PDA

View Full Version : The Death Penalty



ilw
07-08-2003, 08:46 AM
We've had euthanasia and abortion, and the death penalty was brought up in another post so I thought it merited discussion. Sorry to the MODs for starting yet another probably emotive topic.

Personally I think the death penalty is little more than a barbaric throwback, its effectiveness as a deterrent is limiited and if deterring people is not the aim, than the only possible alternative is that it serves is as retribution to victims and families, which is, IMO, a fairly barbaric attitude (an eye for an eye?). I think a culture which condones organised mured is keeping a small part of itself uncivilised. For me its not just the belief that the death penalty as a punishment is wrong, but also the fact that its irreversible, and the fact that u put the person under an incredible amount of stress for an extended period of time.
I come from England and I'm quite glad that we have abolished the death penalty, (Is anyone certain that the caveat, about arson in dockyards and treason, is actually true and not another 'urban legend'? I for one sincerely hope its not true).
NB Please don't misunderstand and think that I believe Britain to be a world leader in civilisation, compared to the laws in some other European countries I think Britain can sometimes be quite backward.

Is there anyone who believes that the death penalty achieves something?

WeeMouse
07-08-2003, 08:50 AM
Hmmmm....it's still murder, y'know? the death penalty was abolished before I was born, so I don't know too much about it, if people were wrongly killed, but i imagine that there must have been a few.....and what use is a pardon if you're already dead?

Riddler
07-08-2003, 09:46 AM
Wow....this IS a tough subject. IMO, justice systems all over the world are terribly flawed to begin with. There seems to be a constant parade of guilty people walking free on the heels of some procedural blunder or technical miss-step. While at the same time, innocent people are imprisoned in cells in every country on earth. Also, there are simply too many different opinions world-wide on what should be punishable by death. Combine these two facts and I think you have a solid case against the death penalty. No doubt, studies have been done and comparisons made re; the relationship between the violent crime rate in countries WITH the death penalty and those WITHOUT. If anyone has those numbers handy, it may shed a different light on the subject.

Lamsey
07-08-2003, 09:59 AM
My personal opinion:

- Killing is wrong.

- Two wrongs do not make a right.

- Draw your own conclusion.

Riddler
07-08-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Lamsey@8 July 2003 - 02:59
My personal opinion:

- Killing is wrong.

- Two wrongs do not make a right.

- Draw your own conclusion.
I agree L. But allow me to play devil's advocate here if you will. The farthest thing from my mind is trying to justify the taking of human life. However, let's role-play for a moment and go down the slippery road of ' what if ? '.
Let's say you and WeeMouse get married in a few years and have a a child together. All is right with the world and your family IS your world...as it should be. Suddenly, tragically, something unimaginable occurs and your beautiful baby is taken from you as a result of the sickness and evil in some stranger's heart. Would you be able to resist the urge to bring final justice to that individual, perhaps even by your own hand ? Please forgive me L & Wee for bringing this scenario forward, but it's relevant to the discussion.

Lamsey
07-08-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Riddler@8 July 2003 - 11:17
Let's say you and WeeMouse get married in a few years and have a a child together. All is right with the world and your family IS your world...as it should be. Suddenly, tragically, something unimaginable occurs and your beautiful baby is taken from you as a result of the sickness and evil in some stranger's heart. Would you be able to resist the urge to bring final justice to that individual, perhaps even by your own hand ? Please forgive me L & Wee for bringing this scenario forward, but it's relevant to the discussion.
Yes I would.

I'd beat the crap out of him then I'd have him arrested and put into prison, where I believe the inmates would not react well to a child-murderer.


Killing resolves nothing, except in a few exceptional circumstances.

Riddler
07-08-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Lamsey@8 July 2003 - 03:27





Killing resolves nothing, except in a few exceptional circumstances.
May I ask what those circumstances would be ?

And btw, you are truly a man of great control of your emotions if you would resist the urge to take a life in the above scenario. I doubt if I would be able to reign in my anger and grief. Given the opportunity and the possibility that the law may allow a certain forgiveness in a case of extreme emotional duress, my gut feeling is that I would be consumed with thoughts of revenge.

MagicNakor
07-08-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Riddler@8 July 2003 - 10:46
...No doubt, studies have been done and comparisons made re; the relationship between the violent crime rate in countries WITH the death penalty and those WITHOUT. If anyone has those numbers handy, it may shed a different light on the subject...
Had this discussion taken place a number of years ago, I could provide those for you. Unfortunately, it didn't, and I'm not sure if I've still got the copies. I'll look around, though.

:ninja:

Riddler
07-08-2003, 11:52 AM
That would be good Wizard, if you can find them.

I should also somewhat amend my previous reply to Lamsey and emphasize a point; in the event that " opportunity " didn't present itself soon after the fact, I'm reasonably certain that rage would lessen to the point where rational thought might begin to override it. However, my desire for the criminal's life to be extinguished by process of law would not diminish.
A further point could be made that for those of us who already have children, the emotional despair of possibly losing them can more easily be imagined compared to those who do not. Therefore, maybe the scenario I presented was not entirely appropriate.

ilw
07-08-2003, 12:06 PM
The points u make Riddler seem to underline the animalness of the drive for revenge and highlight how far from a 'civilised' response killing as a punishment is. The supposed objectiveness and impartiality of the law goes straight out the window.

WeeMouse
07-08-2003, 12:20 PM
Please forgive me L & Wee for bringing this scenario forward

No bother, man!

I see what you mean...I would want the person to die....but that doesn't mean that they should! The rest of their life would be hellish (people don't take kindly to child murderers....).

It is a fuzzy situation, but killing people just doesn't seem right...they may deserve it, but if i then killed the murderer....would that make things right again? if the courts ruled that the murderer should be killed, would that bring back the child....?

/me goes back to eating cookies....too much thinking...

j2k4
07-08-2003, 12:21 PM
This is a sticky subject, and one I will dabble in long enough to make one (1) point.

If you spend any time with any of our "emotive" subjects, you will eventually become used to having certain statistics available to you which bear upon the subject in question; so many statistics, in fact, that they become moot.

Relative to the death-penalty debate, however, I find missing the one salient statistic:

There is no possible way to assemble a statistic which would firmly indicate how many murders DO NOT occur due to the existence of the death penalty.

Personally, I am in favor of a very strictly administered death penalty.

MagicNakor
07-08-2003, 12:32 PM
What I do remember of one of the studies which was a compilation of answers from murderers, specifically those serving life sentences for (if I recall) murder in the 1st degree (which, if I'm recalling correctly, is really the only way to "land" a death penalty in the United States: that of premeditated murder) in states that currently do not have capital punishment. A majority of those polled would have "considered more carefully/reconsidered" had the state had the death penalty and knowing that they would be tried for it. The results for not commiting the crime at all and commiting the crime in the same manner were fairly close. The study was done in the early 90s, perhaps even the late 80s. I doubt I have it anymore, but I will keep looking. ;)

:ninja:

j2k4
07-08-2003, 12:49 PM
The death penalty is currently administered in accord with a somewhat complicated (hard to explain in theory; simpler in practice) system of "mitigating circumstances", which are factors considered to reduce the culpability of the crime, and "aggravating circumstances"; factors which increase penalties.

Example: a "mitigating circumstance" could be a defendent's age, or the existence of a state of mental or emotional disturbance.

An "aggravating circumstance" might be that the victim was a law-officer, or the murder was a "contract-for-hire", or occurred in the commission of a kidnap-for-ransom.

These vary slightly from state to state in the U.S.

ilw
07-08-2003, 12:55 PM
How many states in the US still have the death penalty? Is there a split like North south East west?

j2k4
07-08-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by ilw@8 July 2003 - 07:55
How many states in the US still have the death penalty? Is there a split like North south East west?
As of 2000, the only states without a death-penalty statute are:

Maine
Vermont
Massachusetts
West Virginia
Rhode Island
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
North Dakota
Hawaii
Alaska

ilw
07-08-2003, 01:57 PM
Wow, I thought the split would be the other way round (ie lots more without death penalty).
Anyway if u allow capital punishment, how come not corporal punishment? Surely corporal is the next logical step from imprsionment. In my mind the order goes:
Imprisonment, corporal punishment, disfigurement (eg removal of hands/ tattooing of prominent parts of the body), capital punishment and maybe ultimately torture before death.
Yet i'm sure lots of advocates of the death penalty would see steps 2 and 3 as cruel?????

j2k4
07-08-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by ilw@8 July 2003 - 08:57
Wow, I thought the split would be the other way round (ie lots more without death penalty).
Anyway if u allow capital punishment, how come not corporal punishment? Surely corporal is the next logical step from imprsionment. In my mind the order goes:
Imprisonment, corporal punishment, disfigurement (eg removal of hands/ tattooing of prominent parts of the body), capital punishment and maybe ultimately torture before death.
Yet i'm sure lots of advocates of the death penalty would see steps 2 and 3 as cruel?????
Have you any idea how we have agonized over the definition of "cruel and unusual"?

If we did as you suggest, it would make commensurately less sense to restrict the use of the death-penalty as we have.

On second thought....

Ron
07-08-2003, 03:55 PM
I have very mixed feelings about this, so I can't really give a straight answer.
But do you believe it is more humane to put a man behind bars for the rest of his life, knowing he will get beaten/raped at every possible occasion?
Isn't that also a form of torture?
Imagine what it must be like to spend the rest of your natural life between hardened criminals. Always needing to watch your back (and ass).
Nothing to look forward to. Nothing at all.
Is that something YOU would want? Or could stand?
I *think* I would prefer the easy way out of a lethal injection then.
The chair would be another thing though.

I wonder what would happen if all lifers would be given a pill to end their life painlessly at a time of their choosing.
How many would use it?

So my answer would be that I am for the death penalty in certain cases (involving children or especially brutal crimes)
But also against, because there is no foolproof way to determine who is guilty or innocent.

j2k4
07-08-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Ron@8 July 2003 - 10:55
I have very mixed feelings about this, so I can't really give a straight answer.
But do you believe it is more humane to put a man behind bars for the rest of his life, knowing he will get beaten/raped at every possible occasion?
Isn't that also a form of torture?
Imagine what it must be like to spend the rest of your natural life between hardened criminals. Always needing to watch your back (and ass).
Nothing to look forward to. Nothing at all.
Is that something YOU would want? Or could stand?
I *think* I would prefer the easy way out of a lethal injection then.
The chair would be another thing though.

I wonder what would happen if all lifers would be given a pill to end their life painlessly at a time of their choosing.
How many would use it?

So my answer would be that I am for the death penalty in certain cases (involving children or especially brutal crimes)
But also against, because there is no foolproof way to determine who is guilty or innocent.
In my more cynical moments I can construct a pretty good argument for life imprisonment, but, the rape issue aside (it doesn't happen nearly as often as people think), I don't think life imprisonment is punishment enough.

Why should a rapist/murderer have anything to look forward to?

Ron
07-08-2003, 04:18 PM
Well, when I talk about this, I have child rapers/murderers in mind.
I don't know how it is where you live, but I don't think there are many countries in the world where those animals are popular in jail.
Wouldn't it be less cruel and unusual to put them out of their misery a.s.a.p.?

j2k4
07-08-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Ron@8 July 2003 - 11:18
Well, when I talk about this, I have child rapers/murderers in mind.
I don't know how it is where you live, but I don't think there are many countries in the world where those animals are popular in jail.
Wouldn't it be less cruel and unusual to put them out of their misery a.s.a.p.?
I would tend to agree; societally based laws also seem to dictate a need, or, in the case of the death penalty, an imperative for society to avenge itself for the diminishment suffered at the hands of murderers; some would argue this is the more merciful option.

Again, though, while the rapers and murderers of children are not treated at all well by other inmates, prison rape is the exception rather than the rule; the situation is at once much more violent, but much less frequent than portrayed on television.

That is not to say it does not happen; merely that it is not an everyday occurrence.

I am not speaking here of the issue of consentual homosexual activity.

dlingeverything
07-08-2003, 04:42 PM
I live in TX, yes the biggest death penalty addict.

I totally object to the death penalty.

It is murder and murder is in no circumstance
a "right" thing to do.

I'm not sure but this is not an effective detterent for
criminals. There's got to be some studies out there.

I dont understand how anyone can condone this

j2k4
07-08-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by dlingeverything@8 July 2003 - 11:42
I live in TX, yes the biggest death penalty addict.

I totally object to the death penalty.

It is murder and murder is in no circumstance
a "right" thing to do.

I'm not sure but this is not an effective detterent for
criminals. There's got to be some studies out there.

I dont understand how anyone can condone this
There are many, many studies, all of which amount to much less than the issue requires to be certified "resolved."

Riddler
07-08-2003, 07:14 PM
Even 'qualifying' a statement such as; 'I don't believe in death as punishment'...with a statement such as; 'except in certain cases'...illustrates the labyrinthian nature of the law process and the unpredictability of human emotion which contributes to the making of laws. What may be perceived as an imprisonable offence to some, would surely be seen as warranting the harshest form of justice to others. The only individual without a voice in the matter is the victim of a violent crime ( resulting in death ). IMO, this is why it is impossible for a uniform policy regarding capital punishment to be realized.
I think every reasonable person would agree that killing is wrong, no matter what the situation. However, given the scenario I put forth earlier, even reasonable people have an emotional breaking point where what we firmly believe, in moments of calm reflection and sober thought, is seriously challenged in moments of personal tragedy and extreme stress.
So, I will put forth another realistic twist to the scenario of losing a loved one to the hands of an individual who's own regard for the lives of others is apparently on a level below yours and mine...........
What if the individual, even though every person in the room including the judge and jury were convinced of his/her guilt, did not receive any punishment due to the frailties of the law, or perhaps the skill of his/her highly paid defense team. Would you still be disinclined to avenge your loved one's death with the death of the perpetrator as he walked down the courtroom steps, grinning at the cameras and informing the media throng that he was going to " celebrate with a few beers across the street---you're all invited ! "
Would you still be able to go home and sit down for dinner with your wife tomorrow and say; " Oh, well....we gave it our best shot and it didn't work out. Damn, but those lawyers were good weren't they ? "

( please forgive the flippant tone of the last part of this reply.....It does serve a purpose and is quite intentional. )

Rat Faced
07-08-2003, 07:18 PM
There are no conclusive studies.

Im torn on this one, really.

On the "moral highground" im dead against it, obviously.

There are so many miscarriages of justice, that the risk of killing one innocent.....


On the other hand, as has been said...Death is often the "Easy way out" for these people, especially Child Killers. Why make it easy for them?

Then there is the practical issues.....why the hell should I pay for these people to live? It takes a lot of money to keep someone in jail, why the hell should my taxes go towards it? This may be "mercenary" but im sure its relevant.....i'd rather the money went to Schools and Hospitals.



On the balance, i'll stick with my consiance im sure, if a referendum is ever called....and vote against it. Especially as the money would only be wasted some other way...never seems to end up where its needed.

Now to await JPauls flame ;)

PinkPig
07-08-2003, 07:33 PM
I absolutely believe that the death penalty is wrong.

1) There's no guarantee that anyone is guilty
2) Even if they are, killing isn't the answer. It costs more (under US legal systems) to execute someone than to keep them in prison for their lives, and I'd say that the latter is a pretty awful punishment in itself.
3) We don't know what death is - thus the death penalty is an unknown sentence, and thus entirely unfair.

I think I'm pretty fortunate to live in a country where the death penalty has been abolished for years - I really believe that all US states should do the same. Just as American men should stop keeping guns.

Ron
07-08-2003, 07:42 PM
What if a convict ASKED to be executed.......?

Riddler
07-08-2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by PinkPig@8 July 2003 - 12:33


1) There's no guarantee that anyone is guilty
2) Even if they are, killing isn't the answer. It costs more (under US legal systems) to execute someone than to keep them in prison for their lives, and I'd say that the latter is a pretty awful punishment in itself.
3) We don't know what death is - thus the death penalty is an unknown sentence, and thus entirely unfair.
Well PinkPig, I can understand your point of view, and once again, I'm not supporting the controlled killing of human beings but I must offer you an alternate look at your response. Just for the sake of discussion, you understand.

1) What if you witnessed it with your own eyes ?
2) I don't have the numbers handy, but I have my doubts that that is the case.
3) If it is an unknown sentence for the perpetrator of the crime, then it is also an unknown result for the victim....so logically, would that not be fair after all ?

Ron
07-08-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by PinkPig@8 July 2003 - 21:33
1) There's no guarantee that anyone is guilty
2) Even if they are, killing isn't the answer. It costs more (under US legal systems) to execute someone than to keep them in prison for their lives, and I'd say that the latter is a pretty awful punishment in itself.
3) We don't know what death is - thus the death penalty is an unknown sentence, and thus entirely unfair.

I think I'm pretty fortunate to live in a country where the death penalty has been abolished for years - I really believe that all US states should do the same. Just as American men should stop keeping guns.
In answer to that:

1) What if a person is caught redhanded, and spontaneously confesses?
2)Some killers are nothing more than predators. Locking them up would only expose other, less violent prisoners, to their mercy.
3) Death could be seen as the end of all bodily functions, so it's not unknown.

In Belgium, a recent study showed that there are 16 guns on 100 people. (USA had around 90/100, I believe)
Might be nice to know for criminals. They should have less fear of "professional injuries" over here. :)

clocker
07-08-2003, 10:27 PM
I am unequivocally for the death penalty.
In my opinion there are individuals so warped and broken that rehabilitation or redemption is out of the question and the threat that they pose to society far outweighs any moral qualms I might have about killing them.

Think: Richard Speck or Charlie Manson.
Both thrive(d*) in prison.
Completely unrepentent, nay, proud of the actions that put them in confinment. No question of their guilt, as they were both proud to acknowledge it to anyone who would listen.
Think: Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.
Serial predators who studied their prey in order to better fit in and walk among us.
Creatures so far outside of our ken, that faced with undeniable proof of their actions, many still felt unable to believe it. Ted Bundy looked like the boy next door. Gacy was a respected businessman who liked to entertain children dressed as a clown. Behind their masks, both were aliens, constantly searching for the next victim.

Deserving of my pity, my compassion?
Not a chance.


*Speck died in prison, having led a seemingly happy, if manisfestly bizarre, life behind bars. Video was shown on TV, filmed in prison, where Speck taunts the outside world for making his life so easy- sex, drugs and violence all being so easy to obtain/practice behind bars. Watch that video and then tell me that this thing was even human[I].

evilbagpuss
07-08-2003, 10:59 PM
I will support the death penalty when,

i) Someone discovers a way to bring people back from the dead.

ii) We create a justice system that never ever gets it wrong and is 100% free from corruption.

To me, unless one of those 2 things has happened, the issue boils down to how many innocent people you are willing to execute by mistake. Is 1 or 2 dead innocents an acceptable margin of error?

Unless you limit the death penalty to individuals who have been convicted based on irrefutable DNA evidence you can never be 100% sure your killing the right person.

clocker
07-08-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@8 July 2003 - 16:59
I will support the death penalty when,

i) Someone discovers a way to bring people back from the dead.

ii) We create a justice system that never ever gets it wrong and is 100% free from corruption.




Sadly, we live in an imperfect world.
Do you refuse to fly?
After all, you can't be "100% certain" that the plane won't crash.

Advances in forensic technology continue to eliminate error (and free previously jailed, wrongfully convicted people, happily), but what about the cases I mentioned?
There is absolutely no doubt about Bundy, et al.

They confessed.
They bragged about their transgressions.

hobbes
07-08-2003, 11:40 PM
Let us dissect the issue into it's components:


1. Do you trust your judicial system to fairly and securely enforce the death penalty?

Only if the system executes confessed murderers. Has anybody ever seen the interview with Jeffery Dahmer. He admitted that could understand (if he were to put himself in their shoes) why his victims families were upset with him, but he felt no regret for the killings. He claimed that he did not kill out of hate, but out of love. Dahmer was obsessed with pouring acid into the brain of living humans to make them into "sex slaves". Jeffery, I have a chair here for you.



2. Do you support the concept of a death penalty?

Have you seen the movie "Seven"? Who wanted Brad to put the gun down and let the system take care of the matter?

In a word, "Yes" I support the concept. If I were to witness someone murder my wife, first hand (the essential element), I would kill him.



3. I guess a third question could arise. If you are Brad Pitt, do you trust the system to be able to carry out the justice a person deserves (cough, OJ Simpson, cough).

I have to say, that I would prefer to have a system in which a murderer could wriggle off the hook, over one in which a single innocent man was killed.

evilbagpuss
07-08-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by clocker
Sadly, we live in an imperfect world.
Do you refuse to fly?
After all, you can't be "100% certain" that the plane won't crash.

Comparing a mode of travel to the death penalty isn't appropriate. I guess you could take a boat if you were that bothered about flying but in this case its either death or a life sentence. To continue the comparison its either the plane or your going nowhere. No boats here :)


Advances in forensic technology continue to eliminate error (and free previously jailed, wrongfully convicted people, happily), but what about the cases I mentioned?
There is absolutely no doubt about Bundy, et al.

They confessed.
They bragged about their transgressions.

As I said before if theres absolutely no doubt and the crimes are that heinous then... fair enough.

However, I think these 'gentleman' are the exception not the rule with regards to prisoners on death row. I can think of a couple of exceptions on the opposite end of the spectrum who are also on death row but their convictions look very suspect. How many more suspect convictions are there that the mass media do not feel are worthy of our attention?

I guess the 'one innocent life' issue is the bottom line here, nothing, (asides from DNA it seems) is infallible.

I wonder how you would start a letter to an executed mans family saying "sorry folks, but we got it wrong this time"....

Ron
07-09-2003, 12:00 AM
What if they changed " beyond reasonable doubt" to "any doubt whatsoever"?

clocker
07-09-2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@8 July 2003 - 17:57


I wonder how you would start a letter to an executed mans family saying "sorry folks, but we got it wrong this time"....
How do you start a letter to Nicole Brown's family?

"Sorry folks, but OJ promises never to rest until "the real killer" is found..."?*


Apparently, OJ is convinced that the "real killer" is hiding out on golf courses...

evilbagpuss
07-09-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by clocker
How do you start a letter to Nicole Brown's family?

"Sorry folks, but OJ promises never to rest until "the real killer" is found..."?*



Different topic. I dont see how the existence/non-existence of a death penalty would make a difference to Nicole Browns family.

That situation reflects badly on the court system and the police i.e the 'bringing the culprit to justice' area but its got nothing to do with the sentencing or 'punishment of the culprit' area.

j2k4
07-09-2003, 04:29 AM
All excellent posts, guys.

As to the concerns about wrongful execution, I believe appropriate mechanisms are in place to limit administration of the death penalty to those who are well and truly guilty; these "standards", aided (as EBP says) by DNA evidence, do make a difference as to the propriety of the death penalty in such cases as it is lawfully applicable.

I did a paper on this for a corrections class a few years ago-regretfully I can't locate it just now.

I'd like to point out, though, that to carry the "reasonable doubt" aspect to it's strict, logical (and in this case, somewhat silly) conclusion would technically render even DNA proof suspect, as is mathematically provable, although at extremely long odds, yes?

My point is, one cannot escape the fact that the determination of guilt, like so many things, remains, even in the face of overwhelming "evidence", a judgement call.

ilw
07-09-2003, 08:19 AM
I think i'm right in saying that punishment is supposed to serve 4 main functions
1) Rehabilitation
2) Deterrent
3) Retribution
4) Keeping society safe (ie removing socially incapable people from the general populace)

With the death penalty there is no chance of rehabilitation and I would argue that anyone completely incapable of being rehabilitated is probably so unbalanced that crime and punishment would mean little anyway. I can see that the death penalty does act as an increased deterrent, and may be marginally better than life imprisonment at keeping society safe (as it would not only remove the perpetrator from society, but also from jail). The only area where the death penalty excels is in that of retribution. To me retribution is the base and savage part of the justice system which serves no real function other than to satisfy a basic human urge for revenge. Obviously all of us feel the need for revenge when someone causes us harm, but I don't agree that the law should condone this revenge. The law should remain impartial, objective and should work to protect and advance our society.

clintonesque
07-09-2003, 01:47 PM
The Death penalty, I'm for it but only by a cunt hair.
Still a failing on our part that we have to take the life of our felow human beings.

One day we'll learn some new tricks, but until then. . .

Some people you just can't reach.

Rat Faced
07-09-2003, 07:11 PM
Note:

Deleted one spam post and 3 or 4 responding to it....dont want this turning into a spam topic ;)

thewizeard
07-09-2003, 07:46 PM
I am against the death penalty. Lamsey is right, two wrongs don't make a right. Some forms of the death penalty are indeed barbaric; such as the electric chair.

Two families are saddled with the pain of losing a loved one and if that person, later turns out to be innocent what would be the feelings of the family whose member was murdered in the first place?

I might add I have no idea how I would feel if one of my children would be murderd. I am sure that I would not want the state to take revenge for me.