well im doing a talk on this tomorrow so I just wanted to hear everyones opinions
I  think yes we should have it for muderers and such because if they have they right to take away one (or many) peoples lifes i think we should kill them insted of us paying for them to live in prision for the rest of their life.

what do you guys/girls think?

i think we dont have the right to kill someone ''we'' people are here to live in comunity, but well if someone does not respect to eachother, something should be done against him/her to keep tht safety and let the ''someone'' rest in peace. i wouldnt say this but well if someone messes with my family of course.. go ahead with it...

sorry for my bad english

i think no, but heck, it isnt in australia anyway we did this as a debate in my class

quote:

---

Originally posted by -dt-
we should kill them instead of us paying for them to live in prision for the rest of their life

---

nope. i think its a far worse punishment to keep somebody alive and suffering (stuck in jail for the rest of their life).

also, sometimes it turns out that the person was not guilty. how can you say, 'alright u'r free to go' when they're already dead?

also... what's the point of commiting another murder? shouldn't the people who killed the "real" murderer be charged for the same thing? i know the rules and all, but killing is still killing... it does not really teach others not to kill if the government does the same thing.

just my opinion

I pretty much have the same opinion as Joa. Killing the killer will make us killers too. Anyway, there is no deaht penalty here (Finland).

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by -dt-
we should kill them instead of us paying for them to live in prision for the rest of their life

---

Yeah, I agree. I think people who have committed multiple serious crimes and who are truly threats to society should get the death penalty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blaCkjaCk

yeah, in that case i agree with death penilty, we dont have the right too choose who lives or not. but if he/she is a murderer needs to pay the crimes that commited instead of just being in jail, thinking how to escape.

---

If we were in introduce the death penalty, i beleive that nobody should be killed unless they confess to the bad crime that they have committed...

If the evidence all points to the person accused and he is convicted but he continues to say he is innocent, they should only give the person a jail sentence...unless its blaitently obvious that they've done something wrong eg: saddam hussein, osama bin laden

You don't want people getting the death penalty when theres a possibility that they havn't commited the crime...

Other people may have different opinions but thats just my opinion anyway...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joa
nope. i think its a far worse punishment to keep somebody alive and suffering (stuck in jail for the rest of their life).

---

quote:

---

also, sometimes it turns out that the person was not guilty.

---

quote:

---

it does not really teach others not to kill if the government does the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Maybe, but wouldn't most people rather live than die? Also, keeping them alive costs the taxpayers money... is making criminals suffer really worth it? The taxpayers don't get much out of it, so I think not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Blah... there's a difference. A murder is usually planned by one person, and done in a violent way. A death penalty execution is decided with a long and careful process by prosecutors, judges, jurors, etc.. The actual killing is done in a non-violent way with a chemical injection.

---

* Joa doesn't like killing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joa
non-violent way with a chemical injection.

---

I think it would be a great scare tactic too tho because would people want revenge OR to keep living there life , 90% of people would prefer to keep there own life and probley never commit a murder or something , young kids would probley never try to hold up a store because they would be scared of getting caught and killed (even tho they would never kill someone over a prety crime like that)

Interesting topic.

-dt-, I think whatever your stand is, as long as you present the issue well, you'll get a good grade

And, I'm sorry, I might not be able to give my opinion, because I'm not sure what my stand is. (Convince me with your stand )

You guys might want to know about the latest death penalty verdict in the US.

Scott Peterson was sentenced for death for killing his wife named Laci, and his unborn fetus, Connor.
The thing that I found immoral when I heard the case for the first time was, he offered $500,000 (I guess) for anyone who found his wife. Well, eventually you know, the wife was found died.

He admitted that he was the killer, and his family tried to convince the jury that he was not a cold blooded killer.

And I think, on the last trial which resulted putting Scott in the death row, Laci's family expressed their emotional anger. On the other side, Scott's family didn't give a word. They might realize there was no way for him to escape.
I'm not really sure about this. I was cooking

Okay, now do you think that Scott got what he deserved or not?

This case has been quite popular in the US recently.
You can find tons of news from the Internet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by -dt-
I think it would be a great scare tactic too tho because would people want revenge OR to keep living there life , 90% of people would prefer to keep there own life and probley never commit a murder or something , young kids would probley never try to hold up a store because they would be scared of getting caught and killed (even tho they would never kill someone over a prety crime like that)

---

i say you should kill the really bad ones. The terrorists like osama and saddam. People who murdered bunch of lives

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hobbes
i say you should kill the really bad ones. The terrorists like osama and saddam. People who murdered bunch of lives

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hobbes

i say you should kill the really bad ones. The terrorists like osama and saddam. People who murdered bunch of lives

---

200th POST

I agree but only if it's 100% that the criminal is the suspect! cuz if not it could be a good for nothing kill

quote:

---

Originally posted by Naruto
I agree but only if it's 100% that the criminal is the suspect! cuz if not it could be a good for nothing kill

---

I think the death penalty should be introduced but primarily for multiple offenders, mass murderers/rapists etc...

I think prison life is too easy, some of them have tvs etc which isnt much of a deterrant to criminals

quote:

---

Originally posted by inc_haydn
I think prison life is too easy, some of them have tvs etc which isnt much of a deterrant to criminals

---

i live in the country which some other countries condemn for it's death penalties
death penalty is given to -murderers
                                  -kidnappers
                                  -drug traffickers
the death penalty is cruel, yes, but to me, getting jailed for life here is worse than the death penalty

Overall, my veiw is that we should have death penalties for people who have taken other peoples lives.

On the other hand though, I think it would be extremly hard to judge stuff like that. If it was an accident then they probably don't deserve to be killed and stuff like that and if they were set up or the evidence isn't that strong so I'm kindof not sure lol.

No, I don't think the death penality should exsist. Just because someone has done something wrong doesn't mean they have the right to take that persons life.

I think we should, however they must be 110% sure that the person did actually commit the crimes

Its a really dodgy and controversial question. In wayz both the answers are correct and incorrect. In some cases they mabbe or may not be applicable. U could talk for hours on end and still get no definite answer cause basically there isnt one. So i am sticking to my neutral point of view i guess cause i feel both r correct n incorrect

i think that we shouldnt because its just as bad as what they have done, i think we should have a life (not just 25 years) so that they never come out, for big crimes like shipman style things, keep the current one for single murders etc,

that way the criminals suffer for what they have done, do not allow them privilages like tv, make life as boring as possible

As humanity goes on we seem to become more and more ethically correct. The death penalty has become faded out and out for years now, by the 22nd century I doubt we will even have it. Life imprissionment seems to be a choice that is more humain and just as bad.

Well if they don't have the death penalty they should have something else because "They say 36 pence, or less, is spent on the ingredients for a school lunch - compared to 60 pence for a prisoner's.", so why should children suffer when people who commit the crimes get general better food in prison  


<source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3167544.stm>

Yes. For murderers...but depends.
We all have the right to live, but they take live.
In my opinion It depends the case.

I think that the death penalty should be introduced, but only for the most severe crimes for example:

Murder of children
Murder of 2 or more people
Rape followed by murder
and High Treason

There are many differential opinions to capital punishment. Personally, I think that only the most severe criminals should undergo such a terrible punishment, such as pedofilia etc...

I think that they should be 100% sure that the person killed everybody first though .

There should be a dead penilty! How many people, keel womans children people and go to jail for like 20years?! they killed lifes! life has no pryce! so kill them or even worst: torture them! hell ya! make them suffer.. imagine how family of the dead victims would suffer of their losts! Torture the criminals!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fredzz
There should be a dead penilty! How many people, keel womans children people and go to jail for like 20years?! they killed lifes! life has no pryce! so kill them or even worst: torture them! hell ya! make them suffer.. imagine how family of the dead victims would suffer of their losts! Torture the criminals!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fredzz
Torture the criminals!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fredzz
Torture the criminals!

---

My opinion is simple, no one has the right to take another person's life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carltos Cool
My opinion is simple, no one has the right to take another person's life.

---

(I didn't read the whole thread...)

my opinion:
no, no death penilty. I rather pay taxes to "punish" a person (aka put em life long in jail) then sentencing him/her to death. Not only the "innocent" issue comes to mind, but also the fact that death is often seen as a way out by criminals and by the relatives of the victims. Criminals don't have to live with their deeds any longer if they are sentenced to dead, the relatives of the victims always do...

True, some death row criminals rather keep living, but the true criminal minded ones don't care and rather die.

If someone killed a close one to me, I rather see him/her a life long in prison then seeing him on death row...

(and if politics come to mind: so it is ok to kill a murderer, but not to do an abortion?... but that's an whole other discussion... although, it is very similar)

we have the death penilt in england...............if u commit treason u can  still get hung

quote:

---

Originally posted by toddler
we have the death penilt in england...............if u commit treason u can  still get hung

---

only for very high treason ie. murder of royalty

quote:

---

Originally posted by benellis2007
only for very high treason ie. murder of royalty

---

ould of thought lethal injection           we are too far on in this country to hang

maybe tho

I dont think we should have the death penalty.

Firstly, there is always the issue of s/he could be innocent.

Secondly, there is the immoral, hypocritical argument, I guess some people could say that its figting fire with fire, but a modern day government shouldn't really be thinking that it is ok for them to kill people, but not okay for other people to kill.

There has also been research suggesting that the death penalty isn't a detterrent for muders and rapes etc...

Also, whatever you might say, the murderer's family are not murderers, therefore killing someone would inflict torument on the people who didn't really do anything wrong.

And I think that it is a far more effective punishment to put someone in jail for 30 years, they will have 30 years in which to think about what they did, 30 years of being seperated from their family and friends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by -dt-
we should kill them instead of us paying for them to live in prision for the rest of their life

---

Yeah, I agree. I think people who have committed multiple serious crimes and who are truly threats to society should get the death penalty.

---

Well if this murderer kills one person he should be kill as well just like the old saying eye or an eye. But if he kills more than one person he should rot in jail and be tortured and never let out and make that time of his life like hell so quick and painless death is better than torture

quote:

---

Originally posted by -dt-
well im doing a talk on this tomorrow so I just wanted to hear everyones opinions
I  think yes we should have it for muderers and such because if they have they right to take away one (or many) peoples lifes i think we should kill them insted of us paying for them to live in prision for the rest of their life.

what do you guys/girls think?

---

by giving death penatlys there being bad like the crimanal

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joa
yeah but u'd be pretty damn scared to spend the rest of u'r life in a cement box.

i mean, true with the jails they have in like Canada for instance, doing life in jail is like a free vacation. (most jails here anyway).. but if they were more strict with murderers and didn't give them cells with cable television, and gave them very limited choices for things. i think most people wouldn't want to go to jail for life

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vexx
How'd you know that?

I think there should be a death penalty. If someone is in a concert, and someone brings in a machine gun, and kills everyone including the singers. He'll just get jailed?

---

I think we shouldn't have the death penalty, because I don't think it does what it's advertised for: Scare the criminals. And it has a lot of problems. How do we kill the criminals in a painless, cheap way? And we have to make sure the operator doesn't feel bad about it aswell.

It seems like this thread talks about which punishment is more severe.

So I propose another way.
A life-time imprisonment without food and water, just like Terri Schiavo underwent.

If a non-criminal experienced such thing, why don't we implement the same thing to the criminals?

/sevillaugh

Edit:
And we can put the bad guilty guys, who are in the starving-to-death row, in same jails with corpses who were punished the same.

That way we will have the cheapest (and efficient) punishment in the history.
No food, no water, no maintenance and maybe no electricity
We only need spaces to put the bad guys with the corpses.

And it should be relatively short. Probably it'll just take 13 days, like Terri.

We dont have it here in australia,
I think we should have it but only for extreme crimes that can be proven beyond doubt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thekid

So I propose another way.
A life-time imprisonment without food and water

---

yes i do think we should have the panelty but only for extreme cases