by Dutchie 94 Replies latest jw friends
Plmkrzy,
Sorry, I mean no offence, but your reply is not what CP is about. The question is, should the State execute it's citizens? It's no good saying "No, unless they are really bad people" such as the person you describe. Or yes, this bad person proves that you should execute people
If we always find a horror story to justify a belief, then don't we become just like the dubs, ie, majoring on moral panic?
Regards,
Englishman.
I have a comment to make. I DO agree with capital punishment but meany are making the argument that they don't want to support these people for 30 or 40 years on death-row. It is actually more expensive to kill them than keep them alive for a lifetime. This is due to court costs and appeals.
This is about money?
Englishman.
This is about money?
In the US it is.
Stinky,
You are correct as to your assessment of the cost of executing folks in this country. It is far more expensive to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life. Cost is indeed a consideration that supports the use of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as an alternative to the death penalty.
Personally, I think it is a shame that in the USA we hold ourselves out as the leaders in civil rights yet we lower ourselves on this issue to the standards of China, Iran, Libya, and other countries where civil rights are nonexistent or extremely limited. I hope that some day we will evolve into a less bloodthirsty society.
Englisman
Plmkrzy,
Sorry, I mean no offence, but your reply is not what CP is about
I take no offense at all but would you mind explaining how you can conclude that my reply is NOT what CP is about?
These men were ALL citizens. And these men were executed for the crimes they commited and it was IMO the correct sentance. There is nothing barbaric about sentanceing these men to death.
If you wish to discuss HOW they are executed and if current methods are violent or barbaric then thats different.
And as for it costing more to execute them then it would have cost to house them for 30 years. I don't see how. They were in some cases executed in less then 5 years.
There was recently the case of a man near my home town who walked into the rest room at the beach and sliced the throught of a 9 year old boy just to see what he would look like as he died. He confessed to doing it. He pleaded guilty. He asked to recieve the death penalty. He stated before the Judge that he would do it again if he could.
He was not allowed to plead Guilty in a capitol murder case and was ordered to change his plea to Not guilty and stand trial.
Whats crazier? The man who slit the little boys throut to watch him die, or our judicial system that forced this man show MORE proof he did it and send the bill to the state tax payers.
These criminals are not the ones making up the laws regarding how many appeals and how many years they can take. These appeals are in place for the judicial system.
Of course there needs to be a lot of reform in the system. As it stands the system is set up to protect the pockets of the Judges and the D.A's and the Lawyers and the Public Defenders and on and on and on. It is not set up to protect the citizens.
Plmkrzy,
I think that we are coming from opposite ends of the same problem. Long before the UK outlawed CP I was against it.I feel this way because the so-called solution for murder - execution - is just an extension of the crime of the murderer, ie more murder.
Also, please remember that for many of us, this punishment is totally outdated and perceived as barbarism by much of the Western world. OK, you can yell "Mind your own business", but it IS our business. All the time that the US is having such an impact on the World, many people are disappointed that this great power hasn't risen above a practise that is nothing more than a cheap vote winner, a "tough on crime" sort of rhetoric that is wearing a bit thin nowadays.
Kill 'em or jail 'em, it all comes down to money, winning votes and revenge. Time to move on, good people!
Englishman.
As it stands the system is set up to protect the pockets of the Judges and the D.A's and the Lawyers and the Public Defenders and on and on and on. It is not set up to protect the citizens. -- plmkrzy
With all due respect, plmkrzy, this is absolute horseshit. Our "system" is based on our U.S. Constitution, the document that is the backbone of our legal system and our way of life in this country. The Constitution protects you, and I, and all other people in this country. If you don't like our "system of things," then maybe you should join a cult that promises a "new system" or move to a country with laws more consistent with your personal ideals.
Why is it that you need to disparage judges, DAs, lawyers, and public defenders? From my perspective, this unjustified bashing of legal professionals reflects very poorly on you.
It seems like a very simple concept to me. There are laws made, that if broken, have consequences.
If you brutally take someone's life from them and their family and friends, the law says you have to be prepared to forfeit your own. The decision isn't made by the state, the decision is made by that inidividual...who gambled with their own life by cold bloodedly deciding to take another's....the state is only carrying out that decision.
I like LIZARD's quote from General Schwartzkopt: "I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting."
Double Edge, I am with you on this one. If someone kills another, and it has been proven, then they should be killed in return. For those who say society should be above the death penalty, I ask why? If someone broke into your house, and threatened to kill you or your family, would you kill them? I think you would say, yes I would. How does that differ from someone who has killed someone? In my opinion the murderer is not deserving of life.
