Death Penalty

[Llama]

So are you for or against the death penalty?

I am against it for I believe no one has the right to take the life of another.

[hyiceme]

I am semi-pro-death penalty only for its deterrent effect. If murders are punished in the same way that they had done to others, then it may prevent others from committing such crimes.
Also, the economic side of this is very debatable. I personally think death penalty costs less than its alternative - life imprisonment, although some statistic shows otherwise. I think the reason some statistic shows high cost for DP is because of appealing and court processing fees, which technically shouldn't count as part of DP cost. On the contrary, taxpayers have to supply housing, food, prison guard fees, etc. for criminals who are sentenced to life in prison, which to me is quite unfair...

[Llama]

It won't prevent anything. You can't prevent human nature. People are always going to kill. Which is sad since I wish it would just all stop. And i really don't care about the economic side of it. A human life is a human life.

[Frosted Heart]

Some studies have shown that the death penalty as a deterrent doesn't really work. The crime rates for states with the death penalty are similar to the states where death penalty is not allowed. Even in countries like China where the death penalty still exists (as a firing squad too), crime is present. Most criminals rarely think they will get caught, so they perform the crime anyway.

I am against the death penalty because it seems a bit hypocritical to me. If the justice system thinks murder is wrong, why are they going to murder the criminal? And as for cost of living, well, if someone gets a life sentence, they can be made to work as well.

[hyiceme]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't DP reserved for the most heinous crimes? I don't want to list the gruesome examples of such, but they are as inhuman as it gets.

As for deterrent, it's not exactly fair to compare two completely different countries. There so many variables (i.e cultural/ethical difference, political difference, even police department may operate differently) that you can't point to one country's statistic and expect it to apply to another. I think deterrent is inherent to everyone of us. Who isn't afraid to die? Even those who kill are still afraid of death. They may be sociopaths, but they still try so hard to appeal (thus the high "cost" of DP). So I think it's instinctive that some might refrain from committing such crimes simply because they don't want to suffer the consequence.

[badgercoon]

I'm mixed on this one myself. I can see where it feels justified for some, and then how it's not as justified. I remember back in high school seeing a documentary on a guy who was on death row. The guy killed a man, "found religon" and was from the beginning a very manipulative person, so honestly I was left not sure on what really was better.

[Frosted Heart]

As for deterrent, it's not exactly fair to compare two completely different countries. Well in the study I read (a while ago though) it compared US states, so it's comparing it for one country only. Of course there's still differences within a country, but yes it's better than comparing two different nations.

I just threw China in there to show that even death by firing squad isn't a deterrent for crime. ^^;

Which crimes gets the death penalty depends on the state/country. I recently read that in China, a minister was sentenced to face the firing squad for mass corruption (taking many, many bribes). I think in most US states with the death penalty, the criminal must have committed first degree murder, and probably the more gruesome the crime/the more victims there was, the easier to get them the death sentence.

But what would killing these criminals accomplish? The victims' family might feel better, but that doesn't bring the victim back.

[Gintoki]

A very strong "NO" from my side. Nobody has the right to decide if someone has the right to live or not.

With doing so, you aren't much better than the person who committed a crime.
If you want to prevent them from crimes, just put them lifetime in jail. Yeah i know that brings more costs, but that's not an excuse. "Oh let's kill those 2, we need some more space in jail".

Mr. Bush and some other State Leaders are making themselves an easy life by just killing the people off.

[Syn]

I'm against it; mainly because no one has the right to take another person's life.

That, and errors occured too in the past. And once the life is taken, there is no 'oops my bad, you were innocent'. Living with the burden of a crime is, for some others, way more burdening than just dying too.

I'm glad that there is no DP in France.

[spacecat]

I wrote an essay on this at bf and I'm not going to again (it was so big that no one probably bothered to read it).

So many people that are given the death penalty aren't even guilty (see my sig), and I agree, it's not something I think is my job to decide and I would never want it to be. It's hard to know really but I'd mostly say no. I am not for the death penalty.

[juunana]

I am against it all the way. The WM3 in spaces sig is the perfect example of why it is wrong.Innocent people have been put to death throughout the ages. Killing a murderer doesn't bring back the victims. I have studied the death penalty at university and it really has never solved anything.

[nightshift]

The only reason I would've been for the death penalty in the past is because of the cost of maintaining criminals for a life sentence. The disadvantages of the death penalty outweigh the economic benefits though, seeing as it hasn't been proven as an effective deterrent to homicide, and the amount of innocents executed show that the flaws in the justice system are too great to judge someone to death.

On a more sadistic note, I'd like to say that I'd rather see a criminal who murdered someone I knew get tortured in prison for the rest of their life (not literally, but the torture of being in a cage and anally raped and eating slog) instead of the peaceful release of death. That to me is more reciprocal to the pain felt by a victim's loved ones. For many of those criminals, death is too easy of a 'punishment'.

[Shinrin]

Well if there's a near 100% prove, i'd say it's acceptable depending on the crime.
I wouldn't say im against all kind of tortured or some kind of physical punishment such as from a whip.(cutting off hands etc. are a big NO though, as is any form of "permanent" handicaps)
Still depends on the crime.

[Riekie]

Death Penalty=Big No-No to me!

Punishing someone by cutting their life short is just an easy way to get out of the 'real' punishmetn which is, having to life with the committed crime. It's just an easy way to get 'rid' of prisoners and saving money.

I'll explain myself further later, gots ta run now.

[mori]

firmly against it for a whole lot of reasons, most of which have already been mentioned.

Can you be a bit more specific anyway? You know, just so we know what you think.

-FH

[haliparot]

I'm someone who's against it, as well, though not really for any altruistic purposes at all (although a part of me is saying that no one is supposed to chose whether someone deserves to die or not)

Giving the Death Penalty, even to those who committed the most heinous crimes, is taking an easy way out for me. How can I make them suffer and feel guilt or remorse or just plain make them suffer if they're dead? How can they experience the pain and suffering that their crimes made their victims' feel if they're cold and underground?

So, I think they should suffer. Like, a life sentence of hard labor, the very worst, with the most minimal basic neccessities that they need to continue living. And without parol.

(this sounds very mean, I suppose, but I might just be vindictive)

[Shinrin]

Heh, if someone were to do a truely extreme & unforgiveable crime with prove and were to be boosting about it...

In that case I would give em an indirect death penalty, unless they change during the time...
I'd lock em up in a dungeon for a week or 2, without suporting em with any food or water, they must find it down there themself, if they can't... that just mean they didn't have the will to live.

[Geta Boshi]

I am pacifist so its a no for me . But on the other hand Child Molesters Rapist Homicidal Maniacs do deserve it. But depends its been used as a political weapon (civil rights) also State of Texas allowed mentally challenged people to get executed . There are too many cons to it As killing a person is a crime I do consider taking a life as a crime

Afterall,

It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to hang one innocent man

[Shannon]

"It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to hang one innocent man."

That's true. And I have pacifist view too, and I don't think that you should use violence to punish criminals. Maybe 24 hours of counseling a day or something? Or kitchen duty forever? Ha.

[Geta Boshi]

That's true. And I have pacifist view too, and I don't think that you should use violence to punish criminals. Maybe 24 hours of counseling a day or something? Or kitchen duty forever? Ha.

Most of these crimnals do suffer from mental instability reforming them is an good alternative . Also many innocents are behind bar and dna evidence has found them not guilty .So a jail term is the best solution .

In Generality .....Tax Payers money is used on controlling and crushing crime . A part of that must be used crush the reasons that cause crime . Reason being Poverty and Lack of Education

[emoloz]

Sticking people in Jail is better because if it ends up they didn't commit the crime you can let them go. We don't have death penelty over here. I think in some cases its sick like where people can actually stand and watch it. Its awful >.<

[SiSL]

I don't mind death penalty especially if someone was a leader of an internatioanlly recognised terrorist organisation that killed over 60K people since 1985 yet still protected by "Human Rights" or "Europe Union" and living life of a king in his 'private island' and commanding his terrorists from there etc.

[Cara]

I'm against the Death Penalty. I mean, if I had to choose between a painless death and a life suffering in prison, I would choose the former. Also, I don't believe in a society where killing a person is acceptable (criminal or not).

[Sanguinius]

I'm against it, but I won't settle for anything less than a life sentence of hard labor. It's a human life, but seriously, I don't work hard and live my life to sustain some killer's life.

[Errechan]

The death penalty is gruesome and it's hard to see how people can actually stand participating in it or watching as an execution takes place. I agree with Sanguinius, I think that a life sentence of hard labour is the better option for criminals. To kill anyone, I'm absolutely against.

[Siren]

Sorry to say if it was stated before, but statistics do show that the death penalty has no affect whatsoever on crime. It's basically just the government's method of taking care criminals and our tax dollers. (I'm sure it's much cheaper to kill someone than harbor then for life in a secure facility with food, water, movies, ect) I guess I'm neutral on the issue...

[krompt]

I am against the death penalty, like Llama said in his FP i don't believe anyone has the right to take another's life. It is God's law and for those who are not relegious it is unjust. The death penalty is killing someone because human society find a person guilty by the judgement of humans. Now we all know tha human judgement is not perfect, there have been cases when all evidence points toward a person and they are completely innocent. It is a 1 in a million chance that a innocent person is given the death pebalty but one life out of a million still count. So yes i am compltely against it.

[Siren]

Actually, it's a little more than 1 in a million. Since 1972, 118 people have been exonerated...and as DNA testing gets more high-tech, the number will continue to rise. (Taken from NCADP)

Anti-Death Penalty Article (http://www.amnestyusa.org/lsn/death_penalty.html) Looks like I was wrong...it costs more money to execute someone then maintain their existance. That doesn't seem right...

One reason why I would be against capital punishment is because there are major racial disparities between those on death row...not differences, but disparities. Also, there are many people that are put on death row that their crimes didn't merit...(manslaughter, 2nd degree)...people that can be rehabilitated.

[aznxenocide]

So I'd be the only person for the death penalty?

XD

I'm not advocating going around killing every criminal. Capital punishment should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes and only in the case where guilt has been firmly and incontrovertibly established. For example, does anyone believe Saddam should not have been hung? (hung? hanged? >.<)

[Ametatsu]

I am usually a pacifist, but part of me does sometimes think the death penalty could be justified, in really horrible crimes.
What I don't think is that I trust the government, or indeed, anyone, to be one hundred percent reliable in only executing those criminals who are completely guilty and who are responsible for their own actions. Even if it works in theory, there's always the potential for corruption in the system or just making a mistake.
If you put someone in prison and then a few years down the line new evidence comes up that they diodn't actually do it, you can let them out. They've still had to suffer a punishment they didn't deserve, but it's not terminal. You kill someone, you're stuck with it. You can't just say, "oops, sorry, didn't mean to do that".
Noone is one hundred percent infallible, and that's what you'd have to be to execute someone with a clear conscience. No one in the world has never made a mistake, no one is completely fair and impartial, even. So you need to have a justice system that allows for mistakes, that gives you some freedom to backtrack.

When you have a perfect justice system, you could safely introduce the death penalty, but you won't get to a perfect justice system via using the death penalty.


EDIT: siren and aznxenocide, I agree with both of your posts. Except, aznxenocide, no I don't think Saddam should have been hung. I do think that killing him was justified, but I also think that there are probably more humane ways than hanging. And I think, even for the most heinous criminals, if you have to kill them it should be in the most dignified and painless way possible.

[aznxenocide]

whoo! *highfives* Conservative opinions, whooo!

XD

Yeah, it's difficult for me to give the government the power of life or death over some people...but there are blatant cases that clearly deserve the death penalty as the ultimate punishment. But with faulty evidence, prejudices, corruption prevalent in many areas of the nation and the world, the death penalty isn't as useful as it might seem.

[ezxx]

No need for death penalty. Just give life sentence without a possibility of parole and it's all good.

[LivingHitokiri]

im totally against death penalty. noone can take others ppl lives for ANY reasons..its really cruel to sentence someone to death by a mistake( sometimes) just put them in jail.

[HinataFan]

I won't be against the death penalty until the Prison system of our country(USA) is changed. Hard core killers would have to much freedom the way things are set up now. I want something along the lines of chain gangs and having them build freaking great pyramids just for the hell of it. That would just be for the killers and pedophiles.

[HighSeraphShin]

hmm...death penalty, i somewhat say that you should never take the life of someone just for killing another, I agree with Hinata, we should make them do hard labor and possibly some taken off limbs, such as the right arm (or whatever arm they are good at using)

[stifflersthedog]

Oh ye lets just arrest all the criminals, its not like the prisons are over flowing or anything.

In a perfect system were you can be postive of guilt i see no problem with the death penalty. They kill therefore they die, and eye for an eye in my book.

Unfortunatly the system is corrupt and inaccurate, so there are cases were guilt is questionable. I rate if people are positively guilty, then go ahead, but no deaths unless absolutly sure.

I lived in Cape Town for a long time and in South Africa (were Cape Town is) there is no death penalty, but a very high rate of violent crimes, because of the overflowing prisons people are released early or giving shorter sentances, and then they go off and kill again. How is that justice?

Theres some really gruesome tales from those prisons i'll only go so far as to say that the kids and adults aren't properly seperated, and many have aids.

In any case i rate kill the *******, theres enough trouble in the world without trying to hold all the murderers behind a concrete wall.

Watch the swears please.

- FH

[HighSeraphShin]

true, people can escape, so that changes a lot to my saying, if they do something bad that harms others, kill them, because once they are out of that sentence theyll just do it again. am i right?

[LiquidTheBrit]

I personally believe that one should only be killed when they have taken another's life.

Not to mention, it's less costly than keeping them alive throughout their life.

[Who]

I am not for or against it. I see both sides, but I lean towards against. Simply because humans really have no right to decide on each others fate (no matter how many of our race seem to think they do). But there are certain cases in my persoanal views where they deserve it, but since those are persoanal views its really hard to say.

[♠ Saint ♠]

Okay. This is where I truly become... a Volvo with a gun rack.

The prison system is screwed up. Seriously. Sheriff Arpaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio) of Maricopa county has the right idea with how he's arranged his prison. "Arpaio believes that inmates should be treated as harshly as legally possible to emphasize the punishment aspect of their incarceration. " I would quote most of the article but meh, I suggest reading it. My favorite clip is this: "In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station, KJOE, which broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, obscenity-free patriotic music, and educational programming, from the basement of the county jail. The station airs four hours each day, five days a week. Future plans are to institute "Inmate Idol", a takeoff on the popular TV show." aaaand this: "One of Arpaio's most noted changes was the introduction of pink underwear. Arpaio noted that the traditional white underwear, labeled with Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was being smuggled out of the jails and sold on the streets. Arpaio thus had the underwear dyed pink, believing that pink is not considered a "macho" color, and would not be stolen. Interestingly, once the public learned of the change, requests came in for orders, and Arpaio began selling customized pink boxers (with the Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fund-raiser for sheriff's operations."

Now... these are good prison reforms (if you have read the whole article). As far as the death penalty goes, I think it should be used with greater frequency. C'mon. 15 years for murder? No way. What about rapists and pedophiles? If you have studied criminal progression, you would know that it takes years to make a criminal. There is always a past and always a 'why?' though the answer to that is usually fairly hard to find. Criminals are made over time. By the time that the prison system gets ahold of them, there is usually too much damage that has been done to them psychologically. There is no correcting these offenders at this point because they are a danger to society. So why keep them alive? They choose to behave like animals and as a taxpayer, I am sick to death of keeping them alive, giving them an education, and watching cable TV when I can barely manage my telephone bill a month and am struggling to scrounge funds to GET a college degree.

And I think it was George Carlin who said that executions should be pay-per-view. The execuion would pay for itself.

[Ralphyundertudy]

Yes because
Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.
It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.
The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.
We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America.
Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.
The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.
The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.
Mentally ill patients may be put to death.
It creates sympathy for the monsterous perpetrators of the crimes.
It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.
But no because
The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much.
It creates another form of crime deterrent.
Justice is better served.
Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims.
It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence.
DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.
Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill.
It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.

[♠ Saint ♠]

I am all for the death penalty. There are certainly twice as many people that went to not only the gallows but the chair, chamber, table, etc who were guilty beyond question. John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Aileen Wuornos, just to name a few off the top of my head. There are some that never even made it to the execution chamber that should have.

Example. A man in a place called Truth or Consequences, Arizona had a trailer behind his home where he would capture women and bring them into it to be tortured sadistically while they were still alive. He'd rape them, use power tools on them, etc. If I remember correctly, the bastard got life in prison, mostly because they could only tie him to a few murders. They suspect that he had many many more victims.

And what about Timothy McVeigh? After he blew up the Murrah Federal building and killed all those children on the ground floor and the people in the offices? I was chomping at the bit to see him executed and I'm glad he was.

For such atrocities, you should pay with your life.

[speedphantom]

I can't agree with killing people no matter what they do. Yes it costs taxpayers, yes these people do unforgiveable things but two wrongs don't make a right ><.

Also its the worst when innocent people get executed. Thats the ultimate wrong with the death penalty.

[Rain]

If the death penalty is used as a punishment/deterent then I must say that is a mistake.

When there isn't any enough evidence that a person commited the crime it should never be used. An absense of evidence (like saying they found no other traces of people at the crime scene) shouldn't be used to prove anything at all.

The only reason to ever use the death penalty should be to prevent that person from commiting that crime again, like serial killers and such.

[Agmaster]

I'm down for it. But it's done too kindly for serials and violent killers. I vote slide some inmate who's in for life a carton of his favorite cancer and look away.

Or you could have him walk down a nice spacious, rock block with everyone watching him until someone screams. "STONE HIM!!!!" Have angry basepall/softball pitchers, rock skippers, slingshot flingers, make it a party.

Of course, you really don't want me in charge of criminals, do you?

[shake]

no one deserves to die :/

killing a criminal makes you as bad as the criminal http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o279/esca3/wtfce4.png

[Agmaster]

Because everything must be done to look good? Because, that's what it sounds like you just said?

[MonkeyMagic]

There is nothing wrong with the Death Penalty. If you kill someone you deserve to have the same happen to you.

It seems you guys have a problem with the Justice system in general. And that is a whole 'nother debate entirely.

[Rain]

MonkeyMagic- I semi-agree. People do have a problem with the justice system, mainly because they disagree with the idea that the death penalty brings justice.

The main problem people have is just as your sentence says "If you kill someone you deserve to have the same happen to you". People feel that if that is the case, then the executioner should also be killed, as he killed a person.

[aznxenocide]

No, the executioner is acting as the people, who have deemed the criminal's actions severe enough to merit the death penalty. Cuz if that were the case...you'd have to take out the judge, the prosecuting lawyer, witnesses, etc etc. XD

I'm in favor of the death penalty, in theory. However, the justice system CAN mess up, and will, and even though reported incidents of innocent people dying are nearly nonexistent, it's still possible. But yes, certain crimes DO deserve the death penalty, hands down.

[Ametatsu]

Agmaster, Shake didn't say everything must be done to look good, it's to be good.

[Rain]

aznxenocide- I was just saying what most people's problem with the death penalty is, not mine:cool:

[Primera Espada]

eye for an eye went out with the old testament, IMO.

[aznxenocide]

aznxenocide- I was just saying what most people's problem with the death penalty is, not mine:cool:

lol my bad. XD

[Frosted Heart]

Hey peeps, kinda getting one-linery here. XD The thread is hungry for some meat.

- FH

[Agmaster]

Ametatsu; Who defines good? Is a soft hand really better than a stern one?

Of course there are mistakes made, but honestly letting them live out their lives and think about what they did can also be considered a mistake. Look how often society in America is too soft on criminals and make the victims suffer more and/or create new victims. In a universal sense it's rather self-balancing. No, it's not pretty, no, it's not perfect. It sure as hell ain't kosher, but we deal, we deal...

[aznxenocide]

You could argue against that by pointing out the abuses and mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo demonstrate that a stern hand isn't necessarily all that much better.

Many of the cases for people considering death row involve too many "maybe's" to make the death penalty truly effective...however, certain crimes do indeed warrant the death penalty. Rape homicides, multiple homicides, etc etc should be punished by death. But the major flaw with the justice system nowadays is the fact that there's so many opportunities to make mistakes.

[Agmaster]

I didn't call the hard hand perfect, or even better. All I asked is if it were better to err on the side of mercy than of whatever isn't mercy? Of course, most would pick the former as 'enlightened' beings.

[Primera Espada]

it's always safer to err on the side that allows life, because if you're wrong, you can always go back and FIX that. Erring on the side that kills people means if you're wrong, you can't go back and fix it.

[Agmaster]

But as proven with criminals who murder...you can't.

[Primera Espada]

I don't follow.

You understand that erring on the side of life doesn't mean you let them OUT, right?

[ookami]

The death sentence is only considered right in different circumstances such as a man like suddam huisein who ordered the death of millions and went on to kill more. Some people or infact most people would consider this to be right. It generally goes in the favour of somtimes its ok kill If the person you kill has killed alot of people. There is huge downside somtimes people are killed before their investigations have been fully covered e.g. DR. Crippin.

[bradc]

I demand a piggy-back ride after this...

I already stated my lengthy opinion under Prison vs. Death Debate

It was already been butchered to death and sentence to death under the fine print of the law. Simply to obey them... I disagree with Death Penalty, but it depends on the certain circumstances that one deserves to be executed, if one the murderer and serial killer shows no remorse or redemption and harming humanity, murdering millions and trillions of people is no different from any warfares; they deserve a death penalty.

Is cheaper to house a person as it is to give them life time imprisonment retirement home by simply feeding them and giving them a home; it costs more execute because the government and law system works as a whole, along side with technology and science sectors. The taxpayer moneys are paying for law enforcement to protect them, but it doesn't always make the law enforcement justified. For example, sometimes police do things just as unlawful as a civilian in the society would. I am sure it makes them justified by just sitting their vehicle outside somewhere waiting for someone speed by just to ticket them in the smaller streets, than main roads where most drag racing are done.

[Sinta]

I am for it, it should be used, not only for the deteriant factor but for the retribution aspect. There are problems with it, I agree, there are too many people that are actually innocent and the system as of right now has too much inconsistency in the way its applied. I think a changing of the standard might do it. However, there are people who deserve to die however so it should always be an option.

[Kojy]

Honestly i don't post in these kind of threads since i'm afraid to not be able to express in the best way, but my general thought about the Death Penalty is that it should be used in extreme cases, accidents happen but more it's easy to figure out if it was accidentaly or purpousedly managed.

A - Murderer
B - Victim

A kills B in a way that not even god can express how horrible it was, people like that should be locked until they dust or considerate DP.

A kills ton of B by an explosion in some facility, purpousedly for his own perception, this would be DP.

^ these two cases would be the major ones to think about DP.

But that's just me.

[bradc]

Honestly i don't post in these kind of threads since i'm afraid to not be able to express in the best way, but my general thought about the Death Penalty is that it should be used in extreme cases, accidents happen but more it's easy to figure out if it was accidentaly or purpousedly managed.

A - Murderer
B - Victim

A kills B in a way that not even god can express how horrible it was, people like that should be locked until they dust or considerate DP.

A kills ton of B by an explosion in some facility, purpousedly for his own perception, this would be DP.

^ these two cases would be the major ones to think about DP.

But that's just me.

A murderer is a victim and vice versa; they are both the same.

One always says silence is the key to innocence; until proven guilty. People are noisy these days and they don't know when to be quiet when told; or they make too much noise just to get noticed. The Alarm from Police and Fire Department are always ringing off the hook; even including prank calls, accidental calls and missed calls. Everyone has dailed the wrong telephone numbers including the law enforcements. Police takes themselves too serious from time-to-time, but that's how it is. Homeland security will never be secured, including one's own home which everyone lives in, and something is always happening in the backyard.

[Babbo]

A murderer is a victim and vice versa; they are both the same. On what planet o,o? The victim is the one who gets killed, the murder the one that does the killing. There is no room for twisting words there >.>


One always says silence is the key to innocence; until proven guilty. People are noisy these days and they don't know when to be quiet when told; or they make too much noise just to get noticed. The Alarm from Police and Fire Department are always ringing off the hook; even including prank calls, accidental calls and missed calls. Everyone has dailed the wrong telephone numbers including the law enforcements. Police takes themselves too serious from time-to-time, but that's how it is. Homeland security will never be secured, including one's own home which everyone lives in, and something is always happening in the backyard.

Ok breath slowly and repeat after babbo

"In a debate I will only make relevant statements when replying to another person"

There's absolutely no reason to be rambling about the prevalence of crime or the need for a suspect to keep quiet when you're responding to someone discussing situations where they would condone the death penalty o,o;;

And if you're going to respond here, please, for the love of God, don't post another nonsensical irrelevant post. Brevity is the soul of wit,and with God as Babbo's witness, you've beaten wit's poor withered soul to a bloody pulp.

[bradc]

On what planet o,o? The victim is the one who gets killed, the murder the one that does the killing. There is no room for twisting words there >.>



Ok breath slowly and repeat after babbo

"In a debate I will only make relevant statements when replying to another person"

There's absolutely no reason to be rambling about the prevalence of crime or the need for a suspect to keep quiet when you're responding to someone discussing situations where they would condone the death penalty o,o;;

And if you're going to respond here, please, for the love of God, don't post another nonsensical irrelevant post. Brevity is the soul of wit,and with God as Babbo's witness, you've beaten wit's poor withered soul to a bloody pulp.

Both a murderer and victim can be called a defendant (defense); the opposite side is called the offendant (offense) or witnesses are usually called to the stand. Prosecutor and Defense Attorney are suppose to find the truth. The truth these days been blurred under the Crown Court Laws. No one is higher than the law itself; not you or me.

Death Penalty exist for a reason because people are afraid of death; people are scared of dying that's why it's implemented in some countries. It hasn't been beaten to death; when those who harm other have been beaten to death should be given a fair trail but they should not be released back into society when harming humanity one life at a time.

Trust me; the courtroom add humour into life because it gets too serious. Taken Law Clerk and been into courtroom before; the level of seriousness and tones are different. The greater the crime, the greater the seriousness of the tone said by the Judge and Attorneys.

[Gol D. Roger]

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm on either side of the debate, and there are legitimate concerns for both parts of the equation.

However, I've always found the idea of life in prison, without the possibility of parole, to be a far heavier punishment than even death itself. A life deprived of all human quality and freedom, a life of absolute hopelessness, seems, to me, to be far greater in suffering.

This is entirely on a philosophical level, and it's impossible for me to understand how a life like that might feel to one who's actually there, and who doesn't share the same idealistic views of life that I do. I'm sure there are plenty of death row inmates in New York who rejoiced when we got rid of the death penalty a few years ago.

And there are logistical difficulties for both. On one hand, our prison system is sorely overcrowded, and yet on the other, the death penalty financially taxes the Justice Department with the vast number of appeals that result from a sentence of capital punishment. So in terms of money, which is a horrible lens through which to look at life and death, but also a frequent and unfortunate reality, there are detriments to each.

The death penalty is also a powerful bargaining chip in a prosecutor's arsenal, and is incredibly valuable in its use putting criminals behind bars for life in an effort to avoid the needle.

Frankly, there's no easy answer to this question. I cannot say I support killing in any way, shape, or form, but I recognize both the merits and the serious issues that the death penalty presents.

[Inevitable.Exit]

However, I've always found the idea of life in prison, without the possibility of parole, to be a far heavier punishment than even death itself. A life deprived of all human quality and freedom, a life of absolute hopelessness, seems, to me, to be far greater in suffering. That is the problem however. Almost ever inmate aside from the most dangerous have access to Television, Food, Haircuts, Conjugal Visits(some), Computers, Libraries and even College Educations. If you were a prisoner and were locked in a cell with nothing I could understand. But of course that would be too unethical and torturous, even for the guy who raped a child.

This is entirely on a philosophical level, and it's impossible for me to understand how a life like that might feel to one who's actually there, and who doesn't share the same idealistic views of life that I do. I'm sure there are plenty of death row inmates in New York who rejoiced when we got rid of the death penalty a few years ago. I can tell you, that anything is better than death. And of course they rejoiced, no one wants to die. Anything (aside from some EXTREME cases) is better than death.

And there are logistical difficulties for both. On one hand, our prison system is sorely overcrowded, and yet on the other, the death penalty financially taxes the Justice Department with the vast number of appeals that result from a sentence of capital punishment. So in terms of money, which is a horrible lens through which to look at life and death, but also a frequent and unfortunate reality, there are detriments to each. I very much agree with you here :glomp

[Shdo]

best solution is to throw them into a deserted island, away from everything.
if they cannot obey society laws then society wash her hands from them.

[Inevitable.Exit]

best solution is to throw them into a deserted island, away from everything.
if they cannot obey society laws then society wash her hands from them.You mean like Australia :mwhaha . That aside, I wouldn't mind it. Theres bound to be a nice island for purchase somewhere ! Or some desolate piece of land !

[Babbo]

You're doing it again man when will you ever learn ;.;?


Both a murderer and victim can be called a defendant (defense); the opposite side is called the offendant (offense) or witnesses are usually called to the stand. Prosecutor and Defense Attorney are suppose to find the truth. The truth these days been blurred under the Crown Court Laws. No one is higher than the law itself; not you or me.

Wrong again. It's the defendant and the plaintiff. Nice try though. And no it's not blurred. If the person is a murderer they are not a victim. It's that simple. Your logic here is highly flawed. KòjýSýS's hypothetical situation already assumes that it's known that the person is guilty of murder. Your discussion of the idea of court structure is highly irrelevant.


Death Penalty exist for a reason because people are afraid of death; people are scared of dying that's why it's implemented in some countries. It hasn't been beaten to death; when those who harm other have been beaten to death should be given a fair trail but they should not be released back into society when harming humanity one life at a time.

Trust me; the courtroom add humour into life because it gets too serious. Taken Law Clerk and been into courtroom before; the level of seriousness and tones are different. The greater the crime, the greater the seriousness of the tone said by the Judge and Attorneys.

Again this is all highly irrelevant to the discussion you're responding to. Learn your bloody lesson.

[Shdo]

think about it, if people really dont want to obey the laws of the country then you can simply drop them on a island away from everything, give them a knife and a week rations, see how long will they survive there.

ofcourse there must be a island for women and men separtly. we cant have innocent babies stuck for their life in nowhere because they parents were murderers.
this will really lower the expends, you toss them there, give them a week worth of food and have a air patrol coming once in a while to see that everything is in check.

[Babbo]

think about it, if people really dont want to obey the laws of the country then you can simply drop them on a island away from everything, give them a knife and a week rations, see how long will they survive there.

ofcourse there must be a island for women and men separtly. we cant have innocent babies stuck for their life in nowhere because they parents were murderers.
this will really lower the expends, you toss them there, give them a week worth of food and have a air patrol coming once in a while to see that everything is in check.

Rofl. Coconut on a rope? Trading mangoes instead cigs? XD

[Shdo]

i think they will be more into killing one another but that shouldnt bother us.

[Mika]

I am against it. No matter who the person is or what the person did, they still have the right to live. We are all equal and should be treated as equals.

[Miyona]

Im for it....

if you kill someone one, you should get the same treatment....you take a life so your life should be taken...

thats how I feel.

[Aizen Sousuke]

I am against the death penalty. Nobody has the right to take someone else's life. If you take a life, your own life should be taken from you, but not through death, but rather through eliminating all aspects of human life besides existing. Life in prison is ultimately a greater punishment, as death is almost a blessing when one commits a crime that warrants death on today's standards. If somebody wants to commit murder, and know they are going to die, that's not going to stop them from killing other people. They might as well make the best of their freedom while they are still free, and then just be killed. It's a cowards way out. The idea of living life behind bars for thirty or forty+ years would be psychologically worse. The thought of living with no purpose, no pleasure, nothing at all, would be far worse than death. Many people would prefer death over life in prison, so they don't have to go through a long and meaningless existence. The best thing would be to keep them behind bars, so unless they kill themselves, they have years to contemplate their morals and the idea of justice in today's world.

[Bleu]

In my opinion, death is mercy.

If i really wanted a person to punish for their crimes, i would want them to rot there for their entire lives in agony until they die.


i dont think their death really makes up for their crimes, and apparently so does most of the world. Here the death penalty is banned.

[Shdo]

actually i think that most of the world does have death penalty. hell in many countries there is still the practice of beheading.


a easy list of who does it and who isnt.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

[Inevitable.Exit]

Life in prison is ultimately a greater punishment, as death is almost a blessing when one commits a crime that warrants death on today's standards...The idea of living life behind bars for thirty or forty+ years would be psychologically worse. The thought of living with no purpose, no pleasure, nothing at all, would be far worse than death. I'm not sure a lot of people who say this really know how prison is these days. For instance like I said before, many people in prison have rights to Exercise, Television, Radio, Free Libraries, Internet, College degrees etc. Also remember a lot of people in prison are there due to gang activities. So living in prison is much the same as living on the outside barring the fact that you can't come and go as you please. You also haven't been in a situation where your life was in danger. Life is better than anything barring any extremes.
Many people would prefer death over life in prison, so they don't have to go through a long and meaningless existence.You know a lot of people say this, but then when it is around time for their executions, many of them put in appeals or try to get stays of execution. Clearly Life > Death in prison.
The best thing would be to keep them behind bars, so unless they kill themselves, they have years to contemplate their morals and the idea of justice in today's world.Most killers aren't worried about this.

Also, the death penalty isn't thrown around much TBH. Even a lot of people with 1st degree murder don't get death. IIRC Life without parole or death is up to the judge to decide as there isn't a mandate stating which you must give.

[sketch]

Here is my honest opinion on the death penalty.

Isn't it a bit weird, killing people to prove that killing people is wrong?

Sorry that my opinion and post are a bit short, but I couldn't think of any other way to word my opinion simply. I mean, the reason the death penalty is there is partly to show other people that killing people is wrong and isn't this a bit, for want of a better word, contradictory?

[IngenuityGap]

Here is my honest opinion on the death penalty.

Isn't it a bit weird, killing people to prove that killing people is wrong?

Sorry that my opinion and post are a bit short, but I couldn't think of any other way to word my opinion simply. I mean, the reason the death penalty is there is partly to show other people that killing people is wrong and isn't this a bit, for want of a better word, contradictory?

Yes, it absolutely is. I'm not concerned about the costs so much (one of the few times I can say this politically) in regards to keeping them in prison for life. Killing someone doesn't offer the opportunity to LEARN from the mistake and hasn't shown itself as a strong deterrent to violent crime.

[Rain]

Here is my honest opinion on the death penalty.

Isn't it a bit weird, killing people to prove that killing people is wrong?

Sorry that my opinion and post are a bit short, but I couldn't think of any other way to word my opinion simply. I mean, the reason the death penalty is there is partly to show other people that killing people is wrong and isn't this a bit, for want of a better word, contradictory?

there are two views about the point of the death penalty

one is of course that it is a deterrent and it proves that killing is wrong. looking from this view, you are completely right, it is contradictory

but there is another view to it

the death penalty isn't meant to be so much as a deterrent, but rather, a precaution (im trying to choose my words carefully, but please don't read too much into each one)

the death penalty, in many peoples eyes, should only be used in the cases to prevent people from doing the action again

for example, if a man kills several others in cold blood, with no sign of regret, then there is a very high probability that he will do it again. to protect others, maybe he should be killed

on the other hand, if a person kills another in an accident, then the death penalty should not be used, an actual penalty would suffice

[sketch]

there are two views about the point of the death penalty

one is of course that it is a deterrent and it proves that killing is wrong. looking from this view, you are completely right, it is contradictory

but there is another view to it

the death penalty isn't meant to be so much as a deterrent, but rather, a precaution (im trying to choose my words carefully, but please don't read too much into each one)

the death penalty, in many peoples eyes, should only be used in the cases to prevent people from doing the action again

for example, if a man kills several others in cold blood, with no sign of regret, then there is a very high probability that he will do it again. to protect others, maybe he should be killed

on the other hand, if a person kills another in an accident, then the death penalty should not be used, an actual penalty would suffice

I agree to your second point, death is also used to stop the action being repeated. I just don't agree that death is the best way to go. As a form of punishment, yes it's not going to be w nice experience for the criminal, but once they're dead they no longer have to suffer. I would think that the best way to punish them was to do something that they were concious of. I don't mean turture here, I'm totally against that. For instance, a very hig security prison, where the criminal is cut off from the world. Something like that.

[Shdo]

teh point isnt to make the criminal suffer, but to pay their debt to society.
if the point was to cause them suffering then there would be a torture chambers in prison.

the all idea of prison and punishments is to seperate the bad elements from society. death is the most permament and safe way to remove such indeviduals.

[Rain]

I just don't agree that death is the best way to go.

personally i don't think that the death penalty should be an option in so many crimes also.

Death isn't the best way to go in 99.9% of crimes

but if the person does something horrible, and has no remorse, and will mst likely do it again, then i just feel it is the best option, but in anything less than this it shouldn't even be an option

Shdo- it agree with your second point (wow, we agree on something:eek::rofl)

[Rock]

I would have to say NO no one has the right to decide who lives and who dies no matter what happen. I Also think Death Sentence is an easy way out instead of spending life time in prison you just skip that and died, the person will more likely suffer in prison rather then dying.

[Shdo]

what about that fritzel guy who raped his dauther for 24 years and fathered her 6 times, keeping 3 of them in the basement for all their lives. can anyone be pleased when such a man who ruined the life of so many still lives? there are crimes that are just too great, there are crimes that cannot be accepted even with prison for life.

sometimes there is a place for an eye for an eye.

[Rock]

what about that fritzel guy who raped his dauther for 24 years and fathered her 6 times, keeping 3 of them in the basement for all their lives. can anyone be pleased when such a man who ruined the life of so many still lives? there are crimes that are just too great, there are crimes that cannot be accepted even with prison for life.

sometimes there is a place for an eye for an eye.

still have to say no to the death penalty to that. It would just be an easy way for the guy to get out of his crimes. Life in Prison would be more of a suitable punishment since he has stay in jail for the rest of his life.

[Shdo]

he is 70+ how long do you think he got? everyday he lives he can remember what he did for the last 24 years, if he was young then it would be nice to lock him up forever but the man is already so old.

[Rock]

^Yeah that is really bad but the way I look at it if he gets put to death it will be an easy way out since he's old why not send him to prison for the rest of his life and make him suffer there for the remainder of his life.

[Shdo]

suffer? he is going to remember what he did for 24 years with joy, he will die in what? 5 years? a five years in prison for a crime of 24 years and 7 victims.

[Rain]

rock- i don't really see how death is an easy out, nor how prision is suffering

Im not too sure how austrian prisions are, but in the US prision lives are actually "better" than poverty level

they have a place to live, they can make money, have no expenses, have access to books, cable, fresh air and exercise and rarely do even prision sentences get carried to full term.

[Shdo]

just found out that he might get 15 years in prison...15 years for a crime of 24 years, if he was younger it would be laughable that he might get free after a while.

the 15 is the MAX he will serve and that without reduction of penalty for various reasons.

[Unicorn]

suffer? he is going to remember what he did for 24 years with joy, he will die in what? 5 years? a five years in prison for a crime of 24 years and 7 victims.

I disagree. Australian news reports says that he fears the other inmates see him as the 'worst sort of scum' and will treat him accordingly.

In this case, living the rest of his life despised and at the mercy of fellow inmates will be punishment enough. I hope he will not get solitary confinement.

[Inevitable.Exit]

I disagree. Australian news reports says that he fears the other inmates see him as the 'worst sort of scum' and will treat him accordingly.

In this case, living the rest of his life despised and at the mercy of fellow inmates will be punishment enough. I hope he will not get solitary confinement.He would be kept separated from other inmates. If they don't do it right away they will do it after his first assault/rape/confrontation. Any kind of sex crime generally ends up in the inmate getting some kind of separation from gen-pop.

Either way this is definitely a case where I support the death penalty and agree with Shdo and Rain. Makes me wonder about the legal system there since pretty sure he would be looking @ life minimum here in the US due to Kidnapping, False imprisonment, Rape, Neglect and tons of charges related to the death of one of the infants.

[stark espada]

On this I'm in the cross roads personally.

Now I have reasons to why people should get it. Like lets say you have prof that said person up for death killed a few people and there was prof that they had done it. Then I would suggest that death penalty is deserving rather then let the person live and get called *crazy* and unknowing what they were doing if you killed more then one person I see things as an eye for an eye in that sense.

Yet there are still cases today were people got the death sentence and did not truly do any thing to deserve it. Like people convicted of murder but in truth killed no one I remember reading something to that effect a while back. I say the death penalty should only be done when you have clear prof that what they have done is them doing it and if they have done it then go ahead and fry them so to say.

This is but one view and I know there are other things that are a cause for the death penalty but I wanted to look just at this fact for now.

[rayne_himura]

well, i'm a little divided on this issue. because my flesh believes that if you kill somebody intentionally with predetermination, rape women or children, or abuse children and there is no doubt you are guilty, then you should be hung in the middle of town so all can see who chose to. that way people who have these tendencies will think twice before acting on them. on the other hand, if there is doubt about the guilt, then life in prison with some labor involved, hard labor for hard criminals, etc.
the reason people say it doesn't work as a deterrent is because we are so removed from it today. only a couple of people actually see someone get executed, so it doesn't have the same effect that it once did, hence me suggesting public executions.

however, being a Christian makes this a little harder because we are supposed to love our neighbor(which is everybody else, not just the guy that lives next door). also we know that God will deal with all accordingly in due time, and the Bible says "the wrath of man doeth not the righteousness of God."

[Shdo]

i dont think that public executions helped in the past. i dont think that it reduce crime that much, i just think that those scum shouldnt be alive. murder is such a horrific crime that to me its like the man say that they dont have respect to humanity or society. then i dont see much reason for society to even let such a scum live. how many crimes could have been stopped if the punishment was higher? how many children could have been saved if child molesters would have got the life sentence? how any people would have their life saved? if its petty crimes i would forgive anyone but there are crimes that make a person less then trash in my eyes and i wont want anything to do with those people.

[Unicorn]

The lawyer (zomg, what made him agree to defend that piece of trash who imprisoned his daughter for 24 years) now says that the Trash intends to plead insanity. Because no-one in their right mind would do such a thing.

Uhuh. Of course. Blame everything else except him, when he obviously planned the kidnapping and imprisonment for years before.

I say... let him plead insanity. Then spend the rest of his life tied in a straitjacket and unable to move except when others let him. Maybe place him on public view, and the straitjacket ensures that he can't kill himself to escape.

[Lilium]

what about that fritzel guy who raped his dauther for 24 years and fathered her 6 times, keeping 3 of them in the basement for all their lives. can anyone be pleased when such a man who ruined the life of so many still lives? there are crimes that are just too great, there are crimes that cannot be accepted even with prison for life.

sometimes there is a place for an eye for an eye.
there are times when no punishment can ever be enough for the crimes he has committed. death seems too easy, life in prison for a 70 year old seems trivial cause he has already lived that long how long more does he have? he has basically destroyed the lives of his children, took away their time took away their future.

it's time like this you wish you have the ability to make one experience the pain that you have inflicted upon others. Make him go through each day of what he has done to them.

[Shdo]

the thing is that he wont even get life in prison, he will get 15 years MAX.

[Unicorn]

Ahh methinks he'll try to kill himself in prison if he ever gets 15 years. He can handle locking people up but can't handle being locked up himself.

No, I WANT him to plead insanity, get diagnosed with insanity, and then spend the rest of his life tied into a straitjacket where other people determines what he does or does not do.... and with no option of killing himself.

Taxpayers don't want to pay for his food and care? Make him a tourist attraction, charge fees and channel all money towards the lives he ruined.

[Shdo]

i wish there was a way to make people expiriance things only in their mind, so that he could actually feel all that he done to her for virtual 24 years. a man can dream of retribution.

[Lilium]

i wish there was a way to make people expiriance things only in their mind, so that he could actually feel all that he done to her for virtual 24 years. a man can dream of retribution.
that's exactly what i had in mind when i posted. and his mindset better not be as him but as the daughter when he goes through all those trauma. He actually "becomes" her during this mind torture.

[Shdo]

no...he should be himself. that way he will feel it on his flesh, beyond the recognition of being male or female. just being raped for 24 years by a creepy man...but that wont happen.

its seems that America is high among the countries that do the death penalty. as it seems over 3000 are waiting for death penalty. how does Americans see it that they are at the top with countries like china and Saudi Arabia in the implication of death penalty?

[Lilium]

no...he should be himself. that way he will feel it on his flesh, beyond the recognition of being male or female. just being raped for 24 years by a creepy man...but that wont happen.
when you put it that way...that is indeed worse. brr...this case really disgusts me and is giving me shivers when i talk about it. it really makes you realize how shitty humans can be and how low humanity can sink to.

[cornflakes]

What you guys are speaking of (especially that one about making him a tourist attraction or something) is retribution, revenge. Which is, in my opinion, not the same as justice.

[Rain]

Ive got to agree with cornflakes a bit right now

granted im not close to the issue, but i don't want to torture the guy

I generally don't believe in torture, but in my mind he is the among the worst possible things a person could be, and society is better off without him

And althought it can be argued that if he is removed from society via prision it is the same thing. I disagree, he will still have an effect on it, so the world should just wipe their hands of him and be done with it

Uni- a toursit attraction, and everyone who visits can poke him with a sharp stick for a dollar:nuts (im not being sarcastic here)

[Unicorn]

Uni- a toursit attraction, and everyone who visits can poke him with a sharp stick for a dollar:nuts (im not being sarcastic here)

Heck yea, and $10 if you wanna tie a razor blade to the stick.

@ cornflakes - you do have a point about the revenge factor. However I take into consideration that the Trash is apparently unrepentant about it, and is planning how to avoid jail by pleading insanity.

I say to let him have what he wants (no jail) AND make him work + pay for his own upkeep, cos' IMHO he does not deserve to be kept alive by taxpayers' money.

[Rain]

Heck yea, and $10 if you wanna tie a razor blade to the stick.

@ cornflakes - you do have a point about the revenge factor. However I take into consideration that the Trash is apparently unrepentant about it, and is planning how to avoid jail by pleading insanity.

I say to let him have what he wants (no jail) AND make him work + pay for his own upkeep, cos' IMHO he does not deserve to be kept alive by taxpayers' money.

razors for $10, i don't wanna know what a 20 would get you


we both agree on this point, its just how to go about it that we slightly differ

as far as him being repentant or not, did he turn himself in or was he caught (sorry i don't know)

because unless he turned himself in then he is not truely sorry for what he did, he is sorry he got caught

[Unicorn]

He was caught. And he's now apparently trying to avoid jail.

One of his kids (by his kidnapped daughter) was really ill and was sent to hospital. It raised queries and he was caught. Otherwise none of his captives had professional medical care from outside their cell, not even his kidnapped daughter.

[Shdo]

not to mention that the girl you are talking about (child\grandchild) was brought to the hospital when she reached a level of a coma if i am not mistaken. most likely he just didnt wanted to have another dead body to get rid of.

unlike the previous dead baby this one cannot be despose easily in the basment furnace.

[Unicorn]

The Trash now claims that:

1) he is really not a monster
2) his behaviour and 'need for control' was influenced by Hitler
3) he locked his daughter in the basement to protect her from the outside world (he bought her medical books but never took her to see a doctor, not even when her teeth started rotting and she could not sleep from the pain.)
4) he is 'sorry to say' that he told his captives that if they left the cellar, they'd be electrocuted to death.


wow... I am really quite speechless. With an imagination like that, he need not get a lawyer to defend him.

[Shdo]

i wonder how we would treat such a thing in my country. i mean we do have a death penalty but we never actually use it, only for extordinery crimes such as mass murder(such as genocide level). i guess he would get life without parrol. i am quite sure he would have got the chair in america, and in austria he will get 15 years.

can you think about the slim chance he would actually be able to see daylight? i mean age 88, that is pretty possiable in a western country.

[Rain]

Shdo- yeah, he would probably have gotten the chair in the US, but you never know, there would be someone who wnats to amke him see like a victum

uni- yeah, i don't know how to feel after that.

yeah, he might not need a lawyer, but whats somewhat ironic is that he doesn't realize hes probably safetest in prision

[CeriaHalcyon]

I think that the crime in the us would decrease dramatically if we had public executions, and not even the chair or the shot, but hangings. not immediately after the trial, but say a year after to exhaust 2-3 appeals but no more than that, 366 days later after you're guilty and sentinced to death you hang. Jail nowadays is just a revolving door due to over crowding, and i think the act of having public executions would straighten out a whole lot of the whacko's and criminals in this country.

Edited:

Then what about the whacko who pulled a gun from a deputy in Atlanta Georgia, killed the judge, the deputy the court reporter, the baliff and two other cops later on, and yet now he's getting a new trial?

WHAT THE HELL FOR!!!!!!! he should've been killed when they caught him, and even if they had to bluff about him resisting arrest, there wasnt any need for a trial, 30 people saw him murder four-five people in one go!

[Shdo]

keep in mind that there are countries that do that, and with beheading as well...do you really want to be in the same list as those countries?

[bradc]

Edited:

Then what about the whacko who pulled a gun from a deputy in Atlanta Georgia, killed the judge, the deputy the court reporter, the baliff and two other cops later on, and yet now he's getting a new trial?

WHAT THE HELL FOR!!!!!!! he should've been killed when they caught him, and even if they had to bluff about him resisting arrest, there wasnt any need for a trial, 30 people saw him murder four-five people in one go!


WOW... The criminal should be place in the death penalty box automatically. There is no point to place him on new trail anyway for killing people even the courtroom... where there was already number of witnesses. Justice can speak for itself and justice was already spoken for...

[Rain]

Ceria- the death penalty is not a deterant to crime though, so how would public exectutions make any difference

I see it as being almost similar to the thought that the show CSI makes smarter criminals, so having these public exectutions would only make the people who do the crimes worthy of the death penalty more dangerous

And the reason the man deserves a trial is simply because every deserves one

this may not a good case to make the example, but what if someone didn't like you, so they killing 4-5 people, got others in the room to voutch for him against you

Without a trial you wouldn't be able to prove your innocence, nevermind that eye-witnesses are probably the most unreliable yet most valued/believed piece of evidence there is

Trials keep the order, because a punishment like you described is irreversable

[Shdo]

i think that death penalty would be a good deterent if there wasnt so many appeals and if it was more general like murderers get the death penalty, no matter if they killed 1 or 10 people, murderers get the death penalty period. if there was a clear procedure for this it might have actually do something but when the system is rusty and barely do anything (people wait for years to be executed when it should be swift).

[CeriaHalcyon]

Ceria- the death penalty is not a deterant to crime though, so how would public exectutions make any difference

I see it as being almost similar to the thought that the show CSI makes smarter criminals, so having these public exectutions would only make the people who do the crimes worthy of the death penalty more dangerous

And the reason the man deserves a trial is simply because every deserves one

this may not a good case to make the example, but what if someone didn't like you, so they killing 4-5 people, got others in the room to voutch for him against you

Without a trial you wouldn't be able to prove your innocence, nevermind that eye-witnesses are probably the most unreliable yet most valued/believed piece of evidence there is

Trials keep the order, because a punishment like you described is irreversable

The thought of being put to death for a crime should be a deterant and yet its not. if executions were public, i think it would be a visible sign that justice is being taken and not held back by litigation and useless appeals.

The above mentioned story the accused was in a courtroom with a live jury and audience, there was no framing of him, he shot and killed the man who would've been his judge, and everyone else that was mentioned, the only reason he didnt get killed by the police is he took someone hostage about a day later, this was after finding and killing two other police officers.

Everyone deserves a trial, even if it's a mock one in this case, there's nothing to refute, there is no chance it couldnt have been him.

[bradc]

The thought of being put to death for a crime should be a deterant and yet its not. if executions were public, i think it would be a visible sign that justice is being taken and not held back by litigation and useless appeals.

The above mentioned story the accused was in a courtroom with a live jury and audience, there was no framing of him, he shot and killed the man who would've been his judge, and everyone else that was mentioned, the only reason he didnt get killed by the police is he took someone hostage about a day later, this was after finding and killing two other police officers.

Everyone deserves a trial, even if it's a mock one in this case, there's nothing to refute, there is no chance it couldnt have been him.

Apparently in this day in age of future isn't like the old times where executions are taken place in public. Not many, and particular the much younger generation wouldn't be able to take it anyway by seeing someone or innocent victim being slain in the open, as do war have the same effect. It wouldn't justify such action either without a diplomatic approach with law and order preventing chaos from happening.

[CeriaHalcyon]

yeah there is the effect it would have on the innocent to consider, as well as the effect on the criminals...

Point made and i am in the wrong

[Rain]

I just happent to think that the only people who would be influenced by seeing an actual execution are those who would never actually do anything that would require such a penalty

It deters the people who are already detered i guess is my point

[Awakenedgirl86]

Would giving the person life in prision make him realize that he made his own hell by killing that person?

[bradc]

Would giving the person life in prision male him realize that he made his own hell by killing that person?

IF the person can redeem themselves after sitting for so many years in prison, then the person wouldn't need death penalty and be a free man and live his life once more. IF the person is unable to redeem themselves, and continue to hurt other people than they deserve death penalty because they are putting themselves in danger as well as the public.

[Rain]

If they are worthy of redemption then the death penalty should not be used

but again, i dont see the death penalty as designed to enforce/deter/make amends for a crime

It is to protect society from dangerous and threatening people

[Shdo]

easy, its porpuse is to make clear that this kind of scum will not be tollerated to be part of society, if they cant follow the simple rules such as dont murder that mean they dont really give a damn about society so why should society give a damn about him?

if you got a torn in you palm, do you pull it out and put it in a box or do you throw it away? the same is with murderers, their existance put the lifes of others at danger, they are a torn in our palm, they are in the way of a society where people can live without fear of being murdered.

[Nejibana]

I can't have a definite position because of many things that are happening in my country. If I think morally, I should say no to death penalty but.. recently a young child was murdered by a man who had sexual interest in her, my god, she only had 5 years! And now there's a trial that's becoming more and more important here. Some paedophiles are being judged for raping childs from 1 to 3 years! One of them even worked as a babysitter. C'mon guys, that kind of people shouldn't have the right to live, they're abusing of childs, childs! And they'll never be cured, psychologists say it, is not a disease, is not instinct (animals have more moral than such...I don't know how to name it), then what is it? Today in Japan a paedophile accused of murdering 3 girls was executed. And I didn't feel sorry for him... what he did is more horrible than any kind of offense.

I'm sorry, but I can't stay against death penalty when such people is around ourselves.

[Kastro187420]

Personally, I think the law should abandon the Death Penalty, and instead, Adopt the "Eye for an Eye" method of Punishment, which says that whatever you do to someone, will be done to you. If you kill someone, you get killed. If you stab someone, you get stabbed. If you Molest/Rape someone... well, it'd be difficult to molest/rape a sex offender.. so instead, I think they should just "destroy" or "severely damage" the body part used in the offense.

That combined with a Prison sentence would do more than enough to sway people from committing crimes. Right now, the Death Penalty isn't too scary for people, because most people sit on death row for 20 years before being executed.

[kiera2]

the same is with murderers, their existance put the lifes of others at danger, they are a torn in our palm, they are in the way of a society where people can live without fear of being murdered.
But people commit murder for all kinds of different reasons. Should a psychopathic serial killer be given the same sentence as a man who loses himself in anger when he finds his wife committing adultery? There are many murderers who commit their crimes in the heat of the moment and would have no intention of ever murdering again.

[Rain]

kastro- i dont necesarily disagree, but i would like to hear your opinion on one idea

what about cases where it is a one-time occurance

like a man kills another for revenge, or even if it was an accident

im not condoning either action, but should tha man be killed if you know he no longer poses a threat to society

[Kaori Machida]

I agree with Kastro. Of course, all kinds of things need to be taken into consideration, but as a general rule I like the "eye for an eye". Somebody who has committed murders should be put to death, especially serial killers. Those kinds of people don't regret what they have done.

Though, I think that the only people who should get the death penalty are murderers. Nobody deserves death if they haven't killed another intentionally.

[Shdo]

But people commit murder for all kinds of different reasons. Should a psychopathic serial killer be given the same sentence as a man who loses himself in anger when he finds his wife committing adultery? There are many murderers who commit their crimes in the heat of the moment and would have no intention of ever murdering again.

you brought the worst example, i hate this thing, even made a thread about it. killing your wife out of anger of the moment remind me of honor killing, something that happen again and again in my country and i am tired of it. i would gladly see some1 who do that die. by killing her he also make her his property, his extension, he break the oaths he gave to god and many other reasons that makes the murder of your partner one of the crimes i hate the most.

[bradc]

you brought the worst example, i hate this thing, even made a thread about it. killing your wife out of anger of the moment remind me of honor killing, something that happen again and again in my country and i am tired of it. i would gladly see some1 who do that die. by killing her he also make her his property, his extension, he break the oaths he gave to god and many other reasons that makes the murder of your partner one of the crimes i hate the most.

People snap and break when they can find any way out of said situation and unable to think clearly for themselves. Family abuse are probably one the well known issues exist in society, and from time-to-time you hear people getting murdered because they got themsleves wrapped up in a desperate situation with life; along with said criminal that already exist. When it happens, it happens... What are you going to do? If you put yourself into a victim's shoes, you would probably feel the same way of being helpless when about to being murder by either your own family members or someone's hand due to greed and revenge.

These type of people exist... Whether you like it or not...

[kiera2]

you brought the worst example, i hate this thing, even made a thread about it. killing your wife out of anger of the moment remind me of honor killing, something that happen again and again in my country and i am tired of it. i would gladly see some1 who do that die. by killing her he also make her his property, his extension, he break the oaths he gave to god and many other reasons that makes the murder of your partner one of the crimes i hate the most.
Killing your partner because when you catch them sleeping with another person has nothing to do with property and everything to do with jealousy, betrayal, and the heat of the moment. Hell, in France it actually used to be a legitimate defense to plead that a murder was a 'crime of passion'. And plenty of women have killed their male partners in the same situation.

If we want to evaluate the death sentence's validity we first have to take a look at what the purpose of our criminal justice system is. Is it to punish those who have done wrong, to take vengeance on behalf of the victims? Or is it to make our society a better place, and prevent further crimes from happening?

I know that some believe the purpose of courts and sentencing is to elicit justice from the perpetrators' suffering, but I fail to see how that is anything more than institutionalised revenge. Revenge of course being something that the justice system supposedly eschews in favour of impartiality.

[Shdo]

i dont see it as revenge but as i said before, taking out harmful elements of society.

i still see murder of a the partner as taking ownership on that person.
i had a schoolmate whose father killed his mother, the result was that the children were left with no father and no mother, the kid slowly became a punk with a criminal record.
by killing the mother, the father killed the entire family, they had no mother and no father, the older brother had to play the role of a family head at the age of 16 and the younger brother was stuck alone.


as for the defence in trial...even today, people try to use that in court, in some places its legal to kill a woman if she cheated, i dont accept it even as a defence in a trial for lesser punishment.

[Nejibana]

But people commit murder for all kinds of different reasons. Should a psychopathic serial killer be given the same sentence as a man who loses himself in anger when he finds his wife committing adultery?

YES! A man who kills her wife shows no respect for personal freedom. I know you said adultery and that's a bad thing, but there exists divorce, you don't have to kill nobody for cheating.

And I think that somebody who kills someone by accident shouldn't get death penalty. Life is risky and an accident is an accident. But serial murderers, rapists an paedophiles should.

[Shdo]

when some1 kill another in the heat of the moment, (lets say his wife cheated on him) its the same anger as some1 who kill his own children for disobeying him or some1 stabbing some1 else for bumping into his car. its a rage that ticked you off and you murdered, if you fell to it once you might fell to it again.

you dont charge at some1 with a blade or strangle them without the knowladge that you might kill them, and some1 who killed his wife out of rage could do the same to some1 who will cross him in the line to the supermarket, its the same rage. many serial killers feel somekind of rage at their victims, so in the end everyone who murder another is unfit to live in society.

rape, robbing, stealing, they all pale compared to murder which is the worst thing one can do to another, to end all their future options in life.

[Nejibana]

[QUOTE=Shdo;540871
rape, robbing, stealing, they all pale compared to murder which is the worst thing one can do to another, to end all their future options in life.[/QUOTE]

The worst is rape, no doubt, murder is horrible I now but if you get raped you will live all your life with that in your mind. That will pursue you all your life, and many people who were raped lives like if they were dead. Psychological injuries are worse than physical ones.

And rage is not an excuse for killing anybody, we all get angry sometimes and were not trying to kill the first person that we see. Neither the person who made us angry.

[Shdo]

murder is worse, because from rape there is still a chance to live a normal life, there is still a chance to find support in some1 that loves the victim.

murder end it all, it takes the chance away. some rape victims would preffer to die but most preffer to live. but when some1 is murdered its all over, no chance for happines, no chance for salvation, no chance for anything.

[Kastro187420]

kastro- i dont necesarily disagree, but i would like to hear your opinion on one idea

what about cases where it is a one-time occurance

like a man kills another for revenge, or even if it was an accident

im not condoning either action, but should tha man be killed if you know he no longer poses a threat to society


Just to take a moment to respond here:

If a man kills another man for revenge, then isn't that "Eye of an Eye" already in effect? If the man he's killing, killed someone he knew or loved, and then turned around and got killed in revenge, then justice was served.

If a man kills another on accident (Say crashes his car and causes the person to be killed), then the crime isn't really murder so much as it is, accidental death. In that case, there should still be a severe punishment to the person who was ultimately the cause of the wreck.

I would go so far as to say, that if it was proven to be an accident, that maybe they should instead, let the Family of the Victim choose the punishment.

I mean, I won't say that the system is perfect, but I think with a little refining, that the system of an "Eye for an eye" could work quite well in todays society where crime has never been higher.

Consider today what the biggest threat is if you get caught for most crimes:

You sit in a building, get 3 meals a day, a shower, a place to sleep, no responsibilities, and even in alot of places, an hour a day to "play".

Its not really that much of a punishment for most people. Granted there are problems such as gang violence that can be cause for concern, but in most places, they can seclude you from those members at request, and sometimes, you don't even have to worry about getting sent to a prison with people like that.

[Rain]

If a man kills another man for revenge, then isn't that "Eye of an Eye" already in effect

it is but where does it stop

lets say person A kills a person. Person B wants revenge and kills person A, but then person B's family wants revenge for it

even if the guy had it coming, based under an eye for an eye the family should also be granted revenge, because Person B's actions still caused them pain

I believe it was why gandhi said an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind

I do think that the cold blooded killers, rapists and overall evil people of the world should be removed from the world, but i don't think revenge is a good reason

[Kastro187420]

it is but where does it stop

lets say person A kills a person. Person B wants revenge and kills person A, but then person B's family wants revenge for it

even if the guy had it coming, based under an eye for an eye the family should also be granted revenge, because Person B's actions still caused them pain


But, this is why Eye for an Eye works:

Lets say Person A kills a person. By law now (lets assume his intent was to kill the person, and it was no accident), he WILL face death. There would be no getting around that. Person B, who's family/friend was harmed, carries out the punishment, and kills Person A. Person B has committed no crime, but rather just carried out a sentencing. Even if it was a Vengeful Killing, the person got what was coming to him. There is no reason to Kill Person B in this case.

I know currently that if you try to kill someone who is on Death Row anyway, you still get it for murder (which is stupid), but the laws should be changed to allow for them to kill the killer anytime anywhere after he's deemed Guilty.

Infact, if you think about this, it almost happens here in the USA already with the Self-Defense Clause. If someone is threatening you or your life, by law, you can use force to protect yourself, including Deadly Force. If someone pulls a gun on you, and shoots at you, and you turn around and shoot them back (lets say you legally could carry your weapon) and they die, you don't get arrested because it was Self-Defense, and "Eye for an Eye" has been carried out.


I'll admit it isn't a perfect system (yet), and it does have its flaws, but with some refining and stipulations, I believe the Eye for an Eye idea would work out quite well, because like I said, current day punishments just are not enough. People are not afraid of committing crimes because the "justice system" is somewhat of a joke right now.

If a new law were adopted to force people to accept the same type of punishment in relation to the crime they committed, they might be less inclined to commit the crimes.

Even with one of the most common crimes, a Break In: If someone breaks into your house and robs you, then by law, you should be able to take possession of not only your stuff, but stuff in equal value to what was taken from you, from the criminal.

[Shdo]

i dont like this eye for an eye, it only create hate between families and groups. its called a blood feud and it NEVER end.

the criminal should never be punished by the victims, only by the govrement.

[Kastro187420]

i don't like this eye for an eye, it only create hate between families and groups. its called a blood feud and it NEVER end.

the criminal should never be punished by the victims, only by the government.

The Victim/Victim's Family should be the ones to carry out the sentence decided. Think about how things are currently:

If someone say, killed your mom or dad, or both, and were sentenced to death, what would you rather have happen: Them sit on death row for YEARS and never face real justice, or, to have the person killed then and there by someone who was hurt by their actions?

To me, it makes far more sense to let the Victims carry out the punishment, rather than the government, because the government is flawed. The person who committed the crime should be forced to face the victim and should be forced to become the victim themselves so that they can learn first hand the pain they cause.

[Shdo]

have you ever killed? or been a part of the process of killing? its not a day in the park, ill tell you that. they are not laughing when they say that when you kill something inside you die, to make the family members of the victim to kill the murderer will only ruin them further, its additional punishment and not reward or retribution.

[Kastro187420]

have you ever killed? or been a part of the process of killing? its not a day in the park, ill tell you that. they are not laughing when they say that when you kill something inside you die, to make the family members of the victim to kill the murderer will only ruin them further, its additional punishment and not reward or retribution.

Not FORCE them to, but allow them to. I could tell you right now, if someone ever tried to kill me, or someone I knew and cared about, I would do everything I could to make sure I was the one who paid them their sentence.

And, if the Victim is someone who can't bring themselves to doing it, then the government could step in and do it for them.

[Shdo]

you might think that you would do that, but when you will kill some1 you will find out something in you die. to kill out of anger bring nothing, only to kill for protecting what is left i can understand.

[Kastro187420]

you might think that you would do that, but when you will kill some1 you will find out something in you die. to kill out of anger bring nothing, only to kill for protecting what is left i can understand.

Not really. The way I see it, if someone comes in and Kills someone I know, and I kill them out of anger, I'm still doing the world a favor by getting rid of someone who has no regard for the life of others. If the person has no real motive behind killing someone, and is doing it just because he can, or because he has a little grudge, then society is better off without him.

So in essence, I am protecting what is left by killing the Killer. Hence why I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Rain]

Not really. The way I see it, if someone comes in and Kills someone I know, and I kill them out of anger, I'm still doing the world a favor by getting rid of someone who has no regard for the life of others. If the person has no real motive behind killing someone, and is doing it just because he can, or because he has a little grudge, then society is better off without him.

So in essence, I am protecting what is left by killing the Killer. Hence why I wouldn't have a problem with it.

again, i don't necesarily disagree with you, but with the whole eye for an eye situation it never ends

With you example you take revenge on the person, and you might be doing the world a favor. But some people will be sadened. And whether the person deserved it or not is beside the question, others will miss him, especially if he had responsibilities

So by you taking revenge for being "wronged" what si to stop the family of the slain from killing you for the same reason

the cycle won't end with just the first revenge killing is all Im saying

[Kastro187420]

I think I know where we're getting confused here:



So by you taking revenge for being "wronged" what is to stop the family of the slain from killing you for the same reason

the cycle won't end with just the first revenge killing is all Im saying

You see, while you are doing it for revenge, the person who your killing, has already committed the crime of killing someone. What your doing by killing him, is carrying out sentencing, not a crime. So there is no reason for someone to take revenge on you, no more so than they would the government for carrying out the sentencing.

And while others may miss the person, that doesn't stop the government from issuing the death penalty either. So thats kind of a moot point.

Thats why the Eye for an Eye thing would end. It just needs to be defined that it works for CRIMES and not simply "he killed my friend so I'll kill him... well you killed him so I'll kill you.. oh yeah I'll kill you afterwards then..".

The first time someone is killed, it would be crime. Afterwards, if the person who is being killed in "revenge" was the criminal, then its not a crime, but a sentencing for him having killed someone.

[Rain]

So there is no reason for someone to take revenge on you, no more so than they would the government for carrying out the sentencing

logically there isn't, but if you just lost a family member and saw it as unjust it would cause all kinds of emotions

And while others may miss the person, that doesn't stop the government from issuing the death penalty either. So thats kind of a moot point

but at least the government is a third party, and society has deemed the person as quilty beyond all reasonable doubt, it isn't a very emotionally hurt family member getting revenge


I think the whole eye for an eye concept could work, but it has too many variables and it would lead to more problems

[Kastro187420]

I agree theres alot of variables and that it would need work in Todays society, especially given how our Current Justice system is/has been, but overall, the concept if being punished in the same way you committed your crime is a good idea that should be brought into practice.

[bradc]

It never ends...

Unfortunately, people in prison get murder too among criminal activity that happens inside with an outside source themsleves and the guards who work there. These types of people who take things into their hands result of "what comes around goes around." How people grow up in proverty or slums are constantly surrounded by violence, if not war affairs between another country or tribe.

[kiera2]

I can't believe you guys are seriously discussing an "Eye for an Eye" system of "justice" - even worse, that victims should take it upon themselves to carry out the punishment! The very idea sickens me - and some of the comments in this thread make me seriously worry about the state of humanity. How can you possibly justify the idea as moral in any way? Do you even know why criminals are tried by a jury of peers, and why their victims have no legal say in their sentencing? Not to mention that studies have shown time and time again that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent to crime; what evidence do you have, other than your own baseless speculation, that introducing vengeance killings and encouraging people to take "sentencing" into their own hands would make the world a safer place?!

YES! A man who kills her wife shows no respect for personal freedom. I know you said adultery and that's a bad thing, but there exists divorce, you don't have to kill nobody for cheating.
I'm not talking about a person who hears their spouse is having an affair, buys a gun, and finds and shoots them. I'm talking about the sort of cases where a person walks in on their spouse in bed with someone else, and in a fit of jealous rage brains them with the bedside lamp.

i dont see it as revenge but as i said before, taking out harmful elements of society.
In which case capital punishment is totally unnecessary - as are set sentence lengths. If you build a justice system purely around protecting society, then what a person has done in the past would have no bearing whatsoever on their sentence. All that matters is how likely they are to break the law in the future.

In such a system, criminals would remain in jail just as long as it takes them to reform to the point they can be trusted in society again. In the case of accidental deaths, no prison time should be given at all. Criminals showing no signs of reform would be locked away indefinitely - for the rest of their lives, if it came to that. But the death penalty would never, ever be used, because there's always the chance a person can change.

i still see murder of a the partner as taking ownership on that person.
i had a schoolmate whose father killed his mother ...
I fail to see how your example has anything whatsoever to do with the idea that killing a person is about ownership.

as for the defence in trial...even today, people try to use that in court, in some places its legal to kill a woman if she cheated, i dont accept it even as a defence in a trial for lesser punishment.
You're not understanding what a Crime of Passion means - it has nothing to do with the reason the murder was committed, only the mental state that the murderer was in at the time. The Crime of Passion defense was used in cases where the criminal had had their judgement clouded by extreme emotion.

[Shdo]

1) killing those scum is the best way to get them away from hurting society in the future, if you killed in the past, went to jail and got out after 20 years only to kill again then the system failed. the moment you murdered you are dust in my eyes and i wouldnt mind if no second chance would be given.
if society gives some1 a sentence according to how long the 'experts' thinks its fine to confine him then what you will have is 'safe' convicts returning to normal life and kill again.
why risking it? if you murdered then you get the death penalty. period.


2)when some1 kill their partner they take that partner right over their own life and body. those people are even worse then random killers for they have killed someone they loved.


3)i understand what you are saying and i am not accepting it, if you can fall to a fit of rage or whatever and then kill some1 then you are unfit to live in society period.

[Rain]

I can't believe you guys are seriously discussing an "Eye for an Eye" system of "justice" - even worse, that victims should take it upon themselves to carry out the punishment! The very idea sickens me - and some of the comments in this thread make me seriously worry about the state of humanity. How can you possibly justify the idea as moral in any way? Do you even know why criminals are tried by a jury of peers, and why their victims have no legal say in their sentencing? Not to mention that studies have shown time and time again that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent to crime; what evidence do you have, other than your own baseless speculation, that introducing vengeance killings and encouraging people to take "sentencing" into their own hands would make the world a safer place?!

I agree

I only take it so far as ridding the world of someone who poses a threat to others, becaus ethey pose a seriosu threat to others. And if they do kill others for no reason they should be killed (or somehow permanently removed from society). I consider this eye for an eye, to an extent anyway, but i am not fully behind eye for an eye by any means

I think there is a reason that many if not most countries in the world have outlawed revenge killings, and why so many countries have a third party act as the judge, jury and if needed the executioner.