The Death Penalty: A Steaming Pile of Horsecrap

[ZeroVX]

If you read the title of this thread, you probably already have a good idea on my thoughts concerning this. So, I'll skip to my point:

It's ending a life.

Yes, I know, a lot of these people have done horrible, unspeakable things, and they deserved to be punished in some way. They've killed, raped, hurt, destroyed, and will only continue to do so if they're let out.

It's still ending a life.

Yes, people can claim that it's a deterrent, that it convinces others to not commit the same crimes. Which is a ton of shit as well, because if you're truly ready to commit a crime of that level, you're willing to accept any consequences coming, and do it anyway. Most of the people on death row are people ready to die. But that's not the point.

It's still ending a life.

Sure, you could make the argument that it wastes money, that the government is taking taxpayers money and wasting it on a failed experiment. You could also argue that there is no other way, that these people need to be removed from society.

It. Is. Still. Ending. A. Human. Life.

I know I said that a few too many times, but that point needs to be drilled into heads. Whenever the subject of death row comes up, very rarely does the moral part of it come up. And when it does, it's usually in regards to the chance of killing an innocent. And don't get me wrong, that's important too. I firmly believe that, regardless of how many guilty people get punished, if one innocent person is punished as well, it's not worth it.

But no matter what these people have done to get into death row, they are still being killed. The people doing this are often times committing the same act that the men that are being killed have done. That solves nothing. The people hurt in the criminals acts aren't magically healed and can move on with their lives. It makes the people ending criminals lives no better than the criminals themselves.

You want to make sure these people aren't doing any more harm? First, you make prisons actual prisons again. Don't give criminals TVs or radios or whatever to turn it into a free apartment. Then, you take these people and lock them up for life. And I do mean life. Make the life sentence literal. Lock them up and don't let them out. That solves the problem.

Discuss.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yup, it ends a life....so?

I don't see your point here, your whole problem with it seems to revolve around the fact that a very bad man (because, female executions are rare...sexist pigs) is taken out of this world. But why is that a bad thing? Why is it a bad thing to remove the world of evil? Shouldn't we be trying to do more of that?

You act as if a government ordered death is a rarity...obviously you don't know your American history. Hell, was our country not founded upon violence and bloodshed, both in the Revolutionary War and then again in the Civil War? Of course it was. You don't think people died there? Of course they did.

People die all the time...at least with the Death Penalty, the RIGHT people are dying, and not the innocent.

 

[ZeroVX]

Yup, it ends a life....so?

I don't see your point here, your whole problem with it seems to revolve around the fact that a very bad man (because, female executions are rare...sexist pigs) is taken out of this world. But why is that a bad thing? Why is it a bad thing to remove the world of evil? Shouldn't we be trying to do more of that?

You act as if a government ordered death is a rarity...obviously you don't know your American history. Hell, was our country not founded upon violence and bloodshed, both in the Revolutionary War and then again in the Civil War? Of course it was. You don't think people died there? Of course they did.

People die all the time...at least with the Death Penalty, the RIGHT people are dying, and not the innocent.

We are taught that ending the life of another human being is wrong. A lot of these people are going to their deaths because of just that. So, it's not OK to end a life, except when someone else does it first, in which case, it's fair game? How is that right?

In terms of good VS evil, if we end the lives of evil people for committing evil acts, isn't that in itself an evil act? In that case, aren't we evil then? Shouldn't we be punished for the exact same thing?

And saying that the innocent aren't killed via death penalty isn't true at all. There have been multiple cases where innocent people are either on their way to their deaths or are already dead, and evidence that could set them free may or may not show up in time. Like I said, if one innocent person suffers this sort of punishment, it's not worth it.

 

[Remix]

Yup, it ends a life....so?

I agree with this.

I don't see your point here, your whole problem with it seems to revolve around the fact that a very bad man

a very bad black man to be precise.

(because, female executions are rare...sexist pigs) is taken out of this world. But why is that a bad thing? Why is it a bad thing to remove the world of evil? Shouldn't we be trying to do more of that?

The death penalty is a great idea in a perfect world. However given that this isnt a perfect world it isnt. The death penalty works on no level whatsoever. it doesnt save money, it isnt a deterrant, and it isnt more just.

People die all the time...at least with the Death Penalty, the RIGHT people are dying, and not the innocent.

If you believe that Sly, you're sadly misinformed. Owing to the shitty legal representation that people placed on death row get, many death row convicts get wrongly convicted. Hell a bunch of college kids got one guy of death row.

With regular prison sentences an innocent person can be released with an apology. You cant undo a wrongful death.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

We are taught that ending the life of another human being is wrong.

True. But what do we do with people like Bin Laden, and other terrorists? Are we just going to let them sit around in a jail cell until they die? These terrorists kill hundreds of people, and you think they should get off without the death penalty? Now granted, just some guy off the streets kills a person, they should just go to jail. But in my opinion, if you are found and convicted of viciously killing 3 or more people, with the mindset of, "They did this to me, I hate them now." or, "Why not?" then they should get the freaking death penalty.

Let me bring up the Saddam Husein death.
Is that ending a human life? Yes
Did he deserve it? Yes
If your loved ones were killed by him, would you want the death penalty? Yes
Is it inhumane? Yes
Was it the right thing to do? Hell freaking Yes

I think people against the death penalty only say that because they havent experienced a tragic death. Nither have I thank god. However, I do think that if one person kills another, or as you say, ends a persons life, with Malicious intent, They deserve to be killed.

 

[BladeRunner]

The depravity of man is boundless. Man is capable of unspeakable acts. Some people are soulless. There are innumerable examples.

The innocent are everything that's good about man.

When the depraved abuse the innocent there have to be prices that are to be paid.

Life has value because of it's values towards life. When someone is a despicable monster, they don't value their life or anyone else's. These people truly exist. They're not just "made a mistake" types. There are really damn evil people out there. And justice, which is a type of societal vengeance, is what will and should happen to those who deserve it.

But justice is dependent on what the people want along with objective laws. So each case must be decided on individually to decide the best course of action. There's no "one punishment fits all crimes" type deal.

 

[X]

I'm sorry BladeRunner, but this argument that some people are truly "evil" is fucking absurd and is nothing more than a hysterical attempt to try and explain what would lead some people to certain actions. Every person is just that---a person. No one is born with a fucking dark soul and can be branded as irrefutably evil for all of their lives. This is no different from the Puritans blaming all of the problems in early American settler live on witchcraft. It's a hackneyed and half-assed attempt to try and explain things that are just too hard and difficult for some of to want or be able to understand.

Every murderer, rapist, torturer, pedophile, and every other kind of violent criminal on this planet, every single one of them is a person, not a monster. Mental illness is the root of their unspeakable acts, not a damned demonic possession.

As for the death penalty, I'm obviously against it. There is a difference between revenge and justice, and the death penalty is the former. Taking one life in exchange for another solves no problems, it only creates new ones. It sucks but it's true people.

 

[BladeRunner]

I'm sorry BladeRunner, but this argument that some people are truly "evil" is fucking absurd and is nothing more than a hysterical attempt to try and explain what would lead some people to certain actions. Every person is just that---a person. No one is born with a fucking dark soul and can be branded as irrefutably evil for all of their lives. This is no different from the Puritans blaming all of the problems in early American settler live on witchcraft. It's a hackneyed and half-assed attempt to try and explain things that are just too hard and difficult for some of to want or be able to understand.

Every murderer, rapist, torturer, pedophile, and every other kind of violent criminal on this planet, every single one of them is a person, not a monster. Mental illness is the root of their unspeakable acts, not a damned demonic possession.

I never said they were possessed by demons...

I never said some people were born with a dark soul.

"Soulless" is a metaphor for people who have lost their humanity.

You're jumping to huge conclusions and making huge assumptions. You're making me out to be your idea of some kind of fundamentalist freak you have in your head. I'm no stereotype you can compartmentalize.

And yes they are people. But there are horrible people out there. It's just a fact. You can look at reality. Or you can turn a blind eye to it.

Whether you blame it on mental illness or whatever else, it doesn't change the fact that they exist. And thus there has to be methods to deal with them. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for jails.

 

[Papa Shango]

We are taught that ending the life of another human being is wrong.

Unless you're saving another life, and in some cases, ALOT of these cases it's true.

I know there's the whole life without parole argument, but the truth is that it's impossible to keep all those people locked up forever. So you have two options: let em go or kill em.

In terms of good VS evil, if we end the lives of evil people for committing evil acts, isn't that in itself an evil act? In that case, aren't we evil then? Shouldn't we be punished for the exact same thing?

We all have evil in us. We all have a yin and yang. At least we're letting our yang out on kiddie murderers. Unless you'd rather we all kill squirrels with wrist rockets in our spare time.

And saying that the innocent aren't killed via death penalty isn't true at all. There have been multiple cases where innocent people are either on their way to their deaths or are already dead, and evidence that could set them free may or may not show up in time. Like I said, if one innocent person suffers this sort of punishment, it's not worth it.

That's what lawsuits are for. Sure, their families will say that it doesn't change the fact that one of their own is gone forever, but let's be honest with ourselves, even though they won't say it, they fell MUCH better after they've been given lots and lots of money.

 

[HBK-aholic]

You want to make sure these people aren't doing any more harm? First, you make prisons actual prisons again. Don't give criminals TVs or radios or whatever to turn it into a free apartment. Then, you take these people and lock them up for life. And I do mean life. Make the life sentence literal. Lock them up and don't let them out. That solves the problem.

Discuss.

THIS is my view on it. If, for some offences, you were automatically given a life sentence, where life means life in prison, not a few years in prison then some conditions of release, I'd be against the death penalty. However, when I think of the fact that murderers, rapists, peadophiles etc. are sat in prison, looking forward to their release date, possibly playing on expensive gaming equipment, possibly watching TV and enjoying themselves, it makes me sick and makes me WANT them dead. Where's the 'release date' for a family whos loved one was murdered? Where's the 'release date' for someone who was raped? Where's the 'release date' for someone who was abused as a child? There isn't one. These are things that damage the rest of your life. A rape victim can spend the rest of their life not being able to sleep, and in fear. A rapist can spend 5 years in prison and go back to normal. Justice?

Every murderer, rapist, torturer, pedophile, and every other kind of violent criminal on this planet, every single one of them is a person, not a monster.

Person? Using the biological definition, maybe. But they're monsters with what they've done.

Mental illness is the root of their unspeakable acts, not a damned demonic possession.

Hahaha, really? Not every killer, rapist and peadophile have a mental illness. Some are just pure evil and have made the decision to do that. It's not an 'illness' and those who try to say it is are just giving them excuses.

 

[The Gribbler]

If you read the title of this thread, you probably already have a good idea on my thoughts concerning this. So, I'll skip to my point:

It's ending a life.

Yes, I know, a lot of these people have done horrible, unspeakable things, and they deserved to be punished in some way. They've killed, raped, hurt, destroyed, and will only continue to do so if they're let out.

It's still ending a life.

Yes, people can claim that it's a deterrent, that it convinces others to not commit the same crimes. Which is a ton of shit as well, because if you're truly ready to commit a crime of that level, you're willing to accept any consequences coming, and do it anyway. Most of the people on death row are people ready to die. But that's not the point.

It's still ending a life.

Sure, you could make the argument that it wastes money, that the government is taking taxpayers money and wasting it on a failed experiment. You could also argue that there is no other way, that these people need to be removed from society.

It. Is. Still. Ending. A. Human. Life.

I know I said that a few too many times, but that point needs to be drilled into heads. Whenever the subject of death row comes up, very rarely does the moral part of it come up. And when it does, it's usually in regards to the chance of killing an innocent. And don't get me wrong, that's important too. I firmly believe that, regardless of how many guilty people get punished, if one innocent person is punished as well, it's not worth it.

But no matter what these people have done to get into death row, they are still being killed. The people doing this are often times committing the same act that the men that are being killed have done. That solves nothing. The people hurt in the criminals acts aren't magically healed and can move on with their lives. It makes the people ending criminals lives no better than the criminals themselves.

You want to make sure these people aren't doing any more harm? First, you make prisons actual prisons again. Don't give criminals TVs or radios or whatever to turn it into a free apartment. Then, you take these people and lock them up for life. And I do mean life. Make the life sentence literal. Lock them up and don't let them out. That solves the problem.

Discuss.

You know one of the oldest sayings that the world holds on to today is "An eye for an eye" and I feel that to be appropriate for this scenario.

You take a mans lifeyou deserve to have your life taken from you. There are circumstances surrounding taking someones life that can be taken into account and that is what the law is for.

But I feel that the death penalty could work wonders. I honestly think it works as a deterrent, I feel that these scum sucking parasites do not deserve to breathe precious oxygen.

And as for the argument that killing someone is inherently evil, so is killing someone, so I think they have waived their right to religious clemency.

And I'm sure it does not seem evil to the victims of a rapist or the families of a murdered child, I'm sure they see it as a way of making the world safe, not just for them but for the many others that these people could hurt if they ever managed to somehow get out of prison.

The world is a more dangerous place with these people in it...they need to be removed from the world, permanently.

Just My Opinion

 

[ZeroVX]

True. But what do we do with people like Bin Laden, and other terrorists? Are we just going to let them sit around in a jail cell until they die?

That's the idea, yes.

These terrorists kill hundreds of people, and you think they should get off without the death penalty? Now granted, just some guy off the streets kills a person, they should just go to jail. But in my opinion, if you are found and convicted of viciously killing 3 or more people, with the mindset of, "They did this to me, I hate them now." or, "Why not?" then they should get the freaking death penalty.

Then, in that aspect, how are you any better than the ones who committed the murders in the first place? You can justify it all you like, saying that you're killing them in a different way or that this is perfectly legal, it's still murder. The end result is that they're dead, and you're the cause.

Let me bring up the Saddam Husein death.
If your loved ones were killed by him, would you want the death penalty? Yes

How in the hell do you know what I want? If someone killed someone close to me, I wouldn't be satisfied with a death penalty. That's the easy way out. I want them to rot in a cell for the rest of their lives. That's an actual punishment.

I think people against the death penalty only say that because they havent experienced a tragic death. Nither have I thank god. However, I do think that if one person kills another, or as you say, ends a persons life, with Malicious intent, They deserve to be killed.

And, again, how does that make you any better? Let's suppose it was you actually giving a criminal a lethal injection. Would you be able to do it, knowing full well you'd be ending their existence? Knowing that, despite what evil crimes they've committed, they most likely have some form of family, who would be severely hurt by this? I somehow doubt you would.

Unless you're saving another life, and in some cases, ALOT of these cases it's true.

Now, that's a different scenario altogether. If you and/or someone close to you was in immediate danger, and the only way to get out of it would be to shoot some attacker in the chest, then it would make sense. But when you're perfectly fine and the criminal is already locked up, then it's wrong.

I know there's the whole life without parole argument, but the truth is that it's impossible to keep all those people locked up forever. So you have two options: let em go or kill em.

How is it impossible? If it's about money, then you don't put as much into prisons, thereby making them actual prisons again, and put them in. If it's about room, use solitary confinement for them.

That's what lawsuits are for. Sure, their families will say that it doesn't change the fact that one of their own is gone forever, but let's be honest with ourselves, even though they won't say it, they fell MUCH better after they've been given lots and lots of money.

I would love to know what family would be satisfied when their child is killed for no reason with a large sum of money. I really would.

You know one of the oldest sayings that the world holds on to today is "An eye for an eye" and I feel that to be appropriate for this scenario.

Here's another old saying: "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind". The eye for eye argument is immature and inaccurate. If you killed someone who killed someone close to you, that could mean that someone close to the one you killed could kill you. Then someone close to you could kill them. And so on, and so on. It doesn't work like that.

You take a mans lifeyou deserve to have your life taken from you. There are circumstances surrounding taking someones life that can be taken into account and that is what the law is for.

Screw the circumstances. Screw the law. The end result is the same. They're dead, due to murder. I don't care how they killed or were killed, they're still dead. It's simply not right.

But I feel that the death penalty could work wonders. I honestly think it works as a deterrent, I feel that these scum sucking parasites do not deserve to breathe precious oxygen.

The deterrent argument is laughable at best. In this situation, there are three types of crimes that result in the death penalty.

Crimes of insanity: These are by the people who really are crazy. They don't understand right from wrong and don't really get what they're doing. They likewise don't understand what would happen to them should they go to death row. Can't be deterred.

Crimes of passion: These are by the ones who one day lose their threshold for pain and suffering and just snap. As in, the ones who take a pickax to their local Burger King and see what happens. These people usually don't care about what happens to them during or after the act they commit. In fact, they usually kill themselves after the act is done. Can't be deterred.

Crimes of thought: These are by the ones who have everything planned to the letter. The ones who know who they're going to look for, when and how they're going to kill them, and how they're going to cover their tracks. And if they get caught, they don't care, they've already accomplished what they wanted to accomplish. In fact, they sometimes want to be caught. Can't be deterred.

The deterrent argument is a heaping pile of bullshit.

And as for the argument that killing someone is inherently evil, so is killing someone, so I think they have waived their right to religious clemency.

It's got nothing to do with religion. It has to do with morals. And it is morally wrong to kill someone. That is what we are taught. It's not "It's wrong to kill someone, unless they did this and this and this".

And I'm sure it does not seem evil to the victims of a rapist or the families of a murdered child, I'm sure they see it as a way of making the world safe, not just for them but for the many others that these people could hurt if they ever managed to somehow get out of prison.

I'm willing to be that most people under those circumstances don't care about making the world safe. They want to get even. Well, as I've already said, the death penalty is usually what murderers and rapists want. So that doesn't work.

The world is a more dangerous place with these people in it...they need to be removed from the world, permanently.

Solitary confinement. For life. In the literal sense of the word.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

That's the idea, yes.

That's just stupid

Then, in that aspect, how are you any better than the ones who committed the murders in the first place? You can justify it all you like, saying that you're killing them in a different way or that this is perfectly legal, it's still murder.

Ok, So it's still murder. But would you want to see someone who kills hundreds of people stay alive? No, Both you and I know, you would want these terrorists and muderers to be killed.

The end result is that they're dead, and you're the cause.

Yes, I am the cause. But I dont give a fuck. These guys kill hundreds of people. THEY DESERVE TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!

How in the hell do you know what I want? If someone killed someone close to me, I wouldn't be satisfied with a death penalty. That's the easy way out. I want them to rot in a cell for the rest of their lives. That's an actual punishment.

I'm not just talking about you, Im talking about society in general. Also, Im not just saying it's 1 person that gets killed, Im saying tens of hundreds of people. Rotting in a jail cell is punishment? They can fucking break out ad kill more people. Even with good behavior they can get parole. Death is an actual punishment.

And, again, how does that make you any better? Let's suppose it was you actually giving a criminal a lethal injection. Would you be able to do it, knowing full well you'd be ending their existence? Knowing that, despite what evil crimes they've committed, they most likely have some form of family, who would be severely hurt by this? I somehow doubt you would..

YES! Thats the point Im trying to make! I would end their life. If they kill many people, I would end their life. Yes the family would be hurt, but screw them. It's the murderers life, the family should not come into play here. The murderer has to pay for his sins.

 

[ZeroVX]

That's just stupid

There's a valid argument.

Ok, So it's still murder. But would you want to see someone who kills hundreds of people stay alive? No, Both you and I know, you would want these terrorists and muderers to be killed.

Again, you don't know what I want. I don't want anyone dead. Regardless of what they've done. I don't want to become the same as them by committing the same act they did.

Yes, I am the cause. But I dont give a fuck. These guys kill hundreds of people. THEY DESERVE TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!

And you get to make this decision? Funny, I wasn't aware you were God.

I'm not just talking about you, Im talking about society in general. Also, Im not just saying it's 1 person that gets killed, Im saying tens of hundreds of people. Rotting in a jail cell is punishment? They can fucking break out ad kill more people. Even with good behavior they can get parole. Death is an actual punishment.

Yes, rotting is a punishment, because they would reflect, and in some cases, regret what they did. Anyone who's committed an act that harms another can tell you that, if they regret it, that's punishment. As for parole, that's why I said that they need to make life in prison actual life in prison, no chance of parole.

And no, death is not a punishment. Like I said, if you'd actually read, most of the people on death row either don't care or want to die. Particularly the terrorists you like to keep bringing up. These are people who believe that when they die, they'll go to heaven and be rewarded for their efforts. They're looking forward to death. How is giving them what they want a punishment?

YES! Thats the point Im trying to make! I would end their life. If they kill many people, I would end their life. Yes the family would be hurt, but screw them. It's the murderers life, the family should not come into play here. The murderer has to pay for his sins.

Screw the family? OK, suppose you killed a murderer. What if a family member of that murderer came and killed you out of revenge, without caring for your family? Then a member of your family killed them? It would keep going and going until far too many people were dead.

You don't get to decide how someone pays for their sins. That's neither your nor my judgment call, and to say otherwise is immature and naive.

 

[FromTheSouth]

And saying that the innocent aren't killed via death penalty isn't true at all. There have been multiple cases where innocent people are either on their way to their deaths or are already dead, and evidence that could set them free may or may not show up in time. Like I said, if one innocent person suffers this sort of punishment, it's not worth it.

There is not one case where the wrong person died yet. There is evidence that has taken people off of death row, but there is no smoking gun which shows one person put to death by the state was innocent.

Secondly, I find it patently offensive that most of the people who are against the death penalty also happen to be pro-choice. Apparently, the these idiots, the life a murderer has more value than the life of an innocent child. (This is where you say the child isn't born yet and isn't a person and where I say fuck you, stop arguing semantics and understand the point I am making.)

The death penalty serves a very important purpose in society. It is the biggest deterrent to violent crime there is. Now, before you show me some statistic by a lefty think tank that says there is no deterrent, ask yourself a common sense question. How many people are going to confess to planning a murder but not going through with it? None, so there is no statistical to prove me wrong. Common sense wins here.

I think we should expand the death penalty. There are too many people in the world anyway, and keeping murderers alive to leach off the food supply and add waste to our landfills is just stupid.

 

[ZeroVX]

There is not one case where the wrong person died yet. There is evidence that has taken people off of death row, but there is no smoking gun which shows one person put to death by the state was innocent.

But, as you yourself said, there have been cases where evidence came up that wasn't known before. Meaning that if the evidence didn't come up, an innocent person would've died. Just because cases where the evidence didn't come up in time haven't been reported, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Secondly, I find it patently offensive that most of the people who are against the death penalty also happen to be pro-choice. Apparently, the these idiots, the life a murderer has more value than the life of an innocent child. (This is where you say the child isn't born yet and isn't a person and where I say fuck you, stop arguing semantics and understand the point I am making.)

You want to argue abortion? Make another thread.

The death penalty serves a very important purpose in society. It is the biggest deterrent to violent crime there is. Now, before you show me some statistic by a lefty think tank that says there is no deterrent, ask yourself a common sense question. How many people are going to confess to planning a murder but not going through with it? None, so there is no statistical to prove me wrong. Common sense wins here.

I already argued the deterrent part, but in case you're too lazy to scroll up and read it, I'll repeat myself: The people on death row for crimes of this caliber either don't know, don't care, or are ready to accept their death. In some cases, they want it. None of those people can be deterred. The argument fails. That's common sense.

I think we should expand the death penalty. There are too many people in the world anyway, and keeping murderers alive to leach off the food supply and add waste to our landfills is just stupid.

That's a disgusting statement to make. You're just willing to write off human beings like they're nothing. I'm sure you'd appreciate it if someone did that to you, right?

 

[FromTheSouth]

But, as you yourself said, there have been cases where evidence came up that wasn't known before. Meaning that if the evidence didn't come up, an innocent person would've died. Just because cases where the evidence didn't come up in time haven't been reported, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

You have the burden of proof here and your only evidence is circumstantial. You are the one making the claim that it shouldn't exist, so prove it with something better than circumstantial evidence.

You want to argue abortion? Make another thread.

You wanna keep posting here? Don't tell the moderator of the section what he can and can't post. Furthermore, this is a weak attempt to get past an argument that you can't beat. I should have known you would do this from our previous encounters. Why argue something you know you will lose when you can just reject the premise. Symptom of lack of skills. It's also why you won't join the CLDL. You're just not a good debater.

Anyway, the argument is that life is precious unless it gets in the way of free for all liberty and is against all that is good in this nation. My argument is that people who do not want us to destroy life with capital punishment have no problem with it when it comes to abortion, and are thus hypocrites.

I already argued the deterrent part, but in case you're too lazy to scroll up and read it, I'll repeat myself: The people on death row for crimes of this caliber either don't know, don't care, or are ready to accept their death. In some cases, they want it. None of those people can be deterred. The argument fails. That's common sense.

I'm sorry did I ever say that it was 100% effective? I don't remember saying that. So, in case you're too stupid, which you are to realize it, the people who haven't committed the crime will never admit to planning it or considering it. That's just something you keep to yourself. There is no way to statistically analyze the deterrent effect of the death penalty. No one ever said it had to be 100% correct. To use an argument your side uses all the time when you guys say if one innocent person died of the death penalty, and all that bullshit, if one life was saved because the potential killer didn't want to die, then it is all worth it.

That's a disgusting statement to make. You're just willing to write off human beings like they're nothing. I'm sure you'd appreciate it if someone did that to you, right?

How is that disgusting? They kill someone, they should die. If you are convicted of murder you should not sit in a prison for 60 years. Sex offenders are getting out of jail because they are overcrowded. When those sex offenders get out they are committing more crimes. If we kill the murderers, then we have more room to keep sex offenders locked up.

So, now that you've been completely emasculated again, will you just fucking stop trying?

 

[ZeroVX]

You have the burden of proof here and your only evidence is circumstantial. You are the one making the claim that it shouldn't exist, so prove it with something better than circumstantial evidence.

You said earlier that common sense is more important than statistics. Now you want me to find proof. Make up your mind.

You wanna keep posting here? Don't tell the moderator of the section what he can and can't post. Furthermore, this is a weak attempt to get past an argument that you can't beat. I should have known you would do this from our previous encounters. Why argue something you know you will lose when you can just reject the premise. Symptom of lack of skills. It's also why you won't join the CLDL. You're just not a good debater.

I told you not to talk about abortion here because it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You really want to? Fine.

The reason the death penalty is wrong is because they are human beings who are fully developed and can think for themselves, at least in most cases. In the case of abortion, that would require people to know the precise moment when life begins. And you can bring in as many statistics as you like, but the fact is, no one knows that. In order to figure out the exact moment when someone's life begins, you would have to monitor the development of the child from the moment the egg in a woman's body is fertilized, to when the baby is truly born. And I seriously doubt 9 months straight of X-Rays is healthy, nor would it be 100% accurate.

Having said that, however, there is a reason there is a time limit on when abortions can happen. Yes, there actually is a limit on when a woman can get an abortion. I'll have to double-check on when that limit ends, but common sense would say that when the third trimester comes along, it's too late. That's usually why women get the abortion very soon after they discover they're pregnant.

And finally, from a gender perspective, neither you nor I have a say in the matter anyway. We're both males and can't carry a child. We don't know what it's like to go through 9 months of carrying a baby inside ourselves. Therefore, telling a woman that she has to go through with that when, for one reason or another, she doesn't want to, is flat out wrong. I actually compare that to infringing on a woman's rights.

I'm sorry did I ever say that it was 100% effective? I don't remember saying that. So, in case you're too stupid, which you are to realize it, the people who haven't committed the crime will never admit to planning it or considering it. That's just something you keep to yourself. There is no way to statistically analyze the deterrent effect of the death penalty. No one ever said it had to be 100% correct. To use an argument your side uses all the time when you guys say if one innocent person died of the death penalty, and all that bullshit, if one life was saved because the potential killer didn't want to die, then it is all worth it.

Obviously no one's going to admit to planning a crime. You could easily plan out how to kill someone, down to the last detail, and never go through with it. It doesn't take much. Anyone can do that. It's whether or not the crime itself would warrant the death penalty. And usually, in the cases it does, the criminals are ones who don't give a shit. They accomplished what they wanted to, what happens next means dick all to them.

How is that disgusting? They kill someone, they should die. If you are convicted of murder you should not sit in a prison for 60 years. Sex offenders are getting out of jail because they are overcrowded. When those sex offenders get out they are committing more crimes. If we kill the murderers, then we have more room to keep sex offenders locked up.

Where do you get off making that judgment call? Where do you have the right to decide whether or not someone lives or dies, regardless of what they did? No one has that right. Sitting in prison for the rest of their life can either a) cause them to reflect on and regret what they did, or b) make them wait longer and longer for the death that they probably want in the first place. As for overcrowding, if the government stops pumping money into jails to make them into free room and board, and stops putting people in their for charges like possession of marijuana or whatever, that'll decrease the number of people. But, again, different subject.

So, now that you've been completely emasculated again, will you just fucking stop trying?

Are you going to stop making useless insults that only make you look like a gigantic prick who likes to think he's an internet tough guy?

 

[FromTheSouth]

You said earlier that common sense is more important than statistics. Now you want me to find proof. Make up your mind.

Hey everyone, look, it's Zero rejecting the premise on another point he isn't smart enough to argue. I win.

I told you not to talk about abortion here because it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You really want to? Fine.

I'm not arguing whether or not abortion should be legal. I never said it shouldn't be. All I am saying is that those who argue against the death penalty on moral ground, but for abortion have no legs to stand on.

The reason the death penalty is wrong is because they are human beings who are fully developed and can think for themselves, at least in most cases.

So, they can think for themselves? Earlier you said they commit murder because they don't know it's wrong. Which is it? You lose.

In the case of abortion, that would require people to know the precise moment when life begins.

And your side says, "When in doubt, kill." Awesome. Now give me more arguments about compassion and not killing fucking murderers when you are using semantics to argue for killing babies.

And you can bring in as many statistics as you like, but the fact is, no one knows that. In order to figure out the exact moment when someone's life begins, you would have to monitor the development of the child from the moment the egg in a woman's body is fertilized, to when the baby is truly born. And I seriously doubt 9 months straight of X-Rays is healthy, nor would it be 100% accurate.

Well, for one, women don't go get abortions until they know something is in there, so there's a start, huh? Furthermore, if you can kill it with an abortion, logic says to be killed you have to be alive. Arguing when it is alive and when it isn't is just a matter of placating your conscience. Good thing mine is clear already.

Having said that, however, there is a reason there is a time limit on when abortions can happen. Yes, there actually is a limit on when a woman can get an abortion. I'll have to double-check on when that limit ends, but common sense would say that when the third trimester comes along, it's too late. That's usually why women get the abortion very soon after they discover they're pregnant.

This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. My whole argument is that liberals seem all about saving lives and then, when it gets into the issue of someone's liberty, oh no, life is no longer that important.

And finally, from a gender perspective, neither you nor I have a say in the matter anyway.

And that's bullshit. If I get a girl pregnant, and I don't want it aborted, she should have no right to kill it. And, if this is not the case, I shouldn't have to pay one dime if she keeps it against my wishes. The child support laws are so gender biased it's fucking ridiculous.

We're both males and can't carry a child. We don't know what it's like to go through 9 months of carrying a baby inside ourselves. Therefore, telling a woman that she has to go through with that when, for one reason or another, she doesn't want to, is flat out wrong. I actually compare that to infringing on a woman's rights.

That's so callous. It's disgusting that you have that much disregard for human life.

Obviously no one's going to admit to planning a crime. You could easily plan out how to kill someone, down to the last detail, and never go through with it. It doesn't take much. Anyone can do that. It's whether or not the crime itself would warrant the death penalty. And usually, in the cases it does, the criminals are ones who don't give a shit. They accomplished what they wanted to, what happens next means dick all to them.

You can't prove that there is no deterrent effect. Plus, you are giving quite a bit of argument based on assumption, but, hey, why let good debate get in the way of your pointless rants, right?

Where do you get off making that judgment call? Where do you have the right to decide whether or not someone lives or dies, regardless of what they did?

I don't know. Ask the person who committed murder.

No one has that right.

Sure it does. The state does. The right is granted by the people through the representative system.

Sitting in prison for the rest of their life can either a) cause them to reflect on and regret what they did,

They should regret it. But, didn't you just say....

And usually, in the cases it does, the criminals are ones who don't give a shit. They accomplished what they wanted to, what happens next means dick all to them.

So, which one is it? Are you going to sit on both sides of the fence and use that as your debating skill? This is why I think you are a shit debater. It's because you're a shit debater.

or b) make them wait longer and longer for the death that they probably want in the first place.

And, you're going to prove this how? And furthermore, since your argument is based on compassion, wouldn't putting them out of their misery be the compassionate thing to do? You're for emotional torture, but not expedited death? Interesting.

As for overcrowding, if the government stops pumping money into jails to make them into free room and board, and stops putting people in their for charges like possession of marijuana or whatever, that'll decrease the number of people. But, again, different subject.

But whether or not you or like it, possessing marijuana is a crime. When that changes, cool, but until it does, criminals go to prison. That's the way it works.

Actually, your argument fails miserably because you don't go to prison for pot, you go to county jail, but, once again, why use facts when you can talk out of your ass.

Are you going to stop making useless insults that only make you look like a gigantic prick who likes to think he's an internet tough guy?

Are you going to stop making invalid points, contradictions, and arguments that make you look like a giant idiot who thinks he's brilliant when in fact he's pretty dumb?

 

[ZeroVX]

Hey everyone, look, it's Zero rejecting the premise on another point he isn't smart enough to argue. I win.

I don't see an answer to my question in there.

So, they can think for themselves? Earlier you said they commit murder because they don't know it's wrong. Which is it? You lose.

There's more than one kind of murderer, dumbass. If you actually read more posts in this thread than the ones you think you can argue against, you'd see that I already described that.

And your side says, "When in doubt, kill." Awesome. Now give me more arguments about compassion and not killing fucking murderers when you are using semantics to argue for killing babies.

They aren't babies. They're fetuses. Whether or not fetuses are still alive is something no one actually knows yet. Stop using hyperbole.

Well, for one, women don't go get abortions until they know something is in there, so there's a start, huh? Furthermore, if you can kill it with an abortion, logic says to be killed you have to be alive. Arguing when it is alive and when it isn't is just a matter of placating your conscience. Good thing mine is clear already.

OK, so maybe "kill" is a bad choice of words. Then again, using it applies the belief that it is in fact alive, which is often used against pro-life arguments. On the other hand, using the term "remove" or "extract" or anything similar is too cold, and would also be used against pro-life. See the issue here?

This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. My whole argument is that liberals seem all about saving lives and then, when it gets into the issue of someone's liberty, oh no, life is no longer that important.

Oh, look, FTS is bringing politics into an argument. Big fucking surprise there.

And that's bullshit. If I get a girl pregnant, and I don't want it aborted, she should have no right to kill it. And, if this is not the case, I shouldn't have to pay one dime if she keeps it against my wishes. The child support laws are so gender biased it's fucking ridiculous.

She's the one carrying the child through agonizing pain for 9 months. You donated sperm. That's about it. She can get that from a bank now. And if she did get it from you, then it's technically your fault she's going through it. So, I highly doubt she wants to hear what you want to do with it. I will concede that you paying child support when you're not married or in a relationship with the woman is a bit much, though.

That's so callous. It's disgusting that you have that much disregard for human life.

Oh, look, irony.

You can't prove that there is no deterrent effect. Plus, you are giving quite a bit of argument based on assumption, but, hey, why let good debate get in the way of your pointless rants, right?

You can't prove that there is. Not unless you can get a confession from someone who planned a murder and stopped when he thought of the death penalty. But, then again, no one admits that, right?

I don't know. Ask the person who committed murder.

Oh, yeah, that makes it so much better. Doing the same thing a criminal did because they did it first. You're obviously better than them in that situation.

Sure it does. The state does. The right is granted by the people through the representative system

Which shouldn't be the case.

So, which one is it? Are you going to sit on both sides of the fence and use that as your debating skill? This is why I think you are a shit debater. It's because you're a shit debater.

Again, more than one type of murderer.

And, you're going to prove this how? And furthermore, since your argument is based on compassion, wouldn't putting them out of their misery be the compassionate thing to do? You're for emotional torture, but not expedited death? Interesting.

Don't bring the whole "putting them out of their misery" bullshit into this. That's only valid if the person in question has an incurable disease and is in constant physical pain every waking moment. Argument = invalid.

Are you going to stop making invalid points, contradictions, and arguments that make you look like a giant idiot who thinks he's brilliant when in fact he's pretty dumb?

Gee, I'm sorry I can look at more than one situation rather than just generalizing all of them into one. It must be hard for you to comprehend.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I don't see an answer to my question in there.

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement. And, like most of your statements, it was stupid and points.

There's more than one kind of murderer, dumbass. If you actually read more posts in this thread than the ones you think you can argue against, you'd see that I already described that.

I read your post. Unfortunately, that's time I can never get back. I know the argument, heat of passion and premeditated. Beyond that, you can never answer if there isn't a deterrent effect. You can't.

They aren't babies. They're fetuses. Whether or not fetuses are still alive is something no one actually knows yet. Stop using hyperbole.

Right, no one knows, so there is doubt. And, according to you, when in doubt kill.

OK, so maybe "kill" is a bad choice of words. Then again, using it applies the belief that it is in fact alive, which is often used against pro-life arguments. On the other hand, using the term "remove" or "extract" or anything similar is too cold, and would also be used against pro-life. See the issue here?

The issue is you can't argue it, so you're going into some argument about terminology and saying it's unfair. That's weak, and yet another example of your rejecting the premise when you can't answer.

Oh, look, FTS is bringing politics into an argument. Big fucking surprise there.

In the Cigar Lounge? Never. And, here you go rejecting the premise because you're not smart enough to answer. I wonder what it's like to be as unenlightened as you.

She's the one carrying the child through agonizing pain for 9 months. You donated sperm. That's about it. She can get that from a bank now.

Spoken like a true virgin. Anyway, if it's my sperm that she took willingly, then I should have input. That baby is parts of both of us, so she shouldn't get all the say. If she didn't want to go through that pain, she shouldn't have spread her legs.

And if she did get it from you, then it's technically your fault she's going through it.

Still talking like a pure virgin. Don't worry, some day, you'll get laid. But it's her fault if she took it.

So, I highly doubt she wants to hear what you want to do with it.

I don't fucking care. If she wants to keep it and I have to take financial responsibility, I should have some say in whether she is allowed to kill the baby.

I will concede that you paying child support when you're not married or in a relationship with the woman is a bit much, though.

Good. You're not a complete dolt then.

Oh, look, irony.

Oh look, a hypocrite.

You can't prove that there is. Not unless you can get a confession from someone who planned a murder and stopped when he thought of the death penalty. But, then again, no one admits that, right?

You made the claim that the death penalty is bad, therefore you have the burden of proof. It's the way a debate goes. You are claiming that there is no deterrent effect, not me. You have to prove me wrong.

Oh, yeah, that makes it so much better. Doing the same thing a criminal did because they did it first. You're obviously better than them in that situation.

I am not seeking the death penalty out of revenge, I seek it out of purging bad people from the world. Big difference.

Which shouldn't be the case.

Yet, you give no arguments as to why. Again, bad debating.

Again, more than one type of murderer.

Again, you give no reason why this should matter. Furthermore, your entire argument is about making blanket statements, and now, when you are getting killed, you change it to a case by case argument. Contradictions, hypocrisy, and idiocy - all courtesy of Zero the fifteenth.

Don't bring the whole "putting them out of their misery" bullshit into this. That's only valid if the person in question has an incurable disease and is in constant physical pain every waking moment. Argument = invalid.

Depression is a disease. Furthermore, I was showing how you should be for the death penalty with all of your bullshit compassion arguments. Your arguments don't flow, they constantly conflict with each other, and you fail.

Gee, I'm sorry I can look at more than one situation rather than just generalizing all of them into one. It must be hard for you to comprehend.

Are you kidding? You are such an idiot.

Your entire first post is that nothing matters because it's ending a life. That's it. The OP in this thread says five times that the death penalty is bad in all situations because it is ending a life. And, now, all of a sudden, blanket statements are bad? You are so fucking stupid. You contradicted yourself again. Please, just stop. You suck at debating, you aren't very smart, and all you do is make yourself look dumber and dumber with each passing post. JKO could do a better job than you. In all honesty, this is even worse than the last time. You don't stand a chance against me at all, and in this debate, I don't even have to work. All I have to do is point out the way you constantly contradict yourself. My God, you are terrible.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Ok Eko im sorry to point this out but lets add a few scenarios where people where given a brief stint in prison only to reoffend:

Does this look like the face of evil to you?

Well no but this sicko was one of the two kids that killed Jamie Bulger, you know what they did?, they stuck bottle rockets up the little kids arse and basically watched him scream in pain until they left his unconcious body on train tracks to die as they watched him being run over by a train.

This sicko was then released after a life sentence in prison and released on good behaviour on claims that he would not reoffend.

he was given a new identity and allowed amnesty for his previous crimes and was then carted back to prison due to the fact that he broke his bail conditions.

It has been said that he may be into more serious charges including having obscene images of children on his computer.

He may be released once more and given another new identity because he still has rights, well thats how great our legal system is.

There are more and more cases where child murders, rapists and killers are freed due to a rather leanient legal system and cases such as overcrowding and are allowed to harm again and again causing more harm and even grooming others to be exactly like them, is this right?... hell no.

You can say everyone has a right, but what if it was a child close to you that was murdered or a family member killed, would you still be this lienient?.

I for one believe that the death penalty should happen and that it needs to be used to stop monsters like this from commiting these crimes and hurting anyone else, even though its taking a life, at least its ensuring that the monster doesnt reoffend, and will hopefully detour more people from hurting others.

 

[ZeroVX]

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement. And, like most of your statements, it was stupid and points.

I said make up your mind. That would mean either you want me to provide proof or not.

I read your post. Unfortunately, that's time I can never get back. I know the argument, heat of passion and premeditated. Beyond that, you can never answer if there isn't a deterrent effect. You can't.

In those situations, yeah, I can argue that there's no deterrent, because they're isn't. Realistically, if you don't care if you're going to die, then you don't care, and nothing will change that. That's how it is with most of the people on death row. I've already said this.

Right, no one knows, so there is doubt. And, according to you, when in doubt kill.

And now you're putting words in my mouth. How is it I'm the bad one here?

The issue is you can't argue it, so you're going into some argument about terminology and saying it's unfair. That's weak, and yet another example of your rejecting the premise when you can't answer.

No, I can easily argue it. The issue is that if it's "killing", it's alive. And since no one knows when it's truly alive, the term "killing" shouldn't be used. It is anyway, usually by pro-life people, solely to further their argument.

In the Cigar Lounge? Never. And, here you go rejecting the premise because you're not smart enough to answer. I wonder what it's like to be as unenlightened as you.

This isn't a political issue. It's a moral one. You can't seem to differentiate the two, thereby over-complicating things and making yourself look smart. So, basically it's a self-dick-sucking move. Why am I not surprised?

Spoken like a true virgin. Anyway, if it's my sperm that she took willingly, then I should have input. That baby is parts of both of us, so she shouldn't get all the say. If she didn't want to go through that pain, she shouldn't have spread her legs.

Were you having sex with the intention of getting her pregnant? Or were you just having sex, and the impregnating was an accident? If it was an accident, and she doesn't want to carry the baby, then it should be her call. If you both wanted a baby, but then she changes her mind, it's a different situation.

Still talking like a pure virgin. Don't worry, some day, you'll get laid. But it's her fault if she took it.

Again, accidents happen.

I don't fucking care. If she wants to keep it and I have to take financial responsibility, I should have some say in whether she is allowed to kill the baby.

This makes no sense. If she wants to keep it, that means she doesn't want to kill it. You're not taking financial responsibility if she's getting an abortion. It's not like an abortion requires monthly payments like a credit card.

You made the claim that the death penalty is bad, therefore you have the burden of proof. It's the way a debate goes. You are claiming that there is no deterrent effect, not me. You have to prove me wrong.

I gave my proof. I've explained the three types of criminals who wind up on death row numerous times. I've explained that these people can't be deterred. It's your own fault for refusing to believe it.

I am not seeking the death penalty out of revenge, I seek it out of purging bad people from the world. Big difference.

And you get to decide who's a bad person and why? That isn't your judgment call, or anyone else's for that matter.

Yet, you give no arguments as to why. Again, bad debating.

No human being should have the right to decide who lives and dies. That is something beyond comprehension. Representations of groups of people shouldn't possess that right either.

Again, you give no reason why this should matter. Furthermore, your entire argument is about making blanket statements, and now, when you are getting killed, you change it to a case by case argument. Contradictions, hypocrisy, and idiocy - all courtesy of Zero the fifteenth.

Because you're accusing me of contradicting myself when I'm looking at things from more than one perspective. Again, sorry that's something you're incapable of doing.

And by the way? The only way your insults are bothering me is in the way that you can't seem to get my name right.

Depression is a disease. Furthermore, I was showing how you should be for the death penalty with all of your bullshit compassion arguments. Your arguments don't flow, they constantly conflict with each other, and you fail.

No way are we getting into a "emotion = disease" argument. Killing someone who isn't already on their way out or about to kill you is wrong. It's that goddamn simple, and you're purposely trying to make things complicated for the sake of making yourself sound smart. That's pathetic.

Are you kidding? You are such an idiot.

Your entire first post is that nothing matters because it's ending a life. That's it. The OP in this thread says five times that the death penalty is bad in all situations because it is ending a life. And, now, all of a sudden, blanket statements are bad? You are so fucking stupid. You contradicted yourself again. Please, just stop. You suck at debating, you aren't very smart, and all you do is make yourself look dumber and dumber with each passing post. JKO could do a better job than you. In all honesty, this is even worse than the last time. You don't stand a chance against me at all, and in this debate, I don't even have to work. All I have to do is point out the way you constantly contradict yourself. My God, you are terrible.

Are you just about done?

You want to know why people don't come into this section very often? It's because of this. You stop at nothing to put yourself above anyone else that says something different from your point of view, just to fool yourself into thinking that you're always right. You continue to make yourself sound like a bigger asshole than Sidious whenever a debate starts here. It's shit like this that'll just push people away from the forums in general. I doubt you care, since you're obviously so enamored with yourself. But people eventually grow tired of someone who's all about themselves and their way and nothing else.

Do yourself and the rest of the world a favour, and grow the fuck up.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I said make up your mind. That would mean either you want me to provide proof or not.

Being that you made the claim, you have the burden of proof. So yes, please provide one iota of evidence. It will be the most evidence you have ever provided.

In those situations, yeah, I can argue that there's no deterrent, because they're isn't. Realistically, if you don't care if you're going to die, then you don't care, and nothing will change that. That's how it is with most of the people on death row. I've already said this.

Great, in some situation. Did I ever say it was 100% effective? Fuck no, I didn't. But, if it has saved any lives, which you can't prove it hasn't, just like you can't prove any one has been falsely put to death, then you have no legs to stand on.

And now you're putting words in my mouth. How is it I'm the bad one here?

How did I put words in your mouth. I merely proved that your arguments about compassion are bullshit because you are only against killing when it fits your agenda.

No, I can easily argue it. The issue is that if it's "killing", it's alive. And since no one knows when it's truly alive, the term "killing" shouldn't be used. It is anyway, usually by pro-life people, solely to further their argument.

This is a stupid argument. By both of us. This is what deserves another thread. My point is that you have no problem ending the life of a child while complaining about ending the life of a murderer. That doesn't work.

This isn't a political issue. It's a moral one. You can't seem to differentiate the two, thereby over-complicating things and making yourself look smart. So, basically it's a self-dick-sucking move. Why am I not surprised?

OK, that's not a political argument. That is a you are a liberal argument. Liberal is ideology, not politics. You don't know the difference. That's OK. I don't expect intelligence from you. Debating you is like when we used to practice against the JV. We got our reps in and it helped us get ready to face real competition.

Were you having sex with the intention of getting her pregnant? Or were you just having sex, and the impregnating was an accident? If it was an accident, and she doesn't want to carry the baby, then it should be her call. If you both wanted a baby, but then she changes her mind, it's a different situation.

So, now you are saying that people shouldn't have to face consequences for their action. Pregnancy happens and sex is how it happens. If you go into sex expecting no consequences, then you are an idiot. But hey, no death penalty and yes abortion, so I am guessing that consequences aren't too important for you. I mean, why worry about what could go wrong when you live in Zero's fantasy world where it's all OK and eighth place gets a ribbon. Not only are you an idiot, but people like you are symptomatic of what's wrong with the world today.

Again, accidents happen.

At what point do they stop being accidents and start becoming signs of reckless behavior? Making excuses and rationalizing everything is the first step in the path to complete and utter chaos. There must be some system of punishment, and you seem to be completely OK with undermining it to make sure everyone can continue to behave with complete disregard for order.

This makes no sense. If she wants to keep it, that means she doesn't want to kill it. You're not taking financial responsibility if she's getting an abortion. It's not like an abortion requires monthly payments like a credit card.

OK dumbass. I gave two scenarios. Separate them, understand the premise, and then reject it because you aren't smart enough to answer it.

In fact, let me explain it to you. The woman gets the full decision on whether or not both of the people in the pregnancy have to take any responsibility, and that is unfair and stupid.

I gave my proof. I've explained the three types of criminals who wind up on death row numerous times. I've explained that these people can't be deterred. It's your own fault for refusing to believe it.

But, you haven't addressed the people who aren't on death row, and it's why you fail. You will never find someone who says they didn't kill because of the death penalty but I guarantee they exist.

And you get to decide who's a bad person and why? That isn't your judgment call, or anyone else's for that matter.

Actually, it's not my call. You see, in the US, there is a group of twelve people impaneled to make those decisions. Those people are called a jury. They decide innocence and guilt. Then, there is a judge. He decides the appropriate punishment.

But, we can agree on one thing. Murderers are bad people, right? I mean, even you can understand that, right?

No human being should have the right to decide who lives and dies.

Yeah, they should. Why not? This is another blanket statement that you have made in your supposed case by case analysis of the situation.

That is something beyond comprehension. Representations of groups of people shouldn't possess that right either.

Why not? In that case, groups of representatives shouldn't determine when life starts either. Which one is it? Killing is good or killing is bad. You have made both arguments time and again, and it's just one of your contradictions.

Because you're accusing me of contradicting myself when I'm looking at things from more than one perspective. Again, sorry that's something you're incapable of doing.

You are the stupidest fucking person alive. You are the one who's orginal post is one giant blanket statement. Now, all of a sudden you are looking at things in a case by case basis. My Lord, after reading your posts I am not only for abortion, I am for forced abortion.

And by the way? The only way your insults are bothering me is in the way that you can't seem to get my name right.

You see, I do it on purpose. Your name is stupid, so I make fun of it.

No way are we getting into a "emotion = disease" argument. Killing someone who isn't already on their way out or about to kill you is wrong. It's that goddamn simple, and you're purposely trying to make things complicated for the sake of making yourself sound smart. That's pathetic.

Pot, meet kettle.

Is depression now not a disease? Is the entire AMA wrong because it doesn't fit in your ******ed arguments? Seriously? Depression is a disease. It's why people commit suicide and all.

Are you just about done?

Nope. Not until yous top coming here and polluting this section with idiocy.

You want to know why people don't come into this section very often? It's because of this. You stop at nothing to put yourself above anyone else that says something different from your point of view, just to fool yourself into thinking that you're always right. You continue to make yourself sound like a bigger asshole than Sidious whenever a debate starts here. It's shit like this that'll just push people away from the forums in general. I doubt you care, since you're obviously so enamored with yourself. But people eventually grow tired of someone who's all about themselves and their way and nothing else.

You say this about the section that was voted section of the year by the members of this site. Hey look, it's your dumb ass not letting facts get in the way of your pointless idiotic rants.

Do yourself and the rest of the world a favour, and grow the fuck up.[/quote]

 

[Shocky]

Put them to death, I don't care. Saves me tax money in the long run. You take the life of another human being (yes I know there are exceptions to the rule), you forfeit your rights to life.

Anti-Death penalty people work on the assumption that every life is precious, fortunately for me, I think that's a load of shit. Every life is precisous to someone, not everyone. A murdering psycho path doesn't deserve to live in a box for the rest of his life. He needs to be put down like the animal he is.