For your information, death penalty use to affect innocent people aswell, here is one example:
The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innoce… morent man to his death
(http://www.localhistories.org/capital.html)
"Furthermore in the mid-20th century public opinion in the UK gradually turned against capital punishment. An innocent man called Timothy Evans was hanged in 1950. (Evans was supposed to have murdered his wife and baby daughter. In fact it was later found out that a man named John Reginald Christie murdered them and several other women. Evans was pardoned in 1966). Another innocent man called Derek Bentley was hanged in 1953. (Derek Bentley was pardoned in 1998). The last woman to be hanged in Britain was Ruth Ellis in 1955 and her case caused a great deal of controversy. Ruth shot her lover David Blakely but she probably wasn't in her right mind at the time. Then in 1956 Diana Dors starred in an anti-capital punishment film called Yield To The Night."
I am completely for the death penalty, if someone is dead because of them then why should they get to live? In my honest opinion, murderers should be killed in the exact same fashion that they killed their victims.
If we have undeniable evidence aganist a person who have murdered, they should be executed. One bullet to the brain, easy. As for undeniable evidence against any sexual deviants, like rapist; well I'm not going into what I think should happen to them. I'll just say they should get the roman treatment.
And for thieves and drug dealers, I think prison and community service should be enough for them.
For the death penalty but uk government is against it the only time the death penalty should be used if its 100 percent secure conviction and not a doggey one like my brother in law murder conviction
Except murder is the act of killing unlawfully, and if it's legal, it's neither unlawful nor murder. Technically.
YOU'RE LEGALIZING MURDER!!
So, civil society should never eliminate people, no matter what they do? Bin Laden should not have been executed?
Ted Bundy should have just been kept under lock and key? The families of his victims should not have been granted the luxury of knowing he was gone from this world? He should have instead just lived for years and years on their taxpayer dollars?
IT'S FUCKING LEGAL MURDER!!
Except murder is the act of killing unlawfully, and if it's legal, it's neither unlawful nor murder. Tec… morehnically.
YOU'RE LEGALIZING MURDER!!
So, civil society should never eliminate people, no matter what they do? Bin Laden should not have been executed?
Ted Bundy should have just been kept under lock and key? The families of his victims should not have been granted the luxury of knowing he was gone from this world? He should have instead just lived for years and years on their taxpayer dollars?
Well, that's a very pacifistic way to view the world. Unfortunately, few share it, and the more merciful you are with evil, the more evil you shall have.
Well, that's a very pacifistic way to view the world. Unfortunately, few share it, and the more merciful you are with evil, the more evil you shall have.
We all should remember that every person in jail is supported via taxes. We - good citizens - carry a lot of scums on our backs.
Therefore, with that in mind, if a person was to spend in jail for over 80 years, or there is no chance they can safely come back to the society, they deserve death.
Who should get on-point death penalty is - in my opinion - serial killers, people guilty of manslaughter or multiple rapes etc. - anything that the person guilty did more than just once or twice, without a good reason (unjustified murders). This should apply if they were caught red-handed, or there is enough proof that makes definitely guilty, with no chance that they are nnocent (what amount exactly is up to the debate).
And also people who summed up have more than 80 years of jail-time (basically any other kind than what i mentioned above), should get the death penalty. Not the moment they go to prison, let's say... about 5 years from since they went to prison - it would give people enough time to prove them innocent. If they wont be proven innocent by then, there is no point in supporting their lives. Because even if they were proven innocent after some time, they most likely couldnt get a good job, and quality if their lives would be poor. It's really making them a favor, if anything.
You can't classify all killings in the world as "murder". Murder is an unlawful killing usually carried with malevolent intentions. The term you're looking for is execution.
Comments
Like what?
Yeah... there's something extremely wrong with Texas and its application of the death penalty, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Against. I don't even know why murder is an option.
I am completely for the death penalty, if someone is dead because of them then why should they get to live? In my honest opinion, murderers should be killed in the exact same fashion that they killed their victims.
And who are you to decide they do?
Depends on the situation.
First and second degree murder should definitely warrant the death sentence, as long as you have malice aforethought then you deserve it.
If we have undeniable evidence aganist a person who have murdered, they should be executed. One bullet to the brain, easy. As for undeniable evidence against any sexual deviants, like rapist; well I'm not going into what I think should happen to them. I'll just say they should get the roman treatment.
And for thieves and drug dealers, I think prison and community service should be enough for them.
I'm for swift punishment on wrong doers and those with no moral fiber.
But I admit, the death penalty is a bit excessive.
I believe the extremely guilty should be punished to the full extent of the law.
For the death penalty but uk government is against it the only time the death penalty should be used if its 100 percent secure conviction and not a doggey one like my brother in law murder conviction
Right back at you.
IT'S FUCKING LEGAL MURDER!! YOU'RE LEGALIZING MURDER!!
Chill.
How am I going to chill when they lagelize murder?
Except murder is the act of killing unlawfully, and if it's legal, it's neither unlawful nor murder. Technically.
So, civil society should never eliminate people, no matter what they do? Bin Laden should not have been executed?
Ted Bundy should have just been kept under lock and key? The families of his victims should not have been granted the luxury of knowing he was gone from this world? He should have instead just lived for years and years on their taxpayer dollars?
No! Have them in jail forever, instead of murder human beings! Fuck!
Well, that's a very pacifistic way to view the world. Unfortunately, few share it, and the more merciful you are with evil, the more evil you shall have.
I know, I wish it was different. I don't believe in evil, anyways. It's a matter of perspective.
We all should remember that every person in jail is supported via taxes. We - good citizens - carry a lot of scums on our backs.
Therefore, with that in mind, if a person was to spend in jail for over 80 years, or there is no chance they can safely come back to the society, they deserve death.
Who should get on-point death penalty is - in my opinion - serial killers, people guilty of manslaughter or multiple rapes etc. - anything that the person guilty did more than just once or twice, without a good reason (unjustified murders). This should apply if they were caught red-handed, or there is enough proof that makes definitely guilty, with no chance that they are nnocent (what amount exactly is up to the debate).
And also people who summed up have more than 80 years of jail-time (basically any other kind than what i mentioned above), should get the death penalty. Not the moment they go to prison, let's say... about 5 years from since they went to prison - it would give people enough time to prove them innocent. If they wont be proven innocent by then, there is no point in supporting their lives. Because even if they were proven innocent after some time, they most likely couldnt get a good job, and quality if their lives would be poor. It's really making them a favor, if anything.
This is actually the topic of my master thesis this year.
I prefer torture, murder let's them get away with it.
You kill the innocent, you die.
Proven self defense, it's chill. You'll probably need therapy though.
You can't classify all killings in the world as "murder". Murder is an unlawful killing usually carried with malevolent intentions. The term you're looking for is execution.
Not if you kill many killers.
If the person has done an extremely heinous crime, like genocide or rape, then yeah. But for most crimes, you should just put them in prison.