Murderers Must Die: Judeo-Christian Values

[nicholasstanko]

Are you fucking kidding me?
You want to omit an array of legal processes and safe gaurds so that the state can simply convict a man (or women) of a crime they deem punishable by death and slaughter him (or her) by means of a bullet in the head?

I never said to omit anything. If it can be proven without any doubt that the person is guilty, then they should be expediently executed. I only suggested a few weeks deference to allow for meditation and handling of post-mortem matters. Our DNA technology is advanced enough to accomplish such feats. and if it isnt, then why isnt more money being funneled to the reasearch?

This begs another question, who is going to pull the trigger?
Im not religious in the least bit, but I still see a major problem with convicting an alleged criminal, then swiftly shooting them in the back of the head.

There are lots of people that wouldnt mind pulling the trigger. And why not hang em high? But what I'm curious to know, is why you have a problem with shooting someone in the back of the head that would eagerly rape your wife, your children and then cut them into pieces. Keep in mind, i'm not talking about executing a drug trafficker or a pimp like the chinese do. I'm just baffled by how you'd rather lock some guy away with a roof over his head and three square meals a day than just remove him from the human equation?

There are numerous other points one could make, such as that killing a person for a crime does not reverse the damage they have done. It also allows them a quick and easy escape, a physical death. As opposed to having them sit desolate and regretful, confined in a prison cell for the rest of their human lives, a more psychological death.

One could make said points, but how does that begin to solve any problems? we could sit around and pretend to be the reincarnation of aristotle all day, but we've still got a huge issue to deal with.

And are you kidding me about psychological death? it would appear from documentaries and testimony that alot more hardened criminals condition themselves to their surroundings. sure, the first few months maybe even years can be hell, but how do you solve this? by becoming tougher and more violent, all in the name of survival. Jail is supposed to be feared, but yet all it seemse to do for the most part is breed more violence before it's released.


and btw, did you know that to make room for prisoners, rapists and murderers are let loose (or at least they recieve more lenient parole hearings) so that pot smokers can be housed? probably more indirectly than anything.

[nicholasstanko]

Ok, here's non-religious argument #2: judges and juries aren't infallible. It's been shown on more than one occasion that innocent people have been put to death in this country. The former governor of Illinois George Ryan (a Republican), in fact, instituted a moratorium against the death penalty because a man named Anthony Porter was exonerated after spending 17 years on death row. It was found after further investigation that as many as 13 people sentenced to die in Illinois were completely innocent.

Until you can absolutely, 100% guarantee that only those who are truly guilty are the ones put to death, I don't see how it's worth it to take the chance.

okay, so how about the millions upon millions spent each year just to build prisons and house inmates be used to further research dna technology? then we'd be in a position to cut down on trial durations and we can lessen the bog down of the courts to focus more time on individual cases. sounds like a better plan than piling people up in jail that dont deserve to live.

[Nullific]

I never said to omit anything. If it can be proven without any doubt that the person is guilty, then they should be expediently executed. I only suggested a few weeks deference to allow for meditation and handling of post-mortem matters. Our DNA technology is advanced enough to accomplish such feats. and if it isnt, then why isnt more money being funneled to the reasearch?

Science is far from perfect, and there is always room for human error. If a lab error is made and the person is executed just weeks later it would be far too late when and if the correction is made. It doesn't happen that fast for a reaon, in many states that use capital punishment an appeal is mandatory after a suspect is found guilty.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...&oneclick=true
http://www.injusticebusters.com/05/F..._Chicago.shtml

There are lots of people that wouldnt mind pulling the trigger. And why not hang em high? But what I'm curious to know, is why you have a problem with shooting someone in the back of the head that would eagerly rape your wife, your children and then cut them into pieces. Keep in mind, i'm not talking about executing a drug trafficker or a pimp like the chinese do. I'm just baffled by how you'd rather lock some guy away with a roof over his head and three square meals a day than just remove him from the human equation?

Well some people tell me I have no emotions, but perhaps I just find it a bit inhumane, messy and cruel to put a bullet through the back of another persons skull and let their brains blow all over the floor. I suppose we could reinstate the good ol' guillotine or stake burnings while we are at it.

and btw, did you know that to make room for prisoners, rapists and murderers are let loose (or at least they recieve more lenient parole hearings) so that pot smokers can be housed?

That would be a good point, if we were talking about the flaws of the prohibition. You'd also be interested to know that student drug law offenders risk loosing their eligibilty for financial aid.

If you want to sort out the criminal justice system and uncrowd the prisons then the first step is to legalize drugs. There are plenty of sick fucks out there who for their crimes probably deserve to die, but putting a bullet through their heads does not undo their crime or entirely console their victims. I doubt lethal injection is any more expensive than shooting a person, and it is far cleaner. The victim or close relatives should have say in whether or not the convicted is executed if the crime is horrenous enough.
The system should never be allowed to act so quickly, as the system will always be imperfect so long as humans are behind it.

[Funken Monken]

The bibles not worth diddly anyway. Sure, you have somethign to believe in, thats nice, but the book is fallible. Anyone who believes the Old Testament is free of contradictions should re-read it several times.

God did not write this document -- it was written by men and no matter how divinely inspired it may have been, the ideas were filtered through the consciousness of the writers before being recorded.

The New Testament, likewise, was written by men, and according to what is known as the Higher Criticism -- The use of scientific techniques of literary criticism to establish the sources of the books of the Bible -- the gospels were written several decades after the death of Jesus, and who in their right mind could assert that the words of Jesus could be precisely remembered for several decades?

An interesting exercise is to obtain a red-letter edition of the New Testament (in which the words actually attributed to Jesus are in red) and see how much of the Christian dogma is actually based on the words of Jesus, as distinct from the personal ideas of the Gospel writers.

The most frequently quoted verse from the New Testament: â??John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.â?� Are NOT the words of Jesus, but of the author of the gospel.

[nicholasstanko]

Science is far from perfect, and there is always room for human error. If a lab error is made and the person is executed just weeks later it would be far too late when and if the correction is made. It doesn't happen that fast for a reaon, in many states that use capital punishment an appeal is mandatory after a suspect is found guilty.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...&oneclick=true
http://www.injusticebusters.com/05/F..._Chicago.shtml

IF IF IF...science is infallible. I suggested giving the condemned get several weeks after the verdict. Lab tests can be checked several times during that period. And gimme a break about why they arent executed that fast. YEARS to come to a conclusion? Don't forget federal prisons get funding based on their inmate quota as well as other things.

Well some people tell me I have no emotions, but perhaps I just find it a bit inhumane, messy and cruel to put a bullet through the back of another persons skull and let their brains blow all over the floor. I suppose we could reinstate the good ol' guillotine or stake burnings while we are at it.

dont be so dramatic. Were you in on the thread when we talked about how animals get slaughtered with a steel spike to the brain? Quick and painless. You wouldnt even have to look at the fucker. just press a button.

That would be a good point, if we were talking about the flaws of the prohibition. You'd also be interested to know that student drug law offenders risk loosing their eligibilty for financial aid.

i heard that one before. that really sucks big time though.

If you want to sort out the criminal justice system and uncrowd the prisons then the first step is to legalize drugs. There are plenty of sick fucks out there who for their crimes probably deserve to die, but putting a bullet through their heads does not undo their crime or entirely console their victims. I doubt lethal injection is any more expensive than shooting a person, and it is far cleaner. The victim or close relatives should have say in whether or not the convicted is executed if the crime is horrenous enough.
The system should never be allowed to act so quickly, as the system will always be imperfect so long as humans are behind it.

I agree. the victims families should have major say as to what happens to the murderer. It should either be death or life in prison. Or maybe it could be a secret raffle. like say the state or judge makes a decision, the family should also make a decision. The decision is kept secret and it's randomly picked. that way noone would know for sure how either had voted. Both could vote for death...both for life...or be split even. point is, noone would know for sure.