Should we have the death penalty?

Nogard · Mayor's Aide Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 130

I'm sorry I was reading an Article on Paula Yates while before I typed that, I mean Andrea Yates. She killed her kids and today was found insane by the jury. She should be sent to the electric chair if you ask me. If she was insane, the husband should of never left her with the kids.

Now take that Scott Peterson, he killed his wife because she found out he was cheating on her. He covered it up for the longest time. he should be put to death for that.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

I thought I'd missed something about Paula Yates big time, Nogard!

Thing is, as you have already said, you think the guy who killed the burglar was within his rights.
That means the 'hang them all/eye for an eye, argument is already out of the window.
There should be some defence for anybody retaliating in a situation where they are the potential victim. Whether that is being beaten up, mugged, raped or whatever.

Very rarely are things black and white. In any situation. My favourite colour is grey.

I don't know what to say about your friend dying, because I don't agree with US gun laws anyway. Too many people, like your friend and yourself, getting caught in the crossfire.

Thumperfive · Mayor Joined: 11 Jun 2006 Posts: 222

I think old Rusty Yates should be castrated with a rusty spoon and tried for negligence...

Nogard · Mayor's Aide Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 130

Dolly, the death penalty is there for people that kill with an intent to kill. Not for people that killed someone that broke into their house. Rarely does a judge or jury find selfdefense killings a crime that bad. I say if a person killed someone out of coldblood, like a gang shooting or something like, we hang them. Simple as that.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

Good, well at least the women who killed her husband whilst being beaten up would have a bit of a defence then.

I think killing him with an apple corer would prove it wasn't premediated.

Thing is Nogard, when we started this off, you were for an 'eye for an eye,' no matter what the circumstances.

It's not always the case.

Personally I would hang drug dealers, if I had the option.

Thumperfive · Mayor Joined: 11 Jun 2006 Posts: 222

I suspect the problem is that we tend to think of killers as being either rehabililatiative or not - can we put them EVER back in society or not...

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

I don't know, are we talking burglar type killers or some other sort?

Nogard · Mayor's Aide Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 130

No Dolly, I was never against killing someone to save your life. I'm against coldblooded killers that kill for fun or just because.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

So how does the woman in the kitchen know whether this time, she is going to die or not.

Does she retaliate and fear the electric chair, or take the beating and just hope it's a broken nose rather than a ruptured spleen?

When did we turn into a society that values possessions more than the people that own them.

There are many varieties of murderer out there. Many reasons for it happening.

We can't lump them under the same umbrella. Sometimes our anger makes us feel as if we want to. But we can't. It belies what we have the power to be, and everything we should stand for.

Nogard · Mayor's Aide Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 130

If the women in the kitchen is getting beat by her husband, she should leave. It's simple as that. There are places to go for this type of things. There is people that will help her. The police will help her. The judges will help her. If she stays, I know this is mean, but it's her fault. Walk out the door and leave. Go to a friends house call the police, get a restraining order. If it's that bat that you want to kill you're husband, that leaving will defuse the problem.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

And if a man gets a burglar in his house he should call the police. That's what they are there for. They should trust in the society they support
.
No decent human being would kill a burglar for simply taking something as worthless as possessions.

Same as drunks. They have no excuse for pouring rubbish down their throats and making other people suffer the consequences of their actions. They and they alone are responsible. They should pay the ultimate price.

You're right, hang the lot of them.

classyred · Mayor's Aide Joined: 14 Dec 2006 Posts: 68

There is no question in my mind that we should have the death penalty in all states if you take someone else's life then you should lose yours, the only problem with this is that an innocent person could be put to death when they have not committed a crime, so we need to be sure they are guilty but i am for the death penalty under the right circumstances.

AFIN · Congressional Page Joined: 27 Jan 2007 Posts: 9

Answer is yes we should have one. Why you may ask again easy, with the death penalty is stops serious crimes from happening. If you look up what states have it to those who don't you will find much high crimes rate. Plus it would save the taxpayers money in the long run.

Strategos · Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject:

Punish them, but don't take their life away.
Full life inprisonment term under harsh conditions and harrassment is enough. If you kill a killer, what does that make you?

JT · Congressional Page Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 35

this topic is a little old, but in reading some of the posts, I thought I would comment on some:

COMMENT: "My thinking is that if you adminster the death penalty that means you have to murder that person, so shouldn't that be a crime?"

MY RESPONSE: How can anyone confuse "kill" with "murder"? intent, circumstances, etc. I have actually heard liberals trying to suggest that being anti-abortion but pro-death penalty is inconsistent. That is so fallacious it doesn't even make it to the smell test.

COMMENT: "although prison IS a deterrent for some, for the majority it is not."

MY RESPONSE: If prison or the death penalty is not a deterrent, then that person is so Darwinian stupid they should be incarcerated on that point alone.

COMMENT: "I discovered that a lot of the lads in there were actually taking the fall for somebody else.You know, hero worship when they've got in with the wrong crowd and been convinced that it is the proper thing to do. "

MY RESPONSE: Irrelevant. I'm sure that the Zodiac killer was convinced he was doing the proper thing, too.

COMMENT: "Shouldn't we actually be looking at what society could do to limit this violence in the first place?"

MY RESPONSE: Common fallacy - particularly attributable to liberal ideology. It's not society's fault that people kill people. There is just a certain percentage of human beings who are evil and/or sick and/or both. For example, about 1 in 25 people statistically are sociopathic. I don't know why. Science does not know why. But it's not society's fault. Yes, we should try to discover and mitigate the root causes of violent, illegal behavior. But we would be better off to focus on possible genetic, biochemical, neurological, or other bio-psychological contributors than social policy of the big, bad Republicans. And one second-to-last thing on this point: We should not characterize murderers as victims of root causes outside their control. When someone kidnaps, tortures, rapes and murders a little 5 year old girl - I don't give a rip fart if they were raised by a "distant" mother or not. That person is evil and needs to suffer the worst punishment imaginable. Anything less is an abrogation of society's moral obligations. The last thing is too many liberals believe in "restorative justice". My point above is that you cannot "restore" an evil person to begin with.

I am for the death penalty. I believe that in the most heinous cases, not giving the death penalty is an abrogation of society's moral responsibility. The possibility of killing an innocent person IS a good reason to be against the death penalty- except in cases of admission of guilt and overwhelming evidence, but too often that is not the real reason liberals are against it. And I do think generally that lax laws, "privileges" for prisoners, etc. is both the fault of, and just another manifestation of liberal ideological dysfunction. It also explains liberal attitudes toward perceived ills at Guantanamo Bay.