Death Penalty is Wrong!

[Frattimonde]

I would like to say that think that death penalty Is wrong.
It should be removed, because It is just as inmoral as murder.

Although If a person kills another, then we should "not" kill that person.
For then If we would do It, then we would only become no better than the murderer.

Who agrees, Death Penalty shall be removed.
I can agree with 60yrs or more In a
underground super-prison, but no death punishements.

[Battlecruiser]

I think there should be death penalty. Think of it this way. If they announce the death penalty and give it to anyone who murders (not manslaughter, only murder) then people will think about it and stop killing. I mean there have been so many murderers who kill people and then get only like 20 years in jail, while the person they killed lost a life. If the death penalty was for all murderers people would get scared and wouldn't do it. They would know that killing another person is like suicide. They kill the other person and then they get killed.

[Frattimonde]

I think there should be death penalty. Think of it this way. If they announce the death penalty and give it to anyone who murders (not manslaughter, only murder) then people will think about it and stop killing. I mean there have been so many murderers who kill people and then get only like 20 years in jail, while the person they killed lost a life. If the death penalty was for all murderers people would get scared and wouldn't do it. They would know that killing another person is like suicide. They kill the other person and then they get killed.
It would scare most people, but there are still very many whom would
dare to kill.
So don´t think It would be much to difference.

[pixels]

You have any idea how much it costs to maintain a prison? Guess who pays for all those dollars. Taxes! And how much does it cost to inject a guy with a deadly poison? A lot fucking less. If I'm never going to see this murderer again, then WHY will I have to pay for his maintanence?

[Uuugggg]

Yea, if you really have it in you to kill someone, you're a danger to society (duh). Exiling is pointless now, and prison is costly, so I like death. =P
It's only fair...

[Carnage]

Death to the death dealers. Blood for blood. Life for life.

[Nuts]

Voice of reason: Actually folks, it costs more to execute the average death row inmate than it would to support him for life within a prison. However, the reason for this stems from the over-abuse of the legal system, and multiple appeals, large amounts of investigative legwork and hours upon hours of legal council research, all of it normally on the taxpayers dime. Consider this, a man commits murder, he gets sentenced to death, and subsequently appeals as many times as the courts will permit. The same man commits murder, but instead is sentenced to life, why appeal if you're guilty? You know you'll simply be sentenced again and again, so most wouldn't bother unless they felt they had a very strong case.

The physical act of killing an inmate is relatively cheap, and if the process could be streamlined, we could rid ourselves of countless useless individuals. With the advent of DNA identifcation, I suspect that the death penalty will be easier to enforce, as there will be less wrongly convicted individuals.

I support the death penalty for no reason other than the fact that it might console the victim's family. No other reason is necessary, yet I could go on.

[KesTrel]

You have any idea how much it costs to maintain a prison? Guess who pays for all those dollars. Taxes! And how much does it cost to inject a guy with a deadly poison? A lot fucking less. If I'm never going to see this murderer again, then WHY will I have to pay for his maintanence? According to satistics, it actually cost more to pay for all the security to from prison to court, also the cost of the appeals. That actually simply locking them up for life would indeed be cheaper. Its amazing but those are what satistics tell us. I did not see nuts post above when posting this but he is correct.

Concerning Death Penalty

I do not like the death penalty. Its not for reasons you might think however. When you make the choice to murder somone you do so knowing you will be taking their choices away from them. You are effectivly ending their physical self, its not a pretty thing. It may even be painful for the subject who is murderd. In case of death some of these people are okay with the death penalty and want it.
Here is my problem. You are going to give them a injection, I fail to see how this is crule or unusual. This is how I would choose to put down a beloved pet who is in great pain, who I love much. I think there are some more painful techniques.

Its a cool trick if you take a rat and put a bowl over it, it will chew through the persons stomach to create a whole to escape.

In the matter of rape murder. They should take the person, sufficently cover them in hunnie and place them near a colony of ants.

The system needs to be fair, it needs to be proven such people are murders, sometimes a trial is unfair. Unfortunatly however, when its provable these people have commited a ultimate crime here on earth. Its is up to us to regulate ourselfs. It is sad and unfortunate, however, it should be done.

The mother and father of the 16 year old girl who was raped and brutally murderd's pain is worse than any phsyical pain that could be infliced upon the criminal.

[RelinaIonna]

You all over think it, its all about efficiency and cash. Step One, liquidate the bottom rung of prisoners, I.E. blow a whole in their heads. Bullets are cheap and efficient compared to injection or even gassing. Then cut them up and sell their organs and what ever else of theirs is valuable. Stop draining taxpayers by using this cash to maintain the prisons. In fact once a person is sentenced to death ship them out into a special room, and shoot them then and their. It could even be a modified moving truck. Perhaps just metal plated. And now new jobs will open up for Janitors and Forensists. If its closure you want let the victim's family pull the trigger.

[Staind]

Relina, it doesn't matter. The problem is the court procedures. You can't just simply go out and kill a criminal if they're convicted during the first trial. There are two types of guilt - guilt by fact and guilt by law. Both are different and generally appeals try and clear up guilt by law (guilt by law is the only one that counts).

I like the death penalty.

[Battlecruiser]

Its a cool trick if you take a rat and put a bowl over it, it will chew through the persons stomach to create a whole to escape.
I saw that in 2 fast 2 furious. Is that what you saw it in?

[RelinaIonna]

Fine change the law! Become Leader of your country, fake a war, get imbued with emergency power, and then change it. See how simple it is, you may want to start off as an Oil Baron.

[MnementhDedderath]

The death penalty is a matter of cost, to remove the truely dangerous people from society it is cheaper to kill them than to imprison them for life...

If they did it my way... a single bullet to the head is maybe $1.00 quick humane and cheap.

[RelinaIonna]

Um mister junior member, read the whole damn thread. I already said shooting them in the head.

[Nuts]

The death penalty is a matter of cost, to remove the truely dangerous people from society it is cheaper to kill them than to imprison them for life...


Please try to read the thread prior to replying as RelinaIonna has mentioned.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

It is "more" costly to execute a person than to imprison them for life.

Thanks for paying attention.

[Battlecruiser]

In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment. I took that from the site Nuts gave us a link to. I don't see why it costs 3.2 million to kill one person. A simple way is just an overdose of any drug. By drugs I mean legal or illegal drugs. Just give too much of the drug for the body to handle and they will die and that might cost about 100 dollars at most.

[Wick3d]

I know i will sound like a dick here, but I dont want to pay for a murderer to live comfortably (I've been to jails, and its a hell of a lot nicer than the streets) for 60 years.

[KesTrel]

I saw that in 2 fast 2 furious. Is that what you saw it in? I belive its a russian techqniuiqe. I was informed about it from my goverment teacher actually. We were disucssing the issue.

So quick to quote me Wicked :D "There also, is no need for evidence as they know not simply they belive."

[Whiteknight]

Please try to read the thread prior to replying as RelinaIonna has mentioned.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

It is "more" costly to execute a person than to imprison them for life.

Thanks for paying attention.
Read between the lines.

First of all, that is a anti-death penalty site. They will always post facts that will lead people towards their cause, maybe even manipulating.

It says that it costs Florida 3.2 million, and Florida 600,000 for life imprisonment. I'd like to see where they got those numbers. Even if they are true, they could have been ...manipulated. Say, all the court costs as included in the dealth penalty figure, while just the cost of food and w/e to keep a person alive is included in the imprisonment for life figure. Both are still true, one just isn't telling the whole truth.

No matter what, there is going to be appeal after appeal. The cost will be the same for that.

Okay, I just read more of the 'facts' on the site and it's making me somewhat mad. They are using 'invisible' words to help you go to their side.

Only abolition can ensure that such political abuse of the death penalty will never occur. Sure, but then political abuse of life imprisonment will be misued. And where has there been political abuse of the death penalty?

It is the premeditated killing of a prisoner who could be dealt with equally well by less harsh means. Opinion, no fact. Most prisoners will can not be dealt with, and will not change their ways. If you are a killer, you will most likely stay a killer.

I also must bring up another case with abolishing the death penalty. Prison overcrowding. Already, prisons being overcrowded is a major concern, this will just increase the amount of people in prison. This can lead to more prison riots, more innocent guards being killed, more money to maintain the costs, etc.


The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:


Taking it away from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child
Reducing the resources states put into crime prevention, education and rehabilitation, investigative resources, and drug treatment programs.

So does life imprisonment. Again, invisible words and not telling the whole truth.

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. Why should the prisoner have rights? He killed a man, who had rights. Therefore, he should give up his rights.

The physical pain caused by the action of killing a human being cannot be quantified, nor can the psychological suffering caused by foreknowledge of death at the hands of the state. No, it cannot, but neither can the knowledge of a lifetime in prison, either. You know you will rot in prison, especially if there is no chance of release. Again, saying one side of the story.


The death penalty is discriminatory and is often used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. It is imposed and carried out arbitrarily.


If that IS true, which I doubt, then people would just send them for life imprisonment too.

Thousands have been put to death under one government only to be recognized as innocent victims when a new government comes to power. Not telling everything. This is fiction, not fact, there is no figures of this. They are not telling of the US, they could be telling of another country, and it could be in the past. Take the Romans, they did this, but when they fell, the unfair deaths were realized because the morals of the new government were different. This ...fact could be taken from the Romans who slaughtered many.

I'd carry on, but that site is just so... stupid. I think it's stupid that Canada abolished the death penalty, I hope america doesn't.

[KesTrel]

Why should the prisoner have rights? He killed a man, who had rights. Therefore, he should give up his rights.

. They had their choice. The victim did not have their choice, it was taken away from them. The family's the ones who ultimatly suffer.

The murder broke the law, there is always concequences. This is with rape an ultimate rule that one knows there is concequences too. There is no reason not to regulate ourselfs and administer them. It is unfortunate yes however it is nessiscary yes. Statement in a stance agreeing with White knight.

[Nuts]

Read between the lines.

First of all, that is a anti-death penalty site. They will always post facts that will lead people towards their cause, maybe even manipulating.


I only posted the link to this site because it was the quickest. These facts have been around for a while now and I did some research a while back that confirmed it as well. I simply didn't have time to go searching for it again.

[MnementhDedderath]

Ok this is what I was saying "If they did it my way" the death row system would be cheaper. Here are my points

1. The trial for murder in the first degree will NOT have a jury of "peers" it will be a jury of experts, able to understand the facts presented.

2. the trial will be focused on ACCURACY not haste like it is now.

3. if convicted by the same standards as now... you die, that day.

[Battlecruiser]

I agree 100% with what WhiteKnight said. Death Penalty is needed.

[singo]

Sorry i have to disagree. i go with the death penalty, cheap, efficient, less cost to the taxpayer-why should law abiding citizens pay to keep a murderer in prison?

[RelinaIonna]

It all depends on the circumstances. If you ask me their should be a vengance clause. Dudes kill your family, you blow his brains out. Theres your justice. But because of humanities nature to be evil, it would be abused liek everything else. Oh Well.

[Nuts]

http://www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf

Please avoid being ignorant, read this, then understand.

[Frattimonde]

In my opinion, exile would be better.

We could dump them off In some
part of the world where they have
to live with other outcasts.

They would live, even If tough.
But I think rahter that than that we kill
them In cold blood.

Or at least they could be allowed
to chose their death.
In any way they wish.
Harikiri should be availible to them.

If "I" where about to die, I would preferbly
chose to commit Seppuku.

Rather that than to be killed In cold blood.

That Is all.

[singo]

Where would you exile them to?

[Frattimonde]

Where would you exile them to?
To an issolated Island In the middle of no where, that would be strictly guarded by patrol boats that would prevent them from ever esapeing.

[Battlecruiser]

That is like Alcatraz. No one has escaped from there or so I heard.

[Nuts]

That is like Alcatraz.


More like Australia.

[Mechsaurian]

3 guys actually did, but only one made it to the shore, and he got caught later...

Anyways, I know that there is a harsh fairness in the death penalty, especially if you have committed murder. However, I think the facts must be examined before a verdict is reached (doesn't this happen anyways?) because if you killed someone in self defense, or in defense of someone you love, you definately do not deserve to die.

I have always been against the death penalty, mainly due to logic. If a man is sentenced to die, should not the judge, jury, and executioners who got him there be convicted, too? They killed a human being in defense of the law.

I have always thought, if someone kills 30 people, he must be one crazy motherfucker. People like this should be locked away or even institutionalized, because they could be changed. There are many crazy people, but very few evil people.

[Battlecruiser]

I have always thought, if someone kills 30 people, he must be one crazy motherfucker. People like this should be locked away or even institutionalized, because they could be changed. There are many crazy people, but very few evil people.
If you kill 30 people your a danger to humanity. If you let that person stay alive it means that it is ok. That is not right. That person should die and die painfully.

[Whiteknight]

Nuts, did you really read all 114 pages of that?

Somewhere in there, they even say that the people they used were not really fair/accurate control and manipulated tests. That means that their information is not 100% correct.

Also, would not all the court costs be the same for whether you are defending being murdered or defending life? So if they were the same, would it not cost less by just killing them instead of letting them live in prison for life? Maybe it explains it in there, but I think those facts are somewhat ...manipulated.

[Nuts]

Of course the costs for death penalty cases are more, that's the point.

[Whiteknight]

I meant to say life imprisonment, not life...

[KesTrel]

To an issolated Island In the middle of no where, that would be strictly guarded by patrol boats that would prevent them from ever esapeing.
Sounds like St.Helenas were they put napoleon.

[hammocksleeper]

If you kill 30 people your a danger to humanity. If you let that person stay alive it means that it is ok. That is not right. That person should die and die painfully.The states of Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina have each executed at least 30 people, 700 in total, in the last 28 years. This year, 24 people have already been executed in the United States.

The government is "a danger to humanity."
The government "should die and die painfully."





Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=186

[Battlecruiser]

The states of Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina have each executed at least 30 people, 700 in total, in the last 28 years. This year, 24 people have already been executed in the United States.

The government is "a danger to humanity."
The government "should die and die painfully."

The reason the government does the killing is so the person doesn't kill the 31st innocent person.

[RelinaIonna]

How do you know some of them weren't innocent?? Juries can be wrong. Theres a difference between guilty and actualy doing it.

[singo]

The point of the death penalty is not a deterent, it is to stop that ONE person from doing it again.

[Frattimonde]

I still think It´s wrong.

No matter what you say.

[RelinaIonna]

Death is part of Life. Too many hide behind the ideas of Morals and Ethics.

[Nostradamus]

Who gave us permission to do the work of the almighty one! And this isnt about my religious beleifs (but still kind of) because I am appauled by it and it is deeply against my moral fibres. I dont care how many people they killed! Cant you just give them a life sentece with a staple diet of bread and water???

[Frattimonde]

Who gave us permission to do the work of the almighty one! And this isnt about my religious beleifs (but still kind of) because I am appauled by it and it is deeply against my moral fibres. I dont care how many people they killed! Cant you just give them a life sentece with a staple diet of bread and water???
I agree with you.

Only the gods shall decide if we shall die.

Not the men of power.

So lets go for that Prison Island thingy.

[hammocksleeper]

Death is part of Life. Too many hide behind the ideas of Morals and Ethics.
Do you want to die? Because I'll kill you.

[RelinaIonna]

Survival is also part of life. I don't have a deathwish.

[Carnage]

Survival is also part of life. I don't have a deathwish.

Then why does your avatar say Death is Salvation?

[Battlecruiser]

Haha owned.

[RelinaIonna]

I was chosen to be the Death Dealer and I'll see you all in your graves before I'm done. As will the Penguin Lord to me when he takes me!

[Carnage]

I was chosen to be the Death Dealer and I'll see you all in your graves before I'm done. As will the Penguin Lord to me when he takes me!

I enjoyed Underworld too, buddy, but not enough to emulate my life after it. This is serious discussion, by the way.

[RelinaIonna]

What makes you think I'm not serious?
1. I hate Penguins.
2.I'll out live you all
3."Death is Salvation" reffers to Death Dealers

[Carnage]

What makes you think I'm not serious?
1. I hate Penguins.
2.I'll out live you all
3."Death is Salvation" reffers to Death Dealers

Then why's it spelled Salvasion in your avatar? :P

[ON TOPIC] If I haven't said I agree with the death penalty yet, I do. I just believe in being absolutely sure of the murderer's guilt beforehand.

[Battlecruiser]

[ON TOPIC] If I haven't said I agree with the death penalty yet, I do. I just believe in being absolutely sure of the murderer's guilt beforehand.
Same here.

[RelinaIonna]

I know how its spelled.

[hammocksleeper]

I know how its spelled.
Obviously, because you spelled it correctly in your post. Now chill out, and everyone get back on topic (well I kind of started it off-topic didn't I :angel: )

[Frattimonde]

-Seems all suddenly that everone begin argue against each other.

Reminds of a battle ground.

[RelinaIonna]

Bah; You Can All Go To Hell! Especialy Since I'll Be Sending You All There First Class! Flaming Golf Club Anyone?

[Frattimonde]

Flaming Golf Club?

Instead of a reaper blade?

[Ole-The-Murder]

I agree only with death penalty if you kill someone.
Other than that, I disagree.

[hammocksleeper]

I agree only with death penalty if you kill someone.
Other than that, I disagree.
Well you have to kill someone, otherwise they would call it something else, like the "life imprisonment penalty."

;)

[GrassDragon]

Well you have to kill someone, otherwise they would call it something else, like the "life imprisonment penalty."

;)

But don't they call it the death penalty because there killing you, not because you killed someone. And is it possible to get death if you haven't killed anyone?

[hammocksleeper]

But don't they call it the death penalty because there killing you, not because you killed someone. And is it possible to get death if you haven't killed anyone?'Twas a joke, friend.

[Whiteknight]

[ON TOPIC] If I haven't said I agree with the death penalty yet, I do. I just believe in being absolutely sure of the murderer's guilt beforehand.
Impossible. There is no way to be absolutely sure of a person's guilt. There is always a chance that you will send an innocent person to death. I am still in favour of the death penalty, though. You have to take the good with the bad, and the people who are innocent are extremely minimal.

[hammocksleeper]

Impossible. There is no way to be absolutely sure of a person's guilt. There is always a chance that you will send an innocent person to death. I am still in favour of the death penalty, though. You have to take the good with the bad, and the people who are innocent are extremely minimal.In the US in the last 30 or so years,

1 in every 10 convicted prisoners on death row has been released after discovering evidence implicating innocence. That's a lot.

[Frattimonde]

Why did this thread die?

I know that all threads die eventually.
But thought that this one had a real intressting topic that you could end up debatting forever.

[Ole-The-Murder]

I don't think threads should be locked because they die. Chips fall where they may! Why NOT revive? Because there are people who cares and gets irritated by it, why do they care to get irritated? Nevertheless...

But there is no "percent" chanche of someone being guilthy or not. Either they're guilthy, innocent, participating against the chrime, or participation with the chrime. Either way, you got it. If we're absolutely sure someone has killed someone (Like we're pretty sure if someone axestabs anyone in the street) - Then give them death penalty, and kill them like they killed them - unless they deserved it, but then the victim must've been a killer, me thinkesth.

[Frattimonde]

I can agree Its a difference If you are in the middle of a war, and am gonna kill an evil such as Saddam or any of his lackeys.

[singo]

someone "Axestabs"???

is it possible to stab someone with an axe?

[Frattimonde]

Are you talking about Execution method or something else?

[ShawnManX]

They should either have the death penalty for every minor infraction, or not at all, otherwise people are tempted to see just how much they can get away with.

[Battlecruiser]

Why did this thread die?

I know that all threads die eventually.
But thought that this one had a real intressting topic that you could end up debatting forever.
You might want to stop making retarded posts like that. There was no need of it, and you are bumping it for no reason.
Impossible. There is no way to be absolutely sure of a person's guilt. There is always a chance that you will send an innocent person to death. I am still in favour of the death penalty, though. You have to take the good with the bad, and the people who are innocent are extremely minimal.
With the techniques that we are now using, it is becoming easier to catch criminals. But the bad part is that crimes are becoming more complicated because of newer technology.

[ShawnManX]

Nobody is truely innocent.

[xjudicator]

No one is truely innocentSo true.
I feel that the death penalty is what should be used only in murder cases. With the technology we have today we can catch criminals that we couldn't have only five or so years ago.

[Mattimeo]

But don't they call it the death penalty because there killing you, not because you killed someone. And is it possible to get death if you haven't killed anyone?

Yes, in a way. Treason is punishable by death penalty, and technically you did not personally kill anybody. A husband and wife (don't know their names off the top of my head) were soviet spies (or at least proved well enough for the courts to be soviet spies) and were given the electric chair.

1 in every 10 convicted prisoners on death row has been released after discovering evidence implicating innocence. That's a lot.

Where did you get this info? From what I've heard the actual number is closer to 1 in 1000.

I personally support the death penalty as a means for removing somebody who has proven to be a menace to society and cannot become a honest, contributing member of our population. Now some of you may say "but everybody can be good, he just was forced by his circumstances to be bad!!!111one" and you might be right. But probably not, and we are faced with fighting a long, hard battle to rehabilitate somebody who in no way deserves such charity. I say, instead of letting that person live in a prison for the rest of their life, knowing that they'll never be able to live in the world as a free person again, that's worse than a death by lethal injection. That would be no worse than waiting for a shot.

~Don't Panic

[hammocksleeper]

Where did you get this info? From what I've heard the actual number is closer to 1 in 1000.Sorry, I put that up a while ago, but luckily I remembered where I got it.


Total executions in US since 1976: 912
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=146

Since 1976, 109 convicts have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110. The link lists 114 people, but the first five were exonerated before 1976.

So, add the 109 people released from death row to the 912. 1021 people have been sentenced to die since 1976. 109 have been released.

That's a 10.68% exoneration rate. Hardly the 1 in 1000 that you have heard. The death penalty may or may not be a good idea, but if we can't do it right, we shouldn't do it at all.

[OboeGuru]

Many of the people are exonerated not because of actual innocence, but by legal innocence, such as insanity, etc. etc. In other words, our legal system is putting the guilty back into society.

I have read that the correct conviction rate is more like 99.4% and that an Amnesty Int'l study of executed innocent inmates was not based upon factual innocence but rather on the opinion of the two doctors that conducted the study. Makes you think about the validity of some of the data floating around.

[hammocksleeper]

Many of the people are exonerated not because of actual innocence, but by legal innocence, such as insanity, etc. etc. In other words, our legal system is putting the guilty back into society.

I have read that the correct conviction rate is more like 99.4% and that an Amnesty Int'l study of executed innocent inmates was not based upon factual innocence but rather on the opinion of the two doctors that conducted the study. Makes you think about the validity of some of the data floating around.Oboe, where did your 99.4% figure come from?


The information I am giving is not from Amnesty International.
Furthermore, if you would like very specific information on each of the cases of the 114 people exonerated since 1973, please go here http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109

The figures on the number of people exonerated (and their identities), and the number of people executed (and their identities) are facts. I am not referring to people who have been executed but could have been innocent. I am referring to people who apparently were wrongly convicted and sentenced to die, but were later released.





Criteria for inclusion on the list of exonerated people:
The definition of innocence that DPIC uses in placing defendants on the list is that they had been convicted and sentenced to death, and subsequently either a) their conviction was overturned and they were acquitted at a re-trial, or all charges were dropped; or b) they were given an absolute pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence. ^ found at the bottom of the page in the link above.

There is nothing subjective in here.


I would like to point out that none of the people exonerated were deemed by the courts to be legally insane. The closest you'll get is #73, who used insanity as a defense, but "a jury decided that Harris should not be imprisoned at Western State Hospital."

[Mattimeo]

So you compare the number of people executed to the number of people found innocent. Why not compare the number of people sentenced to death to the number of people aquitted. Hmmm?

~Don't Panic

[hammocksleeper]

So you compare the number of people executed to the number of people found innocent. Why not compare the number of people sentenced to death to the number of people aquitted. Hmmm?

~Don't Panic
I'm not doing any of those things above. I'm comparing the number of people sentenced to death with the number of people sentenced to death who were later exonerated.

[Mattimeo]

Total executions in US since 1976: 912
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=146

Notice the bold part?

I rest my case.

~Don't Panic

[Scorpion4v9]

I dont just support the death penalty i encourage it. People learn quicker when there is an saveare consiquinces. Do innocent people die, Yes. But that person didnt die in vain, he set an example for the other wanna-bes who would try to do his deed. What we need to do is allow the death penalty to include lesser crimes.

Also to add other different ways. Forget the whole human shit, if someone commits murder i want them to be sentanced death-by-deed, simply put they die by the means that they killed. The brutaller the better. Also i think they should be broadcasted on national TV let the franic morons die learn what happens when you break the law.

[RelinaIonna]

I agree and those freaks that make snuff films will be out of work. And we can have a red neck hour where everyone commits infanticide on their knocked up cousins. And of course we'll have to kill minors; gas will work well. But what about those snuff addicts who get it on off the death of minors. We can’t have that we'll have to kill them too. Oh and lets not forget the old and the weak; they are draining the economy with all there health needs so lets kill them to. And then we'll have to kill anyone who gets pleasure from that. But after we run out of those people we'll just start killing random people. It’s a big hit in those axis countries. So its probably good enough for us sophisticated westerners. Oh and let’s add some torture to it; I say we start with Scorpion and give him a lobotomy without anesthetic and rusty tools and performed by a first year psyche student. I mean that’s close enough to a doctor and probably better than most of the scum deserves.

[Mattimeo]

^----- [/sarcasm] :)

~Don't Panic

[Scorpion4v9]

I agree and those freaks that make snuff films will be out of work. And we can have a red neck hour where everyone commits infanticide on their knocked up cousins. And of course we'll have to kill minors; gas will work well. But what about those snuff addicts who get it on off the death of minors. We can’t have that we'll have to kill them too. Oh and lets not forget the old and the weak; they are draining the economy with all there health needs so lets kill them to. And then we'll have to kill anyone who gets pleasure from that. But after we run out of those people we'll just start killing random people. It’s a big hit in those axis countries. So its probably good enough for us sophisticated westerners. Oh and let’s add some torture to it; I say we start with Scorpion and give him a lobotomy without anesthetic and rusty tools and performed by a first year psyche student. I mean that’s close enough to a doctor and probably better than most of the scum deserves.



First of all idiot i said crime not genocide. Iam talking about those who commit other forms of murder not just murder 1. Rape, those who shoot children, Drug cartels who slaugter innocent people to keep the market moving, or how about those fucking druck cop that shoots up a car that he pulled over for speeding, or how about those who kill thier children because they are too fucked up to deal with them.

Have you ever seen a POW tortured. Infact torture instead of exicution would be better. Unguilty wouldnt die. And they would live with the fact of what they done long after the act. They have discovered, that humans will forcefully learn after just a couple of stimuli of pain.

Yes innocent people die in the death penilty, there is no way around it. As long as we keep the death penelty. At least those who die wont die in vain. They set an example for the others.

[overdramatic]

im kinda in between the sides. like i think that there should be one, but like if the killers know about it, then they would be more sneaky and not get caught so there would be more murders out there i guess.... idk

[Nahotnoj]

hmm... wel maybe... but the government would keep looking harder for murderers...


well overall i think it is wrong, becasue whether it is necesarry or not to be used for punishing the criminals, there are other issues, such as that its just going down to there level. Also, what if they covict someone who is really innocent? What if they cant discover the evidence that the person isnt really innocent until after they've killed him/her?

[overdramatic]

well then they've killed an innocent person, mistakes happen, and they'll learn from them

[Nahotnoj]

I dont just support the death penalty i encourage it. People learn quicker when there is an saveare consiquinces. Do innocent people die, Yes. But that person didnt die in vain, he set an example for the other wanna-bes who would try to do his deed. What we need to do is allow the death penalty to include lesser crimes.

Also to add other different ways. Forget the whole human shit, if someone commits murder i want them to be sentanced death-by-deed, simply put they die by the means that they killed. The brutaller the better. Also i think they should be broadcasted on national TV let the franic morons die learn what happens when you break the law.
well i can uderstand that, but... on national tv? i think that would be a bad idea, it could get gorey, and young children could be watching and become mentally disturbed or somnething...

[overdramatic]

its like this rule that i learned about in school, there's this guy who said "ear for an ear and eye for an eye" or something like that, so like if you chop off someone's arm, you get your arm cut off, it probably decreased the number of people that had their arms cut off...

oh and i think it should be on t.v. because like all the plans that ppl have for murdering someone then they'd see what they get

[Nahotnoj]

its like this rule that i learned about in school, there's this guy who said "ear for an ear and eye for an eye" or something like that, so like if you chop off someone's arm, you get your arm cut off, it probably decreased the number of people that had their arms cut off...
Ok...

but: people arent murdered live on national TV, so if you went bye an eye for an eye, you wouldnt publicly broadcast executions.

[overdramatic]

i ment as punishment, not the whole t.v. thing

[PeonGorgalak]

I would like to say that think that death penalty Is wrong.
It should be removed, because It is just as inmoral as murder.

Although If a person kills another, then we should "not" kill that person.
For then If we would do It, then we would only become no better than the murderer.

Who agrees, Death Penalty shall be removed.
I can agree with 60yrs or more In a
underground super-prison, but no death punishements.
I agree that the death penalty should be replaced with something else. My version of "else" would be:

20 years in solitary confinement, with no windows, in a dark hall, getting fed three bowls of regurgitated gruel per day, with no sanitary facilities available. Though smart prisoners may get the idea to shit in the bowl... :) If that won't drive 'em crazy, nothing will!

Oh, and they are then used as test subjects for medicines. The Death Sentence is quite a waste of good medicinal guinea pigs...

[Nahotnoj]

i know, i was using what u said as more to back up my argument against scorpion4v9.

[overdramatic]

i know, i was using what u said as more to back up my argument against scorpion4v9. alrighty then

[Nahotnoj]

I think there should be death penalty. Think of it this way. If they announce the death penalty and give it to anyone who murders (not manslaughter, only murder) then people will think about it and stop killing. I mean there have been so many murderers who kill people and then get only like 20 years in jail, while the person they killed lost a life. If the death penalty was for all murderers people would get scared and wouldn't do it. They would know that killing another person is like suicide. They kill the other person and then they get killed. Yah i know, im quoting a reply for a 1st page, but i have something to say about that. I think that it might stop people from killing, but it might not, they might still think they can get away with it without being caught. On the other hand, i peronally think an entire lifetime in prison would be worse then being killed.

[overdramatic]

I agree that the death penalty should be replaced with something else. My version of "else" would be:

20 years in solitary confinement, with no windows, in a dark hall, getting fed three bowls of regurgitated gruel per day, with no sanitary facilities available. Though smart prisoners may get the idea to shit in the bowl... :) If that won't drive 'em crazy, nothing will!

Oh, and they are then used as test subjects for medicines. The Death Sentence is quite a waste of good medicinal guinea pigs...



if you're gonna use them as guinea pigs, then you have to make sure they're remotly healthy or else the tests wont come out right

[Protosschick99]

*Looks at title*

That depends on who is being killed.

If it is a cerial rapist/murderer, child abductor who then rapes and kills the child, crazy pyscho terrorist who threatens to kill ppl and then do, I think it's appropriate!

But that's just my opinion. :p

[Asypra]

Man, the title says it all, why, cause the death penalty is murder.
Example:
Man Kills man, gets sentenced to death. Exicutioner kills man...
It would go on forever.
Lifetime prison (pros):
a. Worse than death. (They'll be stuck in a small room with no escape, that would make an innocent man go mental, and with all that guilt, they'll have to suffer that pain for the rest of their life.)
b. Is not murder. (In the above example it would go on for ever untill, well, there's no-one left, goodbye humanity, nice knowing you.)

The death penalty is immoral FILTH, makes me glad I'm here down under (Australia) where there is none of this bulls**t.

[Dark_Viper]

Man, the title says it all, why, cause the death penalty is murder.
Example:
Man Kills man, gets sentenced to death. Exicutioner kills man...
It would go on forever.
Lifetime prison (pros):
a. Worse than death. (They'll be stuck in a small room with no escape, that would make an innocent man go mental, and with all that guilt, they'll have to suffer that pain for the rest of their life.)
b. Is not murder. (In the above example it would go on for ever untill, well, there's no-one left, goodbye humanity, nice knowing you.)

The death penalty is immoral FILTH, makes me glad I'm here down under (Australia) where there is none of this bulls**t.the thing is with a lifetime sentance.. you stil get parole after about 10 years or so.. so if they act right, they could be set free...Even lifetime sentances without parole.. they still get it.. but just after a longer period...

i think the Death penalty should be resewrved to thoes who pose a continuing threat to the population... or to thoes who commit an unspeakable crime.

[PeonGorgalak]

if you're gonna use them as guinea pigs, then you have to make sure they're remotly healthy or else the tests wont come out right
Well, they're sure to have gotten some sort of disease with that kind of treatment that medicine doesn't know about yet, or one that is rather common in third-world countries that's killing lotsa people. They're also sure to have become somewhat mentally unstable, so medical researchers would have a fertile field in both mental and physical illness.

[gershanecktj]

um....

oops..

[XZminX]

I certainly agree!

STOP death penalties in Croatia!!! Wait! There are no death penalties in Croatia!

Then: STOP death penalties in da WORLD!!!
nice

[Frattimonde]

I agree that the death penalty should be replaced with something else. My version of "else" would be:

20 years in solitary confinement, with no windows, in a dark hall, getting fed three bowls of regurgitated gruel per day, with no sanitary facilities available. Though smart prisoners may get the idea to shit in the bowl... :) If that won't drive 'em crazy, nothing will!

Oh, and they are then used as test subjects for medicines. The Death Sentence is quite a waste of good medicinal guinea pigs...

Certainly, but still it would be slightly mistreat of the human rights. Even if someone has done something terrible, one should not torture that person. As you would not become any better yourself. So I can agree about the first part, but however using them as medical guinea pigs is a little over the line.

[GiaDragoness]

My view on this may be a bit biased, as i have personal expereince, i think the death penatly is'nt wrong. I mean it IS a very serious punishment, but have you seen some of the wackos in our society and world? If someone like, kills in retaliation of some form of revenge, give them like, some years in prison. If someone kills for little or no reason, something like "HE TOUCHED MY CORNBREAD!" or "it's fun to see their insides spill out..!" People like these should be sentenced with a bullet in the head. Cheap, effective, and it gets the job done.

Granted i think more of the money that they use for those expensive lethal injections should go towards proving the person innocent, or guilty (funny how our soceity is supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" but it's often the other way around) and replace lethal injection with a executioner like they did in the old days. Alot cheaper and still the same effect. I don't know if my opinion would be valid on something like this because the guy who was responsible for the death of my best friend, 25 school kids, and crushed my legs, pleaded "insanity" and got 10-20 years confinement and therapy, then to be released on perole if he showed "sanity". Pure BS if you ask me. Bastards.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[The_Maker]

I completely agree with you GiaDragoness.

[TheBB]

Well I strongly disagree.

As I have mentioned in another thread... the PROBLEM IS NOT SOLVED BY PUNISHING THE OFFENDING PART. The problem is the crime, and the crime has already been done, and so anything we do afterwards is just bickering about the core issue. There has to be some preventative measures entering the chain of actions at a point BEFORE the crime, because only then will our preventative measures have any effect towards solving the real problem - namely the crime.

How can you use arguments like it's "cheap" and "easy" for the death penalty. You are arguing that something as morally weak as murder is perfectly fine simply because acting morally right in this case would be expensive - or difficult. And therefore we are excused??

[Mindslaver]

An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

We need to go back to Hammurabi's Code.

[Draix]

I would rather die then spend the rest of my life in jail. I think most people would agree with me.

[Xenon]

Kill them all!

The death penalty isn't about punishing the guilty. It's about sending out the message: "Fuck with the rules and die". Countries like Saudi Arabia where you can get the death penalty for almost anything have really really low crime rates. I am usually for the most "bleeding-heart liberal" things and ideas, but I am PRO Death Penalty.

However, we need a better justice system to make sure innocent people aren't killed. Then again, what's one person when there's 6 billion left?

[GiaDragoness]

Then again, what's one person when there's 6 billion left? That's the apathetic kind of attitude that causes people to not give a damn about as much as they need too, or think they can get away wiht anything. It's small it wont matter. I beg to differ. Small things add up very fast, life has taught us this many painfull times. Another thing, someone around here used to have a quote on their sig like "you may not mean anything to the world, but you are the world to someone else." or something.

Well I strongly disagree.
As I have mentioned in another thread... the PROBLEM IS NOT SOLVED BY PUNISHING THE OFFENDING PART. The problem is the crime, and the crime has already been done, and so anything we do afterwards is just bickering about the core issue. There has to be some preventative measures entering the chain of actions at a point BEFORE the crime, because only then will our preventative measures have any effect towards solving the real problem - namely the crime. Oh, right. THIS IS REALISTC. DO you have any idea what causes murders? PEople who do it for some personal retaliation, predjudice, and about a dozen other things at least. If you want ot try going around making sure everyone is happy so that they don't kill, go for it. Tell me what your progress has been in about 50 years from now.

Murders are not "all the same type of cause" that can just be so easily addressed. It's not like their is some big evil root problem and once we adress it, it goes away and everyone stops killing. The only way you get people to stop killing is basically take away their means to kill, or make sure they hav nothing to kill. Kinda hard huh? Now you see the dilema.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[singo]

People like these should be sentenced with a bullet in the head. Cheap, effective, and it gets the job done.

Granted i think more of the money that they use for those expensive lethal injections should go towards proving the person innocent
:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:right, execution by firing squad.....and it has the added bonus of giving the army something to do when they are not fighting wars (which is becoming less and less of the time but....)

and the money saved should go towards making sure that it is actually the guilty party that is getting sentenced


I would bring back flogging for other crimes as well, like it or not, a flooged person is not likely to do it again

of course a hanged person is CERTAIN not to.

you cannot prevent a person from killing once.....but we can make damn sure they dont do it twice

[GiaDragoness]

you cannot prevent a person from killing once.....but we can make damn sure they dont do it twice Just a notice, but you probably change that to: "Keep them from doing after they stand trial for it" or something. Just a perfectionist point of view.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Xenon]

I say we bring back death penalty by burning at the stake. Makes people think twice about breaking the law if they think they'll be slow roasted. Maybe someone can invent a human-sized microwave and we can cook them from the inside out until they burst. It'd have to have see-through walls though.

I also think that executions should be public events where everyone gets to see first hand the horrible way you die if you break the law in such a manner as to warrant execution.

[GiaDragoness]

I say we bring back death penalty by burning at the stake. Makes people think twice about breaking the law if they think they'll be slow roasted. Maybe someone can invent a human-sized microwave and we can cook them from the inside out until they burst. It'd have to have see-through walls though.
I also think that executions should be public events where everyone gets to see first hand the horrible way you die if you break the law in such a manner as to warrant execution. Hmmmm, borders on unconstitutional, and makes so many comparisons as too olden days, plus it would horriffy young children and such, not to mention decrease civility of our morale, but sure, what the hell. Let's give it a try! :)

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[singo]

not to mention decrease civility of our morale,
:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:
in modern society???

dont worry, we have already hit rock bottom. the only way is up

[Xenon]

not to mention decrease civility of our morale

What the fuck does that even mean? I don't think it's proper english... what the hell is "decrease civility of our morale"?? Perhaps you don't know the meaning of one or more of those words? Could it be?

[ArchaicDreams]

Who gave us permission to do the work of the almighty one!

I agree with you. Only the gods shall decide if we shall die. Not the men of power.

The murder decided to end his/her victim's life, not god, so i have no problem with a just legal system ending his/her's. At least the murder got a fair trail, more then you can ever say about the victim.

[TheBB]

Oh, right. THIS IS REALISTC. DO you have any idea what causes murders? PEople who do it for some personal retaliation, predjudice, and about a dozen other things at least. If you want ot try going around making sure everyone is happy so that they don't kill, go for it. Tell me what your progress has been in about 50 years from now.

Murders are not "all the same type of cause" that can just be so easily addressed. It's not like their is some big evil root problem and once we adress it, it goes away and everyone stops killing. The only way you get people to stop killing is basically take away their means to kill, or make sure they hav nothing to kill. Kinda hard huh? Now you see the dilema.

Smashy Smashy!

Things required for a murder to take place:

1. A killer
2. A victim
3. A weapon
4. A reason

We can also stop murders by taking away the incentive to murder.

I know my suggestion is difficult, but who are you to say we should always choose the easiest way when there are obviously better ways around, which haven't even been tried yet?

you cannot prevent a person from killing once.....but we can make damn sure they dont do it twice

What's to stop me from preventing a first time murder?

[RelinaIonna]

Peoples' abhorrence to the death penalty has nothing to do with morality, but rather their own fear of mortality. The abhorrence was associated with ethics and fed to the willing masses, as an aid to pacify us as a whole. A docile population is easy to dominate.

[singo]

I know my suggestion is difficult, but who are you to say we should always choose the easiest way when there are obviously better ways around, which haven't even been tried yet?

they have, over here in britain we have tried the illegal weapons, rehabilitation, integration into society etc etc.

it does not work. it made it worse.

[Moti]

A life for a life is just punishment





TRANSLATION: A cruel and wretched person who maintains his existence at the cost of others' lives deserves to be killed for his own well-being, otherwise he will go down by his own actions.



PURPORT: A life for a life is just punishment for a person who cruelly and shamelessly lives at the cost of another's life. Political morality is to punish a person by a death sentence in order to save a cruel person from going to hell. That a murderer is condemned to a death sentence by the state is good for the culprit because in his next life he will not have to suffer for his act of murder. Such a death sentence for the murderer is the lowest possible punishment offered to him, and it is said in the smrti-sastras that men who are punished by the king on the principle of a life for a life are purified of all their sins, so much so that they may be eligible for being promoted to the planets of heaven. According to Manu, the great author of civic codes and religious principles, even the killer of an animal is to be considered a murderer because animal food is never meant for the civilized man, whose prime duty is to prepare himself for going back to Godhead. He says that in the act of killing an animal, there is a regular conspiracy by the party of sinners, and all of them are liable to be punished as murderers exactly like a party of conspirators who kill a human being combinedly. He who gives permission, he who kills the animal, he who sells the slaughtered animal, he who cooks the animal, he who administers distribution of the foodstuff, and at last he who eats such cooked animal food are all murderers, and all of them are liable to be punished by the laws of nature. No one can create a living being despite all advancement of material science, and therefore no one has the right to kill a living being by one's independent whims. For the animal-eaters, the scriptures have sanctioned restricted animal sacrifices only, and such sanctions are there just to restrict the opening of slaughterhouses and not to encourage animal-killing. The procedure under which animal sacrifice is allowed in the scriptures is good both for the animal sacrificed and the animal-eaters. It is good for the animal in the sense that the sacrificed animal is at once promoted to the human form of life after being sacrificed at the altar, and the animal-eater is saved from grosser types of sins (eating meats supplied by organized slaughterhouses which are ghastly places for breeding all kinds of material afflictions to society, country and the people in general). The material world is itself a place always full of anxieties, and by encouraging animal slaughter the whole atmosphere becomes polluted more and more by war, pestilence, famine and many other unwanted calamities.



[S.B. 1.7.37]

[GiaDragoness]

in modern society???
dont worry, we have already hit rock bottom. the only way is up True....

What the fuck does that even mean? I don't think it's proper english... what the hell is "decrease civility of our morale"?? Perhaps you don't know the meaning of one or more of those words? Could it be? Ok, seriously xenon, would it be too much trouble for you to try and act the slightest bit intelligent so you could keep up with the conversations here? Our Morale, is our standards of living. Civility, is how civilized we act. If we stand for public executions of such specticle, than we don't know just how far it would go.

For all we know, it would snowball into something much worse (nothing comes to mind right now, but take note that many people who have tried to predict future that far off have been waaay wrong. So i wont try.), then again, if things dont get better anyways, I would'nt have any objections as to trying it. However, think about the person up there on the stake: They would have to have done something pretty downright evil in order to be put up as such a spectacle like that. It's horrifying, humiliating, and depressing really.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Moti]

A life for a life is just punishment

any discussion on this point? :cool:

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[Moti]

Yeah, there are alot of people who should just have a bullet put into their head and be done with it, like gia said. But even if you don't think a gun like that is ok, like, you think it is takign away "the right to die with dignity", I am sure there are cheaper, and better ways to kill someone than with thousand, or hundred, or whatever, dollar drugs. We cut thousands and thousands of jobs, just to save money on companies. We can't find better ways to cut costs for the death penalty? I find that hard to beleive. I reckon a heated blade, put into the heart of a convict (or if they are organ donating a heart, something else), then taken out would do the job. It kills the convict, and seals the wound with no mess. Right?
Ok nice now lets discuss this:

According to Manu, the great author of civic codes and religious principles, even the killer of an animal is to be considered a murderer because animal food is never meant for the civilized man, whose prime duty is to prepare himself for going back to Godhead. He says that in the act of killing an animal, there is a regular conspiracy by the party of sinners, and all of them are liable to be punished as murderers exactly like a party of conspirators who kill a human being combinedly. He who gives permission, he who kills the animal, he who sells the slaughtered animal, he who cooks the animal, he who administers distribution of the foodstuff, and at last he who eats such cooked animal food are all murderers, and all of them are liable to be punished by the laws of nature. No one can create a living being despite all advancement of material science, and therefore no one has the right to kill a living being by one's independent whims.

[Xenon]

Hare Hare, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Rama.

Dude... do you ever post your own thoughts? In your own words? I've been to the Ashram already, I don't need to hear that all the time.

[Moti]

Hare Hare, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Rama.

Dude... do you ever post your own thoughts? In your own words? I've been to the Ashram already, I don't need to hear that all the time.
Name me anyone here quoting anything original. We are all tools quoting someone or some concoction of our limited and imperfect mind, is it not?

So why are you against my form of quoting? I have read all Prabhupada's books and find the philosophy and practice covers everthing perfectly for me. It's like shopping at the supermarket, you can get all your shopping done in one place so why go here there and everywhere.

Anyway Hare Krishna!

By the way when were you in the ashram? Was it before 1977 when the movement was still following Prabhupada's guidance or was it after when the wolves dress as sheep took control?

[Xenon]

After. Also, I wasn't "in" the Ashram, I just used to visit it for the food :D I used to go to the one in Juhu, India, and later on to the one in Vancouver, Canada.

[Protosschick99]

Here's my two cents:

Kill a minor: Death penalty
Rape a child (i.e. 0-12): Death penalty
Rape and Murder: Death penalty
Mass murder: Death penalty
Cerial Murderer/Rapist: Death penalty

As for rape in general--Cut it off. Simple as that. And if it is a woman raping a man--We should slice her boobs off or something--I'm serious, rape is a disgusting and vile crime which I would never wish on anyone ever.

[GiaDragoness]

As for rape in general--Cut it off. Simple as that. And if it is a woman raping a man--We should slice her boobs off or something--I'm serious, rape is a disgusting and vile crime which I would never wish on anyone ever. Since WHEN would a male EVER complain when he gets sex? lol. Besides, what if the girl is like, flat-chested? Anyways, most guys would enjoy sex in the first place, and normally, males are stronger than females. The only exceptions would be a brutish, female with like, AIDS or something.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[SiegeTank]

I know this thread is kinda old, but I just stumbled over something that Steve Earle said on his "just an American boy" live album, that pretty much sums up my argument against the death penalty.

Steve Earle said: "my whole opposition to the death penalty is pretty much based on the damage it does to my spirit when my government kills people, because my government is supposed to be me and I object to me killing people."

[raybAn]

Wonder how the hell a woman can rape a man...with a dildo or something? Hm? I think blood for blood on this one...if you kill someone, you will be killed. Plain and simple. If you rape, then you will be raped. And if you steal, then you will be stolen from. Eye for an eye...The penalty for what you have done shall be equal to the damage, not arrest. Fuck arrestions, we need something more with effect. In arrests, they get to be isolated, true, but not in danger. We should take criminals, and based on their crimes, let them live the horrors of their crimes from the view of their victim. If it`s an economical crime, the government, if it was led by me, whould be like this...NO MORE WEAK SHIT. TAKE THAT ENRON MOTHERFUCKER AND GRAB HIS WALLET, WITHDRAW HIS CREDIT CARDS AND CRIPPLE HIS INDUSTRY. MUAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH! No more mr. nice government! All criminals will be made lawless, which means everyone can do anything to them and they won`t get in jail for it. That`s my idea. Then they are in for something.....hahahah! Practically, they can just leave. I won`t banish them from `my` city, but I`ll make their stay a living hell. If you sell drugs knowingly they are deadly, then we will feed you with them! Cigar company`s suckas! P.S. Grace, are you saying wimen shall get away with having their boobs sliced while men die? Perhaps it`s the other way around and men get away with dying, and should instead get their dicks cut off. I`d personally watch them scream. MAHAHAHAHAH!

[Frattimonde]

Perhaps it´s best that you don´t lead it then...

BTW: A woman could rape a man, like in a sinister bondage game or force sex with a dildo as Ole said. As for women not being so strong, they could just slip something into their victims drink.

[hammocksleeper]

I have heard stories of where a couple girls took a guy and slipped him a mickey, then they shoved a pencil in his manhood to keep it erect and had their way with him.

[singo]

ouch!

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[singo]

unfortunately, without an eye for an eye society slowly disintegrates into anarchy


its depressing but sometimes killing people is necassary to protect those who have not done wrong. why should the criminal have a life when his victim did not?