[iWrite]

READ THIS and discuss why or why not the death penalty is good or bad.

Especially interesting will be what people from OUTSIDE of the US have to say.

[Developer]

Death penalty is useless and barbaric.

[John B. Smith]

The more sterile the procedure is, the creepier it becomes.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
Death penalty is useless and barbaric.

nothing more to say

[Millennium]

I do think that there needs to be more rigorous screening, both in the trial process and of the trial process, before the death penalty is meted out. However, in and of itself, I believe that it is a just punishment for premeditated murder. It's not a matter of revenge, only one of consequence.

I also believe it is a just punishment for premeditated forcible rape, but I seem to be in a distinct minority on that one.

[Spheric Harlot]

a) This is not political?

b) Does the Lounge really need ANOTHER death penalty thread?

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
Death penalty is useless and barbaric.

Useless? I hear the recidivism rate is very low.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Useless? I hear the recidivism rate is very low.

So is the deterrence factor.

[Lerkfish]

my thoughts on the death penalty:

1. If the purpose is to remove the offender permanently from society -- life without parole accomplishes the same thing.
2. If the purpose is as a deterrent to future crimes, murders have never ceased (or, in fact reduced significantly) when there was a death penalty, therefore it is not a deterrent. If you wish to keep THAT criminal from committing future crimes, life without parole accomplishes the same thing.
3. If the purpose is to allow society to exact revenge...well, you got me there, it DOES accomplish that.

the question is whether we need to be in the business of #3.

[Developer]

A report released in September 2000 by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates that states with the death penalty. The Times reports that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

[...] Based on the data in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, average of murder rates among death penalty states in 2001 was 5.2 per 100,000 population in contrast to 2.9 among states without death penalty.

Comparing homicide rates in the United States and Canada and Europe additionally supports the fact that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population, while in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the rate was only 1.8. Likewise, data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States has a murder rate that is more that three times that of many of European countries that have banned capital punishment. (source)

So of what relevance is the recidivism rate here?

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
b) Does the Lounge really need ANOTHER death penalty thread?

Agreed. This has been discussed throughly earlier. There isn't much more to add to that discussion.

[Nonsuch]

Not this topic again.

The lowdown:

- The death penalty does not deter violent crime.

- Capital trials are more expensive than non-capital trials. The average cost of incarcerating and executing a criminal is higher than the cost of imprisoning him for life.

- Numerous people have been sentenced to death and then subsequently exonerated (in most cases, mercifully, before the sentence was carried out).

- There is no evidence that the death penalty provides "closure" for the victim's loved ones.

Those are the facts for which we have evidence (or not, as the case may be); if you want citations, do a search for my previous posts on this topic. I also think it's barbaric and that a state doesn't have the right to mete out death as punishment, but that's just my opinion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
A report released in September 2000 by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates that states with the death penalty. The Times reports that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

[...] Based on the data in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, average of murder rates among death penalty states in 2001 was 5.2 per 100,000 population in contrast to 2.9 among states without death penalty.

Comparing homicide rates in the United States and Canada and Europe additionally supports the fact that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population, while in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the rate was only 1.8. Likewise, data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States has a murder rate that is more that three times that of many of European countries that have banned capital punishment. (source)

So of what relevance is the recidivism rate here?

We've been all over this before. Those kinds of comparisons aren't instructive simply because there is no way to control for all the other variables that go into crime rates. You can't compare Canada with the US, or Europe with the US or even one state of the US with another and say that the only variable is whether or not there is a death penalty, because it simply isn't so. There are so many other contributing factors that you simply aren't comparing like with like. And in the end, you probably never could.

[iWrite]

I agree with Millenium EVEN though I found the article disturbing.

My information goes into my mental Rolodex and I reconsider everything.

I feel bad for the guy and everything and it made me think that the solution is PERHAPS just as Millenium said: More rigorous screening.

I remember two weeks ago they executed some guy that supposedly was legally insane -- until they medicated him. So, they medicated him until he was sane and THEN they executed him.

HERE is that article.

Millenium: What do you think of that?

[deekay1]

uncivilized, doesn't work as a deterrent, and simply too expensive!

3 strikes! outta here!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by iWrite:
I agree with Millenium EVEN though I found the article disturbing.

My information goes into my mental Rolodex and I reconsider everything.

I feel bad for the guy and everything and it made me think that the solution is PERHAPS just as Millenium said: More rigorous screening.

I remember two weeks ago they executed some guy that supposedly was legally insane -- until they medicated him. So, they medicated him until he was sane and THEN they executed him.

HERE is that article.

Millenium: What do you think of that?

One serious question that intersects with the death penalty and that does worry me is the amount of due process. Death Penalty cases get an enormous amount of scrutiny because of the obvious finality. But the probelem is that non-death penalty cases get far less scrutiny. I think that there is an assumption that you can always correct any error if you are only locking someone away for life.

The question is in reality, how often does that actually happen? It's really just as bad to lock someone innocent away for life as it would be to execute an innocent person. A lifer's life is still effectively over.

So for me, the real concern isn't so much the penalty, its the reliability of the conviction. My worry is that once the death penalty is out of the picture, people lose interest in the issue of the reliability of the conviction. You therefore get fewer appeals that are looked at less rigorously, with a consequent higher erroneous punishment rate.

[Cipher13]

I'm 100% for the death penalty.

Some crimes justify it.

Murder, rape, and even some much 'lesser' crimes like assault, are examples thereof.

I don't want to incarcerate criminals; I just wan't them removed form society completey.

None of this triple-dose lethal injection... a good old fashioned bullet will do.

[Kilbey]

I am against the death penalty.

Now sticking them in a 5' x 5' hole in the ground with a metal grate across the top for the dropping in of rotten food. That I am for. Oh, and there has to be a door for the lower and raising of the bathroom bucket. But only once a day.

I am serious here folks.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The question is in reality, how often does that actually happen? It's really just as bad to lock someone innocent away for life as it would be to execute an innocent person. A lifer's life is still effectively over.

Do you really believe that? Would you believe it if yours was the "effectively over" life in question?

No, you can't give a person back the years you've taken from him. You can, though, set him free and award him a settlement to at least ensure that his remaining years can be spent in comfort. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than rationalizing away a wrongful execution with "Hell, his life woulda been pretty much over anyway."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Do you really believe that? Would you believe it if yours was the "effectively over" life in question?

No, you can't give a person back the years you've taken from him. You can, though, set him free and award him a settlement to at least ensure that his remaining years can be spent in comfort. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than rationalizing away a wrongful execution with "Hell, his life woulda been pretty much over anyway."

My point is that in reality a person convicted and sentenced to life in prison isn't often set free because the appeals process is far less rigorous in life imprisonment cases than it is in death penalty cases. There also isn't an army of volunteer attorneys in those non-death penalty appeals, making the odds of a really good appeal that much longer.

It's nice that there is this theoretical opportunity to reopen a case and release a person you subsequently find to be innocent. But theoretical opportunities are cold comfort when the practical realities are stacked against you.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my thoughts on the death penalty:

1. If the purpose is to remove the offender permanently from society -- life without parole accomplishes the same thing.

Except for the prisoners who have to serve with the murderer, all murderers can't be put in solitary (not enough of those facilities).

Captial punishment is in place to remove that dangerous person from society, even to protect the members of society who are serving time for lesser offenses.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My point is that in reality a person convicted and sentenced to life in prison isn't often set free because the appeals process is far less rigorous in life imprisonment cases than it is in death penalty cases. There also isn't an army of volunteer attorneys in those non-death penalty appeals, making the odds of a really good appeal that much longer.

It would be great if we could examine every criminal case under a microscope. Unfortunately, I see no way it could be done without the entire justice system grinding to a halt. Best to reserve that level of effort for situations in which there is no remedy for error.

Besides, you're mistaken that no one investigates wrongful convictions in non-capital cases. Start with Northwestern's Center on Wrongful Convictions and check out their links page for more examples.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I'm 100% for the death penalty.

Some crimes justify it.

Murder, rape, and even some much 'lesser' crimes like assault, are examples thereof.

I don't want to incarcerate criminals; I just wan't them removed form society completey.

None of this triple-dose lethal injection... a good old fashioned bullet will do.

I disagree with you 100%.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
It would be great if we could examine every criminal case under a microscope. Unfortunately, I see no way it could be done without the entire justice system grinding to a halt. Best to reserve that level of effort for situations in which there is no remedy for error.

Besides, you're mistaken that no one investigates wrongful convictions in non-capital cases. Start with Northwestern's Center on Wrongful Convictions and check out their links page for more examples.

I'm not saying that nobody examines wrongful convictions, but the odds are much less and that's a fact. In most cases, you get one appeal and that's it. You also may not get an attorney for that appeal. However, in death penalty cases there are usually multiple appeals, and attorneys are provided.

The death penalty is one of those issues that attracts a lot of interest. My concern is that without that, the interest in monitoring the underlying problem of false convictions will dissipate.

[benign]

Definitely for witches, saints and
all supernatural creatures.

Justice is fallible and the death
penalty is nonrefundable.

Puppies and lifers are forever
- not just for christmas.

[iWrite]

Does anyone here KNOW anyone who went to prison?

I don't. But, I've heard via interviews with various people that some prisons really aren't that bad. They have a routine. They get meals served to them three times a day. They have organized sports. They have television. They have a library. They even have internet access in some places.

For some people, life in an institution with a schedule is a big improvement over their actual lives, especially if it teaches them a work or job skill and how to be responsible and act cooperatively and collectively with others in some sort of a social setting.

What I'm saying is that prison CAN be rehabilitative, especially when people who were in terrible circumstances now have access to medical and mental care.

The sad thing is that the government and bureaucracy is so broken down that people almost have to end up in prison to get help and guidance.

[benign]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Does anyone here KNOW anyone who went to prison?

I don't. But, I've heard via interviews with various people that some prisons really aren't that bad...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/14/mo....ap/index.html
Was a bad place to be for this guy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Except for the prisoners who have to serve with the murderer, all murderers can't be put in solitary (not enough of those facilities).

Captial punishment is in place to remove that dangerous person from society, even to protect the members of society who are serving time for lesser offenses.

If prisons cannot protect the inmates from harm by other inmates, then that would highlight a problem in the penal system, not in the sentencing of crimes.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The death penalty is one of those issues that attracts a lot of interest. My concern is that without that, the interest in monitoring the underlying problem of false convictions will dissipate.

So you're saying that if there were no death penalty, people would be less zealous about investigating wrongful convictions? You're not actually positing that as a justification of the death penalty are you?

[iWrite]

benign:

That goes along with what Millenium was saying: Some people should BE on death row.

That guy:

1) Would have been safer in his own cell as death row prisoners are and

2) Death via the hands of justice was certainly a) More humane than "prison justice" and b) Allowed the convict more rights and a longer life.

That guy, supposing he WAS guilty as convicted, should have had his life suspended -- er, ended -- yes.

I mean, before anyone starts yelling at me about his right to life, think, REALLY THINK, about how YOU would feel if this had happened to YOUR little boy.

I am only human, after all, a predator throughout evolution, and my instincts tell me that I would want that guy killed, yes, out of anger and survival of the fittest instinct -- that kind of person is a menace to society and not just me. Societies want to survive -- which is why we even HAVE a legal system.

[iWrite]

Ausley was sentenced to more than 47 years in prison in 1973 for abducting Andrews, burying him in a box in a wooded area and repeatedly molesting him. Andrews eventually was rescued by rabbit hunters.

Ausley had been scheduled for release from prison last November, but five years were added to his sentence in August after he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting another teenager in 1972.

That victim, now in his 40s, has said he stepped forward after hearing about Ausley's scheduled release.

Ausley also had been convicted in 1961 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy and leaving him tied up in the woods. He was sentenced to 26 years but was released on parole in November 1971.

I'd say that guy got what he deserved (from benign's link) and that his death didn't happen soon enough.

The only thing that's bad? The poor bast*rd in the cell with him (the guy killed) may now have to spend more time in jail as the result of murdering the guy.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
3. If the purpose is to allow society to exact revenge...well, you got me there, it DOES accomplish that.

the question is whether we need to be in the business of #3.

... And we should also try to understand why the "society" (sic!) which wasn't there to actively prevent that crime almost "miraculously" (sic again!) is at once there when it's time for punishment and revenge!

That's really something on which to meditate: i.e., why isn't there a sufficient sense of soilidarity in "civil" society to prevent heavy crimes (often due to psychological problems which could easily be prevented in a more solidaristic context, or due to disgusting, mafia-like power mechanisms, and so on...)?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
So you're saying that if there were no death penalty, people would be less zealous about investigating wrongful convictions? You're not actually positing that as a justification of the death penalty are you?

I'm saying that it is a more fundamental issue that gets lost in the noise.

Basically, the question of what the appropriate punishment would be is for me secondary to the larger question of are we convicting the right people. The problem is that the issue of the death penalty is so emotionally charged that I don't think people worry enough about that other issue. There is the feeling that as long as the punishment is theoretically reversible, then the issue isn't as important. The problem is that in practice those convictions may never even be looked at. It's convict and throw away the key.

[sniffer]

Who's in the right to trow the first stone? Christians says only God is in power to judge humans, and Jesus said you should forgive. (I am not personal christian but that's not the point) The nazis killed jews, and not because they did something wrong, but because they was who they were. Luckily the nazis got stopped, and we got the Geneva convention and the human rights. It's the foundation for many aspects for the western civilization, and human rights is always one of the arguments in use when we interfere in conflicts "out side" the western countries. It's barbaric when dictators breaks the human rights, but it's not when we do it?
There are many practical/economical arguments for why the state shouldn't execute people, but that is not the worst part in my opinion. It's the human view, or the lack of it, that is the biggest concern. As an European I see the result of the Geneva convention as a foundation for the modern western society. In that context I have a little mixed feelings about where to put the states. USA is the only "western" nation that execute people, and I doubt americans likes to be put in the same class as the other countries that have the same practice.

[iWrite]

The scales of justice certainly do weigh heavier on the side of which side has deeper pockets/more money: Prosecution or defense.

Winona Ryder is a perfect example of that -- and other celebrities. See how Rush Limbaugh has Roy Black finagling his way out of a legal morass simply through technicalities. Diana Ross pleads guilty to DUI and pays a fine and walks (only this time in a STRAIGHT line!) And so on.

But, if you're an ethnic minority and uneducated and poor your *ss is screwed, plain and simple and if you are TRULY innocent, then there is a problem, because the motorized version of justice is fueled by $$$ and as long as that is the case then there will never be "true justice."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by sniffer:
[i]. . . and we got the Geneva convention and the human rights. It's the foundation for many aspects for the western civilization, and human rights is always one of the arguments in use when we interfere in conflicts "out side" the western countries. It's barbaric when dictators breaks the human rights, but it's not when we do it?

First, the Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with it. They deal with issues of war, which this isn't.

Secondly, if you are going to invoke the language of international human rights you probably should be aware that international human rights does not forbid the death penalty. The issue in human rights law is one of due process, but as long as there is due process, human rights law is satisfied.

That doesn't mean people can't oppose it for other reasons. It just means that this particular argument isn't really a good one.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First, the Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with it. They deal with issues of war, which this isn't.

Secondly, if you are going to invoke the language of international human rights you probably should be aware that international human rights does not forbid the death penalty. The issue in human rights law is one of due process, but as long as there is due process, human rights law is satisfied.

That doesn't mean people can't oppose it for other reasons. It just means that this particular argument isn't really a good one.

I shouldn't argue with what you are pointing out, but you are missing its impact on modern thinking and political practice. Death penalty is one thing that is differencing the states with the rest of the western world.

Here is what Human Right Watch have to say about the issue:

Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances because of its cruel and inhumane nature. The cornerstone of human rights is respect for the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person. These principles cannot be reconciled with the death penalty, a form of punishment that is unique in its barbarity and finality. The intrinsic fallibility of all criminal justice systems assures that even when full due process of law is respected, innocent persons may be executed.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/deathpenalty/

[daimoni]

.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by sniffer:
I shouldn't argue with what you are pointing out, but you are missing its impact on modern thinking and political practice. Death penalty is one thing that is differencing the states with the rest of the western world.

Here is what Human Right Watch have to say about the issue:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/deathpenalty/

Sure, you can make an assertion that something is a human rights violation. But that doesn't make it one.

To quote my international law professor (who was quite a comic): "just because Belgium says something is international law, doesn't make it international law."

In this case, it's not something open to assertion, there are treaties on the subject. In particular, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The Covenant makes clear that it is not a human rights violation simply to apply the death penalty, provided there is due process (which it also spells out, and which exists in the US).

So: it's not a human rights violation regardless of assertions to the contrary. That still doesn't mean it can't be criticized in other ways. It just means that argument is inaccurate.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sure, you can make an assertion that something is a human rights violation. But that doesn't make it one.

To quote my international law professor (who was quite a comic): "just because Belgium says something is international law, doesn't make it international law."

In this case, it's not something open to assertion, there are treaties on the subject. In particular, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The Covenant makes clear that it is not a human rights violation simply to apply the death penalty, provided there is due process (which it also spells out, and which exists in the US).

So: it's not a human rights violation regardless of assertions to the contrary. That still doesn't mean it can't be criticized in other ways. It just means that argument is inaccurate.

Actually it goes much deeper than assertions. The just recently invasion of Iraq and the reactions from European countries, especially countries like Germany, was just an reflection of what I am trying to enlighten. The human rights have a different position here in Europe and the roots goes directly back to the Geneva convention and the after effect after world war two. From my perspective the comment from your professor do to some degree question the understanding about the European perspective. I am not trying to make Europeans to look like angels here, but the general public do consider death penalty as a violation of the human rights here. We could probably discuss this in circles, as our perspective vary. But I'll guess that's allowed as iwrite pointed out this in his/her first post:

Especially interesting will be what people from OUTSIDE of the US have to say.

[MindFad]

Against it all the way. For many of the reasons mentioned here. Useless and unnecessary. I see a life of imprisonment as many times worse. 100%.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Actually it goes much deeper than assertions. The just recently invasion of Iraq and the reactions from European countries, especially countries like Germany, was just an reflection of what I am trying to enlighten. The human rights have a different position here in Europe and the roots goes directly back to the Geneva convention and the after effect after world war two. From my perspective the comment from your professor do to some degree question the understanding about the European perspective. I am not trying to make Europeans to look like angels here, but the general public do consider death penalty as a violation of the human rights here. We could probably discuss this in circles, as our perspective vary. But I'll guess that's allowed as iwrite pointed out this in his/her first post:

I realize that European opinion is somewhat different on this than in the US. Of course, I also realize that European opinion isn't uniform on the matter. Lots of European citizens support the death penalty (just as lots of Americans oppose it). However, the various European conventions are quite clear, and the EU members have outlawed it -- though in some cases, quite recently.

But that is an internal European opinion. It doesn't determine international law that can be quoted to tell other countries how they must organize their internal laws. The fact is, international human rights law simply does not outlaw the death penalty. It outlaws all kinds of other things - torture, apartheid, and so on, but not the death penalty provided that there is due process.

At most, the fact that one region's governments uniformly oppose the use of the death penalty is evidence of a trend toward outlawing it in customary international law. But customary international law isn't at that point at the present, and the fact that the written instruments clearly permit the use of the death penalty makes the argument for customary international law pretty weak even though politicians and human rights activists do like to make it.

My prof's joke was, of course, meant tongue in cheek. But the serious point is that just saying something is international law and it actually being international law are two different things.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I realize that European opinion is somewhat different on this than in the US. Of course, I also realize that European opinion isn't uniform on the matter. Lots of European citizens support the death penalty (just as lots of Americans oppose it). However, the various European conventions are quite clear, and the EU members have outlawed it -- though in some cases, quite recently.

Agreed. Thought I am not aware about the political side on the matter in EU. (I am not an EU citizen)

But that is an internal European opinion. It doesn't determine international law that can be quoted to tell other countries how they must organize their internal laws. The fact is, international human rights law simply does not outlaw the death penalty. It outlaws all kinds of other things - torture, apartheid, and so on, but not the death penalty provided that there is due process.

At most, the fact that one region's governments uniformly oppose the use of the death penalty is evidence of a trend toward outlawing it in customary international law. But customary international law isn't at that point at the present, and the fact that the written instruments clearly permit the use of the death penalty makes the argument for customary international law pretty weak even though politicians and human rights activists do like to make it.

Perhaps the situation might have been somewhat different if the opinion in the states changed.

My prof's joke was, of course, meant tongue in cheek. But the serious point is that just saying something is international law and it actually being international law are two different things.

True. Unfortunately..

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Sven G:
That's really something on which to meditate: i.e., why isn't there a sufficient sense of soilidarity in "civil" society to prevent heavy crimes (often due to psychological problems which could easily be prevented in a more solidaristic context, or due to disgusting, mafia-like power mechanisms, and so on...)?

there is, in fact, an interesting correlation between occurrences of "serial killings", "mass murder", the rate of "violent" crime and the "level of solidarity" within populations.

[quandarry]

what a coward...they should have taken a gun and shot him in the head and rolled his body in to suck any life remaining out of his body.

don't rest in peace as$hole!

edit: the only cruel thing here was wating 20 years to swat his dead ass. sorry i feel for the family of his victim. i hope they can now feel some peace.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by iWrite:
benign:

That goes along with what Millenium was saying: Some people should BE on death row.

That guy:

1) Would have been safer in his own cell as death row prisoners are and

2) Death via the hands of justice was certainly a) More humane than "prison justice" and b) Allowed the convict more rights and a longer life.

That guy, supposing he WAS guilty as convicted, should have had his life suspended -- er, ended -- yes.

I mean, before anyone starts yelling at me about his right to life, think, REALLY THINK, about how YOU would feel if this had happened to YOUR little boy.

I am only human, after all, a predator throughout evolution, and my instincts tell me that I would want that guy killed, yes, out of anger and survival of the fittest instinct -- that kind of person is a menace to society and not just me. Societies want to survive -- which is why we even HAVE a legal system.

So you are suggesting justice should be based on emotions? Oh, and you are not a predator, animals generally wouldn't feel that need, and survival of the fittest is not an instinct.

I honestly couldn't care less about this issue, but either way its not better or worse from a ethical stand-point.

[tomdavidson69]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I am against the death penalty.

Now sticking them in a 5' x 5' hole in the ground with a metal grate across the top for the dropping in of rotten food. That I am for. Oh, and there has to be a door for the lower and raising of the bathroom bucket. But only once a day.

I am serious here folks.

Whilst I agree that some crimes are worthy of something more than a prison sentence, the death penalty, in my view, is just as barbaric. Not to mention all the people that have subsequently found innocent.

Which leaves the question of what to do to *serious* offenders?

Life in prison? Many will argue this is too expensive. But how much does it cost to stick somebody on death row for however many years? My humble solution is to stick 'em in a cell with a TV which is only half-tuned in. That'll drive them f**kin INSANE! Justice is best served with static it seems....

Seriously, I think Kilbey's idea of "The Pit" is a good one, but I'd restrict bucket-drops to twice weekly and put a hole in the bottom of the bucket....

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I disagree with you 100%.

Why?

[willab]

I am completely against the death penalty. My view, however, is based on a religious stand point. The Bible says not to kill, so I do not see why it is anymore the right of the state than of a murdere. I do not think that taking someone's life is the right of anyone, except God.

[quandarry]

Originally posted by willab:
I am completely against the death penalty. My view, however, is based on a religious stand point. The Bible says not to kill, so I do not see why it is anymore the right of the state than of a murdere. I do not think that taking someone's life is the right of anyone, except God.

sorry god was mugged the other day by a paroled psycho killer and is no longer with us.