merc brings up a good point.

The way I see it, and I'm not a particularly religious person myself, but it kinda makes sense, is that the most precious gift that we as humans have is life itself. To remove that gift from someone and be allowed to retain yours is not even remotely fair.

Punishment like life in prison or solitary is STILL granting that person their life, and yes, it is a serious drain on monetary resources.

I'm honestly for the use of the death penalty. As for a person's individual rights, as soon as you commit a serious crime, you have shown that you are not willing to abide by the laws of society, and therefore should no longer be protected by them.

Snake6 wrote: merc wrote: do you guys understand how much it costs to keep someone in jail for life? you need to pay for food and drink, staff and new buildings to combat population increases. i say if your going to keep them for life they better pay their way. Actually today, it costs more  to execute somone by leathal injection, than it would to keep them in prison for life.  Ill find the statistics of it somewhere... I as put em up to the fireing squad. A 50 cent bullet is alot less than than  leathal injection.

They got rid of the firing squad a long time ago because it was inhumane....as if carving someones face off isnt. but thats not the point.

Execution methods like firing squad and hanging are still on the books in some states, but they're not permitted to be used because they're inhumane. In some places, you used to be able to request your method of execution.

If more than three credible witnesses said you did what you had done.  then i think that you should be put down.

Whazuuup! wrote: Where did we discuss this before...? Might have been that religios thread ghostslinger started  (please don't bring it back). I remember somebody saying that it costs a LOT more to give somebody the death penalty because of all the lawyers, legal stuff, and all that jazz. But it's not about money really, I think badsmitty got it right. Justice vs. Revenge. Except in that rare case when people are "too dangerous to be kept alive", even in maximum security prisons

honest to God dont bring that up! but i say that if you're gonna be a lifer, you sure as hell better work in that time to even slightly pay back what taxpayers are paying to keep you alive in prison. but thats just me. why is it i posted that thread... 

.Ryan wrote: I always thought that some sort of low caliber bullet to the back of the head would be much cheaper and humane than having this long drawn out thing. You could even make a little chair type thing and make it automatic. Corse, sense when did finances matter when killing people? I dunno though, like I said, I don't like it when the government can legally kill it's citizens.

they cant necessarily kill someone legally in the sense that i think you have in mind but it does take awhile for the hammer to fall if you know what i mean so its not as bad (sometimes in that time innocent people can be proven innocent you know)

well yea they can legally kill but hopefully u understand it

No need to prolong it. I will just go ahead and say my peice all in one swift blow...

1. It is not proven to be a deterrent.

2. Capital punishment usually costs more money than life in prison due to the extra costs of the courts such as mistrials, appeals, and extra supervisions.

3. Prisons are plenty capaible to deal with prisoners now.

4. Verdicts can be wrong. Since 1973, 119 people in 25 US states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. One person was one too many.

5.The death penalty brutalizes society, by sending out the message that killing people is the right thing to do in some circumstances.

6. It is absolutly irreversible. No chance for rehabillitation.

7. Some executions are botched, lethal injection in the US having the highest rate according to Amnesty International. This is often due to the fact that qualified medical professionals are prohibited from taking part. This leads to unqualified staff often taking extreme measures such as cutting into the arms of prisoners when they have been unable to locate a vein in lethal injection procedures.

8. It is nothing but a form of legal revenge.

Disagaree

My opinion:
I believe everyone deserves a second chance

Bible's opinion:
Romans 12:19 "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord.

Ghandi's opinion: "An eye for an eye makes the world blind."

The death penalty does not serve as a general deterrant to the population. Justice Potter Stewart observed in Furman v. Georgia that there are too many variables at play to ever value the death penalty as a deterrant. Anyone putting any time into researching this subject would also find that to be true.

Your poll is completely invalid as it is unlikely those answering honestly would consider the death penalty as a consequence outside of being caught in the first place.

ANARCHY_SCOUT wrote: Kill em' dead.

Interesting.

One side puts forth facts, statistics, and meaningful thought.

The rebuttle?

"Kill em' dead."

Hades wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: 3. Prisons are plenty capaible to deal with prisoners now. I disagree with this statement but that is a how other ball park. I agree with Rambino's statement.

It isnt ment for the context you may be thinking of.

I am saying that prisons can keep dangerous criminals contained, so they are not a danger to the public.

Look at that one they keep Manson in.