DEATH PENALTY- For or Against?

[UncleMoneybags]

The death penalty is serious business. Some people don't think that the death penalty is an effective deterrent but it would cut down on the # of criminals literally. If someone is wrongly convicted and sentenced it would be a shame. If someone wrongfully testifies against someone else with malice and is convicted, they should be killed as well.

The stupid criminals would hurt the most from this type of system as it would severely limit their legal system maneuvering and Club Med-like habitations.

 

[Marco]

Uncle Moneybags.....you're correct to say that the death penalty is an effective deterrent...at least the criminal who kills has no chance to reoffend....

I think the people against the death penalty don't realize the ability of forensic science to determine the true killer in a murder case...when all the evidence is gathered and studied and the only logical conclusion leads to this one suspect.....

I hope I'm not the only one tired of seeing appeal after appeal after appeal while in the meantime our taxdollars get smoked to death....there has to be a limit to the number of appeals and also a limit on the amount people can sue for.....somebody stubs thier toe and wants 42 million for it.....give me a fawking break.....

 

[EverFresh]

Against. In this day and age we have no right to play God. From now on in a 4 x 8 concrete cell is worse than the death penalty anyway

 

[xpanda]

In a bizarre kind of way, criminals have a tendency to judge criminal activity better than most of us. For this reason, I am a big proponent of throwing each and every one of them into the general population. This tendency of the state to put some of the most fücked up offenders in protective isolation with pretty yellow walls is beyond me. In cases like Dahmer, where the system turns a blind eye, so to speak, it's safe to call it state-sanctioned murder, but giving that power to people who have already crossed the threshold into criminality, in my view, is less likely to seep into societal consciousness than granting that power to a jury of twelve.

 

[Oceans11]

Occasionally, putting the worst of them into a field and blowing them up might not be such a bad idea.

This case has been dragging on since 1996.

--------------------------------------
Child killer convicted in Belgium

Belgian paedophile Marc Dutroux has been found guilty of abduction, rape and murder after a three-month trial.
The 12-member jury convicted Dutroux of leading a gang that kidnapped and raped six girls in the mid-1990s, leading to the deaths of four of them.

It found him guilty of killing two of the girls - teenagers An Marchal and Eefje Lambrecks - and an accomplice.

Hundreds of witnesses, including two survivors who were rescued from Dutroux's home, testified against him.

The case, heard in the town of Arlon, has been dubbed Belgium's trial of the century.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3811907.stm

 

[acw]

Simply against it, because I doubt, if it lowers criminality.

 

[KennyB]

Death Penalty for 3rd offense of Armed Robbery and up. Don't tell me that if someone is convicted three times of a crime of at least armed robbery that we are talking about an innocent person. That doesn't even take into account all of the times the person is arrested.

Death to all criminals!

 

[Journeyman]

3 striked and your dead...actually Kenny B. that would cut down on crime IMO...And like you said you cannot be mistaken as a 3-time armed robber.