|
Post by snidery on Feb 22, 2012 18:55:56 GMT -6
More oft than not, though, it will tell us that some people rate human life very cheaply, that some people are very cruel and that there are people in this world who wouldn't think twice before taking another human's life. I must read the anti-death penalty comments in order to understand why people would NOT want murderers put to death. It's a foregone conclusion in my book.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 22, 2012 18:27:16 GMT -6
Can't argue with that!
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 22, 2012 15:51:40 GMT -6
... and my apolgies in this thread. I dont "rate" any murder as worse than the next, however, the nastier the murder, the more you would think people would see that the death penalty is justified. I'd prefer to highlight for justification's sake than lionise the attrocities that some of these sick people have perpetrated. My apologies should I have offended anyone.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 22, 2012 15:30:13 GMT -6
Doesn't matter if a murderer is "mentally ill" or not - if you send them to an "institution" for the rest of their lives - what's the point? Execute them. In the animal kingdom, the weak and inform are culled by their own so that genetic problems are wheedled out. I'm not saying we should kill the disabled - oh contraire - however, if they kill, they should be humanely destroyed regardless of their mental capacity. If they're clever enough to fire a gun or stab someone to death, they're clever enough to have a needle inserted in their arms. In todays society, there are too many people and you shouldnt get second chances if you've taken away someone else's only chance. So your view is that there are no extenuating circumstances ever. I doubt the majority of decent Americans would agree with you. Yes, I am sure the American public are sceptical and rightly so about the majority that would claim mental illness, but I doubt you would get a majority of them if they accepted that someone had a serious MI and that this was a real undisputed factor in the act they did, I dotn believe for a moment the majority would want that individual executed when they lacked capacity. Americans are to my mind much fairer than that. I didnt mean to generalise - every case should be viewed on its own merits. However, if a perp is "aware" enough to play the MI card, they are aware of the consequences of their actions. Seems to me the MI card is only played AFTER the murderer has been charged with murder. Diminished responsibility should be argued in the first instance - and then its more a case of Catch 22 - if you claim to be crazy you mustnt be crazy. I doubt complete and utter loonies would be charged with murder in the first place and so would not face the death penalty - then they could get the help they need. However, those that pull the MI card on appeal, should not be spared the death penalty - mainly because its after the fact and they have already been found guilty of murder.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 20:48:11 GMT -6
Doesn't matter if a murderer is "mentally ill" or not - if you send them to an "institution" for the rest of their lives - what's the point? Execute them. In the animal kingdom, the weak and inform are culled by their own so that genetic problems are wheedled out. I'm not saying we should kill the disabled - oh contraire - however, if they kill, they should be humanely destroyed regardless of their mental capacity. If they're clever enough to fire a gun or stab someone to death, they're clever enough to have a needle inserted in their arms. In todays society, there are too many people and you shouldnt get second chances if you've taken away someone else's only chance.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 20:07:32 GMT -6
Cheers, Ms Cyclone. Methinks that if EU had the death penalty then perhaps they wouldnt be in the economic predicament they are currently experiencing? The difference between Austria and Australia is that one was the birthplace of Hitler and the other is run by a red-headed communist, so its quite easy to confuse the two. I dont think Europe would be badly off with the death penalty. From what I gather, the Balkan states, Scandinavia and evrywhere surrounding the Meditteranean could do with a bit of a cull. Not meaning to be facetious but I cannot find many reasons in today's society where the Death Penalty would be detrimental. The main problem with the death penalty in the US is that it takes too long and (as a result) costs too much. For example, why should we have to pay to keep someone like Richard Ramirez alive - cant they just put something in his porridge?
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 18:25:17 GMT -6
A few nasties: Eric Nenno - executed 28 Oct 2008 Elijah Page - executed July 2007 Peter Cantu - executed 17 Aug 2010
Just for starters!
I'm still waiting for Utah to sort out Mr Kell.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 18:12:44 GMT -6
Pardon me, Pixie person? Was that comment guided toward me, sir/madam? If so, me no comprende? If not, I'll just sit over here and whistle embarrassingly.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 17:52:57 GMT -6
I believe we should have the death penalty in Australia. What's more I believe it should be re-introduced retrospectively, so that those nasties who have taken advantage of the "no death penalty" situation would have a rude awakening! The likes of Milat, Travers, baby killers, child rapists, etc. would be summarily put to death. There is no deterrent in Australia for every loonie and their dog to commit attrocities. We put down animals and the likes of these (similarly to your Briley Piper/ELijah Page, Eric Nenno, untold others) are no better than animals. It's humane and if the perpetrator has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt (such as DNA or eye-witness testimony) - then there should be no appeals (barring mitigation, of course) - just execute them 3 days after being found guilty, like in 1800s Australia and England.
|
|