I support the death penalty because some people are just not healthy to be left around, in the same way a gangrenous foot has to be cut off for the health of the whole, and I've met enough prisoners to realise that locking people up in cages is as cruel if not more cruel than the death penalty. I myself would rather die than be locked in a prison cell for 40+ years watching myself waste away. That's not a life worth living. Saying that the death penalty is wrong while saying that it's okay to lock people up and throw away the key is hypocritical - they are both brutal punishments in a world where punishments must by necessity exist for order to prevail. But paralysing someone seems to me overly brutal and goes far above and beyond the exercise of merely removing someone from society.
I'd be more supportive if they just ripped out his eye like he did to the victim. I am very much for jungle justice in which you get the same as what you dealt out.
The only time I am 100% for the Death Penalty is when Adults harm children because that child has to still live on with the grief for the rest of its life and many grow up with a lot issues from that. If an Adult is going to seriously harm a child whom is completely defenceless then they have lost their privilege to be a honest broker in society.
The only time I am 100% for the Death Penalty is when Adults harm children because that child has to still live on with the grief for the rest of its life and many grow up with a lot issues from that. If an Adult is going to seriously harm a child whom is completely defenceless then they have lost their privilege to be a honest broker in society.
Quote:kosko Wrote:
I'd be more supportive if they just ripped out his eye like he did to the victim.
He stabbed someone in the backbone which resulted in paralysis. So he'd be getting what he gave.
It is strange because alot more people would say they are in favour of killing someone, than would say they are in favour of crippling someone.
I find that ambiguity interesting. And I don't speak from a strong pro or anti-death penalty stance.
I find that ambiguity interesting. And I don't speak from a strong pro or anti-death penalty stance.
I am in favour of death penalty and eye for an eye.
Lets keep in mind a guy who killed 6 kids got something like 15 years in jail today in the UK. He killed 6 kids.
also lol at all th human right's groups getting pissed about this, don't they realsie that some countries have different cultures and you can't just tell them to change so they don't offend your morality.
Lets keep in mind a guy who killed 6 kids got something like 15 years in jail today in the UK. He killed 6 kids.
also lol at all th human right's groups getting pissed about this, don't they realsie that some countries have different cultures and you can't just tell them to change so they don't offend your morality.
I'm more outraged by the fact that Anders Brevik after killing dozens of children gets to loll away in a cushy Norwegian prison:
"If he's found mentally fit, AP says Breivik will get even larger digs, encompassing three eight-square-metre cells with a bedroom, exercise room and study that includes a computer but no Internet access.
Prison officials say eventually they'd like to transfer Breivik to a unit with other prisoners where he be able to take university-level courses, use the library, gym and work in the prison's workshops."
Link
Well, the fucker was found sane so there you go. Falsely accused rapists in the U.S. wish they'd get the accommodations of this mass murderer.
"If he's found mentally fit, AP says Breivik will get even larger digs, encompassing three eight-square-metre cells with a bedroom, exercise room and study that includes a computer but no Internet access.
Prison officials say eventually they'd like to transfer Breivik to a unit with other prisoners where he be able to take university-level courses, use the library, gym and work in the prison's workshops."
Link
Well, the fucker was found sane so there you go. Falsely accused rapists in the U.S. wish they'd get the accommodations of this mass murderer.
I think a civilized society should have as many ways of meting out justice as there are types of crimes. some crimes are similar, sometimes the circumstances are similar and sometimes the same crime is committed in totallyy different circumstances. Discerning between them and chosing the appropriate punishment must be left to the discretion of "good" men.
Which, by the way, is why it's critical we continue to have a strong civil religion and civil society in the US and why the ACLU is so friggin' dangerous.
The boy was 14 when he committed the crime. At that stage, a lot of people have underdeveloped brains that make them less conscientous and more rash. If the boy had shown good behavior till then and seemed of good character, I would say the appropriate atonement was for him to finish his schooling in prison, then to provide for the paralyzed kid as long as was necessary - for the rest of his life if need be. If he failed in this task, he should serve life in prison. This is of course assuming the above. I don't know the details.
If some punk-ass low-life of a third-world immigrant comes to my country and kills a family, he should be tried and sentenced to death by hanging, the sentence to be executed no later than 6 weeks after the trial. If the same punk just goes around stirring up trouble, he should be branded and deported to his ancestral homeland and his family should foot the bill. In general Western countries need to execute their murderers and deport all criminal immigrants, because right now society is regressing from a low-crime enlightened society it was in the 60's back to a more barbaric level. The low-crime levels in Western societies was achieved through a centuries long-process of instilling a powerful sense of justice in the people, both through the courts and also through its institutions and culture. If we want to achieve those low-crime levels again, we have to come down on crime with remorseless consistency and remove criminal elements from society - by deportation, execution or incarceration until it is no more.
Which, by the way, is why it's critical we continue to have a strong civil religion and civil society in the US and why the ACLU is so friggin' dangerous.
The boy was 14 when he committed the crime. At that stage, a lot of people have underdeveloped brains that make them less conscientous and more rash. If the boy had shown good behavior till then and seemed of good character, I would say the appropriate atonement was for him to finish his schooling in prison, then to provide for the paralyzed kid as long as was necessary - for the rest of his life if need be. If he failed in this task, he should serve life in prison. This is of course assuming the above. I don't know the details.
If some punk-ass low-life of a third-world immigrant comes to my country and kills a family, he should be tried and sentenced to death by hanging, the sentence to be executed no later than 6 weeks after the trial. If the same punk just goes around stirring up trouble, he should be branded and deported to his ancestral homeland and his family should foot the bill. In general Western countries need to execute their murderers and deport all criminal immigrants, because right now society is regressing from a low-crime enlightened society it was in the 60's back to a more barbaric level. The low-crime levels in Western societies was achieved through a centuries long-process of instilling a powerful sense of justice in the people, both through the courts and also through its institutions and culture. If we want to achieve those low-crime levels again, we have to come down on crime with remorseless consistency and remove criminal elements from society - by deportation, execution or incarceration until it is no more.
A year from now you'll wish you started today
Quote: (04-04-2013 04:25 PM)ElJefe Wrote:
If we want to achieve those low-crime levels again, we have to come down on crime with remorseless consistency and remove criminal elements from society - by deportation, execution or incarceration until it is no more.
That logic is from the wild west or FOX news. As long as man walks on this earth, there will be crimes commited, no matter how draconic the penalties or full the prisons.
The US is already leading by the rate of prison inmates worldwide and the punishments are much more severe than in other western countries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk...2page1.stm
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)