|
Post by Death Penalty on Sept 9, 2004 9:59:53 GMT -6
I'm doing a report on the Death Penalty, and i wanted to know some of your ideas on why its a good thing, and why its a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Marley on Sept 9, 2004 13:53:00 GMT -6
I am pro death penalty in certain cases. For an example the crazy man in Texas who beheaded his children. People who rape & kill children (of course I think that the death by LI is an easy way out).
|
|
|
Post by me on Sept 9, 2004 13:56:31 GMT -6
Dont' forget Robert Ybarra. He is a perfect example why there should be a death penalty.
|
|
Macklin
Inactive
The more clearly we see the sovereignty of God, the less preplexed we are by the calamities of men.
Posts: 1,701
|
Post by Macklin on Sept 17, 2004 18:08:58 GMT -6
I am personally for the DP.
Why you ask ...
Because we have over the years developed a system of laws, and punishment for those who break tho laws.
I believe that if one breaks the laws that call for the DP and the punishment is then the DP then it should be carried out.
I also believe that other laws that are broken that calls for a punishhment, that those punishments should also be carried out. And the sentences and punishment or ANY crime should be carried out in their full amount...
For example if one gets 20 years then 20 years is what it should mean.
10 years should mean 10 years, and life should mean as long as one draws a breath.
|
|
|
Post by eu.ro on Oct 7, 2004 6:17:58 GMT -6
I'm strongly against the death penalty because: - it's cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is murder, planned from the long hand only legalised by the jurisprudence.
- the question about life and death can only be answered by God himself.
- it's irreversable. There's no chance to revise a mistake.
- it's against the basic rules of human rights. The right to live, for example.
- it's paradox to explain people that killing is wrong by killing another.
- it's dump revenge.
- it's easier to execute someone than putting down the circumstances which lead to the murder.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Edwards on Oct 14, 2004 6:38:28 GMT -6
I'm strongly against the death penalty because: - it's cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is murder, planned from the long hand only legalised by the jurisprudence.
- the question about life and death can only be answered by God himself.
- it's irreversable. There's no chance to revise a mistake.
- it's against the basic rules of human rights. The right to live, for example.
- it's paradox to explain people that killing is wrong by killing another.
- it's dump revenge.
- it's easier to execute someone than putting down the circumstances which lead to the murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2004 18:50:13 GMT -6
I am absolutely for the death penalty. A murderer can't kill again from the grave, and it brings closure to the victim's families.
Timmothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Danny Rolling, Bin Laden are perfect reasons why we need the death penalty to name a few!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2004 18:51:34 GMT -6
Oh, I forgot! The death penalty should also be available for victim's families nationwide. Unfortunately, there are twelve states that deny full justice for the victim's families.
|
|
|
Post by PK on Oct 21, 2004 4:28:41 GMT -6
I'm Pro DP, it keeps them from killing again, escaping from prison like James Earl Ray did when he murdered Martin Luther King. It keeps society free from more murders. I wouldn't find any personal satisfaction in watching anyone die, I just want them where they can't brutalize another child, adult or family.
I believed in the DP before we lost our family member to murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2004 1:02:54 GMT -6
Search for Karla Faye Tucker. She bragged that she came every one of the approx. 50 times that a pickax was plunged into the two victims. Of course she claimed to have found religion while in prison. Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, raped, tortured, and murdered in California. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and in my own state we had a group who decided to rob the Hollywood Video Store. They robbed and murdered all of the employees and the grandparents who came to pick up their grandchild. People who commit these crimes forfeit their lives. Also read: www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2004 1:05:42 GMT -6
Search for Karla Faye Tucker. She bragged that she came every one of the approx. 50 times that a pickax was plunged into the two victims. Of course she claimed to have found religion while in prison. Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, raped, tortured, and murdered in California. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and in my own state we had a group who decided to rob the Hollywood Video Store. They robbed and murdered all of the employees and the grandparents who came to pick up their grandchild. People who commit these crimes forfeit their lives. Also read: www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.htmlI saw the "size" of the axe Tucker used on her victims. Yes, she needed to get the big needle.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 23, 2004 7:42:27 GMT -6
Death Penalty,
I think you should volunteer for lethal injection, and write a "report" on it in order to tell us ALL about it. First hand experience would make a great "report," and you must know how inportant it is to share this personal account. Just like Mumia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2004 17:01:10 GMT -6
I'm doing a report on the Death Penalty, and i wanted to know some of your ideas on why its a good thing, and why its a bad thing. When doing a report on such an important thing like the Death Penalty it's maybe a nice thought to look at how other countries view this problem. (A problem it is indeed.) In the Netherlands we have, as all civilized people, a constitution. This constitution states that the death penalty CAN NOT be sentenced by the courts. So even when a judge (we don't have a jury-system) has an itch and wants to sentence anybody to death by execution he (or she) is not allowed to do so under the constitution. Life imprisonment does exist, but is not sentenced often. We don't have life without parole. Life means 30 years max. More likely is that a psychotic murderer will be put away in a special clinic where he (or she) gets threatment by psychiatrics. In view of recent events in the Netherlands (mainly the killing of politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002) the discussion on the DP has started again in the Netherlands. It is however very unlikely that the DP will be reinstated. I hope this information will help you to make a good report (and get a high grade on it) on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by PK on Oct 30, 2004 12:53:31 GMT -6
Arnold, that sounds as if your country will soon build a country club for murderers...good grief! How many murder again when set free by your system?
|
|
|
Post by LUCIA on Nov 3, 2004 8:35:29 GMT -6
IM ALSO DOING A PAPER ON THE ISSUE TOO SO I WAS LOOKING FOR INFORMATION AND OPINIONS TO COMPARE
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Nov 4, 2004 22:13:59 GMT -6
IM ALSO DOING A PAPER ON THE ISSUE TOO SO I WAS LOOKING FOR INFORMATION AND OPINIONS TO COMPARE There are a lot of long-winded discussions of the death penalty. But here is a short summary I have been working on. The reason for having a death penalty today is to provide an approach to justice for the victims of murder. I use the phrase "an approach to justice" because even if a murderer were to be struck dead one second after the murder, that would not provide justice for the victim and the victim's family. The murderer, even when executed, always comes out ahead. The murderer always gets what he wanted The murderer wanted his victim dead and has gotten what he wanted. He has gotten what he wanted, even though he had no right to murder and his action was forbidden. THE MURDERER HAD NO RIGHT TO GET WHAT HE WANTED, YET HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED. The victim just wanted to live and did not get what she wanted, even though she had a right to live and society had promised her that she would be allowed to live. Usually she was also providing valuable benefits to society as well as not harming anyone. THE MURDER VICTIM HAD EVERY RIGHT TO GET WHAT SHE WANTED, YET SHE DID NOT GET WHAT SHE WANTED. WHO IS AHEAD AT THIS POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM? Can the victim ever catch up with her murderer? Is it just for the murderer to be better off than his victim? Is it fair for the murderer to be better off than his victim? Should we care about justice and fairness for the dead innocent victim? Once the murderer kills his victim, does he become more important than his victim? The murderer gains an unfair advantage over his victim the moment he begins to kill her. That is true even if he hasn’t already tortured her or raped her. After the victim dies, every second that the murderer lives, his unfair advantage over the victim is increased. That is the situation in a simple murder where the murder was done in a painless way. In such rare cases the murderer is given at least one fair trial, has appeals heard and then is given spiritual counseling and a last meal of his choice before his merciful execution. The victim had none of those things and has been dead for years before the murderer is executed. But the death penalty does provide the closest available approach to justice. Of course, many cases of capital murder are much worse than that, with the victim or victims being raped (sometimes many times by different rapists) and tortured, sometimes for hours or days, before a painful death. Then the victim's family has to go through a period of not knowing if their loved one is alive or dead. Then the victim's family has to relive the suffering of their loved one several times during the investigation, trial and appeals. If the murderer is not executed, the family members have to go through this for many years as the appeals and parole requests never stop. WHEN THE MURDERER IS EXECUTED YEARS AFTER THE MURDER, WHO WAS AHEAD AT THAT POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM? Is it good that the murderer’s unfair advantage has stopped increasing? Bear in mind that in many cases the murderer further benefits over the victim by raping or torturing her or both. The cases of Mary Adlay, Wendy Offredo and Heather Muller are instructive, just as a few of many examples. In those cases, the murderer can repeatedly relive the pleasure of the rapes or torture. He can sit with other rapists and murderers in prison and they can share their fond memories of the pleasure they drew from their victims’ suffering. They can laugh and joke about how the victim begged not to be raped the third or fourth time. They can swap stories about how their victims begged for their lives as they lay broken and bleeding. In one case a rape-murderer obtained the crime scene photographs of his victim to further increase his relived pleasures. Also in other cases, the murderer kills many victims. So in such cases, the murderer gains even larger advantages over his victim or victims. In no case does the murderer ever suffer as much as his victims There are also two beneficial byproducts from adequate use of the death penalty; deterrence and prevention. When the death penalty is used, as many as 20 potential murderers are deterred from murdering for each additional execution. When a murderer is executed, he cannot kill again. Thousands of innocent victims have been killed by previously convicted murderers who were not executed for their first murder. No innocent victim has ever been killed by an executed murderer. The DP also provides a benefit for the murderer, the opportunity for redemption. A murderer facing execution is given the benefit of a powerful incentive to review his past actions and seek the redemption of his soul.
|
|
|
Post by Kunigunde on Dec 3, 2004 11:40:34 GMT -6
this is a very good and convincing summary, i thank you! i'm also pro dp, but nobody wants to listen at me and think i'm brutal. in my country (germany) we don't have dp and most people i know support the law, what i just can't understand. they refer to the human rights, they call me a "despiser of humanity" because i support the death penalty, but i would call someone a "despiser of humanity" who abuses a 15 month old child sexually, then cut it in thousands of pieces and eat it for lunch - how can someone seriously refering to such people talk about the human rights they have, or human dignity? i just can't understand, but i'm allone with my opinion, here, where i am.
|
|
|
Post by GlennF on Dec 3, 2004 12:10:09 GMT -6
this is a very good and convincing summary, i thank you! i'm also pro dp, but nobody wants to listen at me and think i'm brutal. in my country (germany) we don't have dp and most people i know support the law, what i just can't understand. they refer to the human rights, they call me a "despiser of humanity" because i support the death penalty, but i would call someone a "despiser of humanity" who abuses a 15 month old child sexually, then cut it in thousands of pieces and eat it for lunch - how can someone seriously refering to such people talk about the human rights they have, or human dignity? i just can't understand, but i'm allone with my opinion, here, where i am. You are definitely not alone with your opinion. I'm British, but I live in Germany, and many of my German friends are also pro death penalty. I guess the pro death penalty majority was too quiet when the European governments abolished it under the false pretences of keeping murderers in prison for life, we let the loud minority decide for us. What is needed in all European countries are respectable political partys (no neo-nazi party etc) that are willing to take up the death penalty. I think support would be quite strong.
|
|
|
Post by Krakus Lucius on Dec 17, 2004 11:00:26 GMT -6
Who knows what is the real sens of Life? Noone, without God. Who can take Life to someone? Noone, without criminals. Death penalty is a crime.
You need argues to understand this idea? Answer me, but be carefull: an european like me knows to use his brain!
Nota bene: my english is not very fluent, sorry..
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Dec 18, 2004 14:06:14 GMT -6
Who knows what is the real sens of Life? No one, without God. That is why God has mandated the DP for murder. However, He also created men in His image sufficiently for most of them to understand that the proper penalty for murder is death. (Does "sens" above mean "sense"?) Thus you are saying that self-defense is a crime. You are also saying that to save the life of another (or many others) by killing the murderer during his evil task is a crime. There are other types of appropriate killing that would also need to be ciminalized using your false theory. The net result of your absurd theory would be a large increase in intentional killing and death from disease. (it appears that "to someone" above should be "from someone") No, the death penalty is the pursuit of justice. The failure to use the DP for murder is a crime. No, it is an idea that cannot be understood by a rational mind using factual information. So argument is not only not needed, it is pointless. You can use arguments to confuse people into believing your idea. However, a false idea cannot be understood to be true by understanding the idea. Understanding your idea would mean that those who understand it would understand that it is wrong. Now you need to learn how to use your brain well.
|
|
|
Post by Krakus Lucius on Dec 20, 2004 8:29:01 GMT -6
;)Donnie. You try to analys my message, and it's a good! it's good to analys sentences, ideas, and the world in witch you live. But analysing something, you need to be objectiv, "free-minded", and open to what you meet. Reading your answer, i see someone who's sure of what he thinks, who's not open-minded, and someone who likes to show what he know (or what he thinks to know). Marcus-Aurelius, a romain philosopher said "before try to think by yourself, learn to understand all what is around you" (cogito est gite in spiritus nostrus stabilita) You speek about "rational mind using factual information", but do you know what is a rational mind, or the rationalism philosophy? Do you know how to get factual and pertinent informations, without falling in media's subjectivity? I prefer not to loose more time with system's victim like you. Good luke in your life! Nota bene: sorry, my english is not very fluent.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Dec 23, 2004 18:26:42 GMT -6
DP is the WRONG answer to justice, it´s primitive, and anyone who agrees with it will NEVER have an argument to support it.
It´s a LEGAL murder.
I´m wondering if anyone knows about the Brittanny Holberg´s case in TX. I got the feeling that she´s on tryal not just for killing the 80year old guy but for being a prostitute and on crack addction. I believe in a place such as TX and other States in America most people IS conservative, and I MEAN IT, church every sunday, God´s and stuff, "Family Values",flags, and that sort of crap. F***g nothing else to do in other words. And THAT is another reason for me being against DP, that sort of people, extremist religious conservative B***DS, sharing the same level of ignorance, have the right to commit a legal murder. Regards.
|
|
|
Post by GlennF on Dec 23, 2004 18:43:51 GMT -6
I´m wondering if anyone knows about the Brittanny Holberg´s case in TX. I got the feeling that she´s on tryal not just for killing the 80year old guy but for being a prostitute and on crack addction. Well, there is not one person on death row in the USA for being a prostitute or for being a crack addict. So I think we can safely claim she is indeed on death row for the murder of that 80 year old guy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2004 16:17:31 GMT -6
I’m strongly for the Death Penalty for a number of reasons:
* The punishment is proportional to the offense. * It’s consistent with religious teaching that society is God’s agent to protect the innocent and punish the criminal even using the “power of the sword” – (Romans Ch: 13) * It’s irreversible. No chance of escape, no murdering other inmates, no commutations. * The law abiding should not be afraid, potential killers should be very afraid. * It affirms the moral position that the lives of murderers shall not be held in higher esteem than the lives of their victims. * It is the ultimate statement that individuals will be held fully accountable for their actions. * It has the support of at least 2/3rds of the American voting public, which, unlike Europeans, actually have a say in the criminal code.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Dec 24, 2004 16:43:23 GMT -6
I'm strongly against the death penalty because: - it's cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is murder, planned from the long hand only legalised by the jurisprudence.
- the question about life and death can only be answered by God himself.
- it's irreversable. There's no chance to revise a
- it's against the basic rules of human rights. The right to live, for example.
- it's paradox to explain people that killing is wrong by killing another.
- it's dump revenge.
- it's easier to execute someone than putting down the circumstances which lead to the murder.
Punishment isnt against human rights Eurostar. If it was why do we have prisons? Dump revenge? What would u do if a guy hits u in ur face would u say ok he did a mistake but i dont hit him back cause its against the human rights thats paradox Eurostar! But in fact the same situation!
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 30, 2004 9:16:29 GMT -6
Hi
I'm a student studying American Politics in England and at the present time i'm writing an essay on the Federalised system of the American Government the advantages and disadvantages of it. I understand that the laws on the death penalty differ from state to state, would I be right? Also in peoples views is it for the best that these laws differ depending on individual state constitutions or should there be a constant concensus across the country on the death penalty (whether that would be pro or against)?
Thank You for your help
Simon
|
|
|
Post by tlw on Dec 30, 2004 11:12:29 GMT -6
i am for it in the most extream cases. Unfornately here in canada we don't have it and there are a few criminals i wouldn't loss sleep over if they died.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Dec 30, 2004 14:21:31 GMT -6
Hi I'm a student studying American Politics in England and at the present time i'm writing an essay on the Federalised system of the American Government the advantages and disadvantages of it. I understand that the laws on the death penalty differ from state to state, would I be right? Yes, however the US Supreme Court has exceeded its authority and attempted to force states to conform to the individual personal preferences of about 10 or 12 judges. In general federal judges appointed by Democrats tend to impose their biases by changing the meaning and intent of laws and calling it "interpretation". When Thomas Jefferson returned to America from France he was shocked at how rapidly the judiciary had expanded its tryannical powers. Since there are 284 million people in the US, there is quite a wide range of opionion on this. Most people prefer to have their state government control activities in their state. However, the view on imposing the federal governments dictates on the state varies depending on the state and what individuals want in that state. Most people don't think about the death penalty much. Usually they think about it when there is a murder and they generally think that the murderer should be executed. Those who oppose the DP in a DP state want the federal government to control their state to eliminate the DP for guilty people completely (the DP for innocent people can never be abolished). Those who support the DP in an unjust state (no DP) would like the federal government to invoke the federal DP whenever possible. However, the federal DP can only be used in relatively few cases and most US attorneys prefer to let the state handle murders whenever possible.
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 3, 2005 22:16:14 GMT -6
Pardon me for responding to an old thread, but I am a newbie, just feeling my way around. :-)
In certain cold blooded cases, I am in favor of the DP. However, I am also a firm believer in "innocent until proven guilty". There have been a number of documented cases, where an innocent person was convicted and executed. I just know that I don't want that happening to me, or to anyone else. Before they throw the switch, it has to be beyond any shadow of doubt. I am also concerned that some people are convicted because they simply can't afford a good lawyer. They should be provided with the best available. And, to the person who is going to say, "And, just who is going to pay for that?" I will say. what if you are that innocent person and you can't afford $80.000 before a lawyer will even talk to you? What price do you put on your life?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2005 22:20:40 GMT -6
There have been a number of documented cases, where an innocent person was convicted and executed. Name 1 innocent person executed (since the DP has been reenstated).
|
|