|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
| View Poll Results: What do you think of the death penalty? | |||
| I believe in it, to show that justice has been served. |
   
|
11 | 40.74% |
| I think it is wrong, because it is saying that killing is okay under certain circumstances. |
  
|
7 | 25.93% |
| I'm torn between the two. |
  
|
8 | 29.63% |
| Undecided. |
  
|
1 | 3.70% |
| Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
May 05, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death Penalty
I was watching 20/20 last night, and it was a special on the death penalty. It was in regards to Timothy McVey (the Oklahoma bombing) and his upcoming execution by lethal injection.
I just wanted to find out your guys' opinions on the death penalty. Do you think it should be done, to show that justice has been served? Or do you think that is it wrong, because it is saying that we, as human beings, have the right to kill under certain circumstances? 
|
|
May 05, 01
|
||||
|
||||
|
ahhh.....
i'm for it. equal rights bitch. i think they should stuff his lil body full of lil bombs and but him in view of ppl as he slowly explodes one limb at a time..
i dont see why ppl are so uptight about the death penalty. they did it "back in the day" and there were also less crimes back then cuz the punishment was more severe. and now that jail is present. its taking from the ppl on the outside to keeep the psychos locked up. i say. KILL THE MURDERERSSSS AND RAPISTSSSS. cuz either way, a rapist does take a child or whoever's life away. violence is a quick and easy solution to most things.
|
|
May 05, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blah. I dunno. I understand where you're coming from, but in my point of view, killing is wrong under ANY circumstances. It's like, you killed him, so I can kill you, you know? Yes, he SHOULD suffer, and I think that living life in prison is an even bigger punishment than killing him off. That way, he has to face everyday, knowing that there's no hope of him getting out, and knowing that each moment that passes by, is just one moment closer to his very slow death.
Buuuut, you know what? Timothy McVey right now, is sitting on death row, with...get this...CABLE TELEVISION. He watches the Simpsons everyday!! God...seriously, this is such insanity. Giving him privileges like that. Tax dollars are paying for that t.v. I guess they're just thinking that he's going to die, so they might as well help him pass the time leading up to "the day"...buuut, the death penalty is about the ultimate price, isn't it? So they should be showing him no remorse whatsoever. No compassion. Because he obviously did not show any of those dead people or babies any compassion whatsoever.
|
|
May 05, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
u know the saying...an eye for an eye...a tooth for a tooth??...i dunno...i think if sumone kills sumone they should be killed but then again...wut if they were falsely accused or i dunno...so many lil things could make it just seem bad??..i dunno!:023:
|
|
May 05, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
i'm not for it...
wut if the person never did it.. wut about that? all the evidence may lead to the person, but sumtimes they make "mistakes".. once ur dead, there's no turnin back... why is killin sum one justice? juss cuz u take away their life doesn't correct wut happened in the past, nor does it bring back "loved ones".... u can kill how many ppl u want, or try to learn frum the psychos so nuthin like that happens again.. u plus, if I wanted to get "revenge" I'd want them to SUFFER in prison and make them live the last of their days in sum hell hole prison where they can be constantly reminded of all the shiet they did....
|
|
May 05, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
HAHA! NICE ERICA! i watched that last night too, yo. very interesting.
i'm kind of on the fence on this issue. i mean, i see both the pros and cons to both sides of the spectrum. ultimatly though, the phrase or cliche, "an eye for an eye" is so out-dated and above all, so primordial. I would like to think mankind has become more humane in its views towards punishment. if someone were to kill, say, one of my family members, i would pray the person got life in jail. a life time of confinement...time to THINK about what they did. that person would have to live his/her entire life knowing and realizing what he/she had done. Death is too easy. Death is too good for a murderer. A free ticket, really. However, revenge is human nature. And that's what the death penalty essentially is. Revenge. Where do you draw the line though? Revenge is such a relative term. To what degree is revenge fully attained? CAN revenge be fully obtained?
|
|
May 05, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not for it, but there are times where it is, for lack of a better word, "ok" to kill. Take self defence for instance. Everyone has a right to defend his/herself.
Two wrongs do not make a right however. I'll have to aagree with everything that Twig-E has said. You took the words right out of my mouth, heh. -Dwight:063:
|
|
May 05, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah, you're right...under the circumstance of self defense, it IS okay to kill. Good point. :029: But under any other circumstances, I don't think it's okay. Good points too Sammy! I completely agree with you on the confinement issue. But did you see him sitting on Death Row with cable television? Watching the Simpsons everyday? That's just straight up sick. He did not have any compassion for those that he killed, therefore we should not have any compassion for the fact that he will be killed. I don't believe in the exectution, but if they are going to do it, then don't defeat the purpose of his suffering by pampering him in the days leading up to his death. The purpose of his execution is to make him pay the so-called 'Ultimate Price." Well, that price ain't so ultimate if you're letting him watch fucking cartoons. That really pisses me off.
Also, the whole eye for an eye phrase? Well, if that means that he killed, so he should be killed. Then should all rapists be raped? All molestors be molested? Gawd...imagine having that as a job. "My job is to rape the rapists." :032: :051: Last edited by Erica; May 05, 01 at 08:28 PM.
|
|
May 05, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
true true...
so essentially, society shouldn't look to analyzing whether or not the death penalty is morally or politcally correct. it's a waste of time. The problem at hand lies much deeper. A prison should be just that...a prison. no luxaries. no rights. nothing. perhaps, governments should change the way prisons are run. i do understand that a tremendous amount of money is needed just to keep this prisoners alive, however, programs could be implemented where they would become self sufficient. Governments should sit down with a dictionary and look up the word "punishment". the psuedo-punishment that goes on in these establishments does nothing to solve the problem. Stupid analogy time: The prison system is like a garden of weeds. Unless you pull the weed by the route, the weed is gonna keep growing. (haha. weed)
|
|
May 06, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
Twig-E, the reasoning behind these "luxuries" is that most prisoners become better criminals once they get out. Let's face it...... most of these prisoners aren't in for violent crimes. They're in for dealing drugs and B&E's and shizz like that. So when they get out, they become filled with hatred towards society and tend to commit the crime again.
I'm not for the prisoners having TV(and shizz like that) but I think we can all agree that something needs to be done about the state of prisons in our society. We are not far off from the states. The weed analogy(ha ha) is excellent, IMHO. Eduation is the key. Elimination of poverty would be nice, but then we all know that's fucking impossible. -Dwight:063:
|
|
May 12, 01
|
|||
|
|||
|
I stated my point on LX, but for those of you that missed it...
This is my opinion so I could care less if you agree or disagree.
First of all, if someone were to murder/rape/cause grief to anyone that is in my family or close circle of friends, I would personally hunt them down and kill them. Knowing that I would go to trial and possibly go to jail forever/die because of my actions won't deter me. Therefore, IF one knows of the consequences beforehand AND decides to carry out their intentions then they should get the punishment for the crime. If you know that you are going to fry for killing another human being and you do so knowing this fact, you have no remorse or guilt for your actions. Zap the fucker. I personally think correctional system as it is today is a waste of taxpayers money. Let me reword this... jails are good, having to use taxpayer's money to feed them/keep them warm/provide cable TV for them to watch is bullshit. I rather dump them all on an island and let them fend for themselves. If they want food, they can find it, go hunting/fishing or grow it. If they want to swim back to civilization, go ahead, if they make it then good for them. If the rest of the criminal population decides they want to kill you for what you did, then you just got judged by a jury of your peers. What I would like to see is this. Since the taxpayer is footing the fucking HUGE bill in order to keep a criminal in jail, then the taxpaying public should be able to decide what they want to do with them. How this would work? I'm still working on the details. That is all...
|
|
Mar 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Mar 27, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
some things maybe you should all think about...
in the US the death penalty has never been shown to have any significant effect as a deterent. states that abolish the death penalty don't see their murder rates rise, states that institute the death penalty don't see it drop. the reason why is that people who kill DON'T look towards the consequences. in fact this goes towards ALL criminal behaviour. in general people who commit crimes are solely focused on reward. they don't look ahead and take into account punishment. that's what makes them criminals. that's the criminal mindset. for you and I and increase in penalties seems like it would work as a deterent but that's only because we are NOT criminals. it makes sense if you think about it, i mean if the death penalty really does act as a deterent then how come the US (which has it instituted in 36 of 50 states) has such a higher murder rate then canada? it really doesn't matter if you make the punishments more or less severe, THEY DON'T THINK THEY ARE GOING TO GET CAUGHT. that's why in countries like the middle east where they cut off your hands for shoplifting they STILL catch people shoplifting. you'd think that if the punishment were that severe no one would even think of doing it, but it still happens. secondly, in terms of taxpayers money, it costs more in the US to give someone a death sentence than it does to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. the legal checks and balances, avenues of appeal, appeals to the state supreme court, federal supreme court, etc... end up being very expensive. it'd be nice to say "no appeals, you're done you're done", but the law doesn't work that way. the law MUST treat everyone (multiple murderers and jaywalkers and cable thieves and abortion protesters) equally, MUST give them equal opportunity to state their cases, or it wouldn't BE the law. thirdly, the death penalty as it's applied now in the US is pretty clearly biased. if you're white, or you're a woman, you're FAR less likely to be handed a death sentence than a male person of colour FOR THE SAME CRIME. remember what i said about the law being equal? too bad in practice it's not. that alone speaks pretty eloquently about whether or not he courts should be able to take the "ultimate sanction" fourthly, there have been a large number of people in recent years who have had their innocence proven while on US death row. there are at least two recent cases of people executed in texas alone where DNA evidence discovered after trial would seem to strongly suggest that men who had been executed had actually been innocent, and more cases like that exist throughout the states. it happens more often than you might think. there have been a number of recent cases in CANADA (Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall, David Milgaard) of people convicted of murder who have had their innocence proved after significant time in jail. David Milgaard - sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1969 murder of Gail Miller, a Saskatoon nursing aide. Milgaard spent 22 years in prison, The Supreme Court set aside Milgaard's conviction in 1992, and he was cleared by DNA evidence in 1997. The Saskatchewan government awarded Milgaard $10 million for his wrongful conviction. Donald Marshall Jr. - convicted of the 1971 stabbing murder of Sandy Seale in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Marshall was acquitted in 1983 after spending 11 years in prison. Guy Paul Morin - sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992 for the first-degree murder of nine-year-old neighbour Christine Jessop, Morin was exonerated in 1996 by DNA testing. Morin and his parents received a $1.25 million settlement. Thomas Sophonow - tried three times and convicted twice of the 1981 murder of donut shop waitress Barbara Stoppel in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Both convictions were overturned on appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada prevented a fourth trial of Sophonow. DNA evidence cleared Sophonow in 2000, and he was awarded $2.6 million in compensation. Clayton Johnson - convicted in 1993 of the first-degree murder of his wife. In 2002, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial. The Crown said it had no new evidence and Johnson was set free. personally, seeing as the death penalty doesn't work as a deterent, is expensive to administer, and is unfairly applied, for me it really boils down to the fourth point and i base my arguement around my belief that i'd rather see a ten, or a thousand, or a million innocent men keep their lives than to see one guilty man die. throw them in jail instead. it really boils down to the fact that justice can never be perfectly dispensed, as it is dipensed by humans, who are imperfect. therefore the death penalty cannot be perfectly dispensed. therefore the possibility of handing a death sentence to an innocent exists. therfore the possibility of executing an innocent exists. to me that is simply abhorrent. finally as an aside to the comments about how we treat our inmates. they don't give them TVs and other "luxuries" to coddle them, they do it to keep them somewhat civilized, docile and sane. would you want to be a prison guard at a prison where every inmate had nothing to live for? as well, most people in prison aren't in there for life, they're serving 6 months-2 years for assault, or 4-12 years for sexual assault, or 4 years for theft, or 2 years for fraud, or 90 days for drunk and disorderly and resisting arrest etc... the point is that they WILL eventually have to be released. don't you think it might be a bad idea to send people somewhere where they learn to live by the laws of the jungle, and then one day say "Hey, guess what, you're back outside!"? what kind of citizens do you think they'd be once they are released? might it not be better to have an environment that at least half-assedly prepares them for the eventuality of release? i certainly think it'd be a lot safer for us. i know that i'd dread meeting anyone who'd spent any time on mchammered's island far more than i'd dread meeting someone who'd spent a couple of years in the canadian system. which by the way, despite what you read in the papers, has one of the lowest rates of recidivism (second offences) in the western world. oh, and our overall crime rate has been DROPPING steadily for the last 10 years, and so has our murder rate.The removal of capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976 has not led to an increase in the murder rate in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that the murder rate for 2003 was the lowest since 1967 at 1.73 murders for every 100,000 population. The total number of murders in Canada in 2003 was 548, 34 fewer than in 2002. Murder rates in Canada are generally about a third of those in the United States. too bad that doesn't make a good newspaper story.
|
