Capital Punishment

[fishgun]

I also agree that there should be public hangings. How may times has a judge slapped a rapist's hand and they get set free only to do it again. We need Judge Parker's out there who are going to make them accountable for their actions. When are we going to stop paying for someone else??? There should only be one room on death row, a waiting room. NEXT!!!!!!!!!

 

[rambone]

As our system is now, it costs more to kill a criminal than it does to keep him locked up for life. That alone is reason enough to lock them up and throw away the key.

Anybody have any fiscal comparisons of life vs. death in prison? I always assumed it was more expensive to house & feed them.

 

[spartan933]

I agree that is not for any man to play God. However, I support the Death Penalty. The consequences for homicides must be equal to the crime.

 

[SavageEagle]

I agree that is not for any man to play God. However, I support the Death Penalty. The consequences for homicides must be equal to the crime.

What about rapists and molesters? In effect, they destroy people's lives, sometimes forever without recovery. I support them being on death row. This is something, obviously, that should have to be required to have DNA proof among other things, but I would whole-heartedly support these sickos being sent to their maker.

On the note about cheaper to fry em... If you hang 'em, you pay nothing, sorta, but if you fry 'em, it depends how much strain on the electric company...

 

[00BlasterResto]

I agree that is not for any man to play God. However, I support the Death Penalty. The consequences for homicides must be equal to the crime.

I believe in it,IMO I think there are somethings you just can't fix.
Man has been killing man since who knows when, Just as any animal kills a rival.
IMO Lets say man kills another man, well then I think God decided on it, no one playing god there. If you rape, malest, intentionaly Perm. Injur, kill Etc. someone, well then you'r just out of ground to walk on with me,...

 

[Marc]

i agree with capital punishment but i think its too soft on the criminal. i think what they should do is make capital punishment so grotesque that no one will want to commit a crime that is punishable by death. and they should also broadcast it on public television to add to the humility of those kinds of people. back in high school in our goverment class every student was supposed to come u with a bill/act and i made one called the EYE for an EYE act which stated that if some one were to commit murder or other harmful acts of violence perp will be killed/treated the same way. there were some people that didnt agree with it then we got to discussing it and even the little libs in my class thought it was a good step to stop alot of criminals.

i remember one of the people that was against it asked me. what if the person raped and then strangles their victim. i just looked them with a smile and asked them, what does eye for an eye stand for? they said that alittle wrong dont you think? so i proceeded to sy. someone breaks into your house rounds up your loved one puts them on their knees and points a gun to the back of their head then boom dead. how would you feel? whould your loved ones murder be justified on that killers punishment when they lay him down in a room and they stick a needle them and they quietly go to sleep? or do you want him to feel what your loved one went through with the pain and the suffering? the had no arguing statement. added note it would save on goverment spending. (it costs more money to put a murderer to death then it does to feed them in prison for life. there are many more ways for execution and its by far cheaper than the way they are handling it now.)


thats how i feel about capital punishment

(i would be more than happy to do that job... i need a job)

 

[Jack Ryan]

Do you agree or disagree with capital punishment and why?

recidivism = zero

1.repeated or habitual relapse, as into crime.2.Psychiatry. the chronic tendency toward repetition of criminal or antisocial behavior patterns.

 

[hotfarmboy1]

i agree with capital punishment but i think its too soft on the criminal. i think what they should do is make capital punishment so grotesque that no one will want to commit a crime that is punishable by death. and they should also broadcast it on public television to add to the humility of those kinds of people. back in high school in our goverment class every student was supposed to come u with a bill/act and i made one called the EYE for an EYE act which stated that if some one were to commit murder or other harmful acts of violence perp will be killed/treated the same way. there were some people that didnt agree with it then we got to discussing it and even the little libs in my class thought it was a good step to stop alot of criminals.

i remember one of the people that was against it asked me. what if the person raped and then strangles their victim. i just looked them with a smile and asked them, what does eye for an eye stand for? they said that alittle wrong dont you think? so i proceeded to sy. someone breaks into your house rounds up your loved one puts them on their knees and points a gun to the back of their head then boom dead. how would you feel? whould your loved ones murder be justified on that killers punishment when they lay him down in a room and they stick a needle them and they quietly go to sleep? or do you want him to feel what your loved one went through with the pain and the suffering? the had no arguing statement. added note it would save on goverment spending. (it costs more money to put a murderer to death then it does to feed them in prison for life. there are many more ways for execution and its by far cheaper than the way they are handling it now.)


thats how i feel about capital punishment

(i would be more than happy to do that job... i need a job)

I'm with ya there man! I think they should do to the criminal exactly what the criminal did to the victim. I'd be more than willing to take a known murder that is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, out back and put a bullet in his head. Quick, and and much cheaper than what they are doing now.

 

[Django]

Depends.
Say you have an unrepentant serial killer who if let out would slaughter women and children in the most gruesome manner they can think of... I would rather them dead than tying up resources.
Limit it to the most extreme clear-cut cases, deny appeal, no red tape. Instadeath by a 12 ton press to the head.
That said, what if new evidence comes to light that the person being held was falsely charged? Hard to let someone out after they've been put down.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...How many threads here have people saying that simple theft deserves the death penalty. Heck, that's the law in Texas....

No, it is not. There was a case sometime in the 1800s we've all heard about where the man's successful defense was "Yer Honor... he needed killin'.", but that precedent has been long since abandoned, AFAIK. Hell, Texas doesn't even allow your concealed firearm to print through your clothing, a far cry from so many peoples' impression of everyone owning an oil well and cattle, and riding everywhere they go on a horse!

On someone's (Marc?) point about Hammurabi's Code of an eye for an eye, I don't completely agree. A rapist, for example; I don't know about anyone else, but I don't plan on doing to it what it did to someone else. I would not have a huge objection to the classic revenge story being played out, wherein a guy caught by his wife cheating is taken out to the old stump in the back yard, his member (or "the boys", depending on the story) fastened securely to it with a metal staple. The story goes that she takes out a knife and he says, "You're not going to cut it/them off, are you?" and she hands him the knife and replies, "Nope, I'm going to set this old stump on fire and go have coffee. You do what you like."

Either way, the rapist's not going to rape again.

What about rapists and molesters? In effect, they destroy people's lives, sometimes forever without recovery. I support them being on death row. This is something, obviously, that should have to be required to have DNA proof among other things, but I would whole-heartedly support these sickos being sent to their maker.

On the note about cheaper to fry em... If you hang 'em, you pay nothing, sorta, but if you fry 'em, it depends how much strain on the electric company...

Rope's cheaper than electricity or a bullet since it won't possibly miss and you can reuse the rope.

As for rapists/molesters, don't they make those rubber band castrators?

See, the victim doesn't have to remain a victim... he or she can become instead a "survivor". Dr. Susanna Gratia Hupp is a good example of the latter.

Just my

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

No, it is not. There was a case sometime in the 1800s we've all heard about where the man's successful defense was "Yer Honor... he needed killin'.", but that precedent has been long since abandoned, AFAIK. Hell, Texas doesn't even allow your concealed firearm to print through your clothing, a far cry from so many peoples' impression of everyone owning an oil well and cattle, and riding everywhere they go on a horse!

Sorry, I should have been more precise.

I meant that the law says that it's legal to use deadly force to prevent theft of you property or for "mischief" in the night time.

There was the case last year about the guy who killed those two guys who were stealing from his neighbors house. He confronted them outside his/neighbors house & killed them both & was applauded as a hero. I'm not debating the hero part but that's the "death penalty for theft" I was referring to.

 

[dsol]

Killing someone because they are in your home, even if they are "just" stealing is perfectly fine in my book. Killing someone because they murdered (molested a child or raped someone also should be in there) is fine also as long at the evidence is irrefutable.

It has got to be something beyond just an eyewitness or someone's word. People are way too easily mistaken, lied to, railroaded, or manipulated by overzealous prosectors who don't care about anything except their conviction rate and the press they get. Too many people are on juries because they are too dumb to get out of it or don't have anything better to do. I applaude informed, intelligent people who take their time for jury duty, but far too many are tossed out of the jury pool because they have a brain or have read a newspaper.

Were I ever on a jury, I would not trust a prosecutor to tell me if the sky was blue. I would have to see some actual, physical, scientific proof for myself before sending someone to the chair. But would have no problem throwing the switch either. Moral or not, I really don't care. The death penalty may or may not be a deterrent, I don't care. The one thing it does perfectly, 100% of the time, it is prevents that person from EVER harming another person forever. Life in prison isn't always life, people can escape, if TSHTF, what happens to all the people in prisons, they will be out there preying on others. But if they are put to old sparky, they will not have another opportunity. Ever.

 

[LPMan59]

im late to this thread...

but i disagree with capital punishment....it's handed it out way more slowly than it should be

 

[The Meach]

I am against CP. I'm pro-life across the board. The state does not give life and it does not have the right to take life away.

 

[Hoosier8]

I don't belive in Capital Punishment.

We consistently complain here that the government doesn't have the right too....____?___. So how is murdering someone for murdering someone any different. Death is the most serious single event in the human experience only second to birth. Who are we as mankind to decide to take it?!?

On the other hand I am sympathetic to the victim and the family members of a murderee. I don't have a fair alternative to capital punishment, and that is where I fall short in the debate.

It really is a debate of morals vs ethics. Morals say its wrong. Ethics state it is manditory for a civilized society.

I am with you on this. There wasn't an "on the fence" choice or I would have voted. I understand an eye for an eye. I also understand that the system has made mistakes. Those mistakes make the system unreliable; therein lies my problem with the capital punishment.

I also fail in this debate because I can see too many sides of the argument as valid. In the end, it may be best left a political choice, as with abortion, there may never be any agreement.

 

[Hoosier8]

I am against CP. I'm pro-life across the board. The state does not give life and it does not have the right to take life away.

Since "the state" is a representation of society, it is society you are talking about, not a disconnected state; therefore, you must replace state with society to get a better meaning of your statement. The ultimate singular of the state is you, and yes, you give life by giving birth (maybe not personally) so that begs the question, do you have the right to take it in instances of gross violation of all laws of person and society? Just asking.

Let us just say that maybe there is no society. It is you, your family, and the wide open spaces. Would you protect your family by taking the protection far enough to take someones life that is threatening you and your family and will not go away? You may or may not. Now take that into more and more people to a township, a city, a country. Would not all of those questions be the same?

 

[The Meach]

Since "the state" is a representation of society, it is society you are talking about, not a disconnected state; therefore, you must replace state with society to get a better meaning of your statement. The ultimate singular of the state is you, and yes, you give life by giving birth (maybe not personally) so that begs the question, do you have the right to take it in instances of gross violation of all laws of person and society? Just asking.

Let us just say that maybe there is no society. It is you, your family, and the wide open spaces. Would you protect your family by taking the protection far enough to take someones life that is threatening you and your family and will not go away? You may or may not. Now take that into more and more people to a township, a city, a country. Would not all of those questions be the same?

You are begging the question here.

The definition of Murder in Indiana is:

IC 35-42-1-1
Murder
Sec. 1. A person who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;
(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human trafficking, sexual trafficking of a minor, or carjacking;
(3) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit:
(A) dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1);
(B) dealing in or manufacturing methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1.1);
(C) dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2);
(D) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); or
(E) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance; or
(4) knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability (as defined in IC 16-18-2-365);
commits murder, a felony.

So if Murder is "knowingly or intentionally kill(ing) another human being"

What is the Death Penalty?

IC 35-38-6-1
(a) The punishment of death shall be inflicted by intravenous injection of a lethal substance or substances into the convicted person:
(1) in a quantity sufficient to cause the death of the convicted person; and
(2) until the convicted person is dead.

(b) The death penalty shall be inflicted before the hour of sunrise on a date fixed by the sentencing court. However, the execution must not occur until at least one hundred (100) days after the conviction.
(c) The superintendent of the state prison, or persons designated by the superintendent, shall designate the person who is to serve as the executioner.
(d) The department of correction may adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 necessary to implement subsection (a).

So the Death Penalty Is the Injection of a deadly substance into a predetermined person, at a predetermined time, by another predetermined individual, until the person chosen for death is dead.

What was Murder again?

"knowingly or intentionally kill(ing) another human being"

Wow, sounds to me like the Death Penalty is Murder.

If i was just Me, My family, and the wide open spaces. And i had to kill for to protect my and my family's life It would be considered Self Defense.

However there is a major difference between SELF DEFENSE and MURDER.

In responsive use of Deadly force (self defense) The death of the Individual was UNPLANNED, UNAVOIDABLE in order to preserve my own life, and UNINTENDED as it was not by any choice on my behalf to take the individuals life.

However the active use of deadly force (Murder/The Death Penalty) The Death of the Individual is PLANNED, AVOIDABLE because there is not immediate or foreseeable longterm threats to anyone's life from this individual, and INTENDED as it was by a direct choice "for the good of all" or a desire for punishment that this person's life was decided to be ended.

The Death penalty is Murder. and I am Pro-Life across the board.

 

[Phil502]

The death penalty is punishment for a crime.

Murdering a woman in the alley behind your house because she was taking out the trash is maybe just a little different.

 

[bigg cheese]

It has been asked "how can one be for capital punishment and against abortion? They are one and the same."

While I disagree wholeheartedly, I meet them on this point -- "Give up abortion, and I'll give up capital punishment."

The millions of babies murdered could more than make up the cost of those criminals we house in prisons.

 

[jeremy]

Does it bother you to put down a sick or rabid animal?