The Death Penalty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

This reminds me of when Bin Laden was killed.

---

Bleh, me too. The next mornng, in the largest lettering I've ever seen in a newspaper, the Edmonton Sun just had the words "BURN IN HELL" written over a picture of Bin Laden's face. What the hell is that? I wish we could have truly embodied how our minister described the Canadian reaction to the news that Bin Laden was shot - "sober satisfaction." I could live with that, it's much better than riotous, macabre celebration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I imagine parents of a killer would go through a lot of soul searching and reflection to determine whether anything they did might have contributed or changed the circumstances that led to the killing.

---

They'd probably torture themselves forever. My dad's friend shot himself when they were seventeen, and my dad says he still asks himself "could I have done anything to prevent it?" Imagine being the parent of a mass murderer, that question would drive you mad. Suffering isn't quantifiable, so you can't say that a person suffering in one situation is suffering more or less than another person in a different situation. All you can say is that they both suffer, it's not unquestionable to imagine both situations. Right now I can picture my mom if I killed a bunch of people and I could picture her if I was the one killed. Her life would suck either way.

Anywho, who even says that the parent of the victims want the killer to be killed? What if more killing wouldn't make them feel better in the slightest, what if it's against their wishes, or if it would even make things much worse for them (depending on their personal beliefs)? Also, what about citizens who are nauseated by the idea of helping to kill people (because if they're paying taxes which are used to kill people, they're taking part in their death), should they be forced to take part in something that they find seriously morally reprehensible? Also, what good does execution do? War accomplishes something tangible, you protect trade routes, you aquire resources, you defend your boundaries and those of your allies - a killer in prison is already neutralized, there's nothing to be protected or gained by killing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

This reminds me of when Bin Laden was killed. There were parties in the streets in every major city here in the US. Aside from New York (I could kind of understand their celebration, since they have such a direct and personal connection to 9/11), I couldn't understand what people were happy about. I was glad he was dead for what happened, but I wasn't happy. Why would I be? How can I celebrate the death of a man who caused death? Death isn't celebratory.

---

Words of wisdom there, my friend.

I stand in support for Death Penalty, but I have to disagree on how most nations use it. Death Penalty should never be used as a lesson, because the subject dies anyway (so much for a lesson.)

A person who kills knowingly and on purpose deserves to be killed but not tortured or humiliated. And we should definitely not make a party out of his death. We always talk about Death Penalty without completely considering the crime itself. The subject murdered someone, the act of Death we so hate in Death Penalty is implemented first by the murderer. Don't such people deserve to be killed? Where did "An eye for an eye" disappear to? So a person can kill someone and put in jail, just to pay his bail and walk freely once again? Is this Justice? Why is killing a criminal act? Let's put some ads here and there saying: "Murder is no longer a crime, but you must PAY in order to kill."

I'm not justifying the deaths of many innocents who were discovered later to be the wrong person in the wrong place. As I said earlier, I do not approve of how governments use death sentences. If I end up killing someone for whatever reason, I'll fully understand why people would seek my head.

Quote:

---

This reminds me of when Bin Laden was killed. There were parties in the streets in every major city here in the US. Aside from New York (I could kind of understand their celebration, since they have such a direct and personal connection to 9/11), I couldn't understand what people were happy about. I was glad he was dead for what happened, but I wasn't happy. Why would I be? How can I celebrate the death of a man who caused death? Death isn't celebratory. - Mutatis-Mutandis

---

Quote:

---

Bleh, me too. The next mornng, in the largest lettering I've ever seen in a newspaper, the Edmonton Sun just had the words "BURN IN HELL" written over a picture of Bin Laden's face. What the hell is that? I wish we could have truly embodied how our minister described the Canadian reaction to the news that Bin Laden was shot - "sober satisfaction." I could live with that, it's much better than riotous, macabre celebration. - JuniperWoolf

---

You people are positively saintlike! :angel::angel: :D

I did a happy dance when I heard the news of Osama Bin Laden being shot, and we all thought it was the coolest thing we'd heard in a long while, and it doesn't even have anything to do with my country. I mean, it's so satisfying to see bad guys getting a dose of their own medicine, and it happens so rarely that it's cause for celebration.

Quote:

---

Anywho, who even says that the parent of the victims want the killer to be killed? - JuniperWoolf

---

Yes, I've heard that under Sharia laws the victim's family can spare the life of the killer if they wish, and that it isn't unusual for them to do so.

I'm against the death penalty because, like Juniper I don't see that it achieves anything that life imprisonment does not. As for the expense of keeping the criminal, well that's an unavoidable burden and society will just have to bear it.

In legal terms a death penalty is in actual void.
In legal proceedings within a jusridiction of the death penalty when the judge declares
a sentenced as:

''I herby declare you dead or sentence you to death'' is void because for a sentence to be it must reach full completion of its legal terms.
Declaring someone dead when they are not is not completion and declaring they are to die to complete the sentence is not completion either because they are dead.
In other words the sentencing to death in legal terms is in breach of the law or simply void.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

. As for the expense of keeping the criminal, well that's an unavoidable burden and society will just have to bear it.

---

Which is tolerable when the cows are fat and everyone is drinking, but when you have people are highly taxed and can no longer reach the end of the month, and they know how much money is being wasted on keeping murderers and child rapists incarcerated because they should be rehabilitated not punished, people naturally get upset.


Also how can you have done a dance when Osama was killed yet at the same time be against the death penalty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

In legal terms a death penalty is in actual void.
In legal proceedings within a jusridiction of the death penalty when the jury declares
a sentenced as

''I herby declare you dead or sentence you to death'' is void because for a sentence to be it must be reach completion of its legal terms.
Declaring someone dead when they are not is not completion and declaring they are to die to complete the sentence is not completion either because they are dead.
In other words the sentencing to death in legal terms is in breached or void.

---

Hot damn you are right! Quick someone inform Rick Perry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Be realistic. No parent is going to give an objective answer imagining their child bound, gagged, raped and mutilated now are they?

It is however alot harder to be the parent of the killer isn't it? and that's a reality for alot of families who have to travel that road so don't pretend it isn't or it doesn't exist and there is only one side of the story because there isn't.

When weighing up whether I would endorse the death penalty, I ask myself the simple question 'if my child was a killer, would I want them put to death?' Answer? NO! So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - end of story.

---

That's just an incredibly emotional and selfish way to look at the issue. Do you really look at the world's problems with that mindset?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

In legal terms a death penalty is in actual void.
In legal proceedings within a jusridiction of the death penalty when the jury declares
a sentenced as

''I herby declare you dead or sentence you to death'' is void because for a sentence to be it must be reach completion of its legal terms.
Declaring someone dead when they are not is not completion and declaring they are to die to complete the sentence is not completion either because they are dead.
In other words the sentencing to death in legal terms is in breached or void.

---

Does the jury ever sentence anyone? I was under the impression that they merely decide whether someone is guilty or not and it is the judge who does the sentencing.

Quote:

---

Yes, I've heard that under Sharia laws the victim's family can spare the life of the killer if they wish, and that it isn't unusual for them to do so.

---

That maybe true but I really would like to see these particular macabre traditions fade out fast.

The country with the highest Shia population(numerically and percentage wise) has a very large englightened segment historically and today - I always had hope for them. Their voices are heard to some degree in urban areas, but the rural areas are a bit different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Does the jury ever sentence anyone? I was under the impression that they merely decide whether someone is guilty or not and it is the judge who does the sentencing.

---

Well it is down the jury to decide whether the individual is guilty or not and so in effect the balance hangs on their interpretation of events. Once the decision is been made then it is up to the judge to sentence or not.
I am not aware whether judges can rebut juries decisions.

I am not so sure again about what the legal proceedings are about a jury's decision is not unanimous.
What is outstanding must be accounted for.
The party that does not believe the concerned is guilty is still a part must be legally justified.
The voting system is done on the number of votes which is rather questionable.
In other word even if four out 5 voted guilty that remaining one that did not is still outstanding.

Is this a breach of the law when the proceedings does not clear or justify who abstaint or did not vote for the sentencing of the concerned.
There are gaps that do not add up.

So a sentence is declared to induce a type of a punishement on the indiviudual and must reach full completion of its legal terms.
There are concerns over sentences that are not met meaning when the sentenced occur sudden death or keep rebuting or appealing the sentence.
Suspended sentence is still legally outstanding.
Again there are massive gaps here that are not accounted for.

It's funny how much people refer to studies and proof that is never sited. Stating that the death penalty is not a deterant is such an ambiguous statement. I think that the judicial system and society that implements such procedure is a major factor in the effectiveness of the deterence. It seems that there is much emotion and unsupported opinion thrown around here without much logic and sound reasoning. It seems that no matter what kind of discipline is implemented, there must be consistency. I see the legal/judicial systems lacking ANY consistency. Lawyers, judges, and legislators are doing nothing more than feeding themselves instead of establishing a well working system. Until the political machine is fixed and the state is removed from being the "parent", the PEOPLE cannot rule themselves well, and implement a proper penal system to invoke a reasonable disciplined society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

What are your opinions on the death penalty in general?

---

The death penalty is always a touchy subject. I can't claim to be one of the "string em up" crowd, as you termed them, but I also am not against it. In the cases where there is no shadow of a doubt the someone committed a crime, like the shootings in Denver, I think the death penalty is appropriate. It's not suitable in it's current form, I really think the person should just be executed on the spot. Not out of spite, not as retribution for their crimes, not because it will appease the families of their victims, but simply because someone who is that much of a danger to society should never be released on it again. It is fiscally stupid to afford them food, medical, and all the other amenities while they live out their lives in a society that they have no purpose in. I tend to feel the same way about rapists, people who abuse children, etc. Insanity really isn't an excuse, because if you are that unstable then you still shouldn't be released back into society. Basically, if you are a true danger then I've no disagreement with execution. Burdening the rest of the population with the care of a defective subset seems a bit unfair to them, and that money could be much better spent in education programs, youth outreach, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

It's funny how much people refer to studies and proof that is never sited. Stating that the death penalty is not a deterant is such an ambiguous statement. I think that the judicial system and society that implements such procedure is a major factor in the effectiveness of the deterence. It seems that there is much emotion and unsupported opinion thrown around here without much logic and sound reasoning. It seems that no matter what kind of discipline is implemented, there must be consistency. I see the legal/judicial systems lacking ANY consistency. Lawyers, judges, and legislators are doing nothing more than feeding themselves instead of establishing a well working system. Until the political machine is fixed and the state is removed from being the "parent", the PEOPLE cannot rule themselves well, and implement a proper penal system to invoke a reasonable disciplined society.

---

I think you bring up a good point, consistency is the most important thing. If the law is consistent first and foremost that would be a huge deterrent to criminality and a huge comforter to the average civilian who can trust the law to adequately protect him and punish those who would do him harm. When the law looses consistency the citizens faith in the system fades as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Does the jury ever sentence anyone? I was under the impression that they merely decide whether someone is guilty or not and it is the judge who does the sentencing.

---

Here in the states, the jury usually recommends a sentence. How often the judge goes by the recommendation, I don't know.

P.S. Nice to see you, Bien.

The death of victims leaves a hole in their families lives, trauma, instability, and affects the community they came from to a greater or lesser extent. Have you ever known someone who was murdered? Even hearing of it from afar leaves a kind of pall over you for a while, and a case like the school shootings, and well known child murders do the same to lots of people. A notorious case in the 1990s here in the UK involved the death of a toddler who was killed by two minors. Anyone who had a toddler at that time felt it, and anyone, as was widely reported, who had seen the two kids with the child must have been sorely affected by how powerless with hindsight they were.

The same goes for murderers. Do you know anyone who has committed murder? They are not a breed apart; they have family, come from local communities, and also get to know the prison community and jailors. An unnatural death affects everyone. You do see some people who rejoice in the idea of other's deaths, as if it's some kind of victory, but it's really a failure of prevention, understanding - prior to the crime - and often extreme misfortune. I'm not condoning murder, or suggesting that murderers should not be held accountable, I'm just commenting on the effects of unnatural death.

I see the death penalty as a reneging of hope. Instead of one death, or deaths, you end up with another. I'm not saying that I, or anyone else would not feel the normal human reaction of wanting a murderer of one of my family killed. That's why we have the law to deal with it in as rational and fair a way as possible. (Not always true I know). We really don't want the law run as an emotional rollercoaster. For me, the simple fact that a jury might just have got it wrong precludes any sense in administering the death penalty where there is any reasonable doubt for a start.

Where there are clear murderers, such as the ones who have committed the mass shootings, it would be good to understand their motives, profiles and be able to research their actions for future reference. There's a possibility of prevention.

Then there's always the possibility of hope too. Of a murderer doing some kind of good, or becoming a role model, or writing what they have learnt. It's always possible.

For others - those with mental illness and various delusions and psychosis - which a number of those who do the mass shootings display -well how can we really condone killing the sick. They are dangerously sick people, and should always remain inside, but we are punishing people who can't help it in many cases.

We talk about murderers as if they are another breed, but most are normal people. I used to work with some in the slaughterhouse, as often they couldn't get staff, and a high security prison and prison hostel was nearby. I worked with two guys in particular who were nice, normal blokes. One had killed his wife's lover - he told me. Whilst not condoning murder, I can understand how it might happen. (He didn't go into details). With the death penalty for murder, where do you draw the line? These two guys had served their time, and now worked and led ordinary lives.

It's a normal reaction to wish for someone's death after they have committed murder, but I don't think it's either the most useful thing we can do, or the most compassionate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babyguile

That's just an incredibly emotional and selfish way to look at the issue. Do you really look at the world's problems with that mindset?

---

I know what my limitations are now that I have entered the realm of motherhood and realise that one can't go back or rise above themselves in their thinking when it comes to issues like this. I'm human and flawed, it's that simple. At least I don't pretend to be otherwise.

Paul, thank you. That is just so beautifully put.

They are people, they are human. We are as capable of something terrible as (most) of them are of something good. All things are possible and all those possibilities dwell within us all.

This doesn't have anything to do with the death penalty per se, but it is apropos, I think. I believe I remember that story about the toddler, btw; this concerns a baby.

A woman in a suburb of Dallas cut off her baby's arms. She was found to be mentally ill and has been in a state hospital since that time. Recently it was discovered that she was working at a Wal-Mart in the town where she had been treated. Naturally after the news got out, Wal-Mart fired her. I do understand being uncomfortable, but I really think we must develop a sense of mercy and empathy.

This woman has a life to live. How is she going to do that if she can't work? Ever? If no one will ever, ever, ever forgive her, even though justice has been served?


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/commu...in-terrell.ece


And the same is true with the death penalty. "Revenge is mine, saith the Lord." Even if a person is not religious, some things are not part of our domain. It's why we put our trust in laws, and courts, and juries, imperfect as they are. And when the system is through with punishing them, we should try to be through with punishing them, too.

Because I can never forget: There, but for the grace of God, go I.

I do have exceptions. I did not celebrate Bin Laden's death, but I did not want him to be free, either.

Also, I live in Texas, and dear God do we kill a lot of people.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1753968.html

Apparently we've put seven people to death this year, with nine more to go before the end of the year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Stating that the death penalty is not a deterant is such an ambiguous statement.

---

Well, the death penalty exists in Colorado. It's never done much good, two of the largest mass killings I can remember happened there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I'm not saying that I, or anyone else would not feel the normal human reaction of wanting a murderer of one of my family killed. That's why we have the law to deal with it in as rational and fair a way as possible.

---

Yes yes, exactly. The law should be an emotionless system, that's the only way to make sound decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Where there are clear murderers, such as the ones who have committed the mass shootings, it would be good to understand their motives, profiles and be able to research their actions for future reference.

---

I was so hoping someone would say that.

I'm not going to say it wrong to have a criminal justice system that cares about rehabilitating criminals or about preventing further crimes through detention, yet the society that loses the idea that wrong actions merit punishment (that is, just consequences) is setting itself up for anarchy. I'm not saying you need to support the death penalty, but the concept of justice cannot be divorce from punishing wrong-doers. It's not the same as vengeance. Vengeance is selfish repayment of wrongs or hurts. Vengeance is me taking my pound of flesh. Justice isn't vengeance. There needs to be an impartial, unemotional arbitrator, one who considers the facts, extenuating circumstances, etc. and decrees a just sentence accordingly.

My personal stance on the death penalty is built on the conviction that some crimes, specifically the willful taking of life and treason, merit/earn/deserve death. If there is a deterant effect, that's fine, but not the foundation. If there is emotional damage to the offenders family and friends, that is sad, but laid upon him as a consequence of his actions.

In general our court system is pretty good. Compared with a perfect standard, it is easy to get discouraged. Yet compared with any real world counterpart, it looks far more acceptable. It does have quirks and warts and failures. The consistency with which the death penalty is (or is not) sought is one of these. As is the length of time permitted for appeals and delays. That undermines its use as a disciple or a deterant. Which is one reason why those delays exist. Opponents of the death penalty, having lost the fight to abolish or prevent it, game the system to make it work slowly and poorly. Now that is a more serious injustice than any caused by the courts that I have heard of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Also how can you have done a dance when Osama was killed yet at the same time be against the death penalty?

---

They are different situations - the Osama thing was a war mission, not a criminal trial. He attacked another country and killed people there. They retaliated by hunting him down in the country that was sheltering him, and killing him. Fair enough.

But much more than that, the dance was an emotional reaction. It came straight from the heart. Being against the death penalty is a conclusion I've come to after many years of soul searching, reasoning, and listening to other people's opinions on the subject. It comes from the head.

India is one of the countries that still retains the death penalty, but since 1995 when a serial killer was hanged, there has been only one other execution, that of Dhananjoy Chaterjee in 2004 for the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl. I remember both cases, and the satisfaction I felt when I read that they had been executed. I was pro death penalty at the time, but even now I'd be happy. These are baser instinctual reactions, and we shouldn't let them interfere with our reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Which is tolerable when the cows are fat and everyone is drinking, but when you have people are highly taxed and can no longer reach the end of the month, and they know how much money is being wasted on keeping murderers and child rapists incarcerated because they should be rehabilitated not punished, people naturally get upset.

---

I can understand the irritation, but every society has to have its prisons, just as it has to have its roads, public schools and hospitals. The percentage of murderers to the general population must be very low (I am hoping), so keeping them alive will not make that much of a difference.

Does anyone see the irony in the fact that most people who are against the death penalty are in favor of abortions? If there is a rape that occurs, it is the consensus among some that it is justified to destroy the child, while the rapist is allowed to live. If we are truly concerned with preserving life, why do we kill unborn children?

Consistency

And if anyone wants to make the argument that the unborn children aren't yet humans, then I could also make the argument that criminally insane people are no longer human either.

Well, the hypocrisy is equal when it comes to the people who are pro-life and for the death penalty. It is odd that one side isn't pro-life and anti-death penalty and the other pro-choice and pro-death penalty (not that those people don't exist--I'm assuming you're one of them, Bien?--that's just not how the usual polarity plays out).

I think what makes the issues different is that when it comes to abortion, it is one person making a decision that directly effects that person (of course that person's family is involved and so is the father). When someone is sentenced to death, it's a group of 12 people with no connection to the accused deciding the fate of that person on evidence that is too often dubious. Whether this person lives or dies doesn't affect any one person in such an impact fil way as a new child will for a parent.

In essence, what I guess I'm trying to say is that it's kind dumb to say if you're for (or against) one, you should be for (or against) the other. They are two completely different issues with completely different contexts.

Yes....very different. One life is innocent, and one life is guilty!

There has been much conjecture about what the mother thinks. If the mother condones (or wants) the death of her offspring, then it is ok? Is that what really gives value to one's life? How can we justify one death and not another. I agree, it seems ironic that pro-life are pro-death penalty as well, but that isn't always the case.

I'd rather see a more consistent society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Does anyone see the irony in the fact that most people who are against the death penalty are in favor of abortions? If there is a rape that occurs, it is the consensus among some that it is justified to destroy the child, while the rapist is allowed to live. If we are truly concerned with preserving life, why do we kill unborn children?

Consistency

And if anyone wants to make the argument that the unborn children aren't yet humans, then I could also make the argument that criminally insane people are no longer human either.

---

Unfortunately for you Bien the criminally insane are quite clearly human beings, while a packet of cells is not.

True. The criminally insane are ill, so guilt is not in the equation

I think the assumption by pro death penalty supporters that anything less is not a punishment is false. Incarceration itself is a punishment. Day in, day out, week in week out, year in year out in the same place, your life determined by others, no choices except small ones, and every day the consequences of your actions all about you. I don't call that anything but a punishment. The fact that they are also living with the consequences is important too. If anything positive comes of it - well good. If not, then they have lived with the results. Thedeathpenalty is a way of escaping responsibility in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Yes....very different. One life is innocent, and one life is guilty!

There has been much conjecture about what the mother thinks. If the mother condones (or wants) the death of her offspring, then it is ok? Is that what really gives value to one's life? How can we justify one death and not another. I agree, it seems ironic that pro-life are pro-death penalty as well, but that isn't always the case.

I'd rather see a more consistent society.

---

So, are you pro-life and against the death penalty? Or did you just come back from your hiatus to come to a conversation about the death penalty, totally derail it by bringing up abortion, and then not answering questions posed to you?

I'm pro CHOICE, not pro abortion. I think a woman has the right to choose, that doesn't mean I think it's right for a woman to have an abortion (I'm not saying whether or not this is the case). A woman can do what she wants with her body. I'd she doesn't want a person growing inside her, she has every right to get it out if she wants. It's completely different from people on a jury deciding a man,s fate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Does anyone see the irony in the fact that most people who are against the death penalty are in favor of abortions?

---

First trimester foetuses don't have functioning central nervous systems, ie. brains. No brain function no cognizance or senses, no cognizance or senses no life (in the way that a fingernail isn't alive, or an egg).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

And if anyone wants to make the argument that the unborn children aren't yet humans, then I could also make the argument that criminally insane people are no longer human either.

---

They have a functioning central nervous system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Whenever something like the Magnotta or the Colorado shootings happens, if you read facebook say or the comments under a news article online, a great number of the comments are emphatically calling for the suspect's death. The fire in the tone of their posts is so strong, it's as though they take it personally - but of course it isn't personal, at least not to them, it's just something they saw on the news. It always seems to me like they get off on it, like many people are looking for a socially acceptable way to direct their bloodlust. Killing a killer has the veneer of righteousness.

So, death penalty thread. Am I the only one disturbed by the "string him up" crowd? What are your opinions on the death penalty in general?

---

No, you're not the only one disturbed by it. So am I. And it does not deter murderers. I am against the death penalty because there are too many variables. The most important reason for me is what if the person isn't guilty, and a mistake was made? This has happened more than a few times in the U.S., especially concerning black men imprisoned.
But if someone did this to my son, I would hunt the person down and kill him myself. I am, after all, human. And there is no rationality to this either, and it doesn't make it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I am against the death penalty because they've proven that it does not deter criminals. Someone insane enough to do something like Magnotta did is not thinking about consequences. They are psychopaths who do not think about consequences.

I look at criminals like them as sick people who need help. I believe in punishment, particularly since when a person's life is taken then the lives of everyone in their circle, their family and friends and associates and greater community, are greatly and grievously affected.

I don't think there needs to be a division between punishment and rehabilitation. I think rehabilitation should be the goal of punishment, even if the person never gets out of prison. A person can be made to be an upstanding inmate. A person's life does not end when they go into prison, they just enter a much different sort of community. A person can learn, grow, no matter how sick and twisted they are. There are doctors there who can prescribe pills, give therapy.

I say throw such people in prison, throw away the key, and once they are inside do what we can to improve them. But they cannot be let to walk the streets - ever.

But I must also admit that I can fall prey to such bloodlust myself. The case of George Zimmerman down in Florida disturbs me so much I often find myself hoping they can execute him. I am not impervious to these base animal desires. Sometimes I respect them since the people who loved the victim deserve vengeance.

A criminal's primary motive for living after his crime should be to EARN the forgiveness of the victim's loved ones and of the community.

That's what I think on it. A little confused, kind of split, but overall against the death penalty, especially in Canada. I do not want the death penalty in this country.

---

My views are fairly similar to this. I think you missed out the most salient issue however; and that is the need to repudiate the state's right to kill its own citizens: this is a power the state should never have. As well as killing someone, it is also forcing others to take the life of another human being.

It is simply not justifiable, and never will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

So, are you pro-life and against the death penalty? Or did you just come back from your hiatus to come to a conversation about the death penalty, totally derail it by bringing up abortion, and then not answering questions posed to you?

I'm pro CHOICE, not pro abortion. I think a woman has the right to choose, that doesn't mean I think it's right for a woman to have an abortion (I'm not saying whether or not this is the case). A woman can do what she wants with her body. I'd she doesn't want a person growing inside her, she has every right to get it out if she wants. It's completely different from people on a jury deciding a man,s fate.

---

I think the same on this issue. I'm pro-choice but against abortion. The abortion debate is stupid. Outlaw them and they will still happen.

I really don't see what the death penalty issue has to do with abortion. People should not be executed because human judgement is fallible. The justice system is simply not smooth and tight enough to be deciding whether people live or die.