Death Penalty

[Skillian]

I'm against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone's life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don't believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+22 December 2003 - 14:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 22 December 2003 - 14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@22 December 2003 - 19:45


I apologize if my post doesn&#39;t reflect some important point made elsewhere in this thread; I haven&#39;t read all of it.

I think you could at least do us the courtesy of reading your own post, before inflicting it upon us, it seems only fair. [/b][/quote]


Thanks, JP.

I needed that.

Badly.

[ZeroTolerance]

Originally posted by Skillian@22 December 2003 - 19:06
I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.

I Agree

[Busyman]

Originally posted by jerome18+22 December 2003 - 20:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jerome18 @ 22 December 2003 - 20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skillian@22 December 2003 - 19:06
I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.

I Agree [/b][/quote]
Like what??

[Sparkle1984]

Originally posted by Busyman+22 December 2003 - 20:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 22 December 2003 - 20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by jerome18@22 December 2003 - 20:51
<!--QuoteBegin-Skillian

@22 December 2003 - 19:06
I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.

I Agree

Like what?? [/b][/quote]
I agree as well. That no-one should have the right to take a life, for any reason whatsoever, otherwise it would be the start of a "slippery slope". There would always be a risk that the authorities might (at some time in the future) abuse the death penalty, and execute dissenters.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Sparkle1984+22 December 2003 - 21:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sparkle1984 @ 22 December 2003 - 21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Busyman@22 December 2003 - 20:24

Originally posted by jerome18@22 December 2003 - 20:51
<!--QuoteBegin-Skillian

@22 December 2003 - 19:06
I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.

I Agree

Like what??

I agree as well. That no-one should have the right to take a life, for any reason whatsoever, otherwise it would be the start of a "slippery slope". There would always be a risk that the authorities might (at some time in the future) abuse the death penalty, and execute dissenters. [/b][/quote]
You must live in a country without the death penalty. In America we&#39;ve had it for decades and you have to do a pretty heinous crime.
No one has responded with a much more important thing at stake than expense and prison overcrowding.

[J'Pol]

I think that peoples lives are more important than expense and prison overcrowding. As do several other posters.

Do you have an actual point, or do you simply chose to ignore that which does not support your position.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@23 December 2003 - 03:13
I think that peoples lives are more important than expense and prison overcrowding. As do several other posters.

Do you have an actual point, or do you simply chose to ignore that which does not support your position.

Well J&#39;Pol I do not think a person&#39;s life is important when that person takes another in the extreme circumstances. I&#39;m not ignoring the responses. I&#39;m looking to hear a response that is not a basic copy and paste of mine or the others here.

I understand alot of posters are saying "It is wrong to take a life under any circumstances" but I wanted to hear some solutions other than exile or the prison system we have today. If YOUR prison system works fine the way it is, great. Mine does not.

A person like Timothy Mcvey who reduced half of a downtown building to rubble killing hundreds, deserves to die in absence of exile. This person further burdens taxpayers with life imprisonment. We pay for this person&#39;s room, food, AND recreation....for the rest of his life. That is not much of a deterrent.

One way to look at it is that the families of the dead pay for the food this person&#39;s eats. So "administrative" issues should be taken into account.

You take a life; your life is forfeit.

[Is_this_name_taken_already]

After reading the precideing post I have come to the following conclusion

No one has talked about why these people who are up for a death sentece A.K.A. death row are there: most of them have done things so horible that I doubt I could sleep well for a few nights just knowing.

The death penalty and life in prison is just a short term solution in a would of long term conciquences(sp)

situation one, the death penalty: so we decide to kill all the rapists, cerial killers, music stealers, etc., then all of a sudden theres that guy who kills someone in the defence of his wife and then gets death for the murder(it could happen look a ConAir) the media has a hayday and then either the guy&#39;s sentence is carried out and everyone get all pissed at the government or they decide to change the ruling and the whole system get unraveled

situation two, life in jail: this option is much more costly than simple the simple death penalty because eventually you end up with a bunch of old guys in federal or state prison. These old people develope health problems like dibetes(sp)(the insullin thing) and other stuff causing the state/government to spend a lot of money just to keep these people alive. A similar thing happened in a small town by where I live where an elderly man was jailed for some reason but was released because the city couldn&#39;t afford the several hundred &#036; of medications he was on.

Next, that average person lives to be what like 70 or something? Well lets just say that your average inmate serving a life sentence is in there at age 30(just some random number I chose) that means that government/state money will be paying for this person&#39;s food clothing shelter etc. for 40 years.

If you could understand anything I said in the above you are one step ahead of me but, even if you don&#39;t you can still understand what I said before I went off on a tangent "The death penalty and life in prison is just a short term solution in a would of long term conciquences(sp)" so there is no wrong or right answer either way has its downfalls and whatnot its just a matter of how the public feals and what has the most support most of the time


Sorry about the long post with bad grammer and spelling oops:

[Evil Gemini]

We could drop all the lifers in the middle of the sea and let the sharks eat them&#33;

Problem solved.