The death penalty.

[FromTheSouth]

This section has been awfully slow lately, and I like everyone's opinions on social issues, as long as we keep it to polite discussion and avoid some of the flaming that I know I have been a part of too.

In a society that values order, punishment must be an integral part of the justice system. The fear of state controlled retribution for those crimes committed is far and away the easiest way to maintain order in society, especially one where an individuals morals might not mesh with the prgression of society.

The most important value in any society is justice. In order for a society to function on any level, there must some sort of way of determining that which is fair and equitable. Any just society bases itself on three principles. The first is that all adults are equal under the law. The second is the rights of an offender must be restricted in strict accordance to the damages he causes. The third is that the courts and the state must carry out punishments, and not the offended party. Just retribution is measured by the theory or reciprocity. The democratic systems of today are based on the Lockean social contract which implies that we recieve rights in accordance to those which we tacitly consent to surrender for the common good. For example, I lose my natural right to kill my neighbor in competition for food. In return the government protects me from being killed. This contract is what seperates us from animals, along with vocal cords and thumbs.

Under the Lockean social contract, my life is no more important than your's. Therefore, if I kill you, then I deserve to be killed. Under the Lockean social contract, I have surrendered the right to kill in order to be protected from killers. If the government fails me, then they can be replaced through the vote, however, cannot be "voted off the island" if I upset the social order by murdering. The only way to ensure the maintence of the social order is to take my life. My life does not necessarily have to be taken by lethal injection or the electric chair. However, keeping me in jail places a burden on the tax payer, and allows me to educate other criminals.

Providing me with rehabilitation and treatment does not work. Recidivism rates increase every year. Coincidentally, more criminals are sent to rehab to cut time off of sentences every year.

The best way to reduce the burden on the tax payer, keep murderers off the streets, and maintain the social order promised by Democracy is to execute murderers.

Next, execution is the only proper response to murder. If one's rights are restricted to harshly in accordance to their crime, then the punishment is viewed as cruel and unusual. I cannot be given five years for jaywalking. However, giving too light of a sentence hurts society as a whole. An equitable justice system provides a fair sentence for the criminal, while doing it's best to provide just retribution for the victim and the victims' families. While it is true that an execution will not bring back the murdered family member, it does provide the closure necessary for some victim's family members to move on. There is no chance of this horrible murderer ever being back on the streets. No pardon will ever allow this man to further upset the social order.

Finally, the state must carry out all punishments. The idea of the state carrying out the punishment ensures that the criminal is killed without "rubbing it in" so to speak. A lethal injection is an effective way to end a criminal's life that is not, according to recent supreme court rulings, cruel and unusual. If the victim's families are allowed to carry out the execution, the social order is upset in that the killings would be brutal, forcing the criminal to suffer before, ultimately dying. One act of violence (the killing) is enough. We are not barbarians, we are merely protecting the unwritten contract between the government and it's people.


I look forward to the responses. I anticipate some of the arguments against me, and hope to hear some new ones.

And remember, this is more of a position paper than it is a reason to call me a redneck or an idiot. Just something to get some discussion going on in here.

 

[Spunky]

I've alway's been under the belief of "Life for a life", Not "eye for and eye", So If you murder someone, You lose your right of a life, Anything less than murder, Would be locked away.

Fear is the best way to keep people in check, It's the reason i've never been in trouble with the police, Who want's to be locked in a cell for up to 23 hours per day? Not me that for sure, But sociopaths typically dont have barrier's of any kind, So they must be locked up, Or have their live's taken from them for the safety of other's, Now I'm not saying EVERY sociopath's will kill, But 9 out of 10 will(Well, That's the impression I get from thing's I've read).

To have murderer's locked up for life is draining on tax payer's money, And i'm sure that many people will agree, That they don't want to pay for a killer to eat, Drink, And keep in a room.

The only thing that tear's me up about having a death penalty, Is how do you kill someone humainly? The only way I can think of is lethal injection.

 

[klunderbunker]

Death penalty can work, but only for the right reasons. As has been said, Life for a Life works well, but you better be absolutely sure it's the right thing. Other than that, there's not a lot I'd agree with it on. Never anything that just changes material things, such as robbery etc. If another person isn't harmed, there's no way you can validate having a death penalty for that person. Not in my eyes at least. Even if you're a part of a crime that results in a person losing their life, you don't deserve to be killed. However, if you, in cold blood, murder soemone or many people, then by all means you should be up for debate for the death penalty.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Exactly KB, you have hit the nail right on the head. Killing and murder and two different things. Vehicular manslaughter does not deserve the death penalty. A home invasion double execution does.

No crime that is primarily about property rights deserves the death penalty. Our natural rights are enumerated to us as life, liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness). Crimes of liberty, i.e. kidnapping, deserve restrictions of liberty. Crimes of property are different. You can restrict property (fines), or an amount of liberty equal to the value of that property as decided by the indivdual municipality. The questions to ask is whether rape is a crime of life or a crime of liberty. Granted your free will to give your body is taken away, but if your life is never the same, have you not had a life taken?

Should recidivist rapists be executed? Have they shown that they have no regard for life within the social order?

 

[klunderbunker]

Should rapists be executed? Not in my eyes. However, they should be locked up in a cell for the rest of their lives, with abo****ely no chance for parole, ever. Child molesters, they're more of an arguing point. There's no good way to put this, but raping an adult is far less evil than raping a child. An adult has a fighting chance against another adult, but a child is completely defenseless. In that case, they're too good to deserve death. For them, I'm all for torture, mutilation, whatever makes them suffer the most. They don't deserve to die. That's too good for them.

 

[Sparky]

Its to easy. the death penalty is crap. its the easy way out. what would you prefer? to be locked away for 60 years. ( where you know your not going to get out alive) or the death penalty. I know i would take the death penalty. There is alot more punisments you dould do. The death penalty should not be used at all. but not becouse it is to extreme, becouse its not extreme enough.

 

[klunderbunker]

Perfection Sparky. Absolute perfection. To a person that has killed a good number of people, do you think the idea of death scares them? Not in the slightest. However, the idea of being in more or less a cage until the day they die, that would scare the hell out of me. You have nothing at all but the cement and concrete that your cell is made of. You hear nothing, you see nothing, you do nothing. Eventually you'll be begging to be killed, but do they deserve mercy? Maybe. Maybe the death penalty should be an option after a long, and by long I'm talking long enough for someone to be born and have grandchildren, prison stay. You lock someone up for that long and they'll be begging to die. I'm all for torture if you can't tell.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I often agree with the Death penalty, because there are so many people I think don't deserve to be here. And there are a lot of cases where we're 100% sure they are guilty - look at the recent case of 'Baby P'. I think his mother deserves nothing more than to die - and not a quick death. A very slow one like she caused her son. People go on about human rights when discussing the Death Penalty, but if they didn't care about someone elses, why should we care about them?

On the other hand, there would be no need for the Death Penalty if life in prison meant life. No chance of parole - you die in that cell. That way they can't commit the crime again, and they're suffering. The 2 posts above mine sum that up VERY nicely.

 

[klunderbunker]

Not familiar with Baby P, but there's a case here about a girl named Caylee where it's so beyond obvious that the mother killed her because the daughter was hindering her life. If she is ever brought to trial over this, I hope she rots in a cell forever, with torture beign involved. She killed a small child for her own happiness. Are you really trying to convince me that's the best way to go? I don't think so. Was there no one out there that wanted this little girl?

Assuming she did it which is about as obvious as the fact that Becca is female, put her in jail until she is too old to think. No way out, no anything. Her life revolves around herself. Take that life away from her, but don't end it. Ending it would be simple. You mention them not deserving to be here. With them in a cage where no one can see them, that's the same thing as them being dead. Or at least it should be if the courts didn't bow to the first group of people that bitch about it.

 

[Richard]

I can see why people agree with the death penalty, but I don't agree with it.

If you take someones life or do just an equally disgusting crime, you should be locked up and have to live with knowing that you will NEVER get out of prison and you will NEVER be able to do what you like ever again. Being killed would be the easy way out as Sparky said.

If you do a crime that deserves the death penalty, you should just be made to serve a life sentence, no parol, no good behavior, nothing. You should be made to stay in prison for the rest of your life and not be able to take the easy way out by being shot in a firing squad, or via a lethal injection.

And HBK-aholic. Baby P's mother should not die a quick death as you said, but she should be made to rot in prison until she dies. Let her have a life sentance in prison. Let her sit in a cell and have her live with the knowledge she will never have a normal life ever again. She can have a slow painful death in a jail cell.

I don't think there should be a death sentance because I think that some countries use it too losely with crimes such as drug smuggling. There was a case of Van Ngyuen, who smuggled some drugs to either Vietnam or Singapore I think and he got busted and was hung on my brothers birthday a couple years ago. Now, he shouldn't have been hung, but been made to serve a lengthy jail sentence like Shapelle Corby from Australia.

 

[HBK-aholic]

And HBK-aholic. Baby P's mother should not die a quick death as you said, but she should be made to rot in prison until she dies. Let her have a life sentance in prison. Let her sit in a cell and have her live with the knowledge she will never have a normal life ever again. She can have a slow painful death in a jail cell.

I didn't say that. I said she should die a very slow death.

I don't think there should be a death sentance because I think that some countries use it too losely with crimes such as drug smuggling. There was a case of Van Ngyuen, who smuggled some drugs to either Vietnam or Singapore I think and he got busted and was hung on my brothers birthday a couple years ago. Now, he shouldn't have been hung, but been made to serve a lengthy jail sentence like Shapelle Corby from Australia.

I agree here. Which leads to the question what should the death penalty be used for? Murder? Rape? Child Abuse? GBH? Assault? I'd be inclined to say definitely the first 2, possibly 3. But arguments could be made for every single one of those, for and against. It's another thing which would make the death penalty so hard to have as a regular occurance as a punishment.

 

[klunderbunker]

I would think only somethign that causes another life to be either greatly harmed or lost in cold blood. While it's possible that the person could feel remorse, why should we believe that they wouldn't ever commit the same crime all over again? Crimes like murder or child molestation is the same thing that I've said before: suppose you have someone that raped a child, and somehow he got out. He's on the run, and he passes a playground. Do you think he would hesitate for a second to do it all over again? He knows he'll go to jail for the rest of his life but that few minutes would be heaven to him and would be completely worth it. You end his life, and that can't happen ever again.

 

[Richard]

I didn't say that. I said she should die a very slow death.

My bad, I didn't word that the way I should have. When I said....

And HBK-aholic. Baby P's mother should not die a quick death as you said

about..

I often agree with the Death penalty, because there are so many people I think don't deserve to be here. And there are a lot of cases where we're 100% sure they are guilty - look at the recent case of 'Baby P'. I think his mother deserves nothing more than to die - and not a quick death. A very slow one like she caused her son. People go on about human rights when discussing the Death Penalty, but if they didn't care about someone elses, why should we care about them?

I meant that to come across as I agree that she should not die a quick death but a slow painfull one, like you said. Sorry, should have worded it better.

I agree here. Which leads to the question what should the death penalty be used for? Murder? Rape? Child Abuse? GBH? Assault? I'd be inclined to say definitely the first 2, possibly 3. But arguments could be made for every single one of those, for and against. It's another thing which would make the death penalty so hard to have as a regular occurance as a punishment.

The death penalty, if used, which I am against but I will put my opinion aside for a minute. I think the death penalty should ONLY be used when said criminal takes someone elses life. I think rape should constitute life imprisonment, not death though.

Once again, my bad for the badly worded reply.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Perfection Sparky. Absolute perfection.

Well, let's just wait a minute.

To a person that has killed a good number of people, do you think the idea of death scares them? Not in the slightest.

It's not those people we ar trying to scare. The true deterrent effect of capital punishment cannot be measured. No one is going to the cops saying I was going to kill that guy, but I didn't want to be put to death. Obviously, the death penalty is going to weigh heavily on someone's mind, and if it saves just one life, then is it not worth it?

However, the idea of being in more or less a cage until the day they die, that would scare the hell out of me. You have nothing at all but the cement and concrete that your cell is made of. You hear nothing, you see nothing, you do nothing. Eventually you'll be begging to be killed, but do they deserve mercy? Maybe.

Not necessarily. If you watch prison shows as often as I do, you constantly hear the story of the impoverished residents who are happy to have any roof over their heads and three meals a day. Maybe tent city is a viable alternative, but there's only one of those. These days prisons have TV's, libraries, basketball, weights, etc. Plus, put a murderer in with the general population, and everyone gets a lesson on killing.

Maybe the death penalty should be an option after a long, and by long I'm talking long enough for someone to be born and have grandchildren, prison stay. You lock someone up for that long and they'll be begging to die.

This is an interesting idea. If you get more that 50 years, you get executed. What about a serial killer. If you're 50 years old with 23 murders, maybe killing you is the best idea instead of letting you be an inspiration for other prisoners.

I'm all for torture if you can't tell.

Wow, the death penalty is actually the moral high ground here. lol

 

[X]

All of your arguments in support of the death penalty are flawed. You guys seem to think that justice and revenge are the same thing, and they are not.

Justice is about harmony; revenge is about selfish personal satisfaction. What you're supporting is revenge. Justice does not dictate an eye for an eye. Murdering a murderer is not justice, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing except for killing another human being.

You make the claim that rehab does not work for criminals; and that is just ludicrously incorrect. I have met dozens upon dozens upon dozens of former criminals who have turned their lives around and turned into productive citizens. Who are you to claim that those people are full of shit and that their rehabilitation does not work?

Further more, to even refer to the prison system as a form of rehabilitation is absurd. Locking someone in a cage and expecting them to change their ways is not a form of rehab, it's a form of punishment, which are two very different things. True rehabilitation would involve therapy, something which prisons SORELY need A LOT more of.

And the distinction you make between murder and accidentally killing someone is ironic, considering that the act of a criminal killing someone for their purse, and the act of an executioner killing a criminal are both murder. Both are done intentionally and with malice. But it's okay for the executioner right, because the criminal is a "bad guy" who "deserves" it? Right?

What about war? Murder is justified then to you, why is that? Because our enemies hold different ideals then us? How is that any more moral of a reason for murder as killing someone out of greed? Killing someone for different ideas if anything is even more reprehensible.

ANYONE can find redemption; ANYONE. It doesn't matter if you jay-walked or your Hitler himself, any and everyone is capable of both forgiveness and redemption, and to claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

The death penalty is wrong. Simple as that. It's not about justice, it's about revenge.

(Sidenote: If you honestly believe that the idea of the death penalty is going to stop someone from killing another, you're out of your mind. The overwhelming majority of murderers are not put to death; many are out between 10-25 years.)

 

[Azrael Cain]

Under the Lockean social contract, my life is no more important than your's

That quote made my mind jump to George Carlin's speech on the Sanctity of Life. It's a speech I happen to agree with, partly. This topic also brings out a lot of George Carlin's ideas to mind (specifically the one about the Death Penalty). I am a Carlin mark, and he has influenced my way of thinking, but that's hardly on topic.

The death sentence is meant to be used as a deterrent. It is meant to be the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime (read: sin). The punishment is tied into the idea of sanctity of life, and the argument is supported by "your" Lockean thesis I quoted above.

The death penalty is an odd thing, to me. While it is meant to strike fear into people and criminals alike, since we as a society and a peoples have a fear of death, it is dressed up in an ideal that really bothers me -- the deterrent.

I kill a murderer so as to make an example as to what happens when one murders someone else.

The problem is that it hinges on a hope. We hope that the death penalty deters. We hope it works. But we all know -- and statistics can prove this, I am sure -- that it does not work. It does not do what it "sets out" to do. All the death penalty is is an excuse to seek revenge. The death of the murderer of my friend/family member or even someone I don't know does not bring that friend/family member/stranger back. It does not make me feel better.

However, I think it makes others think that they feel better, and that is primarily the reason it is still allowed, it still exists and it is still utilized.

The death penalty is exactly what xfearbefore states: a confusion between justice and revenge. The penalty is a legalized form of revenge. But we as a society and as people think [of it as] it is justice.

And it is the above quote from me that makes me question the following quote:

In a society that values order, punishment must be an integral part of the justice system

Our society is in no way interested in order. Or at least not in the way that I get the feeling you are referring to it in this sentence and context. We are, however, very interested in control, and order is a part of and a form of control (a theory for another time). But how does one control, exactly?

Through fear.

What is man's greatest fear?

Death.

And, if I am not blowing smoke up my own (and all of yours) ass(es), my argument has come if not full circle at least semi. (Forgive if I ramble, there is so much on this topic I think that I cannot control it and make it organized.)

Again, it doesn't work. And it isn't that I am for it or against it -- it doesn't work. The entire justice system, no matter how dressed up, does not work. The idea is novel, don't get me wrong. Yes, there should be consequences for breaking laws -- and I believe this is the dilemma man struggles with, even to this day: what are the laws and what are the consequences? We, as a society, are not clear on our own laws. And our laws come not from logic but from our theologic roots, our dependence upon religion to govern our lives. We try to separate laws and "commandments," but we cannot. "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or "Covet your neighbors goods or wife." Come on!

And so if and when we as a society argue for the death penalty and utilize it, we break our own law. But when done "in the name of justice," it's okay? Bullshit. But again, we dress it up and delude ourselves and split hairs. We make the arguments that certain acts are despicable and merit death.

A circle of sin does not lead to salvation. Hello?

There are crimes that are despicable. Rape, molestation and murder are all heinous, and yet the solution we have for the problems is not working. But it is the best we can come up with...

 

[FromTheSouth]

X states:

Justice is about harmony; revenge is about selfish personal satisfaction. What you're supporting is revenge. Justice does not dictate an eye for an eye. Murdering a murderer is not justice, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing except for killing another human being.

Letting the family carry out the punishment would be revenge. And justice is about fairness and equality, not harmony. Harmony is a lot more vague ideal than the other two. Restricting one's rights in accordance to the crime committed is the reciprocal obligation of the state. I get rights protected in comparison to those I subjugate. I relinquish my right to kill, so as to be protected from killing. However, I maintain the right to free speech so there is no punishment for someone's calling me an asshole. My claim is that a social contract calls for capital punishment.

X continues:

You make the claim that rehab does not work for criminals; and that is just ludicrously incorrect. I have met dozens upon dozens upon dozens of former criminals who have turned their lives around and turned into productive citizens. Who are you to claim that those people are full of shit and that their rehabilitation does not work?

According to the Criminal Justice Policy Council statistics, the two-year recidivism rate for offenders released from prison in 1998 was more than 21 percent, and in 1999 it was more than 24 percent.

This shows a pattern of a rise in repeat offenders. So yes, some people do, as you put it, find redemption, however, recidivism is a problem. Rapists reentering society with no prospects of a job, and murderers with nowhere to turn tend to wind up finding support in the gangs they left. Even if a released murderer doesn't kill again, criminal activities are likely. But that doesn't justify the death penalty in as much as it indicts the criminal justice system.

Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.

In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years.

Charles Manson gets parole hearings. It goes on and on. I am not in favor of capital punishment being used widely, but sometimes, it seems necessary. Some people are just criminals. Some people are killers.

X continues:

And the distinction you make between murder and accidentally killing someone is ironic, considering that the act of a criminal killing someone for their purse, and the act of an executioner killing a criminal are both murder. Both are done intentionally and with malice. But it's okay for the executioner right, because the criminal is a "bad guy" who "deserves" it? Right?

What about war? Murder is justified then to you, why is that? Because our enemies hold different ideals then us? How is that any more moral of a reason for murder as killing someone out of greed? Killing someone for different ideas if anything is even more reprehensible.

My answer is yes. Killing Nazi's who imprisoned and murdered Jews was the right thing. Killing Al Queda members who plot to kill thousands of Americans at a time is the right thing. I understand if there is a difference of opinion here. We've battled on this site, but I do respect your opinion. We just disagree here.

Azrael Cane states:

The death penalty is an odd thing, to me. While it is meant to strike fear into people and criminals alike, since we as a society and a peoples have a fear of death, it is dressed up in an ideal that really bothers me -- the deterrent.

I kill a murderer so as to make an example as to what happens when one murders someone else.

The problem is that it hinges on a hope. We hope that the death penalty deters. We hope it works. But we all know -- and statistics can prove this, I am sure -- that it does not work. It does not do what it "sets out" to do. All the death penalty is is an excuse to seek revenge. The death of the murderer of my friend/family member or even someone I don't know does not bring that friend/family member/stranger back. It does not make me feel better.

As I stated before, statistics on a deterrent effect are impossible to gather. No one is walking into police stations stating intent to murder and telling the cops the only reason they didn't do it was because they would die. You would think that jail would be a deterrent, however The Bureau of Criminal Justice tries.

The less executions there are in a given year, the more murders there seems to be. This is the best way to measure the deterrent effect.


Now for the kicker. I am not personally that ardent of a defender of the death penalty. I vote republican, and love my conservative values. However, I think the death penalty is overused, especially here in Texas. I think it should maintained for your serial killers, people who rape and kill children, known terrorists, or cop killers.

For one, the deterrent effect is crap. Murders are committed in one of two ways.

1. In the heat of passion- There is no time to consider consequences. The deterrent effect is not considered, as the criminal merely acts.

2. Heat of passion- Consequences are measured, and disregarded. One considers that they might die, and acts anyway, thereby nullifying the deterrent effect.

I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate, and the theoretical arguments are sensible, however, the practice is not reserved for the most extreme of cases, as it should be. I am in favor of capital punishment, just not its present incarnation in the United States.

 

[Azrael Cain]

Solid point. And I agree -- while committing the act or planning to commit the act, no one thinks "maybe I should stop, they'll give me the death penalty," or "maybe I shouldn't; I could get the death penalty." In part, I believe that is because people are arrogant and do not believe that they could possibly face the penalty. However, if and when they do, then my argument becomes valid. Even the "scum of the Earth" want to live.

Just for kicks, and a hypothetical, the graph of the deterrent effect is interesting. One could make the argument then that the death penalty indeed does what it sets out to - as the graph proves. But I enjoy claiming that things are multifaceted and far more complicated than they are, and sometimes I am correct in making such a claim. Other times, I am not. I'm going to go ahead and make this claim for the graph.

We can take into account the justice system in its entirety when looking at this graph, and the mentioned change in laws in 1982. More criminals become eligible for parole hearings, and that means more criminals get granted parole, which means more criminals out on the streets. Which means more crimes being committed (in this case, murder), and less people on death row. Of course another argument is the leap in the "insanity" defense, and people found insane in the court of law facing the death penalty cannot be executed (ruled in 1986, I believe), therefore cannot be killed. So if we combine the two, we can account for the gap between fewer executions and more murders. Also, if we look at the graph, we see the gap begin to widen in 1960.... a time of civil turmoil in America, if I remember correctly. That factor can be attributed to the rise in murders as well (stretch, no?).

Of course looking at the graph and matching the dates does nothing -- they don't match. I am just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Of course statistics are not as reliable as most like to think... and are often very difficult to obtain, as you've pointed out. And to get back to my "original" point, and yours as well: no, no one claims deterrent as the reason they didn't commit murder. And I agree again: heat of passion is how murders are often committed. But that is not an excuse. Nor is a lack of excuse an excuse to execute someone. The problem lies not in the penalty itself or even in whether it works or what our excuses are. The problem lies in how arrogant and how "passionate" man is.

A murderer can see nothing past his or her own problem and dilemma, and wants a way to solve that dilemma, at any cost. Breaking laws, fears of death, anything "rational" goes out the window at that point. The common example is the flash of anger everyone can most likely relate to -- you get so angry that you stop thinking and just react ("Heat of Passion"). But what really caused that flash, that heat? That's what we have to look at.

I believe in correction as opposed to extermination. That is not an argument for the rehabilitation system and my belief in it, though. We incarcerate and pile offenders into prisons and give up on them. It becomes a cycle of self fulfilling prophecies. We expect them to kill, they do, we aren't surprised, we lock them back up, afraid of them and expecting them to kill again -- repeat, repeat, repeat.

Doesn't that seem a little wrong to anyone else but me? I will admit that I am idealistic, but I am turning into a realist with every minute. But I am a strong proponent of the potential of humanity, and that is how I look at everything: global, wide scale. We are capable of such extremes: murder and space exploration. Rape or poetry and theology. We're faced with choices -- even the worst of us. In that heat of passion, there is a moment of choice, no matter how small.

 

[Shocky]

To quote a good movie, Criminals mock societies laws. It's simple really, you are proven 100% DNA certified guilty, you deserve to die. A murderer contributes nothing to society. They take from society. They made the choice to end a life, plain and simple, thus, they forfeit their rights in my opinion.

Honestly, I'm tired of giving dead beats and terrible human beings the benefit of the doubt and a chance for rehab. These people don't deserve it in my opinion. Why waste my money on a lifer when we can just execute them, and keep room in our prisons for criminals.

And X, you can't honestly compare war and petty crime with one another.