Thoughts regarding Capital Punishment (1 Viewer)

[mack]

Timothy McVeigh deliberately targeted masses of innocent civilians. I hope he burns in Hell. You too for condoning his actions.

 

[tattoodguy]

lol mack u have no idea mate...........

u have no clue. he wouldnt be burning in hellll - he reminds me of jesus....suffering for the goood of others.


he targeted a federal building. the US government targeted buildings in iraq..........whats the difference?

the american governemnt boms alot of pppple in other countries killing them...because it doesnt aggreee with the governments of those countries..............he didnt agreee with americas policies...........................................theres no difference buddddy -----

the US government - raided like .........that religious dude ...............and yeah alot of ppple died. whats the difference. alot of innocent civilians died - kids etc........that pissed him offf.................someone needed to do something...........

and the government continued to......restrict ppples rights and liberties.......................thats why he did it.

i feel bad for the families etc.............but i understand his point. its hypocritical...to support killing ppple in iraq..............................and then to complain if someone blows up something in australia.

ur a hypocrite mate, u wouldnt understand.

he toook his death sentence on the chin.........................like a man -----------not alot of men can do that.......

 

[walrusbear]

I think capital punishment should be used in only very extreme cases were the persons guilt can be proved far past reasonable doubt. Keeping a person locked up and they will never see the outside again is a blatant waste of money.

so that would suggest that money is a higher agenda than human soul

 

[tattoodguy]

monkey butler - goood luck being a lawyer dude..............

what sort of law do you wanta do?

i wnated to be a defence criminal lawyer --------- but yeah.....changed my mind.
cos i would be tooo dperessed at all the injustices. plus i ...............neeed to do somethihng....................where i can get rich etc.

i dont hate all police, i like the concept of police ---------------defending the public etc..........belive me.........i loook up to that ------------men who risk there lives for others --- i respect that.

but i opppose police abusing there power, i oppose them not getting their priorities str8 and wasting so much time on stupid things..when innocnet ppple are dying. its wrong for the police tooo shooot ppple.......with nives...........when they will arrest u...for the same thing --------------------------------- i hatye police hypocrisy.

Its just a shame most cops are so shit.

But in theory the concept of them risking there lives to defend the rest of us..............i admire greatly.

same with the courts i oppose ..............decent ppple being put in jail, the majority of ppple in jail i would freee. well alot of pple anyways.

 

[budj]

so that would suggest that money is a higher agenda than human soul

Know, i beleive what he is saying is that the same money used to sustain such "human soles" just to prolong their life in prison, which is doomed for only life sentancing, and thus is doomed to die in prison, will be a waste of money, and can be used elsewhere in order to say, save he lives/ improve quality of life etc. Taking a left field approach at this subject, isn't it immoral to keep a human soul locked up forever in a prison confinement?

 

[hipsta_jess]

I guess I'm essentially on the fence...I mean, I know very little of it all, but from what I can gather, its costing the tax-payer big $$$ to house and feed convicted criminals...and a half-wit judge (or whoever has the power to do that stuff) could always come along and reverse it...but then, I guess, theres cases that we can't be entirely sure the convicted actually did it, we could kill an innocent person.

 

[neo o]

I think judges are more qualifed than you, so I wouldn't be jumping up calling random people halfwits.

 

[mayhemily]

Im against it. It could perhaps be an effective detterent, but what if there was some mistake and they weren't actually guilty? And I think death could be an easy way out for criminals that don't respect their own life anyway. It is more of a punishment for them to be incapacitated for the rest of their lives.

 

[hipsta_jess]

I think judges are more qualifed than you, so I wouldn't be jumping up calling random people halfwits.

I don't doubt that judges are more qualified than me, nor do I believe the majority of judges are halfwits, but you do get the rare one that reverses a decision when really the person truly does belong behind bars.

 

[walrusbear]

Know, i beleive what he is saying is that the same money used to sustain such "human soles" just to prolong their life in prison, which is doomed for only life sentancing, and thus is doomed to die in prison, will be a waste of money, and can be used elsewhere in order to say, save he lives/ improve quality of life etc. Taking a left field approach at this subject, isn't it immoral to keep a human soul locked up forever in a prison confinement?

incarceration for life is unfathomably awful
and probably the worst punishment we could deliver
but i think equating it with death is incorrect (life sentence is probably worse really)
there's positively no reason to kill anyone though
and your reasoning is saying that inmates imprisoned for life are no longer essentially living (not true)
which allows you to rationalise the killing of people for economic gain
which priorises money over human life (whatever its nature)

 

[budj]

Yes i agree with what you are saying. This is happening all over the world as we speek. Quantifying human life. But have you considered whether, if by having them on death row, and murdering them - which must be the term used because that is what capital punishment is essentially, that money spent on giving them food, clothing, etc, shouldnt that be able to be transfereable, say, to Sudan or somewhere where there is hardcore famine, to save many people over their, like i mean 1000's?

I know what i am saying sounds Nazi, and it is a very hard topic, especially sicne it regards the view of humanity.

 

[Monkey Butler]

The problem lies in differentiating between life and life. It could just as easily be said that someone on life support that will be a vegetable for the rest of their life should be killed to allow a bed for a needy patient, or that a no-hoper living off benefits should be cut off to help someone you actually wants AND needs help. I don't think it's right to do that - our system is set up in a certain way, and whatever it's faults I don't think it's right to criticise it for not valuing one life above another.

 

[budj]

Im against it. It could perhaps be an effective detterent, but what if there was some mistake and they weren't actually guilty? And I think death could be an easy way out for criminals that don't respect their own life anyway. It is more of a punishment for them to be incapacitated for the rest of their lives.

whilst this is true on an individual front, in terms of societal concerns, they are pretty much equivalent are they not?

 

[paper cup]

The problem lies in differentiating between life and life. It could just as easily be said that someone on life support that will be a vegetable for the rest of their life should be killed to allow a bed for a needy patient, or that a no-hoper living off benefits should be cut off to help someone you actually wants AND needs help. I don't think it's right to do that - our system is set up in a certain way, and whatever it's faults I don't think it's right to criticise it for not valuing one life above another.

I don't have an opinion on this matter, because there are so many complex issues associated with it.
there is something distinctly incongruous about spending a million or so keeping a convicted killer/rapist alive for years prior to his execution...
ps, Monkey Butler is cool, his major work kicked ass.

 

[Monkey Butler]

Aww, thanks Cherry - reppage!

 

[budj]

Major work aye. I am assuming english extension 2? Monkey Buttler. What are your thoughts on the American invasion of Iraq?

 

[Monkey Butler]

Hmm, well, SOMETHING had to be done, but an invasion was stupid. The objectives of the "mission" were stupid, the "shock and awe" was stupid, and the current situation is stupid. There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a murderer and a dictator, and that countless people suffered under his regime, but that shouldn't give another country, or coalition of countries, carte blanche to invade without the backing of the UN.
I believe that the UN should've handled the situation, which they could've done if they had the backing of the US (that sounds strange, but the US really does seem to have it in for the UN). Saddam Hussein could've been removed from power in a number of ways without a full scale invasion of the country.

 

[joujou_84]

Hmm, well, SOMETHING had to be done, but an invasion was stupid. The objectives of the "mission" were stupid, the "shock and awe" was stupid, and the current situation is stupid. There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a murderer and a dictator, and that countless people suffered under his regime, but that shouldn't give another country, or coalition of countries, carte blanche to invade without the backing of the UN.
I believe that the UN should've handled the situation, which they could've done if they had the backing of the US (that sounds strange, but the US really does seem to have it in for the UN). Saddam Hussein could've been removed from power in a number of ways without a full scale invasion of the country.

the UN are good for nothing...........example: if the UN puts out a demand that any country (other than america and israel) must do something and that country dosent do it...........the american gov gets all shitty and says that country x is defing UN laws and blah blah blah...........buts its so ok for america to ignore the UN......does the US like own the UN or something.......bloody hypocritical bastards.....

 

[Jaded Cynic]

Ok, with regards to capital punishment, which I think was the topic before the thing about the UN was started, I don't think it should be used.
Why?
(1) Because it doesn't really punish the person does it. They commit truly horrible crimes and then they just die. Thats it, nothing really happens to them because they dont really get to think about what they have done. I mean yes they die, but why send them off into a state of nothingness instead of punishing them for years or the rest od their natural life for what they have done? Yes, it costs money but for those types of people isnt it worth it?
(2) If the person has been convicted but is really innocent, then that person at least has a chance that he would get out at some stage with DNA testing etc etc but if he has been put to death, then all that will happen is an apology and maybe someones head would roll.

...off topic
About the UN thing, I wish they had enough power and dammit they should. Why? Because it beats the US running around invading countries. At the moment, it is rather obsolete and I think it may be past its used by date ala League of Nations. So what I think, is that the 3rd one of these should pop up and every country, the US and Australia included should give it the power it deserves. There has to be some global organisation with the power to stop the USA....But that all may just be wishful thinking.

 

[Monkey Butler]

If the UN is disbanded, we'll never get another shot at any form of global government. The USA (and any other future superpower) won't allow it, because it would act as a check to their power.

The problem with the UN is that the US in particular have decided that they don't want that check - that they know whats best and nobody else should be able to stop them. Which is why the UN is being constantly undermined, underfunded and generally ignored by governments around the world. But the problem is that there's no real way to stop that happening, because the UN is wholly reliant on its member states. It has no army or police force, and so any of its decisions are pretty much voluntary as to whether a state follows them or not. Take the ICC and the ICJ for example (the International Criminal Court, for individual criminals, and the International Court of Justice, for states) - the US has refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC simply because many of its leaders would be indicted under international law; and no state can be forced to appear before the ICJ, and if they do choose to front up and then lose, the decision of the court isn't binding because the UN has no real way to enforce its own rules. That's the problems that they're facing. It's a great ideal, but if governments aren't serious about it, there's no way it can work.