Wow, it's kind of sick and cruel. Just because somebody did something wrong does not mean they should be killed over it. What really sent me over the edge is when I was reading an article and a man said, "I was mad that they post-poned this man's death sentence as I wanted to see the man who killed my son die. I told him I would sit in the front row". Now I paraphrased that but it was the jist of it. That is sick, you want to see another human die because they did something to you? No, that's wrong.
I believe the Death Penalty should be outlawed completely, like it is in Canada.
It depends on the crime for me.
Anyone that says stuff like "I CAN'T HAVE PEACE UNLESS THIS MAN IS PUT TO DEATH" or "MY GRANDFATHER WHOM I NEVER VISITED DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND CHANCE NOR SHOULD HE" is a nutjob. I don't understand how knowing you pushed the court to decide to kill a man makes you feel any better than knowing the man that did whatever harm to you will never get out of jail and never be within 1000 miles of you. I think the problem is people seek revenge instead of justice.
Also, I mostly disagree with the death penalty, but there are some exceptions. If a person is completely and utterly crazy, committed dozens of heinous crimes (such as blowing up random buildings throughout a city and murdering hundreds), and they can't provide any understanding for why they committed such an act, taking them out might be okay. Now, if a person can truly show that they've changed for the better or can possibly write a book or something about their actions, fine. Then that person has some use.
also probably my biggest problem is with the way executions are carried out today ie lethal injection which paralyzes you and forces you to stop breathing followed up by your heart stopping which really does sound pretty damn scary making your last few second of life complete hell. maybe carbon monoxide poisoning would be a bit more humane i don't know
Also, I still don't like the prison system and I doubt I ever will. 20 years for a single aggravated rape charge? Idiotic. A heinous crime, yes, but I'm sure most people would drastically change within 3 years; longer than that will make a person begin dissociate from society and it's hard for them to be brought back in. Sentence them for 10 years if they're an idiot; reduce it by up to 90% if they've shown they can truly become a good person.
No, I believe that if it could be proven 100% true, like, there is NO doubt whatsoever that the person is guilty,
Then again, sentencing an innocent man to a lifetime in prison isn't much better than killing him...
and if the murder was TOTALLY unprovoked, then the family should be able to decide the fate of the murderer and be able to sell tickets to his glorious death.
Just no torture, any form of death that lasts let's say under 15 seconds.
Quote from: Actingman00 on November 22, 2007, 09:03:02 PM
Wow, it's kind of sick and cruel. Just because somebody did something wrong does not mean they should be killed over it. What really sent me over the edge is when I was reading an article and a man said, "I was mad that they post-poned this man's death sentence as I wanted to see the man who killed my son die. I told him I would sit in the front row". Now I paraphrased that but it was the jist of it. That is sick, you want to see another human die because they did something to you? No, that's wrong.
I believe the Death Penalty should be outlawed completely, like it is in Canada.
I wouldn't say that, as true murderers should get the death sentence.
Quote from: some_person on November 23, 2007, 08:12:36 AM
I wouldn't say that, as true murderers should get the death sentence.
What defines a true murderer?
Generally people who are serial killers, who just kill people for fun, have some mental illness, and probably don't have perfect judgment of right and wrong. Does this mean they should run free? No, but maybe they should get some help.
As for 'murderers' who kill someone for a reason, we should take into consideration the reason.
If the reason is "oLo he stole my toasteR" then yeah, maybe consider death penalty.
If the reason is, he was defending his family from an armed burglar, then he shouldn't get penalized.
It depends on the crime and the motive, along with whether or not the person is completely proven beyond a doubt to be guilty. I also think that anybody in prison should have the right to death if they'd rather die than live through their sentence (I'm not sure if they do or not).
Quote from: Super Mario Galaxy on November 23, 2007, 07:01:50 AM
No, I believe that if it could be proven 100% true, like, there is NO doubt whatsoever that the person is guilty,
how would you do that
Quote from: Lawlz on November 22, 2007, 09:41:06 PM
I think the problem is people seek revenge instead of justice.
holy shit that wasn't retarded cook
Quote from: Lawlz on November 22, 2007, 09:41:06 PM
20 years for a single aggravated rape charge? Idiotic.
A heinous crime, yes, but I'm sure most people would drastically change within 3 years; longer than that will make a person begin dissociate from society and it's hard for them to be brought back in.
Sentence them for 10 years if they're an idiot; reduce it by up to 90% if they've shown they can truly become a good person.
well i had trouble finding information on the issue but it doesn't seem like that's the minimum sentence
if you were referencing a specific case, then maybe the offender had a record of some sort
or maybe you just pulled the number out of your ass dunno
well, it's more than just sentencing; therapy for sexual offenders does seem to lower the rate of recidivism (//http://) (see paragraph starting with "In Vermont"), but doesn't bring it to zero of course (remember: prison am supposed to be not only punishment, but rehambiliatoning)
don't think anybody knows how well prison or any alternative can change a person over any given period of time
uh wait wouldn't it make a little more sense for them to show that they already have become a good person, rather than releasing them back into society halfway through
Quote from: Lawlz on November 22, 2007, 09:41:06 PM
maybe carbon monoxide poisoning would be a bit more humane i don't know
uh probably not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning#Symptoms)
oh and sodium thiopental is administered in lethal injections so as to induce a coma-like state so in theory the executee would not be aware of said paralysis and respiratory failure but that doesn't always work right (see: guy that took two hours to kill) possibly because the doses used are screwy and consciousness might return before the other drugs take their course in some cases dunno
Quote from: bluaki on November 23, 2007, 10:35:40 AM
I also think that anybody in prison should have the right to death if they'd rather die than live through their sentence (I'm not sure if they do or not).
uh what would be the purpose of their punishment (or rehabilitation, if their sentence isn't life without chance of parole) if they could chose to end it at any point, thus effectively wasting the tax dollars used to house them up to that point why do you hate the taxpaying public >:0
Quote from: Super Mario Galaxy on November 23, 2007, 07:01:50 AM
No, I believe that if it could be proven 100% true, like, there is NO doubt whatsoever that the person is guilty,
Then again, sentencing an innocent man to a lifetime in prison isn't much better than killing him...
and if the murder was TOTALLY unprovoked, then the family should be able to decide the fate of the murderer and be able to sell tickets to his glorious death.
Just no torture, any form of death that lasts let's say under 15 seconds.
But anyone who would want to see another human die has to be as fucked up in the mind as the guy who did the murder. It is still inhuman no matter what they did, they may be able to change. Sure they messed up but it doesn't mean they should be killed for it.
Yeah I really think it depends on the crime.
Quote from: Actingman00 on November 24, 2007, 11:31:05 PM
But anyone who would want to see another human die has to be as fucked up in the mind as the guy who did the murder. It is still inhuman no matter what they did, they may be able to change. Sure they messed up but it doesn't mean they should be killed for it.
Guy 1: Rapes and kills little girl for no reason
Guy 2: watches his little daughter getting raped and killed by guy 1, and can't do anything because he is tied to a chair(or something)
Guy 2: breaks loose from bonds and kills Guy 1.
Now...
Guy 1 and Guy 2 are absolutely NOT equally wrong, no matter what you say. Guy 1 has to be messed up more than Guy 2, and deserves much more severe punishment.
Hell, it can even be applied legally, Guy 1 would have committed first degree murder, Guy 2 would have committed first degree manslaughter.
It doesn't matter how many morals you have, Guy 1 deserves more severe punishment.
Quote from: Super Mario Galaxy on November 25, 2007, 11:29:51 AM
It doesn't matter how many morals you have, Guy 1 deserves more severe punishment.
okay, who's arguing against that, exactly? psyduck;
also, i see your four morals and raise you two consciences
Quote from: Actingman00 on November 22, 2007, 09:03:02 PM
"I was mad that they post-poned this man's death sentence as I wanted to see the man who killed my son die. I told him I would sit in the front row"..
If someone killed someone in my family I would kill them myself.
Provided the initial bloodlust is there still. So if they were within murdering range when they committed the act they would die. I'm not all bad-ass and "rawr I'll hunt you to the ends of the earth" or anything. But I'd most certainly go into a berserk rage if I witnessed that happen and had the ability to kill the person who did it. It wouldn't bring my family member back, but natural instinct takes over and I avenge them.
um yeah
Anyway, I don't like the death penalty. The government has no right to dictate who dies and who lives. If someone commits a heinous crime, give them rehabilitation, don't just throw them in jail and leave. Then when you let them out they will just do the same thing. Unfortunately the shit hole that is prison doesn't make everyone rethink shooting someone in the face for a second time. If they aren't rehabilitated from the therapy, then just lock them up forever or something. I'd say continue to try and straighten them up. Of course that would cost money that the government doesn't want to put out. Then again I am sure killing a bunch of people isn't very cheap either.
And don't say "well why do you get the right to kill someone". Immediate retaliatory vengeance isn't like dragging someone through months or maybe years of court deliberation and then inevitably killing them in the name of justice, even if they find out a few months later that person was innocent. Or in Tookie Williams case, nobody was intelligent enough to realize that they were making a mistake. Except the protesters.
It's complicated. Neither the spectacle of capital punishment nor my frenzy murder is justified because taking a human life is taking a human life. But then again, I would like to have someone say that they wouldn't react in a similar fashion after watching someone kill their son/daughter/wife/husband/mother/brother/sister/father/etc.
IT'S ANIMAL INSTINCT. Capital punishment is...Well, I am not sure. What does it solve that couldn't be solved in a more civilized manner?
Like SMXX said, if some one killed some one in my family I would probably try to kill them.
But I don't think capital punishment is right. What kind of message does it send when you kill some one for doing something wrong? If a person wants to go for the maximum punishment for a crime, life in prison is far more harsh. Humans are social animals, so locking them up in a cell for the rest of their lives letting them know that they will never see the outside again, never will make contact with anyone other than guards, and have no hope of it changing, is a much better punishment then giving them the benefit of getting out of that 20 years early by killing them.
I find it even more ironic that most people who support the death penalty are conservative and pro-life. They believe that something whose status of living is debatable has the right to live, yet they are fine with killing a person that is obviously alive.
Quote from: InbredPsychosis on November 26, 2007, 02:01:05 PM
If someone killed someone in my family I would kill them myself.
Provided the initial bloodlust is there still. So if they were within murdering range when they committed the act they would die. I'm not all bad-ass and "rawr I'll hunt you to the ends of the earth" or anything. But I'd most certainly go into a berserk rage if I witnessed that happen and had the ability to kill the person who did it. It wouldn't bring my family member back, but natural instinct takes over and I avenge them.
um yeah
Anyway, I don't like the death penalty. The government has no right to dictate who dies and who lives. If someone commits a heinous crime, give them rehabilitation, don't just throw them in jail and leave. Then when you let them out they will just do the same thing. Unfortunately the shit hole that is prison doesn't make everyone rethink shooting someone in the face for a second time. If they aren't rehabilitated from the therapy, then just lock them up forever or something. I'd say continue to try and straighten them up. Of course that would cost money that the government doesn't want to put out. Then again I am sure killing a bunch of people isn't very cheap either.
And don't say "well why do you get the right to kill someone". Immediate retaliatory vengeance isn't like dragging someone through months or maybe years of court deliberation and then inevitably killing them in the name of justice, even if they find out a few months later that person was innocent. Or in Tookie Williams case, nobody was intelligent enough to realize that they were making a mistake. Except the protesters.
It's complicated. Neither the spectacle of capital punishment nor my frenzy murder is justified because taking a human life is taking a human life. But then again, I would like to have someone say that they wouldn't react in a similar fashion after watching someone kill their son/daughter/wife/husband/mother/brother/sister/father/etc.
IT'S ANIMAL INSTINCT. Capital punishment is...Well, I am not sure. What does it solve that couldn't be solved in a more civilized manner?
True enough, I would want to kill them myself but it still doesn't make it right. And as much as I would want to if I hear someone else wanting to see someone die it just sounds...sick.
@Super Mario Galaxy: Yes, Guy 1 does deserve a bigger punishment but Guy 2 deserves a punishment of some kind as well, at least he should get some kind of therapy.
Quote from: Super Mario Galaxy on November 23, 2007, 09:03:35 AM
What defines a true murderer?
Generally people who are serial killers, who just kill people for fun, have some mental illness, and probably don't have perfect judgment of right and wrong. Does this mean they should run free? No, but maybe they should get some help.
As for 'murderers' who kill someone for a reason, we should take into consideration the reason.
If the reason is "oLo he stole my toasteR" then yeah, maybe consider death penalty.
If the reason is, he was defending his family from an armed burglar, then he shouldn't get penalized.
I'm not sure what to say about serial killers. Sure, they kill for fun and most likely have a mental illness, like you already mentioned, but at the same time, they have killed a lot of a people. So I don't really have an opinion about giving serial killers the death sentence.
Yeah, murderer who kill for a reason should get the death sentence.
Doesn't the hypothetical murderer's mindset almost match the mindset of a serial killer, seeing how they would kill for something as small like that?
If you kill a robber to protect your family, it's not really a "murder" per se.
Quote from: some_person on November 26, 2007, 03:42:43 PM
I'm not sure what to say about serial killers. Sure, they kill for fun and most likely have a mental illness, like you already mentioned, but at the same time, they have killed a lot of a people. So I don't really have an opinion about giving serial killers the death sentence.
Yeah, murderer who kill for a reason should get the death sentence.
Doesn't the hypothetical murderer's mindset almost match the mindset of a serial killer, seeing how they would kill for something as small like that?
If you kill a robber to protect your family, it's not really a "murder" per se.
But who is the government to decide who deserves to die or not? I think it should be a personal choice, not the governments.
"So do you want to go to prison for life, maybe have a chance of getting out, or die?" I don't know, I just don't think that anyone should have that responsibility except for the person who did the crime.
Death should never be the punishment. Death is eternal peace. You don't have to worry about life and all it's details.
They should feel the pain they caused to others. I say let them rot in jail for the rest of there lives.
Quote from: Actingman00 on November 26, 2007, 05:22:41 PM
But who is the government to decide who deserves to die or not? I think it should be a personal choice, not the governments.
"So do you want to go to prison for life, maybe have a chance of getting out, or die?" I don't know, I just don't think that anyone should have that responsibility except for the person who did the crime.
let's also ask the rapist murderer torturer of little girls if he likes apple or pumpkin pie, if apple: heated or cold, and if he likes silk or flanel sheets in his bed
k? sounds good.
Quote from: Actingman00 on November 26, 2007, 05:22:41 PM
But who is the government to decide who deserves to die or not? I think it should be a personal choice, not the governments.
"So do you want to go to prison for life, maybe have a chance of getting out, or die?" I don't know, I just don't think that anyone should have that responsibility except for the person who did the crime.
And that's why courts and lawyers exist.
Quote from: some_person on November 26, 2007, 09:35:07 PM
And that's why courts and lawyers exist.
lol
Lawyers are scum and the justice system in this country sucks.
Quote from: InbredPsychosis on November 27, 2007, 12:03:36 PM
lol
Lawyers are scum and the justice system in this country sucks.
um not really psyduck;
Our only problem is that punishment for crimes are often quite severe when compared to other developed nations. Overall, it's still pretty damn good.
Quote from: Lawlz on November 27, 2007, 01:33:11 PM
Our only problem...
cook
Quote from: Lawlz on November 27, 2007, 01:33:11 PM
...punishment for crimes are often quite severe when compared to other developed nations.
sources please
Quote from: Lawlz on November 27, 2007, 01:33:11 PM
um not really psyduck;
Our only problem is that punishment for crimes are often quite severe when compared to other developed nations. Overall, it's still pretty damn good.
If a burglar hurts himself in your home, and he can get a good lawyer, he can sue you.
Good system? wut?
The problem with our justice system is that it isn't based on morals but based on SYSTEM.
Quote from: Selkie on November 27, 2007, 04:49:15 PM
If a burglar hurts himself in your home, and he can get a good lawyer, he can sue you.
Good system? wut?
The problem with our justice system is that it isn't based on morals but based on SYSTEM.
Basing a justice system on something as subjective as morals is a horrible idea.
Quote from: Selkie on November 27, 2007, 04:49:15 PM
If a burglar hurts himself in your home, and he can get a good lawyer, he can sue you.
Good system? wut?
civil law is very very much different from criminal law psyduck;
Quote from: Selkie on November 27, 2007, 04:49:15 PM
The problem with our justice system is that it isn't based on morals but based on SYSTEM.
whose morals would we go by psyduck;
oh and this just in: the justice system is based on SYSTEM cook
Quote from: JMV290 on November 27, 2007, 04:53:27 PM
Basing a justice system on something as subjective as morals is a horrible idea.
We would go with what would generally be considered right.
Sending a father of 3 kids to jail because he killed a burglar defending his family would not happen.
Oh no, that probably goes against one out of 300 million people's morals, so we should jail him.
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 12:20:09 PM
We would go with what would generally be considered right.
how would that be determined psyduck;
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 12:20:09 PM
We would go with what would generally be considered right.
Sending a father of 3 kids to jail because he killed a burglar defending his family would not happen.
Oh no, that probably goes against one out of 300 million people's morals, so we should jail him.
Uhm, if some one breaks into your house and is threatening your life you don't go to jail for killing them. psyduck;
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 12:28:11 PM
THE FUCKING POPULATION
So, what, every case would be decided by a show of hands? psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 28, 2007, 12:47:15 PM
So, what, every case would be decided by a show of hands? psyduck;
oh boy. 80% of this nation is Christian.
i'd be fucked if the majority got to make their laws.
Quote from: JMV290 on November 28, 2007, 12:41:20 PM
Uhm, if some one breaks into your house and is threatening your life you don't go to jail for killing them. psyduck;
You could.
All the criminal needs is a good lawyer.
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 01:03:36 PM
You could.
All the criminal needs is a good lawyer.
uhm what.
QuoteHAMLET
Where wilt thou lead me? speak; I'll go no further.
Ghost
Mark me.
HAMLET
I will.
Ghost
My hour is almost come,
When I to sulphurous and tormenting flames
Must render up myself.
HAMLET
Alas, poor ghost!
Ghost
Pity me not, but lend thy serious hearing
To what I shall unfold.
HAMLET
Speak; I am bound to hear.
Ghost
So art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear.
HAMLET
What?
Ghost
I am thy father's spirit,
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combined locks to part
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine:
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, list, O, list!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love--
HAMLET
O God!
Ghost
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
HAMLET
Murder!
Ghost
Murder most foul, as in the best it is;
But this most foul, strange and unnatural.
HAMLET
Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love,
May sweep to my revenge.
Ghost
I find thee apt;
And duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed
That roots itself in ease on Lethe wharf,
Wouldst thou not stir in this. Now, Hamlet, hear:
'Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,
A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark
Is by a forged process of my death
Rankly abused: but know, thou noble youth,
The serpent that did sting thy father's life
Now wears his crown.
HAMLET
O my prophetic soul! My uncle!
Ghost
Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast,
With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts,--
O wicked wit and gifts, that have the power
So to seduce!--won to his shameful lust
The will of my most seeming-virtuous queen:
O Hamlet, what a falling-off was there!
From me, whose love was of that dignity
That it went hand in hand even with the vow
I made to her in marriage, and to decline
Upon a wretch whose natural gifts were poor
To those of mine!
But virtue, as it never will be moved,
Though lewdness court it in a shape of heaven,
So lust, though to a radiant angel link'd,
Will sate itself in a celestial bed,
And prey on garbage.
But, soft! methinks I scent the morning air;
Brief let me be. Sleeping within my orchard,
My custom always of the afternoon,
Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole,
With juice of cursed hebenon in a vial,
And in the porches of my ears did pour
The leperous distilment; whose effect
Holds such an enmity with blood of man
That swift as quicksilver it courses through
The natural gates and alleys of the body,
And with a sudden vigour doth posset
And curd, like eager droppings into milk,
The thin and wholesome blood: so did it mine;
And a most instant tetter bark'd about,
Most lazar-like, with vile and loathsome crust,
All my smooth body.
Thus was I, sleeping, by a brother's hand
Of life, of crown, of queen, at once dispatch'd:
Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhousel'd, disappointed, unanel'd,
No reckoning made, but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head:
O, horrible! O, horrible! most horrible!
If thou hast nature in thee, bear it not;
Let not the royal bed of Denmark be
A couch for luxury and damned incest.
But, howsoever thou pursuest this act,
Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive
Against thy mother aught: leave her to heaven
And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge,
To prick and sting her. Fare thee well at once!
The glow-worm shows the matin to be near,
And 'gins to pale his uneffectual fire:
Adieu, adieu! Hamlet, remember me.
Exit
HAMLET
O all you host of heaven! O earth! what else?
And shall I couple hell? O, fie! Hold, hold, my heart;
And you, my sinews, grow not instant old,
But bear me stiffly up. Remember thee!
Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat
In this distracted globe. Remember thee!
Yea, from the table of my memory
I'll wipe away all trivial fond records,
All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past,
That youth and observation copied there;
And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain,
Unmix'd with baser matter: yes, by heaven!
O most pernicious woman!
O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!
My tables,--meet it is I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain;
At least I'm sure it may be so in Denmark:
will it be like that where the ghost comes back and goes "lol he killed me send him to jail"
No, if you kill some one for breaking into your house and threatening your life(as in, you can't kill them for stealing your TV and running away when they see you), you are safe from prosecution(Unless you illegally own the gun)
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 01:03:36 PM
All the criminal needs is a good lawyer.
to reiterate what jimmy already said because i want to have fun too: you're fucking retarded
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 28, 2007, 01:35:21 PM
to reiterate what jimmy already said because i want to have fun too: you're fucking retarded
wait, me?
my name is jimmy too cook
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 05:29:07 PM
wait, me?
my name is jimmy too cook
so uh would you mind answering any of the questions or would you rather not attempt to explain your wondrous plans lest we mortals go into cardiac arrest psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 28, 2007, 05:38:10 PM
so uh would you mind answering any of the questions or would you rather not attempt to explain your wondrous plans lest we mortals go into cardiac arrest psyduck;
I kinda lost interest in the argument edumacate;
I simply am saying, innocent people should not be jailed.
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 05:41:09 PM
I simply am saying, innocent people should not be jailed.
people who are convicted of crimes are not innocent psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 28, 2007, 05:45:45 PM
people who are convicted of crimes are not innocent psyduck;
People who commit crime to protect someone are innocent.
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 05:48:33 PM
People who commit crime to protect someone are innocent.
so if a bank robber shoots and kills a security guard that was about to fire at his accomplice, that's just fine and dandy? psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 28, 2007, 05:51:37 PM
so if a bank robber shoots and kills a security guard that was about to fire at his accomplice, that's just fine and dandy? psyduck;
No, but if a security guard shoots and kills a robber who's about to kill a teller/bank-goer, that is fine and dandy.
I don't approve of the Death Penalty. I don't think we should take someones life just because they killed people or a cop.
Quote from: Cakes on November 28, 2007, 06:06:14 PM
I don't approve of the Death Penalty. I don't think we should take someones life just because they killed people or a cop.
You know life in maximum security prison isn't much better than death?
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 06:06:58 PM
You know life in maximum security prison isn't much better than death?
Everything is better than death. Except being tortured, slavery and Casturation.
Quote from: Cakes on November 28, 2007, 06:11:22 PM
Everything is better than death. Except being tortured, slavery and Casturation.
PROTIP: torture can occur in a maximum security prison.
No, not like Saw torture, but random ass-kickings can hurt a little.
Also, I am not exactly fond of the idea of being anally raped by some sex-deprived maniac either.
Or totally cut off from the outside world, and all the things I love.
A life in jail is a hollow one. One not worth living anyway.
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 06:13:56 PM
PROTIP: torture can occur in a maximum security prison.
No, not like Saw torture, but random ass-kickings can hurt a little.
Also, I am not exactly fond of the idea of being anally raped by some sex-deprived maniac either.
Or totally cut off from the outside world, and all the things I love.
A life in jail is a hollow one. One not worth living anyway.
I know you can get a ass kicking I was saying like if you were chained up and have to eat shit etc.
Quote from: InbredPsychosis on November 27, 2007, 12:03:36 PM
lol
Lawyers are scum and the justice system in this country sucks.
No, only in lawsuits about stupid, little things like accidentally spilling obviously hot coffee on your lap. Other then that, lawyers are the whole justice system. Without them, the judge would just give you the death sentence if s/he wanted to.
Quote from: some_person on November 28, 2007, 09:24:19 PM
No, only in lawsuits about stupid, little things like accidentally spilling obviously hot coffee on your lap.
So it's okay if hot coffee gives you third degree burns (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)?
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 06:03:47 PM
No
why not? psyduck;
bank robber a saved bank robber b's life
Quote from: Selkie on November 28, 2007, 06:03:47 PM
...but if a security guard shoots and kills a robber who's about to kill a teller/bank-goer, that is fine and dandy.
and that's how it is currently psyduck;
what exactly are you proposing be changed? psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 29, 2007, 12:13:46 PM
why not? psyduck;
bank robber a saved bank robber b's lifeand that's how it is currently psyduck;
what exactly are you proposing be changed? psyduck;
I guess the security system in banks navi;
Quote from: bluaki on November 28, 2007, 10:46:49 PM
So it's okay if hot coffee gives you third degree burns (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)?
The better question is "is the coffee hot?" Seriously, if coffee is hot (if you can feel warmth on the outside of the cup, and it's full of liquid, it's most likely hot enough to at least make your skin red), then don't do things that would make it spill, like in Liebeck's case. However, it was McDonald's fault for making the coffee at a temperature of which would cause third degree burns. If it weren't for the coffee being 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, that case would just be a stupid "OMG I SPILLED MY COFFEE, IT HURTS, AND I MUST SUE!" case, which wouldn't last very long, and would result in jury siding with McDonalds.
But seriously, I'm talking about the stupid little things like stepping on a rock with bare feet in someone else's backyard and such. In cases like that, it's the person's fault for stepping on that rock with bare feet.
Quote from: some_person on November 29, 2007, 04:21:19 PM
But seriously, I'm talking about the stupid little things like stepping on a rock with bare feet in someone else's backyard and such. In cases like that, it's the person's fault for stepping on that rock with bare feet.
would you like to point out some lawsuits that ended in such a plaintiff's favor?
and to reiterate you fucking idiots criminal court is not the same as civil court god damn psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 29, 2007, 04:27:55 PM
would you like to point out some lawsuits that ended in such a plaintiff's favor?
I can only deduce that there was a similar lawsuit, but with some carpet and something sharp stabbing the person's foot. Which is why most businesses has a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy.
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 29, 2007, 04:27:55 PM
and to reiterate you fucking idiots criminal court is not the same as civil court god damn psyduck;
You don't have to blame everyone. I was the one who brought it up.
Quote from: some_person on November 29, 2007, 05:04:59 PM
I can only deduce that there was a similar lawsuit, but with some carpet and something sharp stabbing the person's foot.
Which is why most businesses has a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy.
You don't have to blame everyone. I was the one who brought it up.
well sherlock how about finding some evidence
nope psyduck;
okay you fucking idiot die
Like I said, I can only deduce. I mean why else would they put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?
Quote from: some_person on November 29, 2007, 06:01:45 PM
Like I said, I can only deduce. I mean why else would they put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?
for the sake of what they perceive decency to be? psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 30, 2007, 12:23:42 PM
for the sake of what they perceive decency to be? psyduck;
Sure, if it says "no shirts, no service", then you're right, other then how, how would walking barefoot be indecent?
Quote from: some_person on November 30, 2007, 03:18:53 PM
Sure, if it says "no shirts, no service", then you're right, other then how, how would walking barefoot be indecent?
in the same way that going in bare chested would be psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 30, 2007, 03:34:04 PM
in the same way that going in bare chested would be psyduck;
no it wouldn't psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 30, 2007, 03:58:30 PM
elaborate psyduck;
If a woman removes her shirt, there could be some problems. However, if a woman removes her shoes, it's not that big of a deal.
Quote from: some_person on November 30, 2007, 04:02:55 PM
If a woman removes her shirt, there could be some problems. However, if a woman removes her shoes, it's not that big of a deal.
i wasn't speaking of females, given that the rules typically apply to men as well but whatever
simple way to prove your point: find a case with the details you've mentioned
shouldn't be that hard, given that you have the entire internet at your fingertips psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 30, 2007, 04:12:47 PM
i wasn't speaking of females, given that the rules typically apply to men as well but whatever
simple way to prove your point: find a case with the details you've mentioned
shouldn't be that hard, given that you have the entire internet at your fingertips psyduck;
I was speaking of females, as an example. And either way, I just noticed that I had misread your earlier post. Anyways, for this situation, why do we need evidence?
Quote from: some_person on November 30, 2007, 04:20:24 PM
I was speaking of females, as an example.
And either way, I just noticed that I had misread your earlier post.
Anyways, for this situation, why do we need evidence?
okay, but the rules don't apply exclusively to females
bare chested men can still have a negative effect on the other customers and their willingness to buy stuff from the establishment, even though there's nothing exactly indecent about it
which one (this detail is kind of important psyduck;)
Evidence of what? A lawsuit similar to what you describe?
if so, well uh yeah generally when you make claims it's expected that you be able to back them up
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 30, 2007, 04:27:07 PM
okay, but the rules don't apply exclusively to females
bare chested men can still have a negative effect on the other customers and their willingness to buy stuff from the establishment, even though there's nothing exactly indecent about it
which one (this detail is kind of important psyduck;)
Evidence of what? A lawsuit similar to what you describe?
if so, well uh yeah generally when you make claims it's expected that you be able to back them up
I wasn't too sure about giving that up, but the point remains...
The first post on page 5.
I never said such a case existed, however, I was only giving an example about the stupid little things people can sue for with no real reason (except be an idiot).
Quote from: Commodore Guff on November 28, 2007, 12:47:15 PM
So, what, every case would be decided by a show of hands? psyduck;
it would be like american idol
call 1-888-DIEORLIVE
put 1 4 life and put 2 4 death vote nao ^_^
Quote from: some_person on November 30, 2007, 05:30:25 PM
I never said such a case existed, however, I was only giving an example about the stupid little things people can sue for with no real reason (except be an idiot).
so you gave an example that doesn't exist in order to back up your point psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 01, 2007, 10:21:22 AM
so you gave an example that doesn't exist in order to back up your point psyduck;
Just because I can't find find such case or that it doesn't exist, doesn't mean that no such case will ever exist.
Quote from: some_person on December 01, 2007, 12:55:57 PM
Just because I can't find find such case or that it doesn't exist, doesn't mean that no such case will ever exist.
but until you do, it's a bad example psyduck;
"hey there's a lot of frivolous lawsuits that make the system suck. take this one that i can't find any evidence for as an example..."
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 01, 2007, 03:42:54 PM
but until you do, it's a bad example psyduck;
"hey there's a lot of frivolous lawsuits that make the system suck. take this one that i can't find any evidence for as an example..."
I said it was possible that there is no case/yet about the type of lawsuit I mentioned.
Quote from: some_person on December 01, 2007, 04:58:14 PM
I said it was possible that there is no case/yet about the type of lawsuit I mentioned.
But you're still using it as justification for your resentment of civil law..
also, another point of yours was that such a case was the cause of the ubiquitous "no shirt no blah etc." signs, but if you're going to say that it might not have happened yet then you might want to revise that
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 01, 2007, 05:06:50 PM
But you're still using it as justification for your resentment of civil law..
also, another point of yours was that such a case was the cause of the ubiquitous "no shirt no blah etc." signs, but if you're going to say that it might not have happened yet then you might want to revise that
That's the closest thing to evidence I have, and I had already (at least hinted at) that:
Quote from: some_person on November 29, 2007, 05:04:59 PM
I can only deduce that there was a similar lawsuit, but with some carpet and something sharp stabbing the person's foot. Which is why most businesses has a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy.
Quote from: some_person on December 01, 2007, 05:11:08 PM
That's the closest thing to evidence I have, and I had already (at least hinted at) that:
uh i don't think you understand
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 01, 2007, 05:28:27 PM
uh i don't think you understand
Probably not, seeing how I'm double tasking at the moment.
Well what about terrorists? Like Saddam, he deserved to be hanged... wait or was it... I'm not good with names gonk;
it is deserved in some cases though. depends on the case.
In my opinion, the punishment should fit the crime, and that that capital punishment should be ruled out as a punishment except for certain cases. [I believe that capital punishment should be reserved for cases that involve a serial murderer that is ruled to have no chance to better himself] By issuing capital punishment for an ordinary murder case, then we push ourselves back to a law system similar to the Hammurabi Law Code, and set ourselves back as a race, when we can easily come up with a punishment that is much more civilized, and more fitting of our current age.
I say if somebody takes a life, kill the bitch
Quote from: Phaze on December 07, 2007, 10:08:50 PM
I say if somebody takes a life, kill the bitch
Why?
Isn't murder wrong?
If a man murdered someone then I guess he should be penalized. If he kill for thrill he should definitely die. But if he stole someone chocolate cake then, he may be penalized. It depends on how good the chocolate cake tastes. But yeah, I don't think dead penalty should be outlawed. Gov't spend too much money if a murderer is put to jail for LIFE. Cause he has to eat everyday and he has to pollute the earth with his piss and farts. So yeah, it's better for the murderer to die so we can save money and he isn't good enough to be alive anymore.
Quote from: JMV290 on December 07, 2007, 10:17:18 PM
Why?
Isn't murder wrong?
Well most people who kill other people are messed up in the head. Might as well kill them instead of crouding prisons with the nuts. A life for a life.
Quote from: Phaze on December 09, 2007, 09:53:58 AM
Well most people who kill other people are messed up in the head. Might as well kill them instead of crouding prisons with the nuts. A life for a life.
This isn't Nazi Germany, we don't kill people for being crazy. A life for a life? Why don't we apply that to all criminals? We can just sodomize rapists and send them on their way; a rape for a rape, right?
Quote from: JMV290 on December 09, 2007, 11:06:40 AM
This isn't Nazi Germany, we don't kill people for being crazy. A life for a life? Why don't we apply that to all criminals? We can just sodomize rapists and send them on their way; a rape for a rape, right?
If it makes the rapist stop raping, then sure.
Quote from: some_person on December 09, 2007, 01:37:35 PM
If it makes the rapist stop raping, then sure.
But why should the government have the right to do such a thing? It's not right for a government to kill its own people, is it? If you hire a person to be a professional rapist, that person is still just a rapist.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 09, 2007, 01:50:50 PM
But why should the government have the right to do such a thing? It's not right for a government to kill its own people, is it? If you hire a person to be a professional rapist, that person is still just a rapist.
That's true.
Quote from: JMV290 on December 09, 2007, 11:06:40 AM
This isn't Nazi Germany, we don't kill people for being crazy. A life for a life? Why don't we apply that to all criminals? We can just sodomize rapists and send them on their way; a rape for a rape, right?
Well I still say kill them. And if you would like to rape a weirdo, then by all means be my guest magician;
Quote from: Phaze on December 09, 2007, 09:02:34 PM
Well I still say kill them.
why
QuoteAnd if you would like to rape a weirdo, then by all means be my guest magician;
but then they would have to rape me, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them.
that logic is amazing. if some one does something, do it back to them.
Quote from: JMV290 on December 09, 2007, 09:05:34 PM
why
but then they would have to rape me, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them, and some one would have to rape them.
that logic is amazing. if some one does something, do it back to them.
Unless you kill them pseudo;
Quote from: Phaze on December 09, 2007, 09:08:23 PM
Unless you kill them pseudo;
but then they would have to kill me since murderers should die.
Quote from: JMV290 on December 09, 2007, 09:08:55 PM
but then they would have to kill me since murderers should die.
But they would be dead ;)
Quote from: Phaze on December 09, 2007, 09:10:34 PM
But they would be dead ;)
okie enough joking.
What exactly makes the death penalty better than the third grade mentality reasoning of "He did it, so it has to happen to him now"
Quote from: JMV290 on December 09, 2007, 09:18:48 PM
okie enough joking.
What exactly makes the death penalty better than the third grade mentality reasoning of "He did it, so it has to happen to him now"
They won't be wasting tax money sitting aimlessly in a jail cell for the rest of their life.
Quote from: Selkie on December 10, 2007, 09:28:36 AM
They won't be wasting tax money sitting aimlessly in a jail cell for the rest of their life.
FACT: It costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep the person in prison for the rest of his life.
Idiot.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 10, 2007, 12:18:39 PM
FACT: It costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep the person in prison for the rest of his life.
Idiot.
Make it cost less money then.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 10, 2007, 12:18:39 PM
FACT: It costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep the person in prison for the rest of his life.
Idiot.
Thats because they use poisons and shit. Whats wrong with a gunshot to the head?
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 01:13:33 PM
Thats because they use poisons and shit. Whats wrong with a gunshot to the head?
No, dumbass. Most all of that money is spent in court with appeals and all that. It's cheaper and easier to just let the person sit in jail, or better yet, try to heal them and make them suitable for society.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 10, 2007, 01:52:49 PM
No, dumbass. Most all of that money is spent in court with appeals and all that. It's cheaper and easier to just let the person sit in jail, or better yet, try to heal them and make them suitable for society.
You can't "heal" them. Their nuts!
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 02:15:01 PM
You can't "heal" them. Their nuts!
You're a goddamn retard and more insane than them if you think a criminal can never be fit for society again. Also, what about those people that were wrongfully put in prison? How would you feel if ten years from now, you acted in self defense or were maybe even 1000 miles away, but the evidence stacks up against you and says you're a cold blooded killer? Would you have a smile on your face when those insane Christians start sitting outside the prison, cheering for your execution?
People make mistakes; killing a person for a mistake they made won't make anything better, and it only takes another life. Why not try to help the person and maybe let them give something back to society, instead of just wiping them out and taking even more of
your tax dollars?
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 02:15:01 PM
You can't "heal" them. Their nuts!
NO MY NUTS. I FUCKING LOVE PEANUTS YOU DOUCHEBAG.
In New Hampshire, for example, the only capital crime is killing a cop. What if it's a corrupt cop and they're beating your child and you go off and shoot them, getting convicted of murder and sentenced to death--even with the circumstances? Is that person nuts? No. I don't even think that person should go to jail, but now they are going to die.
There are plenty of circumstances where a perfectly sane person has been executed. Look at Tookie Williams. He was sentenced to death, but while on death row he spoke out against gang violence, he wrote books about it. He was far from nuts, and was attempting to make up for his crimes. There is no reason he should have been executed.
Mumia Jamal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal) isn't crazy and was sentenced to death.
What decides which people are deserving of the death penalty while others are not?
Quote from: JMV290 on December 10, 2007, 02:57:34 PM
their beating
woah there
Quote
There are plenty of circumstances where a perfectly sane person has been executed. Look at Tookie Williams. He was sentenced to death, but while on death row he spoke out against gang violence, he wrote books about it. He was far from nuts, and was attempting to make up for his crimes. There is no reason he should have been executed.
And those are people I see as beneficial to society. Even if the person has a horrible past, that person can make up for it and help others before they take the same path.
Also, the argument that Capital punishment deters crime is also bullshit.
Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and West Virginia all do not have a death penalty.
QuoteFor that year the State of Massachusetts had a total Crime Index of 3,026.1 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 42nd highest total Crime Index.
For that year the State of Maine had a total Crime Index of 2,619.8 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 46th highest total Crime Index.
For that year the State of Vermont had a total Crime Index of 2,986.9 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 44th highest total Crime Index.
For that year the State of North Dakota had a total Crime Index of 2,288.1 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 50th highest total Crime Index.
For that year the State of Minnesota had a total Crime Index of 3,488.4 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 32nd highest total Crime Index.
For that year the State of Wisconsin had a total Crime Index of 3,209.1 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 37th highest total Crime Index.
For that year the State of West Virginia had a total Crime Index of 2,602.8 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 47th highest total Crime Index.
They are all pretty low on the crime Index list
hey look
QuoteFor that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index
that death penalty sure is stopping crimes
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
Quote from: Lawlz on December 10, 2007, 03:03:23 PM
woah there
wut ^__________^
Quote
And those are people I see as beneficial to society. Even if the person has a horrible past, that person can make up for it and help others before they take the same path.
no they are crazy and they offer no use to society lolololol. so wut if they write books and have influenced plenty of people not to commit crimes they fucked up in the past and they are now satans childz jesus
Quote from: Lawlz on December 10, 2007, 02:44:54 PM
You're a goddamn retard and more insane than them if you think a criminal can never be fit for society again. Also, what about those people that were wrongfully put in prison? How would you feel if ten years from now, you acted in self defense or were maybe even 1000 miles away, but the evidence stacks up against you and says you're a cold blooded killer? Would you have a smile on your face when those insane Christians start sitting outside the prison, cheering for your execution?
People make mistakes; killing a person for a mistake they made won't make anything better, and it only takes another life. Why not try to help the person and maybe let them give something back to society, instead of just wiping them out and taking even more of your tax dollars?
I'm talking about the real weirdos that kill for fun that never get the death penalty, dumbass. And if I was put in prison wrongfully or otherwise, I would rather die than rot in prison for life.
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 05:55:03 PMAnd if I was put in prison wrongfully or otherwise, I would rather die than rot in prison for life.
I'd rather appeal and eventually be set free.
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 05:55:03 PM
I'm talking about the real weirdos that kill for fun that never get the death penalty, dumbass.
you don't kill the mentally ill
QuoteAnd if I was put in prison wrongfully or otherwise, I would rather die than rot in prison for life.
i'm sure the people on death row would rather die than rot in jail. should we give them what they want, instead of shortening their suffering?
Quote from: Lawlz on December 10, 2007, 06:05:42 PM
I'd rather appeal and eventually be set free.
Yeah, that will happen :D
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 06:16:23 PM
Yeah, that will happen :D
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDB1739F936A35752C1A963958260
Quote from: JMV290 on December 10, 2007, 06:21:42 PM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDB1739F936A35752C1A963958260
Don't feel like reading
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 06:27:24 PM
Because i'm lazy
You know that you're wrong, and you're just making childish excuses.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 10, 2007, 06:27:59 PM
You know that you're wrong, and you're just making childish excuses.
Actually no, i'm to lazy to read that. But right or wrong I still think if some sick bastard kills or rapes somebody, they should die.
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 06:30:57 PM
Actually no, i'm to lazy to read that. But right or wrong I still think if some sick bastard kills or rapes somebody, they should die.
You're a sick bastard for saying that and I hope you get electrocuted because you're a sick fuck and I hope your brain oozes out through your ears then I'll chant for the next sick bastard to come out down and face the same demise.
Quote from: Phaze on December 10, 2007, 06:24:26 PM
Don't feel like reading
Stay out of Serious Discussion then, you dumb shit.
People appeal and get released from prison all the time. Hell, the President even pardons a few people.
Personally, I think it's too hypocritical to use the death penalty. Sitting in prison works for both types of people, because it's harsher to some (because those types will probably never be released), and lighter on others (because those
will be released).
A lot of people seem also seem to like the death penalty because our prisons become overcrowded easily. Here's an idea, then: quit throwing the wrong people in prison.
Quote from: Speedykaz on December 11, 2007, 01:08:53 AM
Here's an idea, then: quit throwing the wrong people in prison.
Better idea: scrap the prison system and work on something that'll actually help even more people. Prison should be kept to only the most heinous offenders, and not some kid that snorted some cocaine and spraypainted akjhsdfg on a McDonald's.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 11, 2007, 01:22:29 AM
Better idea: scrap the prison system and work on something that'll actually help even more people. Prison should be kept to only the most heinous offenders, and not some kid that snorted some cocaine and spraypainted akjhsdfg on a McDonald's.
You just gave me a hilarious mental image of someone actually spraypainting "akjhsdfg" on a wall.
But yeah, what I meant by "throwing the wrong people in prison" was imprisoning people like that. People that are committing crimes that hardly even effect anyone. People committing crimes that probably don't even need to be against the law.
Alright. If you people enjoy rapists and murderers running around when they get set free thats fine with me. And stop throwing fits like babies.
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 10:28:29 AM
Alright. If you people enjoy rapists and murderers running around when they get set free thats fine with me. And stop throwing fits like babies.
Because everyone re-offends if they are set free from prison, right? There is also life in prison, which is for those who commit the most heinous of crimes.
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 10:28:29 AM
Alright. If you people enjoy rapists and murderers running around when they get set free thats fine with me. And stop throwing fits like babies.
I'd rather that than a society full of goddamn retards that cry and cheer for every person that's ever made a mistake to be put to death.
I say we start by killing all the idiots in this nation, since they corrupt and damage more than a single rapist ever will. We can begin with you.
Quote from: JMV290 on December 11, 2007, 10:39:21 AMThere is also life in prison, which is for those who commit the most heinous of crimes.
And I rarely even agree with that, unless it's obvious that the person will go out and commit another series of crimes and never be cured.
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 10:28:29 AM
Alright. If you people enjoy rapists and murderers running around when they get set free thats fine with me. And stop throwing fits like babies.
Nobody's throwing a fit. psyduck;
You don't seem to understand the very plain fact that prisons often do their job as "correctinal facilities." Believe it or not, many people come out of those places and, (holy shit you won't believe this) don't want to go back!!! Good lord, who ever thought that could be?
So because they don't want to go back, they're more likely to not keep committing crimes. And get this- most people who keep committing crimes keep getting caught.
Oh, and by the way, a lot of "rapists and murderers" are sentenced to life in prison.
Quote from: Speedykaz on December 11, 2007, 10:55:00 AM
So because they don't want to go back, they're more likely to not keep committing crimes. And get this- most people who keep committing crimes keep getting caught.
the fact minor offenders are thrown in with rapists and murderers can lead to further corruption and longass sentences do anything but prepare the person for life back in society so our system with harsh punishment can lead to high recidivism rates and making okay people into criminals
Yes, some people learn that if they screw up, they're going back. Others think they just won't be able to make it on the outside, and don't.
Oh god. Here we go.
Your calling me an idiot when you people are flaming and calling names. Your really accomplishing something there.
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 11:13:41 AM
Oh god. Here we go.
Your calling me an idiot when you people are flaming and calling names. Your really accomplishing something there.
Because you are an idiot.
Prove you're not. And no one gives a shit about grades.
Thats it. I'm leaving this site. Your all unreasonable dumbasses. The only one that seems intelligent here is JMV.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 11, 2007, 01:22:29 AM
Better idea: scrap the prison system and work on something that'll actually help even more people.
such as...?
Quote from: Lawlz on December 11, 2007, 10:50:18 AM
I say we start by killing all the idiots in this nation...
oh i guess there's that gimp;
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 11:20:24 AM
Thats it. I'm leaving this site. Your all unreasonable dumbasses. The only one that seems intelligent here is JMV.
god damn i know these assholes won't just shut up and accept my point of view when i make a minimal effort to explain and/or defend it and they actually expect me to read things what the hell
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 11:20:24 AM
Thats it. I'm leaving this site. Your all unreasonable dumbasses. The only one that seems intelligent here is JMV.
lol k
Quote from: Lawlz on December 11, 2007, 01:22:29 AM
Better idea: scrap the prison system and work on something that'll actually help even more people. Prison should be kept to only the most heinous offenders, and not some kid that snorted some cocaine and spraypainted akjhsdfg on a McDonald's.
Has anyone even gone to jail for that?
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 11:13:41 AM
Oh god. Here we go.
Your calling me an idiot when you people are flaming and calling names. Your really accomplishing something there.
Wait, what? Only Lawlz is doing that. psyduck;
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 11:20:24 AM
Thats it. I'm leaving this site. Your all unreasonable dumbasses. The only one that seems intelligent here is JMV.
Uh...how does JMV seem more intelligent when he was basically just saying the same thing Lawlz and I were saying?
And one could say you're unreasonable for completely turning down our opinions without any thought and refusing to read written proof when it's given to you (the link JMV posted).
Quote from: Lawlz on December 11, 2007, 10:50:18 AM
I say we start by killing all the idiots in this nation
befuddlement Says the person arguing against death penalty befuddlement
Quote from: Speedykaz on December 11, 2007, 04:17:41 PM
Wait, what? Only Lawlz is doing that. psyduck;
Uh...how does JMV seem more intelligent when he was basically just saying the same thing Lawlz and I were saying?
And one could say you're unreasonable for completely turning down our opinions without any thought and refusing to read written proof when it's given to you (the link JMV posted).
Listen, I gave my opinion on the death penalty, and you all disagreed, flamed, and called names. This is intelligent disscussion, I have the right to my own opinion. And JMV is the only one who was calm and nice about it. The rest of you were extremely immature. If thats how the Admins act here, its no site I want to be a part of.
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 07:44:58 PM
Listen, I gave my opinion on the death penalty, and you all disagreed, flamed, and called names. This is intelligent disscussion, I have the right to my own opinion. And JMV is the only one who was calm and nice about it. The rest of you were extremely immature. If thats how the Admins act here, its no site I want to be a part of.
Just don't post in serious discussion. befuddlement We have the lobby.
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 07:44:58 PM
Listen, I gave my opinion on the death penalty, and you all disagreed, flamed, and called names. This is intelligent disscussion, I have the right to my own opinion. And JMV is the only one who was calm and nice about it. The rest of you were extremely immature. If thats how the Admins act here, its no site I want to be a part of.
...only Lawlz is calling you names. I've been calm and mostly nice (though with a touch of sarcasm, admittedly).
And of course you have the right to your own opinion. Nobody's arguing against that. Apparently you don't care that we also have the rights to
our opinions.
And by the way, we can disagree if we want to. That's sort of the point of a debate.
Quote from: Speedykaz on December 12, 2007, 08:16:09 AM
...only Lawlz is calling you names. I've been calm and mostly nice (though with a touch of sarcasm, admittedly).
And of course you have the right to your own opinion. Nobody's arguing against that. Apparently you don't care that we also have the rights to our opinions.
And by the way, we can disagree if we want to. That's sort of the point of a debate.
I believe you said: "Stay out of Serious Discussion then, you dumb shit."
And I don't care if you disagree with my opinion, you guys were the one flaming MY opinion, remember?
Quote from: Phaze on December 12, 2007, 09:46:22 AM
I believe you said: "Stay out of Serious Discussion then, you dumb shit."
And I don't care if you disagree with my opinion, you guys were the one flaming MY opinion, remember?
The point of the debate!
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 07:44:58 PM
Listen, I gave my opinion on the death penalty, and you all disagreed...
OH THE HORROR
Quote from: Phaze on December 12, 2007, 09:46:22 AM
I believe you said: "Stay out of Serious Discussion then, you dumb shit."
And I don't care if you disagree with my opinion, you guys were the one flaming MY opinion, remember?
Because if you're going to keep acting like this, you really do need to stay out of Serious Discussion.
And did you not pay attention to what I said earlier? We can disagree with your opinion if we want to. That's the whole point of debate.
Quote from: Phaze on December 11, 2007, 07:44:58 PM
Listen, I gave my opinion on the death penalty, and you all disagreed, flamed, and called names. This is intelligent disscussion, I have the right to my own opinion. And JMV is the only one who was calm and nice about it. The rest of you were extremely immature. If thats how the Admins act here, its no site I want to be a part of.
Yes, you're right this is the serious discussion board, the board where serious topics are debated on, with people from opposing viewpoints on the matter providing information that supports their view or discredits the opposing view. You were disproved multiple times, and you were provided with a credible resource, which discredited your point of view, yet you say that you are to lazy to read it, and continue saying that you are right. Quite an idiotic thing to do, in a board where you want to seriously debate something. And as for your view of "doing to the criminal what was done to the victim" you should be met with idiotic responses, as that is what you have provided us with. If you can't get that idea past that thick skull of yours, or if you're too lazy to read it, then you shouldn't be posting in the serious discussion board.
/end rant
Alright, yeah, whatever. You guys are right, i'm wrong. I'm an idiot. Jesus Christ you people are worse than my mother.
Quote from: Phaze on December 12, 2007, 07:58:27 PM
Alright, yeah, whatever. You guys are right, i'm wrong. I'm an idiot. Jesus Christ you people are worse than my mother.
And that's saying a lot.
Quote from: Phaze on December 12, 2007, 07:58:27 PM
Jesus Christ you people are worse than my mother.
Okay, you see that? You've been posting stuff like that, all while telling us that
we're the ones being idiots.
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.
Death Murder?
Quote from: Soul on December 12, 2007, 08:40:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 12, 2007, 09:39:46 PM
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.
QuoteI 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?
Quote from: Soul on December 12, 2007, 08:40:45 PM
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
Quote from: some_person on December 12, 2007, 10:52:46 PM
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 psyduck;
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 13, 2007, 12:27:25 PM
uh lawlz was referring to the people that carry out the death penalty for inmates psyduck;
Well that's a different story v;
Quote from: Firebird on December 12, 2007, 10:53:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Soul on December 13, 2007, 04:03:00 PM
...the person is evidence...
I AM LIVING PROOF THAT I COULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT YOU CLAIM
Quote from: Soul on December 13, 2007, 04:03:00 PM
...by the time they actually get to the chair / whatever for the death, then I doubt they really were innocent.
yarr (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0408_050408_tv_dnadeath.html)
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 13, 2007, 04:11:58 PM
I AM LIVING PROOF THAT I COULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT YOU CLAIMyarr (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0408_050408_tv_dnadeath.html)
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.
Quote from: Soul on December 13, 2007, 04:17:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 13, 2007, 07:24:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Soul on December 13, 2007, 10:24:10 PM
Not necessarily, the United States went to war without being 100% certain of anything.
How's that going?
Quote from: Lawlz on December 12, 2007, 09:39:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on December 12, 2007, 10:53:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Selkie on December 14, 2007, 02:10:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Notorious J.M.V. on December 10, 2007, 06:21:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Selkie on December 14, 2007, 02:13:44 PM
If the person is put into jail for 20 years, his life is ruined by that point anyway.
Better than being dead.
Quote from: Selkie on December 14, 2007, 02:10:58 PM
Maybe the simple fact that if the murderer didn't commit the murder, he wouldn't have to worry about being killed.
if the murderer didn't commit a murder how are they a murderer psyduck;
Quote from: Selkie on December 14, 2007, 02:13:44 PM
If the person is put into jail for 20 years, his life is ruined by that point anyway.
ya might as well just let him rot in there till he dies anyway even thou hes innocent ^_^
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 14, 2007, 03:49:50 PM
if the murderer didn't commit a murder how are they a murderer psyduck;
Everytime we scratch ourself, we kill millions of skin cells. I guess this makes us all murderer ness;
Quote from: bleedingassassin on December 15, 2007, 07:05:25 AM
Everytime we scratch ourself, we kill millions of skin cells. I guess this makes us all murderer ness;
Only to the people who think abortion is murder.
Quote from: JMV290 on December 15, 2007, 11:32:58 AM
Only to the people who think abortion is murder.
It's not even though same thing.
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 15, 2007, 12:28:20 PM
It's not even though same thing.
When you have an itch, you're scraping little clumps of cells off wherever you scratch.
When there's an abortion, a larger clump of cells is scraped from the innards of a woman.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 15, 2007, 12:37:06 PM
When you have an itch, you're scraping little clumps of cells off wherever you scratch.
When there's an abortion, a larger clump of cells is scraped from the innards of a woman.
If you are saying that it's the same thing and you honestly believe that it's the same thing then go educate yourself.
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 15, 2007, 12:38:46 PM
If you are saying that it's the same thing and you honestly believe that it's the same thing then go educate yourself.
Why?
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 15, 2007, 10:59:35 PM
I wasn't talking to you.
As some_person said, I'm still asking you why.
Quote from: Doc at the Radar Station on December 16, 2007, 12:08:04 AM
As some_person said, I'm still asking you why.
So, your point?
I don't feel the need to explain myself to you. I thought I made that pretty obvious.
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 16, 2007, 01:35:17 AM
I don't feel the need to explain myself to you.
Because you have nothing to say.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 16, 2007, 01:40:54 AM
Because you have nothing to say.
I'll say it then:
Your skin cells are never going to become a living thing, like the first cell of an embryo will.
Quote from: Selkie on December 16, 2007, 06:57:53 AM
I'll say it then:
Your skin cells are never going to become a living thing, like the first cell of an embryo will.
Cells are alive.
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 16, 2007, 01:35:17 AM
So, your point?
I don't feel the need to explain myself to you. I thought I made that pretty obvious.
You're not a very good debater, are you?
Quote from: Doc at the Radar Station on December 16, 2007, 02:11:57 PM
You're not a very good debater, are you?
I wasn't even debating with you.
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 16, 2007, 03:21:56 PM
I wasn't even debating with you.
That isn't the point. You can't debate with
anyone, not just him.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 16, 2007, 01:40:54 AM
Because you have nothing to say.
You I'll explain myself to.
The "larger clump of cells" that are "scraped from the innards of a woman", as you put it, are what at that point in time make up the body of a different individual. And while skin cells and the cells that make up the embryo are cells, they way you're talking about them is like saying that a St. Bernard is the same as a Chihuahua. Sure they're both dogs but they're incredibly different.
Quote from: Godot on December 16, 2007, 03:24:29 PM
That isn't the point. You can't debate with anyone, not just him.
Actually I was waiting for Lawlz to respond. I just now got on here and saw that he responded so I answered Lawlz.
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 16, 2007, 03:33:23 PM
like saying that a St. Bernard is the same as a Chihuahua. Sure they're both dogs but they're incredibly different.
But they can mate and produce offspring.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 16, 2007, 03:46:24 PM
But they can mate and produce offspring.
That's not even relevant to the discussion.
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 16, 2007, 03:50:50 PM
That's not even relevant to the discussion.
Nor are St. Bernards.
Quote from: Lawlz on December 16, 2007, 03:54:43 PM
Nor are St. Bernards.
I was making a comparison and using it as an example.
Quote from: LiveOnTheEdge on December 16, 2007, 04:01:18 PM
I was making a comparison and using it as an example.
It didn't work.
Everybody shut up.
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 16, 2007, 04:02:36 PM
Everybody shut up.
That would defeat the purpose of this board.
Quote from: Selkie on December 16, 2007, 06:57:53 AM
I'll say it then:
Your skin cells are never going to become a living thing, like the first cell of an embryo will.
Skin cells are alive. The embryo isn't alive until a certain amount of time after conception. If an abortion is done then, you're mot killing it, because it was never alive. Maybe you should go educate yourself.
Quote from: _Ichimaru_Gin_ on December 20, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
Skin cells are alive. The embryo isn't alive until a certain amount of time after conception. If an abortion is done then, you're mot killing it, because it was never alive. Maybe you should go educate yourself.
Actually, the cells of a fetus are about as alive as the inside of your mouth. They're not dead, and they're also not thinking.
Quote from: _Ichimaru_Gin_ on December 20, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
Skin cells are alive. The embryo isn't alive until a certain amount of time after conception. If an abortion is done then, you're mot killing it, because it was never alive. Maybe you should go educate yourself.
What does "will be" mean? psyduck;
Quote from: _Ichimaru_Gin_ on December 20, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
Skin cells are alive.
not quite sure but i don't think they're very sentient, sapient, or self-aware much
Quote from: _Ichimaru_Gin_ on December 20, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
The embryo isn't alive until a certain amount of time after conception.
what amount of time
i'm also relatively certain that the fusion of the sperm and egg does not produce a dead zygote that is then resurrected at a later date psyduck;
Quote from: _Ichimaru_Gin_ on December 20, 2007, 05:25:14 PM
Maybe you should go educate yourself.
maybe you should find a professional because i don't think your current system is working very well
Quote from: Lawlz on December 20, 2007, 05:31:58 PM
Actually, the cells of a fetus are about as alive as the inside of your mouth.
fetuses am not embryos
Quote from: Lawlz on December 20, 2007, 05:31:58 PM
...and they're also not thinking.
uh depends
embryos, if that's what you meant, then yeah pretty much
fetuses, uh also depends because that covers all development from eight weeks after conception or so all the way to birth and also depends on what you consider to be thinking but
Quote from: Commodore Guff on December 20, 2007, 05:42:02 PMi'm also relatively certain that the fusion of the sperm and egg does not produce a dead zygote that is then resurrected at a later date psyduck;
I think he's saying that the embryo doesn't have a life until a certain point in time. How you are getting the resurrection thing, I may never know.
Quote from: some_person on December 22, 2007, 10:39:07 AM
I think he's saying that the embryo doesn't have a life until a certain point in time.
i know, and he's retarded
Quote from: some_person on December 22, 2007, 10:39:07 AM
How you are getting the resurrection thing, I may never know.
sperms am be alive
eggs am be alive
when they do the fusion dance, they am become a zygote
zygote am be alive
weeaboo man person would seem to think that when the zygote becomes an embryo, it is no longer alive psyduck;
if it's not alive, how is it capable of cell division dunno maybe it's magic
I understand now v; Sorry for the misunderstanding v;