The Death Penalty

[ncba93ivyase]

I am a firm believer that the death penalty is right a just for the crimes they are put up for. If a person commits death murder on your child, then you will want to see that man pay, pay the ultimate consequence. Honestly, if I knew a man killed one of my family members, and I didn't get to him first, I would like nothing more than to sit front row at his execution.  An eye for an eye, an ear for an ear, and a life for a life. You purposefully take one, you should be killed.

So then how do you assign a person to be a paid murderer? That person is still purposely taking another's life, except the government is putting some cash in his pocket.

[musica.cards]

So then how do you assign a person to be a paid murderer? That person is still purposely taking another's life, except the government is putting some cash in his pocket.

No, those are assassins, and unless the government is the assassin's client, the government would want to eliminate the assassins.

[Firebird]

I am a firm believer that the death penalty is right a just for the crimes they are put up for. If a person commits death murder on your child, then you will want to see that man pay, pay the ultimate consequence. Honestly, if I knew a man killed one of my family members, and I didn't get to him first, I would like nothing more than to sit front row at his execution.  An eye for an eye, an ear for an ear, and a life for a life. You purposefully take one, you should be killed.

All moral issues aside (and that's a big thing to put aside), what about cases where people are found guilty, but then new evidence comes up to prove them innocent? If they're serving a life sentence in jail, they can be let go and financially compensated. What do you do if you've killed them?

[guff]

An eye for an eye, an ear for an ear, and a life for a life.

then the whole world will be blind, possibly deaf (depends on whether or not damage is done to the inner ear during the earectomy i guess), and dead

No, those are assassins, and unless the government is the assassin's client, the government would want to eliminate the assassins.

uh lawlz was referring to the people that carry out the death penalty for inmates

[musica.cards]

uh lawlz was referring to the people that carry out the death penalty for inmates

Well that's a different story v;

[Soul]

All moral issues aside (and that's a big thing to put aside), what about cases where people are found guilty, but then new evidence comes up to prove them innocent? If they're serving a life sentence in jail, they can be let go and financially compensated. What do you do if you've killed them?

Well, generally people are on death row for years, so if they don't find evidence that the person is evidence by the time they actually get to the chair / whatever for the death, then I doubt they really were innocent.

[guff]

...the person is evidence...

I AM LIVING PROOF THAT I COULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT YOU CLAIM

...by the time they actually get to the chair / whatever for the death, then I doubt they really were innocent.

yarr

[Soul]

I AM LIVING PROOF THAT I COULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT YOU CLAIMyarr

Brain fart. : (
I think I meant that if they don't find evidence that the person on death row is innocent in the years it takes for them to actually be executed, that they probably are guilty.

[ncba93ivyase]

Brain fart. : (
I think I meant that if they don't find evidence that the person on death row is innocent in the years it takes for them to actually be executed, that they probably are guilty.

I think if you're going to have to kill someone, you need to be absolutely 100% certain.

[Soul]

I think if you're going to have to kill someone, you need to be absolutely 100% certain.

Not necessarily, the United States went to war without being 100% certain of anything. Killing is hardly ever fully justified, but you should be heavily convinced that the person in question is guilty, as in Without a shadow of a doubt, to put them on death row.

[Daddy]

Not necessarily, the United States went to war without being 100% certain of anything.

How's that going?

[Soul]

How's that going?

Good point.  v;

[Selkie]

So then how do you assign a person to be a paid murderer? That person is still purposely taking another's life, except the government is putting some cash in his pocket.

Maybe the simple fact that if the murderer didn't commit the murder, he wouldn't have to worry about being killed.

Seriously, that's the dumbest argument against an eye for an eye.

[Selkie]

All moral issues aside (and that's a big thing to put aside), what about cases where people are found guilty, but then new evidence comes up to prove them innocent? If they're serving a life sentence in jail, they can be let go and financially compensated. What do you do if you've killed them?

If the person is put into jail for 20 years, his life is ruined by that point anyway.

[Daddy]

Maybe the simple fact that if the murderer didn't commit the murder, he wouldn't have to worry about being killed.

Seriously, that's the dumbest argument against an eye for an eye.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDB1739F936A35752C1A963958260

He was on death row and was released.  What if they hadn't cleared him until he was executed?

Here's a fun fact. No one executed during the Salem Witch Trials was guilty. i guess they needed worry about getting killed.   How many of the suspected communists were killed? How many were innocent?

How about the anarchists who were executed for throwing a bomb the Haymarket riot?  They were all found innocent after several had been executed.  I guess they had nothing to worry about.

If the person is put into jail for 20 years, his life is ruined by that point anyway.

Better than being dead.