Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Clavius

Death penalty

Recommended Posts

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Yea Canada is too relaxed in that regard, in my opinion. Contemplated murder should be solved by taking them out back with a shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Yea Canada is too relaxed in that regard, in my opinion. Contemplated murder should be solved by taking them out back with a shotgun.

What about contemplated "taking someone out back with a shotgun?" :cute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Yea Canada is too relaxed in that regard, in my opinion. Contemplated murder should be solved by taking them out back with a shotgun.

What about contemplated "taking someone out back with a shotgun?" cute.png

I personally find a rather stark difference between someone killing a person because they want their insurance money and killing someone because they killed an innocent person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" <--- lolol they were jk.

I don't think it's right for people to take lives of others. Even if someone commits a murder, that's no excuse to turn around and do the same thing to them. I also don't see where anyone really gets off deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. All though it would probably be almost impossible to live your life in a normal way if you got out of prison for something like that, so the only decent way to go would be life without parole, which is way more of a punishment anyways. When you die, you're gone. When you get for to sit around in prison, you're really gonna come to regret what you did.

I'm sorry but from an ethical standpoint I have a very hard time justifying rights for a murderer.

 

While I definitely believe proving the crime is important, if someone did commit the crime, he no longer deserves the rights most other human beings have. We're talking about people who have committed murder in cold blood without any forethought for a fellow human being, and frankly there's a point where we have to no longer bother about rights for people. Senselessly taking the life of another person is a pretty good point for drawing that line.

So wait let me get this straight. One person takes other people's lives. They're a serial killer.

Judges rule in favor of people's lives being taken as punishment. They're not murderers.

Murder is still murder regardless of how you justify it, their lives are still being taken from them as well. I'm not saying they're good people, I'm just saying that whoever rules to take their life away from them (and orders it in a court of law) is guilty as murder themselves.

 

A murderer is someone who commits UNLAWFUL premeditated homicide. As far as I know, execution as per the death penalty is LAWFUL.

 

Besides, we don't need scumbag murderers on this earth. fudge them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" <--- lolol they were jk.

I don't think it's right for people to take lives of others. Even if someone commits a murder, that's no excuse to turn around and do the same thing to them. I also don't see where anyone really gets off deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. All though it would probably be almost impossible to live your life in a normal way if you got out of prison for something like that, so the only decent way to go would be life without parole, which is way more of a punishment anyways. When you die, you're gone. When you get for to sit around in prison, you're really gonna come to regret what you did.

I'm sorry but from an ethical standpoint I have a very hard time justifying rights for a murderer.

 

While I definitely believe proving the crime is important, if someone did commit the crime, he no longer deserves the rights most other human beings have. We're talking about people who have committed murder in cold blood without any forethought for a fellow human being, and frankly there's a point where we have to no longer bother about rights for people. Senselessly taking the life of another person is a pretty good point for drawing that line.

So wait let me get this straight. One person takes other people's lives. They're a serial killer.

Judges rule in favor of people's lives being taken as punishment. They're not murderers.

Murder is still murder regardless of how you justify it, their lives are still being taken from them as well. I'm not saying they're good people, I'm just saying that whoever rules to take their life away from them (and orders it in a court of law) is guilty as murder themselves.

“Murder is the unlawful killing, with malicious aforethought, of another human.”

 

Hmm. I don't think a judge can murder by a courtroom decision in that case. You may call it lawful murder but that's self-contradictory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be all for the death penalty if someone can prove to me 1) That it actually makes society safer and 2) The cost can be reduced below that of life imprisonment without increasing the rate of wrongful execution and 3) The rate of wrongful execution can be significantly decreased below the rate of 7% found by a review of past convictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Yea Canada is too relaxed in that regard, in my opinion. Contemplated murder should be solved by taking them out back with a shotgun.

100% Right. It also rids the world of bad people and scared em.

Me: Lemme go kill that lady. I will just get 25 years in Jail.

 

 

Death Penalty

Me: I can't go kill that lady or else I will die like my friend did.

 

See?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Yea Canada is too relaxed in that regard, in my opinion. Contemplated murder should be solved by taking them out back with a shotgun.

100% Right. It also rids the world of bad people and scared em.

Me: Lemme go kill that lady. I will just get 25 years in Jail.

 

 

Death Penalty

Me: I can't go kill that lady or else I will die like my friend did.

 

See?

 

So you're saying that you wouldn't be scared/worried about spending 25 years in prison?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Yea Canada is too relaxed in that regard, in my opinion. Contemplated murder should be solved by taking them out back with a shotgun.

100% Right. It also rids the world of bad people and scared em.

Me: Lemme go kill that lady. I will just get 25 years in Jail.

 

 

Death Penalty

Me: I can't go kill that lady or else I will die like my friend did.

 

See?

So you're suggesting that people will stop killing because of the death penalty? People are awful at considering the future, and do some dumb things in the heat of the moment. And then there's psychopaths. And people who are fully convinced they can't get caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Yea Canada is too relaxed in that regard, in my opinion. Contemplated murder should be solved by taking them out back with a shotgun.

100% Right. It also rids the world of bad people and scared em.

Me: Lemme go kill that lady. I will just get 25 years in Jail.

 

 

Death Penalty

Me: I can't go kill that lady or else I will die like my friend did.

 

See?

 

So you're saying that you wouldn't be scared/worried about spending 25 years in prison?

 

25 is lenient for the murder of an individual. That means if I kill someone at 25 or 30 I get to walk free in my 50's. Hardly something I would consider fair for stripping someone of their life in most likely a torturous or horrible fashion. Obviously the scenario is different for involuntary manslaughter where killing an individual wasn't the intent. In that case I would say 25 is too strict and side more with a 10 - 15 year sentence.

 

I don't really agree with the death penalty and i'm happy to live in a state that has outlawed it, but I just can't comprehend letting someone who killed another eventually walk free.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada isn't like that. The honor killing that happened... they got 25 years without parol. Yeah.

Yea Canada is too relaxed in that regard, in my opinion. Contemplated murder should be solved by taking them out back with a shotgun.

100% Right. It also rids the world of bad people and scared em.

Me: Lemme go kill that lady. I will just get 25 years in Jail.

 

 

Death Penalty

Me: I can't go kill that lady or else I will die like my friend did.

 

See?

 

So you're saying that you wouldn't be scared/worried about spending 25 years in prison?

 

25 is lenient for the murder of an individual. That means if I kill someone at 25 or 30 I get to walk free in my 50's. Hardly something I would consider fair for stripping someone of their life in most likely a torturous or horrible fashion. Obviously the scenario is different for involuntary manslaughter where killing an individual wasn't the intent. In that case I would say 25 is too strict and side more with a 10 - 15 year sentence.

 

I don't really agree with the death penalty and i'm happy to live in a state that has outlawed it, but I just can't comprehend letting someone who killed another eventually walk free.

 

I agrre with you that life w/o parole is suitable for most capital crimes, I'm just saying that 25 years is a heck of a time.

 

But I do think it's quite disgraceful how murderers/rapists get 20 years here in Australia, and usually only serve 10 in jail. Our justice system is FAR too light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think. Before a death penalty is issued, the prisoner should be given one more chance to redeem themselves. If they continue to do their crime, then bring in the chair/noose/syringe/whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are we to judge who gets killed or not?

 

And besides, the REAL problem is that prison is too....comfortable? That would be the right word I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are we to judge who gets killed or not?

 

And besides, the REAL problem is that prison is too....comfortable? That would be the right word I suppose.

Us non killers are to judge who gets killed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are we to judge who gets killed or not?

 

And besides, the REAL problem is that prison is too....comfortable? That would be the right word I suppose.

Us non killers are to judge who gets killed or not.

 

Oh really? Didn't know we're all held up to that high of a standard to judge whether someone has their life ended or not.

 

Interesting.

Edited by Ghostfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are we to judge who gets killed or not?

 

And besides, the REAL problem is that prison is too....comfortable? That would be the right word I suppose.

Us non killers are to judge who gets killed or not.

 

Oh really? Didn't know we're all held up to that high of a standard to judge whether someone has their life ended or not.

 

Interesting.

 

I think that there should be three people to judge.

Number 1. The forensic scientists. After all, it was their hard work, and they can discover how the victim died, and whether the killed was the person who did the final blow. By final blow, that means that heart attacks, seizure, suicide, etc. If those were how the victim died, then the scientists should ultimately say "No, he wasn't the one who did the final blow to the victims life".

Number 2. The victims family. After hearing the forensic scientists, if they can forgive the killer, then they would say "No, we understand what happened, and we have finally forgiven Name

Number 3. The Jury, Dur. It was they who have helped with rulings for a long time, so they should have a say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like giving the victim's family such important is really ill-advised. When you've just lost a parent, sibling or child you're not really in the best spot to make an impartial decision. Regrettably, there are those people who convince themselves that the accused is guilty and deserves to die and there's is nothing that will change their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone already said this, but I feel that in a way, the death penalty is almost the easy way out for some of the worst crimes you can commit. I mean, I know that their families would be devastated and all that, but in the end they suffer until they are executed instead of the lifetime in prison. So I feel like it's almost easier to just die painlessly than to sit life out in prison. I know it's easy to argue against that but I just don't feel like being instantly killed is worse than suffering life in a tough prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are we to judge who gets killed or not?

 

And besides, the REAL problem is that prison is too....comfortable? That would be the right word I suppose.

Us non killers are to judge who gets killed or not.

 

Oh really? Didn't know we're all held up to that high of a standard to judge whether someone has their life ended or not.

 

Interesting.

 

I think that there should be three people to judge.

Number 1. The forensic scientists. After all, it was their hard work, and they can discover how the victim died, and whether the killed was the person who did the final blow. By final blow, that means that heart attacks, seizure, suicide, etc. If those were how the victim died, then the scientists should ultimately say "No, he wasn't the one who did the final blow to the victims life".

Number 2. The victims family. After hearing the forensic scientists, if they can forgive the killer, then they would say "No, we understand what happened, and we have finally forgiven Name

Number 3. The Jury, Dur. It was they who have helped with rulings for a long time, so they should have a say.

The victim's family to decide the killer's fate? That doesn't sound legal at all. If they say no it's out the door right away, if they say yes it gets moved on to consideration? That'd be pretty bogus, it's just putting the killer's fate in their hands, and who are they to decide? Especially after having lost a family member. Obviously murder is wrong, but eventually everybody dies and they might not make the same decision if given months/years to sit on it. And by then that's a violation of the killer's right to a fast trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forensic scientists* already do have a say when they give their testimonies. The jury just decides whether their testimonies are relevant.

 

I'm somewhat split on this issue. On one hand, who are we to decide whether a harmless person (a killer in prison is harmless) should be killed. That's worse than killing people in war. The state doesn't have the right to take people's lives away.

 

On the other, however, there are definitely people who deserve it (such as Timothy McVeigh who killed over 150 people in an act of terrorism and was executed for it) and we'd be better off without them.

 

* "CSI" forensics is fiddlesticks. Just a small note.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone already said this, but I feel that in a way, the death penalty is almost the easy way out for some of the worst crimes you can commit. I mean, I know that their families would be devastated and all that, but in the end they suffer until they are executed instead of the lifetime in prison. So I feel like it's almost easier to just die painlessly than to sit life out in prison. I know it's easy to argue against that but I just don't feel like being instantly killed is worse than suffering life in a tough prison.

And don't forget the fact that it's the killer's fault, not the killer's family who is hurt as a result of his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A box of .308 costs what $12-15? U haven't bought any in awhile but just go back to the firing squad. Trial, go outside /issue solved.

 

For all intents and purposes the US doesn't have the death penalty. Sure they may get it but the guy just sits in a cell for 30 years till they knock him off.

 

I'm for the death penalty but the system needs a revamp it's so inefficient.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think. Before a death penalty is issued, the prisoner should be given one more chance to redeem themselves. If they continue to do their crime, then bring in the chair/noose/syringe/whatever.

 

That's absolutely absurd. Not only does it give them a free pass out of jail, but it also gives them an opportunity to committ more crimes and create even more problems for the rest of us. I don't see how doing this would make anything better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think. Before a death penalty is issued, the prisoner should be given one more chance to redeem themselves. If they continue to do their crime, then bring in the chair/noose/syringe/whatever.

 

That's absolutely absurd. Not only does it give them a free pass out of jail, but it also gives them an opportunity to committ more crimes and create even more problems for the rest of us. I don't see how doing this would make anything better.

 

Not necessairely (I can't spell) walk free. But more or less, spend time in a very controlled environment. They can be monitered every

step, or even better!

Even better idea! For the mentally insane criminals, an electric collar can be attached to them, and they can be monitered every now and then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.