Obesity may save a life!

[Hell Kitty]

How constructive of you!

[Nick_i_am]

Judge Hades strikes again!

[Sand]

How constructive of you!

 

I also disagree on this.

[Hell Kitty]

How constructive of you!

 

I also disagree on this.

 

Then we are in agreement. Good day to you sir.

[qt3.14159]

The real problem with enforcing a death penalty is not that some guilty person dies, but rather that someone has to carry out the sentence. The executioners generally have the same psych profiles as those they are putting to death.

 

Taking a life alters a person irreparably and the reason "civilised" countries don't put people to death is that they understand the harm it does to the person enforcing the penalty.

[Xard]

no, they do that because it is inhumane, useless model of punishment that has no positive effects at all

[Nick_i_am]

That's not true, it saves a few bucks!

[Sand]

That's not true, it saves a few bucks!

That is right.

 

it is far more cost effective to use a bullet than clothe and feed a irredeemable murderer for 30 to 60 years.

[I want teh kotor 3]

no, they do that because it is inhumane, useless model of punishment that has no positive effects at all

 

Nothing inhumane about a bullet to the back of the head, he'd be dead before he could feel anything. Furthermore, after you kill someone, you evidently have no respect for human life, so why should you keep yours?

[Xard]

That's not true, it saves a few bucks!

That is right.

 

it is far more cost effective to use a bullet than clothe and feed a irredeemable murderer for 30 to 60 years.

 

Because obviously money is the most important value in the world. It is also ok to spend trillions dollars on weapon industry but heaven forbid you use tax payer's money to, say,

 

also how do you know who is irredeemable and who is not?

 

no, they do that because it is inhumane, useless model of punishment that has no positive effects at all

 

Nothing inhumane about a bullet to the back of the head, he'd be dead before he could feel anything. Furthermore, after you kill someone, you evidently have no respect for human life, so why should you keep yours?

 

Killing by itself is wrong. Always. It doesn't matter if you kill your kids by putting meds to their glass of water they get before night or do you torture enemy soldier to death. Or put bullet in head of convict.

 

And maybe just system and human beings would thrive to be something BETTER than their antagonists, not to regress back on their level? That's the principle message of Jesus and countless other philosophers, religious figures and thinkers in human history. If you regress you're no better than they are.

 

(off-topic: I find it very funny many "pro-life" activists who side against abortion on the other hand are just fine with death penalties)

Edited August 6, 2008 by Xard

[Guest The Architect]

I'd say we build a giant supermax prision underground in the middle of interior Alaska. The prisioners will be confined to an 8X8 cell with no windows 24-7-365. They never leave their cells. They can receive no mail, no reading material, no TV or entertainment of any kind. They can recieve no visitors and take all meals through a slot in the door so they never see each other. And the lights will be on at all times so there will be no sense of day or night or any way to measure the passage of time. Then we take all death row inmates, transfer them there to live out their natural lives and abolish the death penalty.

 

Anyone have a problem with that idea?

 

I think that's a bloody great idea.

 

Ask yourself this. If you had to choose between that or a bullet to the head, what would you choose? The latter, right? It's quicker, easier, done and dusted. The former, however, is not something you'd want to experience. Who doesn't know that a long, drawn out punishment that leads to the same result as a quick and easy punishment is worse? Shouldn't we give these mongrels the harshest punishment? Of course we should.

[Sand]

Xard, we are humans. Killing is what we do. Something cannot be "inhumane" when it is core fundamental truth of the human beast. Murder is the act of an unlawful killing of another individual. A person who comments murder has no respect for the laws that bind our society. The laws that keep us from tearing each other's throats out. Those who have absolute no respect of the law to the point that they are capable of murder are irredeemable.

 

Also it is not just money, but the overall use of resources. Those resources that keeps a murderer sustained could be used to maintain the health and well-being of a worthwhile individual. By conserving resources for those who deserve and need them, and denying them to those who are irredeemable is the most effective way to maintain a lawful society. There are "philosophers" and religious mumbo-jumbo that thinks that humans are above this but we aren't. We kill, we sleep, we procreate, and we defecate. Everything else is just details.

[Guest The Architect]

Sand, we kill for survival. That is when it isn't inhumane, because a large chunk of the time there is compassion and minimal suffering for the animals that belong to the food chain of humans in general. But humans ARE NOT part of our ****ing food chain. We do not need to kill humans for survival, hence killing humans is inhumane, is wrong.

Edited August 6, 2008 by The Architect

[Sand]

Really?

 

If you have tribes who need a single resource to survive, they will fight and kill each other so the stronger tribe can survive.

[Guest The Architect]

Of course. Like I said, the only time killing another human being becomes acceptable is if we need to for survival. But we, personally, don't. In this instance there's no need to kill this fat bald murderer and rapist guy with a ranga beard, either, when he can be thrown away for life and be eliminated as a threat to humanity while having to suffer for years the emotional scars of his crimes, the feelings of shame, guilt and regret.

 

If he does not feel bad about his actions then he needs to rot on earth then burn in hell, so to speak, rather than just being sent straight to hell to burn without rotting first.

[Sand]

Burn in hell? Don't tell me you actually believe such nonsense exists?

 

I do think that Guard Dog has a good idea. It would be a good compromise for those who want the death penalty and those who don't.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Sand

[DeathScepter]

i do argee with Sand on this.

 

equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation.

[qt3.14159]

i do argee with Sand on this.

 

equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation.

 

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? I like that!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

i do agree with Sand on this.

 

equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation.

 

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? I like that!

 

Well, that was once the view of the Catholic Church.

[Kor Qel Droma]

The real problem with enforcing a death penalty is not that some guilty person dies, but rather that someone has to carry out the sentence. The executioners generally have the same psych profiles as those they are putting to death.

 

Taking a life alters a person irreparably and the reason "civilised" countries don't put people to death is that they understand the harm it does to the person enforcing the penalty.

 

Let the other inmates carry out the executions, then.

[Gfted1]

Er, dont they have three guys do the "killing" regardless of method? Only one is actually cotrolling the kill switch but none know which of the three is the live one.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Burn in hell? Don't tell me you actually believe such nonsense exists?

 

I do think that Guard Dog has a good idea. It would be a good compromise for those who want the death penalty and those who don't.

 

Yeah, that is a pretty good idea, except for the Alaskan people who have to leave when they build it.

 

i do argee with Sand on this.

 

equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation.

 

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? I like that!

 

I like it too.

[Gorgon]

Thats a bit like a firing squad, some of them get blanks. Really odd though, as if all these methods somehow make a difference. Spiritually, philosophically or otherwise.

 

The guys who work the injectors call themselves technicians. They are executioners.

[LadyCrimson]

The man's not even fat.

I'm going to have to agree w/this. He doesn't look morbidly obese in that picture, certainly.

Ridiculous defense argument no matter how you serve it up. Haha.

 

If you're for the death penalty in the first place, I don't see any rational objection to gun or even guillotine vs. lethal injection. *shrug*

[Azure79]

I agree. We should use his biomass as a fuel source.