An Eye For An Eye? (52)
---- IMAGE REMOVED because photobucket.com no longer allows embedded images ----
------ This poll is Archived ------
Some folks could just use a good killing. The world as a whole seems to be getting softer on crime and punishment. I suspect that is why there is more of it. There is not really a consequence that fits the crime these days. Hell if a person gets a life sentence they are out in 20 years. I believe we all have a right to live but if we choose to take lives without just cause that right should be stripped away.
Then again I think that in violent crimes that the victims family should be allowed to choose and administer the punishment any way they see fit. I am sure everyone would find closure there.
Then again I think that in violent crimes that the victims family should be allowed to choose and administer the punishment any way they see fit. I am sure everyone would find closure there.
------ This poll is Archived ------
fishinandshootin: Some folks could just use a good killing. The world as a whole seems to be getting softer on crime and punishment. I suspect that is why there is more of it. There is not really a consequence that fits the crime these days. Hell if a person gets a life sentence they are out in 20 years. I believe we all have a right to live but if we choose to take lives without just cause that right should be stripped away.
Then again I think that in violent crimes that the victims family should be allowed to choose and administer the punishment any way they see fit. I am sure everyone would find closure there.
Then again I think that in violent crimes that the victims family should be allowed to choose and administer the punishment any way they see fit. I am sure everyone would find closure there.
Hi Fishin!
I think emotionally we all like this idea - however, the "victims" family should not administer the punishment as it becomes a free for all revenge rather than justice and the law and societies rules - also the victim family never feels closure - there is no such a thing as closure (I think) - just getting on with one's life.And suppose the death was a result of gang warfare? does the victim family (the rival gang) get to exact retribution? Our society then returns to anarchy.
------ This poll is Archived ------
fishinandshootin: Some folks could just use a good killing. The world as a whole seems to be getting softer on crime and punishment. I suspect that is why there is more of it. There is not really a consequence that fits the crime these days. Hell if a person gets a life sentence they are out in 20 years. I believe we all have a right to live but if we choose to take lives without just cause that right should be stripped away.
Then again I think that in violent crimes that the victims family should be allowed to choose and administer the punishment any way they see fit. I am sure everyone would find closure there.
Then again I think that in violent crimes that the victims family should be allowed to choose and administer the punishment any way they see fit. I am sure everyone would find closure there.
Here murderers getting life is back on the street in less than 5 years.
But I cannot agree with your last paragraph. That is vengeance, not justice.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Does a man deserve to live after he had purposely and intentionally killed another man? I hear this nonsense all the time about his constitutional right to live but what about the rights of the person he had killed?
Do we have the right to defend our own lives by the taking of another?
How do we act when somebody lost his life due to the negligence and/or recklessness of another person?
Is a crime of passion any different than any other crime if you had enough time to reconsider?
What about killing somebody in a rage; on the spur of the moment, so to speak? Is such a person fit to walk around in public. What happens when he gets cross again?
Is attempted murder any different than murder? Is doing a bad job mitigation if it was clearly his intention to kill?
I personally don’t think a man deserves the right to live if he had willfully killed another; no matter what the reason. He had forfeited that right when he took it away from his victim.
Do we have the right to defend our own lives by the taking of another?
How do we act when somebody lost his life due to the negligence and/or recklessness of another person?
Is a crime of passion any different than any other crime if you had enough time to reconsider?
What about killing somebody in a rage; on the spur of the moment, so to speak? Is such a person fit to walk around in public. What happens when he gets cross again?
Is attempted murder any different than murder? Is doing a bad job mitigation if it was clearly his intention to kill?
I personally don’t think a man deserves the right to live if he had willfully killed another; no matter what the reason. He had forfeited that right when he took it away from his victim.
I voted an eye for an eye only if intentional Cat. Not long time ago there was a pole about death penalty, and voila' that 's when the death penalty come into play. I know some people don't agree of my opinion but that's my simple personal of view !! Because in this case there is no hesitation ...!!
------ This poll is Archived ------
Retributive justice is very old school. I think the morality total is so low in modern society that the idea of soft punishment becomes appealing to all of those who would be criminals if they themselves were in criminal circumstances. In the modern world people are not trained to be honourable, in the West we simply shower society with easy wealth as a means of crime prevention and insurance. Many "lawful" people have the same level of ego and lack of self-restraint as the criminal, but what they don't have is much of a reason for committing the crime - which could explain why wealthy countries have such high rates of mindless violence which occur no matter how generous the benefits and the economy is.
Anyway, we don't hang serious offenders in Europe, quite the contrary, we give lesser offenders the vote.
Anyway, we don't hang serious offenders in Europe, quite the contrary, we give lesser offenders the vote.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Alexandro10: I voted an eye for an eye only if intentional Cat. Not long time ago there was a pole about death penalty, and voila' that 's when the death penalty come into play. I know some people don't agree of my opinion but that's my simple personal of view !! Because in this case there is no hesitation ...!!
Yes Alex. It is the intent that matter to me as well. If a fella intended to kill he should pay the price. Accidental killers, due to negligence and/or recklessness, can be realigned and returned society. Their intent was not to kill and have probably learned their lesson during the incident.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Obstinance_Works: In the modern world people are not trained to be honourable, in the West we simply shower society with easy wealth as a means of crime prevention and insurance. Many "lawful" people have the same level of ego and lack of self-restraint as the criminal, but what they don't have is much of a reason for committing the crime
I think this was very accurately put. We have no honor today and many a law-abiding citizen will turn rogue if the need should arise.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Does a man deserve to live after he had purposely and intentionally killed another man? I hear this nonsense all the time about his constitutional right to live but what about the rights of the person he had killed?
Do we have the right to defend our own lives by the taking of another?
How do we act when somebody lost his life due to the negligence and/or recklessness of another person?
Is a crime of passion any different than any other crime if you had enough time to reconsider?
What about killing somebody in a rage; on the spur of the moment, so to speak? Is such a person fit to walk around in public. What happens when he gets cross again?
Is attempted murder any different than murder? Is doing a bad job mitigation if it was clearly his intention to kill?
I personally don’t think a man deserves the right to live if he had willfully killed another; no matter what the reason. He had forfeited that right when he took it away from his victim.
Do we have the right to defend our own lives by the taking of another?
How do we act when somebody lost his life due to the negligence and/or recklessness of another person?
Is a crime of passion any different than any other crime if you had enough time to reconsider?
What about killing somebody in a rage; on the spur of the moment, so to speak? Is such a person fit to walk around in public. What happens when he gets cross again?
Is attempted murder any different than murder? Is doing a bad job mitigation if it was clearly his intention to kill?
I personally don’t think a man deserves the right to live if he had willfully killed another; no matter what the reason. He had forfeited that right when he took it away from his victim.
That describes the jury that find a man guilty and the person who flips the switch.
------ This poll is Archived ------
I believe mankind is on the highway to hell.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Glatlol: That describes the jury that find a man guilty and the person who flips the switch.
Ok Glat, your opinion is noted but what about the poor victim? Did you have a parent or a sibling murdered?
In 2000 my brother was murdered, my mother suffered a stroke when she got the news and died a few weeks later. I wonder if you would be so lenient if it touched your family.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Oh, I can relate to this. Here we have many small local riots, esp re the allocation of new housing. And the thing in common with them is that the closest off sale liquor store is raided. Nobody is ever prosecuted because it is deemed as political violence. You can literally get away with murder if it is of a political nature.
Some with an agenda will try to portray events in line with their politics. They did so with the London riots despite the fact that the riots were perhaps the least politically motivated civil unrest in British history. It was just one great big anarchic free for all.
------ This poll is Archived ------
stringman: I believe mankind is on the highway to hell.
A highway so straight there is not even a shortcut to take.
------ This poll is Archived ------
stringman: I believe mankind is on the highway to hell.
I have a feeling it' s an individual journey.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: A highway so straight there is not even a shortcut to take.
I am sure there are shortcuts. You can always get down that road faster.------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Ok Glat, your opinion is noted but what about the poor victim? Did you have a parent or a sibling murdered?
In 2000 my brother was murdered, my mother suffered a stroke when she got the news and died a few weeks later. I wonder if you would be so lenient if it touched your family.
In 2000 my brother was murdered, my mother suffered a stroke when she got the news and died a few weeks later. I wonder if you would be so lenient if it touched your family.
Awful things to have happened to any family.
Why is not killing someone considered lenient? IMO what you are talking about is nothing more than legilised premeditated murder and serves no good to any society.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Glatlol: Awful things to have happened to any family.
Why is not killing someone considered lenient? IMO what you are talking about is nothing more than legilised premeditated murder and serves no good to any society.
Why is not killing someone considered lenient? IMO what you are talking about is nothing more than legilised premeditated murder and serves no good to any society.
It's not the same for the law to discriminately kill as it is for the individual to commit murder. One principle of justice is that all individuals are subject to the law. The law is not an individual, and all individuals are equal beneath the law.
What about people involved in Human trafficking whose crime is abducting and imprisoning people. Now is the law the same as the trafficker because technically the law is involved in legalised premeditated Human trafficking?
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Does a man deserve to live after he had purposely and intentionally killed another man? I hear this nonsense all the time about his constitutional right to live but what about the rights of the person he had killed?
Do we have the right to defend our own lives by the taking of another?
How do we act when somebody lost his life due to the negligence and/or recklessness of another person?
Is a crime of passion any different than any other crime if you had enough time to reconsider?
What about killing somebody in a rage; on the spur of the moment, so to speak? Is such a person fit to walk around in public. What happens when he gets cross again?
Is attempted murder any different than murder? Is doing a bad job mitigation if it was clearly his intention to kill?
I personally don’t think a man deserves the right to live if he had willfully killed another; no matter what the reason. He had forfeited that right when he took it away from his victim.
Do we have the right to defend our own lives by the taking of another?
How do we act when somebody lost his life due to the negligence and/or recklessness of another person?
Is a crime of passion any different than any other crime if you had enough time to reconsider?
What about killing somebody in a rage; on the spur of the moment, so to speak? Is such a person fit to walk around in public. What happens when he gets cross again?
Is attempted murder any different than murder? Is doing a bad job mitigation if it was clearly his intention to kill?
I personally don’t think a man deserves the right to live if he had willfully killed another; no matter what the reason. He had forfeited that right when he took it away from his victim.
Saying someone deserves to be killed if they have killed someone is one thing, and understandable when someone close has been a victim but actually killing that person who killed is very real with real and horrific consequences.
Wasn't it Ghandi who said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and the whole world would be blind and toothless.
I don't agree with the death penalty but I do agree that the justice system in all our countries is flawed at times and too lenient on some. Some actually commit crimes because they have a better life in jail than out of it!
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Here murderers getting life is back on the street in less than 5 years.
But I cannot agree with your last paragraph. That is vengeance, not justice.
But I cannot agree with your last paragraph. That is vengeance, not justice.
Not so. Life is 25 years and they are only eligible for parole after having served 2 thirds of their sentence.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Glatlol: Awful things to have happened to any family.
Why is not killing someone considered lenient? IMO what you are talking about is nothing more than legilised premeditated murder and serves no good to any society.
Why is not killing someone considered lenient? IMO what you are talking about is nothing more than legilised premeditated murder and serves no good to any society.
Ok, also noted. What do you suggest we do with the murderer to prevent him from doing the same to another.
When a dog bites once he will bite again, and once a lion had tasted human flesh he becomes a man eater. Humans are the same. Killing becomes easy once you have done it before.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Ok, also noted. What do you suggest we do with the murderer to prevent him from doing the same to another.
When a dog bites once he will bite again, and once a lion had tasted human flesh he becomes a man eater. Humans are the same. Killing becomes easy once you have done it before.
When a dog bites once he will bite again, and once a lion had tasted human flesh he becomes a man eater. Humans are the same. Killing becomes easy once you have done it before.
Life should mean life, but thats probably a whole other thread and these things vary from Country to Country.
------ This poll is Archived ------
LadyDiz2: Not so. Life is 25 years and they are only eligible for parole after having served 2 thirds of their sentence.
I have come to realize a long time ago that you may be involved in law enforcement somehow. No problem with your statement. That is but the law states, but you know as well as I do that that is not what happens.
Law and order in this country has collapsed. It is common knowledge that the crime figures release by government is doctored to make it look acceptable. It does not tally with hospital records nor with that of internal affairs. Even Interpol states it openly that the figures are grossly under reported.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: I have come to realize a long time ago that you may be involved in law enforcement somehow. No problem with your statement. That is but the law states, but you know as well as I do that that is not what happens.
Law and order in this country has collapsed. It is common knowledge that the crime figures release by government is doctored to make it look acceptable. It does not tally with hospital records nor with that of internal affairs. Even Interpol states it openly that the figures are grossly under reported.
Crime figures are doctored in many countries. ITs what politicians do to stay in power.Law and order in this country has collapsed. It is common knowledge that the crime figures release by government is doctored to make it look acceptable. It does not tally with hospital records nor with that of internal affairs. Even Interpol states it openly that the figures are grossly under reported.
Law and order collapses because those who take charge of law enforcement are not capable of doing the job, or not enough money is spent to support it. Sometimes both.
Their is no evidence to suggest that execution reduces murder.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: I have come to realize a long time ago that you may be involved in law enforcement somehow. No problem with your statement. That is but the law states, but you know as well as I do that that is not what happens.
Law and order in this country has collapsed. It is common knowledge that the crime figures release by government is doctored to make it look acceptable. It does not tally with hospital records nor with that of internal affairs. Even Interpol states it openly that the figures are grossly under reported.
Law and order in this country has collapsed. It is common knowledge that the crime figures release by government is doctored to make it look acceptable. It does not tally with hospital records nor with that of internal affairs. Even Interpol states it openly that the figures are grossly under reported.
I agree that things are not exactly as they are said to be, but to say that law and order has collapsed is not entirely correct. There are those that use money and power to circumvent the law, but corruption of this nature is to be found anywhere in the world to greater and lesser degrees. Besides, if you truly believe that there is such a breakdown, is re-introducing the death penalty wise? Surely the corruption that is prevalent would see many innocents facing the gallows if they happen to be on the wrong side of those with power and money?
------ This poll is Archived ------
Glatlol: Life should mean life, but thats probably a whole other thread and these things vary from Country to Country.
Ok, one solution but who pays for that while mister sits in comfort, playing pool and watching TV all day in a country with a population in excess of thirty million and only 5 million registered tax payers - already taxed to death - and half the population living in cardboard and tin shacks.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Ok, one solution but who pays for that while mister sits in comfort, playing pool and watching TV all day in a country with a population in excess of thirty million and only 5 million registered tax payers - already taxed to death - and half the population living in cardboard and tin shacks.
Of course I cant even pretend to have the answers but cannot see how killing the killer is the solution.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Ok, one solution but who pays for that while mister sits in comfort, playing pool and watching TV all day in a country with a population in excess of thirty million and only 5 million registered tax payers - already taxed to death - and half the population living in cardboard and tin shacks.
Hm, you should perhaps visit a few of these facilities where 20 prisoners are placed in cells meant for 2. You might just reassess this living 'in comfort' perception you have.
------ This poll is Archived ------
rebel2: Crime figures are doctored in many countries. ITs what politicians do to stay in power.
Law and order collapses because those who take charge of law enforcement are not capable of doing the job, or not enough money is spent to support it. Sometimes both.
Their is no evidence to suggest that execution reduces murder.
Law and order collapses because those who take charge of law enforcement are not capable of doing the job, or not enough money is spent to support it. Sometimes both.
Their is no evidence to suggest that execution reduces murder.
Ah, you see, what happened here is competent police officers and detectives were forced into early retirement to make place for political appointments to incompetent people, thus leaving us with an ineffective police force.
If a unit is to effective in fighting corruption the unit is disbanded and the members are discredited as incompetent.
With regards to your last sentence, murders have doubled since the moratorium and subsequent abolishment of the death penalty in South Africa.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Most if not political figures will obviously say that they are/aren't for the death penalty.They also have a way of crunching numbers of deaths.
I've known of cases where someone will serve time or be executed for a crime they never committed.
If someone is 100% found guilty and there's no doubt they committed the crime then they should do the time or done away with.
I've known of cases where someone will serve time or be executed for a crime they never committed.
If someone is 100% found guilty and there's no doubt they committed the crime then they should do the time or done away with.
------ This poll is Archived ------
Catfoot: Ah, you see, what happened here is competent police officers and detectives were forced into early retirement to make place for political appointments to incompetent people, thus leaving us with an ineffective police force.
If a unit is to effective in fighting corruption the unit is disbanded and the members are discredited as incompetent.
With regards to your last sentence, murders have doubled since the moratorium and subsequent abolishment of the death penalty in South Africa.
Perhaps the issue then is for someone who has the determination and ability in power to address the problem from the top downwards.If a unit is to effective in fighting corruption the unit is disbanded and the members are discredited as incompetent.
With regards to your last sentence, murders have doubled since the moratorium and subsequent abolishment of the death penalty in South Africa.
Executing people will not eliminate the overall problem.
------ This poll is Archived ------
This Poll is Archived
This Poll is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Poll get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
More Threads
Unions support Democrats!
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Democrats destroyed America
Trump Elementary
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
The Real Stormy Story
Have it both ways!
Why is this shameful?
biggest lie
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Stats for this Poll
55 Votes
2,529 Views
52 Comments
Created: May 2014
Last Viewed: Apr 25
Last Commented: May 2014
Last Voted: Jul 2017
0 Likes
An Eye For An Eye?(Vote Below)
Do we have the right to defend our own lives by the taking of another?
How do we act when somebody lost his life due to the negligence and/or recklessness of another person?
Is a crime of passion any different than any other crime if you had enough time to reconsider?
What about killing somebody in a rage; on the spur of the moment, so to speak? Is such a person fit to walk around in public. What happens when he gets cross again?
Is attempted murder any different than murder? Is doing a bad job mitigation if it was clearly his intention to kill?
I personally don’t think a man deserves the right to live if he had willfully killed another; no matter what the reason. He had forfeited that right when he took it away from his victim.