[Neitteloxesia]

Do you think criminals should be killed once convicted of a serious crime i:e rape, murder, etc. On one hand, some criminals become better people for our society, while on the other hand, the morment they're out of prison, they go off and kill someone else just for the laughs.

IMO
I think they should be killed, so many problems would be solved. I mean we would have money to bring back the economy instead of spending it on this ungrateful ********. There would be less murders of innocent civallians and our crime force won't be so overworked. Wonder why our police suck? Maybe because they have to go catch the same criminal again because that criminal was "clean" and ended up being released?


Your opinions?

To the mods: I think this is appropiate. Also, I checked most of the threads and didn't see one like this. However, if you must close this, please do so ^_^ thank you

[Ubgvuncd]

This is kind of a broad subject the way you presented it. "The Death Penalty" is an infinitely stronger title than "Should Criminals be Killed?"

Why not give hypothetical examples? Or, better yet, find real cases with or without the death penalty and let us discuss them.

You should give your OP a major overhaul before anyone makes a serious reply. I think this could be a good topic if presented properly.

[chuviskkk]

This is kind of a broad subject the way you presented it. "The Death Penalty" is an infinitely stronger title than "Should Criminals be Killed?"

Why not give hypothetical examples? Or, better yet, find real cases with or without the death penalty and let us discuss them.

You should give your OP a major overhaul before anyone makes a serious reply. I think this could be a good topic if presented properly.

This, I see what your trying to say, but Im not sure tbh.

Be a little more specific and I will gladly give my opinion

[Ltftujkg]

Okay give me a bit to be more specific >_< have to log off.

[Stoottnoiciek]

You monster, YOU deserve to be killed.

They deserve a chance just like us you ignorant ****.

[JackieC]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/27102010/...al-rapist.html

This is the perfect example of why the Death Penalty should not be used. There are people who are acquitted of their "crimes" decades later when the courts find out the person was innocent. Also, we should not go backwards in society and start living by the principle of "an eye for an eye".

Seriously, telling someone they will be killed at X day at Y hours is ridiculously cruel. That would go against the 8th Amendment for Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'm not sure about other countries, but most democratic societies do have something similar to this.

---------- Post added October 30th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ----------

You monster, YOU deserve to be killed.

They deserve a chance just like us you ignorant ****.

Get the **** out of here. This isn't a personal debate, and your Ad Hominem attacks aren't welcome here.

[zlopikanikanza]

Thank you Pawn, for that final comment.

However to some degree I disagree with you.

But only if it is COMPLETENY AND INDESPUTIBLY PROVEN that they commited such a crime.

An eye for and eye is not a bad law, infact its the most effective way of serving punishment for those who truly deserve punishment.

If you kill, in cold blood, and they have some kind of indisputable proof like, have it on video that you did it, and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY this person is innocent by law, then they deserve to die.

Why should my money go to support the life of someone who does not value life? I hardly think that is fair.

Also, I am all for torture and punishment under the same circumstances But that is my personal feelings.

[Promotiona]

I personally don't want the Government to have the power to kill me.

http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.com/

You might want to read up on the above blog to gain an insight on what its like in prison.

Serial murders, rapists etc. have it very bad, and they should. They are locked up in a room with no windows, just enough room for a toilet bed and a spot to stand in. They are in there for 23 hours a day, get horrible food, and will have be in a living hell until they die. Giving them death is giving them the easy way out. For regular rapists, it is no walk in the park either. They are targeted by inmates and those who run the prison. They are subject of being raped them selves, stabbed, beat up and what not.

Also, in the case of indisputable evidence, have a look at this[Tried to have it concise as possible, but still a bit long]:

Tracy Latimer was born November 23, 1980. An interruption in Tracy's supply of oxygen during the birth caused cerebral palsy,[2] leading to severe mental and physical disabilities including seizures that were controlled with seizure medication.[3][4] She had little or no voluntary control of her muscles, wore diapers, and could not walk or talk.

She also noted that despite having a hip that had been dislocated for many months Tracy could not take painkillers because she was on anti-seizure medication which, in combination with painkillers, could lead to renewed seizures, stomach bleeding, constipation, aspiration and aspiration pneumonia.[5][8]

Robert Latimer reported that the family was not aware of any medication other than Tylenol that could be safely administered to Tracy.[9] Considering it too intrusive, the Latimers did not wish a feeding tube to be inserted....During her life, Tracy underwent several surgeries, including surgery to lengthen tendons and release muscles, and surgery to correct scoliosis in which rods were inserted into her back.[5]


On October 24, 1993, Laura Latimer found Tracy dead. She had died under the care of her father while the rest of the family was at church...Latimer confessed that he had killed her by placing her in his truck and connecting a hose from the truck's exhaust pipe to the cab. He said he had also considered other methods of killing Tracy, including Valium overdose and "shooting her in the head".[7]

Robert Latimer said his actions were motivated by love for Tracy and a desire to end her pain.[12] He described the medical treatments Tracy had undergone and was scheduled to undergo as "mutilation and torture". "With the combination of a feeding tube, rods in her back, the leg cut and flopping around and bedsores, how can people say she was a happy little girl?" Latimer asked.[13] In the above cause of euthanasia, should Robert Latimer be killed? If we had the policy of an eye for an eye, the answer would be yes. This is because euthanasia is viewed as murder, and our legal system follows the rule of precedent. If we executed other murders, he would also have to be executed. To that end, if we wouldn't execute someone for murder, we shouldn't execute others. There should be no half-way point in deciding who gets executed for murder and who doesn't.

Here is another case:

Lets say you are young, and at the age of 18 you speed through a yellow light, since you are in a rush for whatever reason. However, the light turns green for the oncoming traffic and you collide with someone killing them instantly. In this case it is 100% your fault for the death. Should we execute this 18 year old for one mistake, albeit a big mistake, or let them serve time in prison, let them get an education, and let them rejoin society as a productive member?

[newwebstar]

If a person kills another person for reason Pawn said or Self Defense, then no that person should not be killed. But if a person is just killing a person or people for for any other reason then yes that person should be killed, instead of getting sent to jail for life.

Serial Killers do not deserve to be allowed to gloat in jail for the rest of their lives about getting away with killing numerous people. That would be a major insult to the victims families who truly deserve to see that serial killer die. Same is said for dumb ass robbers who kill people just because they got seen robbing a place. Because they do not have any right to kill somebody that seen the robber doing something illegal.

Rapist, deserve absolutely no sympathy at all, they should truly get the most torturous forms of the death penalty, because most of the time, they are the sadist assholes that enjoy torturing and tormenting the people they rape, and also end up killing the people they rape as well.

So why should they get better treatment then the people they raped and killed?

[RozzyLiu]

If the nature of the crime is heinous.
If there is no doubt as to guilt.
If there is no prospect of rehabilitation.

Definitely, YES.

[SinncmxM]

if they found them guilty with enough evidence yeah, it also says the state money from paying for food/etc for each jail member and lessens overcrowding in jails.

[w3QHxwNb]

Everyone who says yes is a sadist asshole. You all just like violence. Well **** you, you all should be put to death.

So what if he raped a girl, give him a chance! they all deserve one chance

[Mark_NyB]

Everyone who says yes is a sadist asshole. You all just like violence. Well **** you, you all should be put to death.

So what if he raped a girl, give him a chance! they all deserve one chance

what if they raped your daughter, would you want him....or her to die or would you forgive him and give him another chance at life?

[Escamsrasiush]

Yes. They are a nuisance to society. They are not productive, and more than likely take up welfare funds and food stamp funding from people who actually need it. Less crimes commited against people who are actually productive.

Of course, the court would need to review said case before actually resorting to the death penalty. But yes, would solve a plethora of problems.

[Uplillacype]

what if they raped your daughter, would you want him....or her to die or would you forgive him and give him another chance at life?

i would forgive him because he deserves it

[adariseediups]

Porch - Last warning before I report your posts. You don't flame people here.


There are three degrees of homocide:

1st degree - Planned
2nd degree - In the heat of the moment with intent to do harm.
Manslaughter - Neither 1st degree or 2nd degree (Check the car example I gave in my last post)

With that said, which degree or murder should we execute for? Most people would rule out manslaughter, so that leaves 1st and 2nd degree. Most people for pro-death would say that people should be executed for 1st degree murder, not second. Second degree murder could involve something like being in a bar fight and punching someone (one time) and that punch causing death.

Furthermore, justice will be compromised if we say that someone who commits first degree murder should be executed. This is because the jury who may have a personal bias will push for either:

A) A 2nd degree murder getting 1st degree murder, so they are killed.
B) A 1st degree murder getting 2nd degree, so they are not killed.

There are flaws in the jury system, but it is the best option we have. We already have the power to lock people up in jail, giving people the right to cause murder themselves is ridiculous.

_________________________


Also lets look at the Robert Latimer case again:

Robert Latimer's daughter, Tracy, was born with cerebral palsy. She could not talk, walk, or move. She was in constant pain and had to undergo several surgeries each month which were very painful. The only painkiller she could take was Tylenol. Robert Latimer couldn't bare to see his daughter suffer anymore, and PRE-PLANNED the murder of his daughter. He was either going to shoot her in the head, make her overdose, but decided to gas her from carbon monoxide in his car.

This is FIRST degree murder. He did not know what his daughter wanted since she could not communicate.

If you say he should not be killed, you have to realize that you are creating precedence. If you do not kill him, you are not justified to kill anybody else. We do not treat like cases differently.

I would like those of you who are pro-death to answer the bolded part.

[styhorporry]

if I had a child and some rapist raped and killed my child, I would be volunteering to be the executioner myself.

Rapist deserve absolutely no respect what so ever. They don't care about how much physical and mental trauma they going to cause to the victims they don't kill. I know several people who where rape victims, that before the incident was normal cool highly productive people. After getting raped they ended up becoming so mentally unstable that they have had to make many numerous stints in mental hospitals because of breakdowns.

Yet, You are telling me that the rapist deserve another chance?

What for?

So that they can get out of jail and do the exact same damn thing to other people and inflict more Emotional and Physical trauma onto more undeserving people?

Or so they can go around killing more people that they have raped and end up becoming Serial Killers as well as rapist?

Because newsflash, a large majority of Rapist turn into Serial Killers, because they end up killing the people that they rape so that there is no way to link them to t heir crime of raping the person.

[Evelinessa]

Do you have a statistic for your theory of rapists turning into serial killers? If not, I don't think that should be a basis for an argument.

Again, TONS of people have been convicted of rape and murder when they were innocent and are released years later. Also, with this whole evidence thing:

When someone is convicted, we are sending them on the basis that there is no doubt in our minds that they did it. Which means we think they are 100% guilty, meaning the death penalty. We do not convict someone if there is a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt"]reasonable doubt[/ame].

[Anavaralo]

rape doesn't always turn into homicide.

[Andrius]

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/s...ors/index.html

List of a great number of Serial Killers who was also Sexual Predators, aka people who raped and killed their victims