|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:42 pm
Well, you guys seem to see the death penalty as a crime suppression tool. That will never work. The only way to stop crime is to target the criminals' families. Such tactics always work with the KGB when they "enforce" certain "things."
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:42 pm
My Hollow Gravechylde My Hollow Indeed, but what I'm saying is that if the crime is indeed bad enough and evidence is strong enough they should get the death penalty. But the others should get life in prison. The evidence against these people was strong enough to get them convicted and the crime was bad enough for them to get the death sentence, but it turned out that they didn't actually do it. Which is why I'm saying that the penalty should be used only in extreme cases. I'm sure some of these were fairly extreme cases (though I don't remember any specifics). And a lot of times it seems like the whole system needs reworking, being acquitted because the police got the evidence the wrong way? I think this is bullshit, if there's conclusive proof of a crime it should be used. It seems that prison terms vary too much, and you can get a longer amount of time just because the judge is having a bad day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:36 pm
Gravechylde My Hollow Gravechylde My Hollow Indeed, but what I'm saying is that if the crime is indeed bad enough and evidence is strong enough they should get the death penalty. But the others should get life in prison. The evidence against these people was strong enough to get them convicted and the crime was bad enough for them to get the death sentence, but it turned out that they didn't actually do it. Which is why I'm saying that the penalty should be used only in extreme cases. I'm sure some of these were fairly extreme cases (though I don't remember any specifics). And a lot of times it seems like the whole system needs reworking, being acquitted because the police got the evidence the wrong way? I think this is bullshit, if there's conclusive proof of a crime it should be used. It seems that prison terms vary too much, and you can get a longer amount of time just because the judge is having a bad day. And all of this parole crap, My feelings are if you got the sentance then carry it out. As cliche as it is, if you do the crime, then pay the time. actions have consequences. I feel as though it's unfair that a rapist, gets sentanced for life but in 14 years he could be out on the streets again. It shouldn't work like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:53 pm
My Hollow Gravechylde I'm sure some of these were fairly extreme cases (though I don't remember any specifics). And a lot of times it seems like the whole system needs reworking, being acquitted because the police got the evidence the wrong way? I think this is bullshit, if there's conclusive proof of a crime it should be used. It seems that prison terms vary too much, and you can get a longer amount of time just because the judge is having a bad day. And all of this parole crap, My feelings are if you got the sentance then carry it out. As cliche as it is, if you do the crime, then pay the time. actions have consequences. I feel as though it's unfair that a rapist, gets sentanced for life but in 14 years he could be out on the streets again. It shouldn't work like that. I remember hearing about a judge being pulled over for dui/speeding, and threatening the cop's job if he were to give the judge a ticket/arrest him. Don't remember what exactly happened though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:45 pm
Dragon Bleed Warrior of Metal I also believe that execution should be public. If you really want them to serve as a deterrent, take them down to the center of the town, put them in the gallows, read of their crimes, and let 'em hang. See if people start thinking twice then. Because the death penalty in the first place is supposed to be a deterrent for crime, and the way they do it now, it doesn't really do that very well. They did it in the the 1800s and before, why stop? Because it is inhumane and gruesome? So were their crimes. I think we baby the prisoners to much. At my school, it costs $2.50 for lunch. I have a friend whose mother works for a prison and she refuses to give her daughter lunch money because inmates get far more food for the same price, although I forget the exact meal that they get. Inmates get health care that is free for them, paid by taxpayers. There are people living on the streets and in poverty that could use free health care, but inmates and the scum of society seem to rank higher on the social ladder. Wanna go to college? Commit a crime that will get you locked up for 5+ years. Some prisons have a college program. There are kids I know who are trying to save for college, get scholarships, get loans, and some can't find a way to pay for college; inmates just need go to jail and express an interest in college to get in. Back to the death penalty. I think it is kinda funny they more inmates die on death row than actually being executed. I think if you are sentenced to death, it shouldn't be death by natural causes or suicide, it should be by lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, stoning, decapitation, gas chamber, really anything that will get the job done. Exactly. lol @ Suicide My old Pastor was talking about a guy who had done some heinous s**t, and he was on suicide watch. He said, "They have to check on him every fifteen minutes. If it were me, I'd hand him a gun and come back in fifteen minutes."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:03 am
Gravechylde My Hollow This 14 years of appeals business is a waste of time and money. What about all these death row inmates who got acquitted now that there's DNA, and possibly other new evidence? If it weren't for all the appeals they would've likely been killed for something they didn't do, not to mention that there's more than likely people who have been executed for stuff they never did. I'd say that you answered your own question with this one. I mean, at the time they were sentenced, forensic investigation was not yet a valid police tool. You see that those prisoners were set free now only because of forensic evidence. Well, we're now in an age where every major criminal case is subject to forensic investigation right from the start, so the chances of those kind of mistakes being made has been drastically reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:57 pm
Volvy Gravechylde My Hollow This 14 years of appeals business is a waste of time and money. What about all these death row inmates who got acquitted now that there's DNA, and possibly other new evidence? If it weren't for all the appeals they would've likely been killed for something they didn't do, not to mention that there's more than likely people who have been executed for stuff they never did. I'd say that you answered your own question with this one. I mean, at the time they were sentenced, forensic investigation was not yet a valid police tool. You see that those prisoners were set free now only because of forensic evidence. Well, we're now in an age where every major criminal case is subject to forensic investigation right from the start, so the chances of those kind of mistakes being made has been drastically reduced. True, but there could still be new evidence to be found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:36 pm
Digital Malevolence Pirate Cadaver In all honesty I say, more death. For excessive criminal cases in example, homicide 1, homicide 2, rape, string arsony, laundering, racketeering and the list could go on for a couple pages. But you get the point. I agree with this.^ I think there should be more of this, the population is too big, we need to cut it down...I also support more serial killings. On another side, how many people know of the West Memphis Three? They were wrongfully acsused of murder some eight year olds because the way they dressed and they listen to Metal. I played a benifit show on friday to raise money for their upcoming trial. If you want to learn more, go here. XI watched a documentary on the WM3 in Media Studies. They are so innocent. Free the West Memphis Three!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:56 pm
My Hollow Gravechylde My Hollow Gravechylde My Hollow Indeed, but what I'm saying is that if the crime is indeed bad enough and evidence is strong enough they should get the death penalty. But the others should get life in prison. The evidence against these people was strong enough to get them convicted and the crime was bad enough for them to get the death sentence, but it turned out that they didn't actually do it. Which is why I'm saying that the penalty should be used only in extreme cases. I'm sure some of these were fairly extreme cases (though I don't remember any specifics). And a lot of times it seems like the whole system needs reworking, being acquitted because the police got the evidence the wrong way? I think this is bullshit, if there's conclusive proof of a crime it should be used. It seems that prison terms vary too much, and you can get a longer amount of time just because the judge is having a bad day. And all of this parole crap, My feelings are if you got the sentance then carry it out. As cliche as it is, if you do the crime, then pay the time. actions have consequences. I feel as though it's unfair that a rapist, gets sentanced for life but in 14 years he could be out on the streets again. It shouldn't work like that. I agree. My Dad got a 17-Life sentence, and has now served 20, so it is fair that he is eligible for parole, but unless you serve the minimum, you shouldn't be eligible for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:02 pm
mmm it makes u think
i really don't know how it works i mean i have heard of serial killers who will spend life in prison and a man who killed a politician and will die for it
mmm well ill have to say that if get involved in a crime i will prefer to die rather than spending my life in a prison razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:38 am
i think its an uncivilized way of solving your problem...its also funny to see that there is no such thing in europe that is anyhow similar to the death penalty...
as far as i know its an act of vengeance and that can never be good...
and pirate cadaver your avi is awesome
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:34 am
As stated by many others before me, I think that it serves its purpose for specifics cases. Like murder, and other such horrid crimes. I do not thing we should be passing it out like candy, a lot of jails, there death row is crammed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:50 pm
Herr Kaiser Matthelm As stated by many others before me, I think that it serves its purpose for specifics cases. Like murder, and other such horrid crimes. I do not thing we should be passing it out like candy, a lot of jails, there death row is crammed. Is it possible to get the death penalty without killing someone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:15 pm
Gravechylde Volvy Gravechylde My Hollow This 14 years of appeals business is a waste of time and money. What about all these death row inmates who got acquitted now that there's DNA, and possibly other new evidence? If it weren't for all the appeals they would've likely been killed for something they didn't do, not to mention that there's more than likely people who have been executed for stuff they never did. I'd say that you answered your own question with this one. I mean, at the time they were sentenced, forensic investigation was not yet a valid police tool. You see that those prisoners were set free now only because of forensic evidence. Well, we're now in an age where every major criminal case is subject to forensic investigation right from the start, so the chances of those kind of mistakes being made has been drastically reduced. True, but there could still be new evidence to be found. So you're saying the penalty is wrong all the time because there is a chance that someone could actually be innocent. For the most part I agree that the death penalty should be used sparingly. There are just some human beings on this planet that don't deserve life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:33 pm
My Hollow Gravechylde Volvy Gravechylde My Hollow This 14 years of appeals business is a waste of time and money. What about all these death row inmates who got acquitted now that there's DNA, and possibly other new evidence? If it weren't for all the appeals they would've likely been killed for something they didn't do, not to mention that there's more than likely people who have been executed for stuff they never did. I'd say that you answered your own question with this one. I mean, at the time they were sentenced, forensic investigation was not yet a valid police tool. You see that those prisoners were set free now only because of forensic evidence. Well, we're now in an age where every major criminal case is subject to forensic investigation right from the start, so the chances of those kind of mistakes being made has been drastically reduced. True, but there could still be new evidence to be found. So you're saying the penalty is wrong all the time because there is a chance that someone could actually be innocent. For the most part I agree that the death penalty should be used sparingly. There are just some human beings on this planet that don't deserve life. Actually, I've not come to a full conclusion on whether the death penalty is right or wrong But yes I do agree that if it is going to be used it should be sparingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
