When does someone deserve death?
- Thread starter Torrasque
- Start date
edit: woops forgot to put, from nebraska,USStrixMaxima said:
roughly this.
you can think about it morally, or you can think about it logically.
morally i will do everything i can to not kill someone, i like to believe we are just humans that make mistakes and we deserve second chances, and i just don't have the need or anger to kill anyone, nearly ever, hell i hardly am competitive enough to play sports let alone get the anger to fight/stab/shoot someone.
that person is destructive, they are using up free meals and taking up space on the planet and are more then likely no hope for redemption or doing anything positive, therefore the easiest thing to do is put em out of their misery instantly and save everyone else alot of stressing out and tax money.
i would never go out of my way to kill someone, nor would i say you are allowed to kill just anyone, but if it was a life and death situation i would have not a single picosecond of a thought on killing the person instantly. and wouldn't waste a single second afterward pondering about it either.
you know what i love? generalizing everyone who references they believe in a god, and try and abhor every single person to the exact set same of rules. Do all atheists hold the exact same values? does every atheist act the exact same way? noo?enzilewulf said:
and what if they are 100% without a doubt convicted? then they just get to waste your tax money sitting in jail enjoying three hots and a cott?
have you not seen the news stories of people purposely breaking the law to get back INTO jail? the standard for the average jail is higher than most unemployed people are, so no, i really don't think it is "worse than death".
and that quote has always been flawed, i could be a smartass retort back with "then you'll just walk around with a bunch of pissed off one eyed people,, while those two eyed people are left to poke more people's one eye out without retort."
anyone who tries to another person deserves to die if they are killed in the process. As to you know being a judge to a murder case id take it on a case by case basis which is what most judges do. that being said i believe anyone who purposely hurts a child should be hung from the rafters.
Very good question Mr. zehydra.zehydra said:
Let me add a question:
Who decides what sort of crime deserves death anyway?
What about those loud noisy kids in the bus. Those that disturb you while you just want to get from point A to B. They are not going to contribute anything useful to our society. So why not kill them?
Why not kill those "My little pony friendship is magic" fanboys (and girls) because some of them are insultingly provocative and some percentage could turn out to be potential new child molestors?
The problem isn't only about what crimes define death penalty but who is in charge over life and death. Once you put someone into the position to decide over life and death of someone else you give that person too much power. That will go wrong. That's what history told us so far about this completely f*cked up human race.
Hm...Death is to much of an easy way out. I like to see some painfull and agonizing things done to people who deserve it. Like Child molesters and shit.
Whenever somebody has been given life without parole. Think about it. The purpose of prison is reform, so why would we create a situation where we pretty much tell someone they are beyond help, so we are quarantining them from society? They are better off dead.
Also, Tennessee.
Also, Tennessee.
when you kill somebody maliciously, or threaten their life, in the latter case they have the right to self defense, although you don't deserve death afterwards if the attack is unsucesful, which is just attemped murder.
As per my area, deep southern united states
As per my area, deep southern united states
1. You are dealing with a life or death scenario, a guy has a knife and will kill you unless you gun him down.
Response: Shoot him without a 2nd guess and double tap. Im not goin roll over and die and i won't be killed by some Punk
2. You are the judge over a murder case. You can either give the guy a death sentence, or something else.
Depends on the Murder
but i would kill him most likely when another human kills another for there own needs or wants. Then they properly shouldn't be alive
Response: Shoot him without a 2nd guess and double tap. Im not goin roll over and die and i won't be killed by some Punk
2. You are the judge over a murder case. You can either give the guy a death sentence, or something else.
Depends on the Murder
but i would kill him most likely when another human kills another for there own needs or wants. Then they properly shouldn't be alive
Canada- Ontario
1. Yes I would shoot him, I would wait as long as I have to and maybe shoot one of his limbs first but if he keeps coming at me I would kill him.
2. I think a person deserves a death sentence if they go to prison for murder serve their sentence and murder again, in my eyes they 'deserve' to be punished by death. I think this because they simply haven't learn their lesson.
A person should only be deserving of death in thse circumstances or ones similar
1. Yes I would shoot him, I would wait as long as I have to and maybe shoot one of his limbs first but if he keeps coming at me I would kill him.
2. I think a person deserves a death sentence if they go to prison for murder serve their sentence and murder again, in my eyes they 'deserve' to be punished by death. I think this because they simply haven't learn their lesson.
A person should only be deserving of death in thse circumstances or ones similar
the purpose of prison isn't to reform, it's to quarantine.the spud said:
Ah hell, people disagree on the point of prisons, and I suppose the ultimate purpose would be to dissuade crime, since the justice system acts after a crime has been committed.
Perhaps we should have seperate quarantine and rehabilitation institutions instead of just "prison".
I've heard this line or reasoning before, and I completely understand where you're coming from. But yeah, I guess these damn morals of mine keep gettting in the way of things, eh?TestECull said:
Also, for the most part, tax payers pay more for handing out the death penalty than they do for giving the criminal life incarceration.
(<url=http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071213222051AAnD6AB>Yahoo Answers has a question about this stuff. Have a look at all the links at the bottom of the best answer - the question is old, so some of the links no longer work, but some of them still do, too...)
If you don't wanna read, the "Best Answer" gives a specific example:
In New York State, the average annual cost to incarcerate someone not on death row is about $35,000 per year. On the other hand, in the years since 1995, when New York State brought back a death penalty law, 7 people were sentenced to death, none had more than one appeal and 3 had not even had their first appeal. New York shelled out well over $200,000,000 for its capital punishment system since 1995. Assuming each of the 7 men lives for 40 years the cost to incarcerate all of them for life would be under 10 million dollars.
That is, on average, it cost about $29 million for each of those people to get the death penalty. But if the capital punishment system wasn't in place, and they lived another 40 years in prison, it would have cost them an average of $1.4 million for the full 40 years, each.
So, if all you're worried about is money... You should be against the death penalty, too. ^_^
The purpose of prison actually changes depending on what country your in, from what I understand. I think in Japan they are more focused on rehab, but I could be wrong. Here in the U.S., I will agree they are mostly here as punishment and as a means to quarantine, but apparently the Japanese prisons are more effective from what I've heard, so in a perfect world, prisons would be all about rehabilitation. So my question is, "Why bother keeping someone locked up forever if they are beyond help?"zehydra said: