Err unless of course you listen to Jesus who told us to turn the other cheek and "Forgive them" for they know not what they do.
Goth Clothes Prompted Killing
- Thread starter nikebee
- Start date
Err unless of course you listen to Jesus who told us to turn the other cheek and "Forgive them" for they know not what they do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 2,826
- Location
- London
Remorse doesn't bring back the person they brutally beat to death
Eye for an eye... Which is not the same thing, they beat someone to death without reason, it was cold blooded murder... revenge is just that you have a reason.. might still be evil, but cant compare to the initial act
If life meant life alone in a small room for 23+ hours a day then i would agree to that, but then that is a harsher penalty in my opinion... which would be a more cold blooded punishment than simple execution
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,308
What should be done with these evil scum is chained up to a wall (im talking 20 feet off the ground, suspended only by there ankles and wrists), those chains that really hurt your wrists, for about 25 years, force them to stay alive by drip feeding them and keep them in total sensory deprivation, no light no noise and only there screams to keep them company. MUCH better solution than the death sentence, minimal cost to the tax payer and about the only fitting punishment.
It would also stop these loons doing anything if they knew that would happen, a fear of punishment, thus will not commit crime.
It would also stop these loons doing anything if they knew that would happen, a fear of punishment, thus will not commit crime.
Then, following your biblical precendence of 'an eye for an eye', we must therefore kill the executioner, the witnesses, the jury, the judge, the people acting for the prosecution...And once we've killed them, we must kill all those executioners, witnesses, members of the jury...
You're wrong.
You're so wrong that it makes my brain ache.
I firmly believe in a harsh punishment for violent crime. To commit such a crime is ****ing abhorrent. To me, the most logical punishment is for the criminal to have nothing to do but reflect on their crime.
As for cost? Evidently, you know nothing of the debate at hand. In order to enact the death penalty, we must have a full and thorough appeals system. Look at the US; their appeals system is incredibly convuluted yet they STILL make mistakes.
It is CHEAPER to keep someone in a cell for 40+ years than it is to go through a full, thorough and proper appeals system then kill them.
I repeat: there is NO logical reason for the death penalty.
I also repeat: the death penalty is both more lenient on the criminal and far harsher on society than a true life sentence.
Can you name such a case?
...
That's my entire bloody point!
A 'true' life sentence SHOULD be harsh on the criminal. Leave them with their thoughts! Let them dwell on what they have done wrong!
*n
how's that for illogical.
you seem to be the one letting his emotions run away with themselves. You seem to be the one with some lust for torture and retribution. You seem to be hell bent on illogical revenge.
You want to MURDER someone!
Jesus titty****ing Christ. What happens five years later when new evidence comes to light which proves a dead man innocent? Dig up his corpse and send it out the door with a brief 'Sorry...'?
*n
Sounds like you would enjoy seeing that happen a bit too much for my liking. I see you call these people evil, can you explain how this evil manifests?
This board is full of people who laugh at religion and always look for the science and logic, however when it comes to crime words like Evil are freely banded about as if it is some kind of invisible force.
Do we actually understand why people kill, why does nobody ever ask this question?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,080
- Location
- Between Realities
Because they are evil.
Wait...
2 guys kick and kill a girl because she dresses differently.
A bunch of kids kick and kill a guy who's has learning difficulties and they film it on their Mobile phone.
That's evil. Evil doesn't have to be spiritual, or religious.
It's a word, meaning Morally Wrong.
And their doings are without a doubt Morally wrong.
Chances are they kill, because they lack morals, Lack the life lessons.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,080
- Location
- Between Realities
And what happens when a guy in prison kills an other inmate because he was put into prison because he was a murderer.
What if the guy he kills in prison...Is innocent and in their wrongly?
Considering you seem to think the prison has enough innocent guys in their to justify not putting them to death.
thats why the death penalty should only be used in cases where the evidence has been shown to be 100% positive - confirmed by a panel of judges.
the death penalty is not to be taken lightly but if the evidence is incontrovertible then it should be applied - an example would be that case of the man who went to his next door neighbour and shot them in the head recently - it was on video, there is no question of his guilt - death penalty imo.
only solitary confinement for life would do that, plenty of murders assaults thefts etc happen in prison.
Please read the thread properly before replying; it will make you look less retarded
Where the HELL do you get that from? Bloody hell...It's only March and I think we have found the non-sequitur of the year.
Following the 'eye for an eye' epithet that you are so enamoured with, does that mean we should then kill you too? You still haven't answered that.
What would killing that man achieve that life imprisonment wouldn't?
As above, please read the thread before replying.
*n
So then society has to ask it's self, if a person has been brought up with a lack of morals and life lessons which causes them to commit a crime of this nature, is it justified to kill or permanently exclude them for this failing?
I don't know the answer, but surly this is the way we should be thinking, rather than the convenient story that simply calls them evil to tie up the loose ends and dehumanize them so we can justify our lust for retribution.
Last edited:
lets be sensible - once the 'eye for an eye' bit is fulfilled then that's the end. its not 'an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye ad infinitum' .
as for the achievement - it would achieve the same - i.e. removing that person from society. But which is morally correct? with one you are ending it short and sharp - with another you are torturing a man for the rest of his life (in both circumstances they will of course die).
i would say the logical and moral thing to do would be to end it quickly and move on (plenty of other people in the world that need help) - the only problem is that of 100% confidence of guilt.
This thread is a good example of how these issues get wrapped up and complicated by semantics. Perhaps: These little xxxxx bragged to their mates about what they had done. They had the guys phone. They probably had blood on their shoes. Is that enough evidence to convict them of murder and therefore sentence them to death?
Mate - that is nonsense logic, and it's not a precedence as no doubt there will be contradictions everywhere sorrounding that in the Bible. Did you mean something else? You cannot apply 'eye for an eye' for exactly that you are not taking an eye for an eye. The two crimes are morally & socially different.
Has the death penalty in the US shown to have had any impact as a deterant to crime?
contrary to popular belief the US has a low crime rate - due mostly to the fact that at any one time they have 3million people in jail - a full 1% of their population, compared to 80,000 for the uk (0.13%).
so they don't try to rehabilitate their criminals, they simply lock them away - it works to a certain extent but whether the social cost is worth it is another debate entirely.