Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Ophelia, Oct 16, 2008.
My exact views.
Well, it wouldn't necessarily be killing to show all killing is wrong.
Just playing devil's advocate there.
I'm for it in extreme cases, but generally I agree with the 'buttfuck theory' voiced by Chris (now doesn't that sound weird). I don't believe in the 'reintroduced to society' thing. There's actually going to be that sort of case here, soon. In the 90s, there were a lot of criminals who lured people - young women, mainly - away, held them for ransom, and then killed them anyway, brutally, and they were jailed for 15-25 years. They'll be coming out soon, and I, for one, don't believe that they can have changed. It's not safe for them to be in society, and that will just make the streets a scarier place, when they get out.
I'd agree with that if they actually suffered, but in some countries prison is the good life compared to how some people live outside of prison.
Yeah, like here in Holland. People in prison even have their own TV. It's ridiculous.
To kill the person that had just killed someone is doing something that person did that you said was wrong and then saying it is right. It's hypocrisy. Think of it this way, it's like a cycle ; someone kills someone, you kill the person that kills someone, (is that right?, I think not" so for you being wrong and for you killing someone , someone gets to kill you because according to your justifications it's okay to kill someone who had killed another someone, and it keeps going on in that cycle until everyone on earth except one person is dead, unless they kill themselves for killing the last person. I think it's insane.
Hypothetically speaking their execution would probably be under different circumstances and with different motives.
Even so, it's still taking away someone's life. When it comes down to it, no matter what the motive is, killing is killing.
To an extent that would be true, but when you consider someone like Richard Ramierez or Ed Gein I don't think the way they killed people is quite the same as being executed, however you break it down.
I've always been against it. For the reasons that it shouldn't be "An Eye for An Eye" because what does revenge acheive? Plus, you have to think of the success rate of the killings. There have been several cases where the killing method has failed time and time again. It's inhumane. What ever happened to love thy neighbour?
The same thing that happened to thou shall not kill. Killing someone for the joy of it is not ok, but I fully support the use of executions as punishment, especially when the victim of the crime was a child. I also think, as a parent, if anyone ever hurts one of my children, that person had better hope that the cops find them before I do. Execution would be peaceful compared to what I would do.
Inhumane would be quartering someone on an execution block.
"Quartering may in truth be considered the most horrible penalty ever invented. This punishment dates from the remotest ages. In almost all cases, the victim had previously to undergo various accessory tortures: sometimes his right hand was cut off, and the mutilated stump was burnt in a cauldron of sulphur; sometimes his arms, thighs, or breasts were lacerated with red-hot pincers, and hot oil, pitch, or molten lead was poured into the wounds. After these horrible preliminaries, a rope was attached to each of the limbs of the criminal, one being bound round each leg from the foot to the knee, and round each arm from the wrist to the elbow. These ropes were then fastened to four bars, to each of which a strong horse was harnessed, as if for towing a barge. These horses were first made to give short jerks; and when the agony had elicited heart-rending cries from the unfortunate man, who felt his limbs being dislocated without being broken, the four horses were all suddenly urged on with the whip in different directions, and thus all the limbs were strained at one moment. If the tendons and ligaments still resisted the combined efforts of the four horses, the executioner assisted, and made several cuts with a hatchet on each joint. When at last, for this horrible torture often lasted several hours - each horse had drawn out a limb, they were collected and placed near the hideous trunk, which often still showed signs of life, and the whole were burned together. Sometimes the sentence was, that the body should be hung to the gibbet, and that the limbs should be displayed on the gates of the town, or sent to four principal towns in the extremities of the kingdom. When this was done, "an inscription was placed on each of the limbs, which stated the reason of its being thus exposed."
Loving thy neighbour went out the windows when thy neighbour killed the other.
I'm for it, if someone was convicted beyond all reasonable doubt using DNA, facts etc then they deserve to die.
So you'd base law on religion? I don't think that's a very good idea, but that's a whole different discussion.
This discussion has gotten old. The fact is criminals shouldn't go unpunished, the best way to do that and prevent them from commiting crimes again is death.
It's just semantics. They're both phrases that are part of a lexis outside of religion anyway.
I know this is iffy but.
If you had public Executions like it used to be, wouldn't it scare murderers away from murdering? or no?
:S I didn't give too much thought, but I was wondering...
Tell that to me again when we discuss the abortion debate.
IM A BIG PRO(depends on the case filed) eventhough my country doesn't on approve it!
Killing is killing, but some people really deserve to be killed. Deciding who deserves can be iffy though, so I'm against. Let them rot in prison.
It depends on how bad the crime is. If it's something like robbery, just sentence them to a couple of months in jail. If it's something like the firing in Bombay...then the government should make sure they turn into the sadists those terrorists were and hurt them. BADLY. And then chop their heads off.
Separate names with a comma.