I think I got a cold but it is of my own doing. Like an idiot I started smoking again a few months ago after 4 years of not. I feel like someone should shoot me and put me out of my misery. They shoot horses, don't they?
Should the death penalty for murder be reintroduced?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Cliff, smoking is self-imposed capital punishment of wallet, body, and soul! Shame. You should be ringing a bell and crying "Unclean!"
I smoked once. I was so practiced flicking butts, I could hit an ashtray dead centre from three metres on a windy day!
I smoked once. I was so practiced flicking butts, I could hit an ashtray dead centre from three metres on a windy day!
"Bring out your dead!"
"Here, this one is dead."
"But I'm not dead yet. In fact I'm feeling rather chipper."
"No you're not."
"Here, this one is dead."
"But I'm not dead yet. In fact I'm feeling rather chipper."
"No you're not."
I just thought as a matter of course they would form the bulk of the candidates regardless. :lol:
I'd support re-introducing the death penalty only for severe cases of multiple murders, serial killing, repeated sexual assaults and the sort..... and only when it is without a question of doubt that the accused is the guilty one, either by a mountain of evidence or the accused giving their own confession.
In any case that there is a shred of doubt remaining or even if the accused at the end continually claims they're innocent, the death sentence would be invalid.
Which means that the death penalty would probably be rarely used...... but again, for the cases where the accused admitted their guilt or the evidence is unquestionable in regards to proving their guilt..... and it's a situation of multiple murders, or severe threat to the rest of society..... and the guilty person in question shows no remorse or possibility for rehabilitation...... then why waste tax payer's money giving them a free roof over their head and free food for the rest of their life?
Two rounds in the back of the head and drop their bodies into the forest for the bears to eat....... Why it has to be a complicated and expensive procedure to execute someone, I'll never understand.
I suppose it's all about how you're supposed to execute someone "Humanely" ........ but seriously, how Humanely is taking someone's life is supposed to be?
In the case of a mass-murderer or serial killer, or repeated child molester/pedophile, sexual assaulter, etc..... how humane were they to their victims?
Ah yes.... I suppose it's all about not stooping to the criminal's level and being the better human in society to show mercy and kindness to these freaks?
I don't consider criminal execution as stooping to the same level considering the punishment is given to a guilty person who already committed serious crimes against their fellow man, their society and usually against people who were innocent and never deserved what happened to them...... to try and relate the two as being the exact same is short sighted.
But ok, hypothetically lets say criminal execution is somehow wrong and we should continue to show compassion and kindness to these criminals and let them live the rest of their lives with a roof and food, without having to work, pay bills or contribute to society in anyway, like we've been doing for a few years now........
...... ^ Has this process prevented these type of serious offenders from existing? Has our current legal system prevented many of these serious offenders from walking back out onto the streets, back into our communities and back to re-offending and threatening the safety and security of your fellow citizen?
How many repeat offenders have been let back out of jail due to lack of space or only served a couple of years, then released, only to end back up where they just were because they assaulted or attacked another person? How many in the past have used the BS loopholes and technicalities to cut their prison sentences by half or more and then let back out onto the streets?
Sure I can understand not applying an execution for a first time offender or someone guilty of some petty crime(s)....... but when the same clown keeps ending back up in jail and keeps being found guilty for pretty much the same crimes that sent them to jail in the first place...... obviously they're not improving, obviously they're going to continue to be a risk and burden to society and our fellow citizen...... so why not just get rid of them?
Sure this system won't remove or stop the threat of all these type of offenders, but when all the dust settles..... fewer of these serious offenders will be a threat to our society compared to what we're dealing with now..... fewer of these serious offenders will be sucking on our tax money until they die an old ripe age..... and perhaps..... just perhaps, knowing you could face execution might make some of these idiots think twice about what they're about to do.
I doubt it..... but even if it doesn't deter them, if and when they're caught, they'll soon no longer be a problem.
In any case that there is a shred of doubt remaining or even if the accused at the end continually claims they're innocent, the death sentence would be invalid.
Which means that the death penalty would probably be rarely used...... but again, for the cases where the accused admitted their guilt or the evidence is unquestionable in regards to proving their guilt..... and it's a situation of multiple murders, or severe threat to the rest of society..... and the guilty person in question shows no remorse or possibility for rehabilitation...... then why waste tax payer's money giving them a free roof over their head and free food for the rest of their life?
Two rounds in the back of the head and drop their bodies into the forest for the bears to eat....... Why it has to be a complicated and expensive procedure to execute someone, I'll never understand.
I suppose it's all about how you're supposed to execute someone "Humanely" ........ but seriously, how Humanely is taking someone's life is supposed to be?
In the case of a mass-murderer or serial killer, or repeated child molester/pedophile, sexual assaulter, etc..... how humane were they to their victims?
Ah yes.... I suppose it's all about not stooping to the criminal's level and being the better human in society to show mercy and kindness to these freaks?
I don't consider criminal execution as stooping to the same level considering the punishment is given to a guilty person who already committed serious crimes against their fellow man, their society and usually against people who were innocent and never deserved what happened to them...... to try and relate the two as being the exact same is short sighted.
But ok, hypothetically lets say criminal execution is somehow wrong and we should continue to show compassion and kindness to these criminals and let them live the rest of their lives with a roof and food, without having to work, pay bills or contribute to society in anyway, like we've been doing for a few years now........
...... ^ Has this process prevented these type of serious offenders from existing? Has our current legal system prevented many of these serious offenders from walking back out onto the streets, back into our communities and back to re-offending and threatening the safety and security of your fellow citizen?
How many repeat offenders have been let back out of jail due to lack of space or only served a couple of years, then released, only to end back up where they just were because they assaulted or attacked another person? How many in the past have used the BS loopholes and technicalities to cut their prison sentences by half or more and then let back out onto the streets?
Sure I can understand not applying an execution for a first time offender or someone guilty of some petty crime(s)....... but when the same clown keeps ending back up in jail and keeps being found guilty for pretty much the same crimes that sent them to jail in the first place...... obviously they're not improving, obviously they're going to continue to be a risk and burden to society and our fellow citizen...... so why not just get rid of them?
Sure this system won't remove or stop the threat of all these type of offenders, but when all the dust settles..... fewer of these serious offenders will be a threat to our society compared to what we're dealing with now..... fewer of these serious offenders will be sucking on our tax money until they die an old ripe age..... and perhaps..... just perhaps, knowing you could face execution might make some of these idiots think twice about what they're about to do.
I doubt it..... but even if it doesn't deter them, if and when they're caught, they'll soon no longer be a problem.
Here is something that is wrong with teaching a convict a occupation. When they serve their time and get out, they have a little problem. They have to admit that they are a convicted felon and are totally at the whim of the employer if they get a job or not. They have a record that follows them the rest of their lives. Then again anyone sentenced to a life term doesn't have to worry about employment except for cigarette money, then again it might be a smoke free jail. 
Most of your post is good, but where I've highlighted it breaks down. That is like a wild card and would end up meaning NO ONE gets the death sentence.
If we kill people with one type of psychosis, then why not kill them all? There are far too many unstable prozac poppers walking the streets who could go off any minute.
We have to ask ourselves, what is "Humanely" are we a good example to use. I think a more prorate word should be "Conidea". They kill so efficiently, much better on a individual bases than we do. AS JLM stated, we cannot use "I am innocent" as a reason to avoid the death penalty, (they all plead that) preponderance of evidence should all that should be required if you going to do it at all. In most cases it takes 10-20 years for a person to be executed in the U.S. with all the appeals etc. If one must, guarantee them 30 years before sentence is carried out. But remember in the case of murder that is 30 years more than the victim had.
Here is something that is wrong with teaching a convict a occupation. When they serve their time and get out, they have a little problem. They have to admit that they are a convicted felon and are totally at the whim of the employer if they get a job or not. They have a record that follows them the rest of their lives. Then again anyone sentenced to a life term doesn't have to worry about employment except for cigarette money, then again it might be a smoke free jail.
They could just go into business for themselves.
As I said.... would probably be rarely used.... and I'd be fine with that.
Unless the criminal in question openly admitted to committing said crimes, showed no remorse and was a real threat to re-offend if ever released, or unless there was video/audio evidence of the actual crime directly showing it was them, or a number of witnesses saw them commit the crime.... or several police officers during a shootout or bust stated this was the person they were after and were shot at or caught them directly committing a crime...... then the death penalty would not apply.
Because if they didn't commit a crime, there is no justification to kill them all.
Just because someone pops prozac, that is not evidence to prove that they will eventually be a threat to anybody..... just as anybody smoking pot or drinking beer won't automatically be a threat.
No they all don't.
Did Williams?
They all might try and plead innocent at the start, but after they drag through all the evidence and go through all the procedures to prove their guilt..... many begin to realize just how stupid they looked and accept the final results..... though you will have those idiots who will appeal and appeal over this technicality or that technicality, like somehow not getting a fair trial due to media bias or some BS crap like that, which has nothing to do with the actual evidence against them....... there can be found a dividing line between those who generally maintain their innocence and claim they're wrongly convicted..... and those who generally just try and drag things out through technicalities and loop holes because they know damn well they're guilty, they're just trying to trick the system into letting them go.
^ For crap like that, the system needs to be fixed.
I never understood the whole 20-30 year appeal system and dragging things on beyond what is ever really needed.
It's not like the evidence is going to magically change 20-30 years down the road..... granted there has been the cases in the past where DNA testing never existed but now does and have changed a number of cases around 180 degrees due to new findings..... but as I see it, that's no longer an issue with current/today's cases since DNA testing/collecting is a standard procedure.
Go through the courts, go through all the evidence and find the person guilty or not..... have one appeal..... ONE...... and after all that the person is found guilty..... two rounds in the back of the head and feed them to the bears...... there's no need to drag it out for decades.
Methinks the additional supervision costs would negate any economic contribution the inmate makes.
Can you use your brain for a moment. Think: He's a convicted serial killer and he would require an army of guards to protect him at all times. Economically, please explain how we would get an economic benefit out of this.
DurkaDurka Can you use your brain for a moment. Think: He's a convicted serial killer and he would require an army of guards to protect him at all times. Economically said:
What is worse to the ego? Corporal punishment or no physical/emotional contact with a women for 99 years?