J.G Haigh murdered people, drank their blood and dissolved the corpses in sulphuric acid. Ed Gein made furniture and other sick shit out of corpses. Howard Shipman is the doctor who abused his position to kill around 250 people, which makes him the most prolific serial killer ever. [/b][/quote] Thanks, I remembered shipman just after i posted I think that we should still kill them. It pisses me off that they are gonna be released so soon after commiting murder etc.
What are you talking about??? 1 Bullet=Very cheap Years of additional food, clothing, etc=Much more expensive. [/b][/quote] what if it fails the first 20 times? like a couple of cases throughout the world? it costs more than keeping a person alive.
Who the hell requires 20 shots to kill someone? I've never fired a real gun in my life and I could do it in less than 20. And 20 bullets are still insanley cheap
When the hell has it taken 20 attempts to kill someone with the lethal injection? Tell me, do you think before you post, or do you just blindly submit posts with facts you pulled out of your ass?
but still... It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.
Who the hell requires 20 shots to kill someone? I've never fired a real gun in my life and I could do it in less than 20. And 20 bullets are still insanley cheap [/b][/quote] Please realize that the cost of state sponsered death is much more than the bullet put into someone. Along with the means of execution is the cost of the jury, judge, and all other court expenses for the several appeal trials that occur when someone is sentenced to death, there is the cost of living for the average time an individual spends on death row, which is usually an extended period of time. This is far more than purchasing a bullet. So is it really less expensive than maintaining an individual's life in jail? Do you have any evidence, or are you just "blindly submit posts with facts you pulled out of your ass?"
So when someone violates an innocent person's right to life, it's not fair to violate their right to life? Eye for an eye.
so if someone raped your daughter you would want to 1) make the state pay more money then keeping them in jail ... like Link04 said? 2) see their sorry soul die
I'd like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba, then die. Although, honestley, I'm against the death penalty for anything besides murder, so realisticly, I'd just like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba. BTW, I don't actually want to watch the fucking take place, I just want to know it actually happened
I'd like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba, then die. Although, honestley, I'm against the death penalty for anything besides murder, so realisticly, I'd just like to see them get their brains fucked out by Bubba. BTW, I don't actually want to watch the fucking take place, I just want to know it actually happened [/b][/quote] okay...so if someone murdered your daughter?
So when someone violates an innocent person's right to life, it's not fair to violate their right to life? Eye for an eye. [/b][/quote] ...for an eye for an eye for an eye. That sort of logic is perpetual, because then who is there to take the eye of the "eye-taker"? Government murdered a murder, who's there to murder government? Who's there to murder them? My other post is worth reading too.^
I'm against the death penalty, no matter what. It doesn't matter what the person's done. It doesn't matter if they're completely sane and knew exactly what they were doing the entire time that they were committing their crime, be it murder or something else. It doesn't matter. No-one deserves to die and everyone should be allowed to die naturally. It's the basic right to life, which should be the most basic freedom that anybody's afforded. Murdering a murderer doesn't make any sense because, as Link04 stated, it's perpetual. The government's murdering someone, yet no-one seems to care. That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't care if someone's murdered my father: they deserve their right to live, no matter how they're going to live out the rest of their days, whether it's in prison or not.
...for an eye for an eye for an eye. That sort of logic is perpetual, because then who is there to take the eye of the "eye-taker"? Government murdered a murder, who's there to murder government? Who's there to murder them? My other post is worth reading too.^ [/b][/quote] I see your point about the government being the murderer, but come on, does the government really deserve punishment for putting a cold blooded murderer down? And I read your other post. If you read my previous post in the thread, I only support death penalty in cases where it can be 100% proven that they're guilty (DNA evidence, security camera, confession, whatever) and if the evidence against you is that strong, you don't stand much of a chance in an appeal and most likley aren't going to appeal till you can't appeal anymore.
I see your point about the government being the murderer, but come on, does the government really deserve punishment for putting a cold blooded murderer down? And I read your other post. If you read my previous post in the thread, I only support death penalty in cases where it can be 100% proven that they're guilty (DNA evidence, security camera, confession, whatever) and if the evidence against you is that strong, you don't stand much of a chance in an appeal and most likley aren't going to appeal till you can't appeal anymore. [/b][/quote] You'd be surprised, as far as my observation goes, appeals are made for the sake of delay, until a judge or a court finally deems it non-productive, but even then, they remain on death-row for years. However, I do not know conclusively of any trends as to the average number of appeals, that may be something for me to look into. And yes, the government has put down a coldblooded murderer. But if an individual did that on his own will, would it not be murder as well? Why should the government be considered any different, surely two deaths aren't more moral or right than one?
Killing someone isn't murder if it's righteous. But yeah, whether it's righteous or not is up to you. I agree with the idea of new laws where home owners have more rights when it comes to protecting their property, too.
Then yes, I'd like to see the bastard die. [/b][/quote] and that murderer was your son? how would u react?