What are two sides of the death penalty? ( Archived) (171)

I agree. They should be compensated. And if we only had some kind of..health care....that people could afford, they would be able to get the help they need. What I am saying is that jail is a complete loss of freedom. And that sucks. I'm not comparing victims with the criminals, just hat loss of freedoms is a great punishment for crime.

The Victims should not be abandoned, but they are. How does that relate to the death penalty and punishment?

Yes. I did know all that. I have seen movies too!

And as far as violent vs. non-violent in jail:


The Justice Department recently released data showing that the number of prisoners in America rose to 1.8 million last year, the highest level ever, and the second largest prison population in the world. Using the most recent Justice Department data, the Justice Policy Institute found that last year two-thirds of those 1.8 million were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, representing the first time in American history that more than one million (1,185,458) people were confined for crimes involving no violence.

Indeed. But even YOUR ideas are too civil, B!

'Want to deter a criminal, think like one . . . '

Some 'criminal' thoughts are on their way . . .

Ray

'That way they deal with the same sort of people they are and can mame and mutilate one another. Let em cull their own herds so to speak. If they feel/think barbarianism is acceptable then let them deal with others who think and act that way. Just give them an arena to play in.'

Who is in support of this?

Why? Because you are all too afraid of the moral implications (namely upon your perfect selves) of advocating the death penalty or carrying it out?

Because you don’t want their ‘evil’ blood on your hands . . . or on your CONSCIENCE?

To the extent that you would rather advocate a state of complete anarchy on an isolated island somewhere for them? That THIS will keep YOUR hands clean and your conscience CLEAR as they gleefully mutilate and defile each other? Or form like pack-hounds against pack-hounds and produce a little hell on earth for themselves? And say: ‘let god handle them’.

You’ll pardon me if I permit myself a conceited laugh.

A man bludgeons, rapes and murders 30 beautiful young women . . . and we sit here with our weak little wills considering HIS right to live provided he is imprisoned, fed, watered, sheltered, and thus ‘punished’ for what he did [that is, when we are being realistic and not thinking about 'the island'.]

A man who has done this: . . . I do not care about his sickness, I do not care about his well being, about his ‘life’, about ‘punishing’ him, about what he ‘DESERVES’ – I care only about what he DOESN’T deserve . . .

And THAT . . . is his LIFE!

Thank God I was almost born without a conscience for those who were born COMPLETELY without one.

How many millions of lives have been taken in war; how many lives ended with the drop of a bomb (how many STILL today?) . . . in the name of ending a threat to a nation or to nations? To the world, even?

But not ONE life should [according to you people] be taken that poses or posed as much of a threat [as the one mentioned above]; and not ONE message sent out to mankind that such a man forfeits the right to live his own life because he has lived it at the pointless expense of other lives?

I’ve got no problem with advocating the death penalty - and if it pays well, of carrying it out or belonging to the process that does so.

It’s like those nice stakes you sit there eating in the restaurant: some man, somewhere, slaughters them and has their lives on HIS conscience and their blood on HIS hands so that you can have their tender meat in your belly with your wine and make love to your wife afterwards and maintain your ‘virtue’ of being a peaceful loving human being INcapable of killing . . .

To kill is instinct. To have compassion or even consideration for that which can kill you or the ones you love is dogmatic madness.

I see only two differences between the man I have alluded to above and a beast. The beast is more human, and can make a good meal.

It is better to eat than to be eaten.

To kill with the authority of government/state legislation is NOT instinctive behaviour as you well know.

If killing is as instinctive in humans as it is in animals why do we all not kill somebody who happens to get in our way? Why haven't you committed such a crime? Because you are not an animal and you understand the difference between right and wrong....I assume.

Few people would claim to feel compassion for somebody who had taken the life of one of their loved ones, however that doesn't necessarily mean that they would sanction the death penalty. And why do you use an example of a man bludgeoning 30 young, beautiful women? Is that to gain some sort of male sympathy vote? Are the lives of young, beautiful women more precious than say 30 middle-aged disabled men?

You are obviously an intelligent young man but sometimes you say such ridiculous nonsense. With age and experience you will certainly stand out from the crowd.

Jan he did say he was coming at this from a criminal thought process .. thinking like a criminal...

and a criminal would indeed think as ray has suggested, incompassionately ... he does or he/she would not choose to kill at all...

he is smart if not young, but one sometimes has to follow very closely where he is coming from... and that was from a criminal point of view, incompassionate, delusional etc ...