Dawson School Shooting

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]This concept never really made sense to me. We're not allowed to want this person to suffer however temporarily, but God's allowed to damn them to Hell, where they're doomed to burn in a lake of flame for eternity. I think it's a comparatively small and meek request to want this guy to reap what he sowed for a few minutes when their destination would be eternal suffering.

I wish he just commited suicide and removed his sorry genes from the human pool instead of taking others with him. People, if you hate the world, just kill yourself and die quietly.[/size][/QUOTE]Fair enough. Sometimes I?m tempted to want them to suffer, but in the end I feel like on some level it makes me no better than they are. So even if there isn?t a Hell and such I still support dealing with them and that includes the Death penalty. In some respects I do feel that we are too kind when people who do what they did are simply put in jail and then later released. Crimes like that deserve a more severe punishment to keep it from happening again.

As much as I disapprove of suicide, I have to agree. But only if the person is actually planning on killing others as well. Other wise if someone hates the world that much, they need to seek help. After all we don?t know why they hate the world.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue]Meh, you?re more forgiving than I am. It seems wrong to want others to suffer, and yet a small part of me wishes for it just the same. Though I suppose if I had to personally cause them to suffer I don?t know if I could follow through with it.

I do agree about the laws though. Crimes like that if the person survives should get the death penalty in my opinion. Unless it?s provable that they are mentally insane or something and even then they would be stuck in a mental hospital for life if that were true.

I guess the whole thing just baffles me as in spite of the horrible things I?ve had happen in my life. No matter how much pain I was in, I never once felt the urge to kill others because I was unhappy. So it just makes no sense to me why others do feel that way. [/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']So even if there isn?t a Hell and such I still support dealing with them and that includes the Death penalty. In some respects I do feel that we are too kind when people who do what they did are simply put in jail and then later released. Crimes like that deserve a more severe punishment to keep it from happening again.[/quote]
[size=1]You support the death penality, yet you disapprove of us wanting him to suffer? Aren't both an exercise of vengeance? The victims are already dead, what good will it do to kill Kimveer as well, save satisfying our desire to see him meet the same fate?

It seems to me you can't tell us that wishing for another's suffering is wrong, but turn around and support killing him when the only thing it does is satisfy your bloodlust.[/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]You support the death penality, yet you disapprove of us wanting him to suffer? Aren't both an exercise of vengeance? The victims are already dead, what good will it do to kill Kimveer as well, save satisfying our desire to see him meet the same fate?

It seems to me you can't tell us that wishing for another's suffering is wrong, but turn around and support killing him when the only thing it does is satisfy your bloodlust.[/size][/QUOTE]There is a very fine line between wanting someone to suffer because of their crimes and dealing justice for the crime. In one you want him to suffer since others have suffered pain due to their actions. The other, you are dealing out punishment not revenge. Law is required to avoid chaos. The death penalty is something that is usually decided after a trial and after much deliberation, it is not a spur of the moment deal nor a ?I want them to die a horrible, painful death.? sort of deal.

If you are to follow the logic you are presenting then following up on any crime is pointless as the deed in question is over with. In this case it means people are dead and others are hurt. If he had survived would we have let him go? No, he would be in jail and the legal process of prosecuting him would have begun.

You have misunderstood me if you think my supporting the Death Penalty is some sort of bloodlust on my part. You have also misunderstood me if you think I disapprove of you or anyone else for wanting him to suffer. My point was that on a personal level I think it is wrong to deliberately inflict pain just for the sheer purpose of causing pain. It would be more accurate to say that I find such an attitude sad. I have lost loved ones in my life so I know how hard it is to lose someone you care for, especially when the foolish actions of another person is to blame.

Perhaps the best way to describe my attitude would be I support the law when it comes to dealing with crimes and if the process leads to the people deciding on a Death Penalty sentence, then I support that decision. In all honesty I wish we didn?t need laws, but events like what happened at the school make them necessary. Part of why I support it is I have lived long enough to see that there are some who no matter what you do or how you try to help them, they insist on hurting others and breaking the law.

[vegeta rocker]

Not saying i support the death penalty or not, i don't, but Aaryanna_Mom has a point.
I agree that the death penalty is somthing deliberated over and decided upon.

I personally believe that we don't have the right to take a life, that is not up to us to have our vegeance on someone.

The prisons are more overcrowded every day and it is so expensive to keep them working that there is honestly little space. If we didnt have the death penalty then im not sure what we would do.

Once i again i dont support it, but i do understand it.

And i don't get where Retribution got the idea of Aaryanna_Mom having bloodlust, she never said anything about it. Blood lust usually means a hunger for it i think, simply just for the satisfaction. She would get no satisfaction out of it.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']There is a very fine line between wanting someone to suffer because of their crimes and dealing justice for the crime. In one you want him to suffer since others have suffered pain due to their actions. The other, you are dealing out punishment not revenge. Law is required to avoid chaos. The death penalty is something that is usually decided after a trial and after much deliberation, it is not a spur of the moment deal nor a ?I want them to die a horrible, painful death.? sort of deal.[/quote]
[size=1]When people want the death penalty, they usually want that murderer to suffer. In any event, the death penalty is oftentimes both justice and revenge. It's technical courtroom "justice," and at the same time usually sought out of desire for revenge. It is sought after much deliberation, but that doesn't mean the decision isn't borne out of anger and desire for revenge.

[QUOTE]If you are to follow the logic you are presenting then following up on any crime is pointless as the deed in question is over with. In this case it means people are dead and others are hurt. If he had survived would we have let him go? No, he would be in jail and the legal process of prosecuting him would have begun.[/QUOTE]
My argument stands if you think about it from the perspective of death penalty for revenge. If the death penalty is sought out of revenge, that is wrong. It is pointless from that perspective to kill a murderer just because your loved one is dead.

[QUOTE]You have misunderstood me if you think my supporting the Death Penalty is some sort of bloodlust on my part. You have also misunderstood me if you think I disapprove of you or anyone else for wanting him to suffer. My point was that on a personal level I think it is wrong to deliberately inflict pain just for the sheer purpose of causing pain. It would be more accurate to say that I find such an attitude sad. I have lost loved ones in my life so I know how hard it is to lose someone you care for, especially when the foolish actions of another person is to blame.[/QUOTE]

Pardon me when you said
[QUOTE]So even if there isn?t a Hell and such I still support dealing with them and that includes the Death penalty.[/QUOTE]

Bloodlust may have been strong, but from the above quote, I gathered that you were for the death penalty as a means of vengeance. I don't think I made any huge leap of logic there.

[QUOTE]Perhaps the best way to describe my attitude would be I support the law when it comes to dealing with crimes and if the process leads to the people deciding on a Death Penalty sentence, then I support that decision. In all honesty I wish we didn?t need laws, but events like what happened at the school make them necessary. Part of why I support it is I have lived long enough to see that there are some who no matter what you do or how you try to help them, they insist on hurting others and breaking the law.[/QUOTE]
You have to understand how contradictory your points of view are. On the one hand, you are fervently opposed to wishing a murderer the worst, yet on the other hand, you firmly support the law and whatever comes with it. Please understand that the death penalty is most often a tool of revenge under the guise of a necessary tool, without which society crumbles. That being said, the death penalty exists only to kill murderers; and you support that. But you said...

[QUOTE]I?m sure that there are those who will disagree with this, but wishing pain and death on others and wanting revenge is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Tell me what the death penalty is aside from "the law". I personally think it's just a wish of pain and death upon a criminal.

[quote name='vegeta rocker']The prisons are more overcrowded every day and it is so expensive to keep them working that there is honestly little space. If we didnt have the death penalty then im not sure what we would do.[/quote]
I suppose you didn't know that it costs the state more to execute a criminal than to give them a life sentence? That, and criminals are rarely executed, so this excuse of "it clears up space" is moot as well. The last person who was executed in my area died almost nine months ago. Before that, I think it had been several years.

[QUOTE]And i don't get where Retribution got the idea of Aaryanna_Mom having bloodlust, she never said anything about it. Blood lust usually means a hunger for it i think, simply just for the satisfaction. She would get no satisfaction out of it.[/QUOTE]
But she still supports that institution, no matter what she feels. It does not change the fact that the death penalty exists as a means of vengeance. And it certainly does not mean it is necessary. [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png][b]Most of Europe[/b][/url] has done away with it (as well as the right to bear arms, but that's another debate) and they're doing fine.

Of course she feels satisfied with the death penalty. If she were not satisfied, she would not support it.[/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']When people want the death penalty, they usually want that murderer to suffer. In any event, the death penalty is oftentimes both justice and revenge. It's technical courtroom "justice," and at the same time usually sought out of desire for revenge. It is sought after much deliberation, but that doesn't mean the decision isn't borne out of anger and desire for revenge.[/size][/quote]I do not agree. The death penalty is something that when you consider how many crimes that have happened and how many people have been murdered, doesn?t happen very often. The percentage is very low of people who are actually put to death. I think you are still missing my point here.

If I truly wanted revenge and wanted them to suffer I would want them to be in jail forever knowing that they could never be free or I would desire that they suffer great pain before dying. It?s not the same thing at all. If such a decision was allowed to happen solely due to anger and a desire for revenge, we would see it a lot more than we do. The death penalty is something that is only for severe crimes and even what happened at the school is unlikely to even be considered for such a sentence. [quote name='Retribution][size=1]My argument stands if you think about it from the perspective of death penalty for revenge. If the death penalty is sought out of revenge, that is wrong. It is pointless from that perspective to kill a murderer just because your loved one is dead.[/size][/QUOTE]The person who makes this choice of giving a death sentence is not the family or person who lost the loved one. Even if they wished it they are not the one?s allowed to make such a decision. This is done to keep decisions from being made based on a desire for revenge. So how is it revenge when the due process of the justice system decides a person?s crimes are severe enough to warrant the death penalty? You make it sound like the average person can simply demand such a sentence when in fact the law prevents it from happening unless the crime is considered severe enough, and even then that?s no guarantee that the person will get such a sentence. [QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]Pardon me when you said [/size][/quote][quote=Aaryanna_Mom] So even if there isn?t a Hell and such I still support dealing with them and that includes the Death penalty.[/quote][quote=retribution][size=1]Bloodlust may have been strong, but from the above quote, I gathered that you were for the death penalty as a means of vengeance. I don't think I made any huge leap of logic there.[/size][/QUOTE]By saying I support the death penalty I am saying I support the law as it has been decided by the majority. Vengeance is often a desire for punishment that is outside of the law, a desire to see them suffer no matter what. On the same side of this statement, even if I disagree and a jury finds a person innocent of wrong doing, I support that as well. [QUOTE=Retribution][size=1']You have to understand how contradictory your points of view are. On the one hand, you are fervently opposed to wishing a murderer the worst, yet on the other hand, you firmly support the law and whatever comes with it. Please understand that the death penalty is most often a tool of revenge under the guise of a necessary tool, without which society crumbles. That being said, the death penalty exists only to kill murderers; and you support that. But you said...[/size][/quote]I can see that you don?t understand what I am saying. I am not talking about just murders here, I think wishing pain on anyone is wrong. Regardless of the crime. But at the same time that does not include being a pacifist to the point that you are unwilling to uphold laws to protect the innocent. Yes the death penalty can been seen as a tool for revenge, but it is still not the same as wanting to hurt someone just because they hurt others. Where is the contradiction in upholding the law and yet not because you want people who hurt others to suffer? You do it because it is a necessary evil. Dealing with stuff that you wish didn?t happen or didn?t exist. On some level you can?t avoid a bit of contradiction here as punishing criminals in any form is revenge for what they have done. The whole point is to not take it into your own hands and to uphold a system of justice so that everyone is treated as equal as possible when being tried for crimes. [QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]But she still supports that institution, no matter what she feels. It does not change the fact that the death penalty exists as a means of vengeance. And it certainly does not mean it is necessary. [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png][b]Most of Europe[/b][/url] has done away with it (as well as the right to bear arms, but that's another debate) and they're doing fine.

Of course she feels satisfied with the death penalty. If she were not satisfied, she would not support it.[/size][/QUOTE]Am I satisfied with it? No, I think that there are better methods out there, but until those changes are made I can and will support the current system. How many things do you support even though you are not 100% satisfied with it? It?s an imperfect system that I?m sure we will eventually do away with. Perhaps I should have been clearer on this as I would have no problem with it being removed altogether. I could perhaps have also been clearer in that when I say hurting others is wrong, I am talking more along the lines of torturing them when there is no reason for the pain other than the satisfaction of seeing the other person suffer. A good way to put it would be if I was the one stopping the person shooting others, I would aim for a quick kill instead of blowing off their knee caps first.

Oh and I'm not getting too far off topic here am I? If so just tell me and I'll quit. :animeswea

[Retribution]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']If I truly wanted revenge and wanted them to suffer I would want them to be in jail forever knowing that they could never be free or I would desire that they suffer great pain before dying. It?s not the same thing at all. If such a decision was allowed to happen solely due to anger and a desire for revenge, we would see it a lot more than we do. The death penalty is something that is only for severe crimes and even what happened at the school is unlikely to even be considered for such a sentence. The person who makes this choice of giving a death sentence is not the family or person who lost the loved one. Even if they wished it they are not the one?s allowed to make such a decision. This is done to keep decisions from being made based on a desire for revenge.[/quote]
[size=1]That's completely wrong. If someone were to kill someone's family and rape that person's mother before doing so, they would be elligible for the death penalty. That family [i]does[/i] have the ability to tell their lawyer to seek the death penalty as their sentence. Of course the judge does have the power to make whatever judgement he/she sees fit, the plaintiff still can ask for whatever sentence they wish.

[QUOTE]So how is it revenge when the due process of the justice system decides a person?s crimes are severe enough to warrant the death penalty? You make it sound like the average person can simply demand such a sentence when in fact the law prevents it from happening unless the crime is considered severe enough, and even then that?s no guarantee that the person will get such a sentence.[/QUOTE]
It's revenge in that you're killing that person because of what they did. It's apparent the death penalty has zero benefit when nearly all of Europe, Canada, and even Mexico have abandoned it without ill consequence. Therefore, the exercise of killing them must be done just to do it, under the guise of "justice" and "the law."

I have to go, but I'll be back later. :)[/size]

[Papa Smurf]

Sorry, but I had to jump in here real fast.

[quote name='Retribution']That's completely wrong.[/quote] And yet you're agreeing with her on that same point of contention:

[quote]That family does have the ability to tell their lawyer to [u][b]seek[/b][/u] the death penalty as their sentence. [u][b]Of course the judge[/b][/u] does have the [u][b]power to make whatever judgement he/she sees fit[/b][/u], the plaintiff still can [u][b]ask[/b][/u] for whatever sentence they wish.[/quote] Compared to Aaryanna_Mom:

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom][i]The person who makes this choice of giving a death sentence is not the family or person who lost the loved one[/i]. Even if they wished it [i]they are not the one?s allowed to make such a decision[/i']. This is done to keep decisions from being made based on a desire for revenge.[/quote] I've bolded and italicized the important points. I think they speak for themselves. Retribution, you're acting like a simplistic and ignorant fool who just enjoys hearing himself complain.

[quote]It's revenge in that you're killing that person because of what they did.[/quote] Do you honestly see the world in such a stupid-simple black and white provincial manner? Retribution, think about what you just said. You're putting Timothy McVeigh's execution by lethal injection on the same level as lame Star Trek Klingon dogma simply because both of those executions happen after the fact. Well duh they both happen after the fact.

But that's hardly a basis for using your ignorant, dipsh-t little brush to paint everything here in the same color, because I [u][b]guarantee[/b][/u] that the "bloody satisfaction" The Bride got was not felt by most--if not all--of the survivors/loved ones when Timothy McVeigh was executed. And you know what else? It was probably even more painful for them. From what I remember, most of the families [i]even refused to watch on closed-circuit television[/i]. Were they operating in that Klingon revenge mode you seem so convinced of?

If there was any positive emotion during that execution, it was that the families had a sense of closure. And closure is SURE AS HELL not the same thing as bloody satisfaction.

So as much as you want to see the world in such romanticized, idealistic, fanciful ways, where all punishments are nothing more than emotionally charged revenge modes and where justice is just an illusion weaved by self-righteous political boobs...the world we live in is a world based on rules and laws, and there are far more actions taken than you may realize and/or know to ensure that those rules and laws are followed, and that the punishments that follow when those rules and laws are broken are just and fair.

Why do you think there are so many rules and guidelines regarding the death penalty? Why do you think lethal injection is basically the only way an execution is performed these days? Why do you think people are even re-examining lethal injection to decide if it's cruel and unusual punishment, for the [i]rare[/i] cases where the prisoner doesn't die immediately from it, instead drifting in a painful quasi-unconscious haze as the toxins paralyze him or her?

But the death penalty is still an emotionally charged revenge mode? Bullsh-t. Pull your head and the stick out of your *** and stop being such a whiny little b-tch, man.

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=maroon]Whoa, Papa Smurf, I totally agree with you and all, but isn't Retribution a moderator? Don't you have to treat them extra nice or else you get banned? O_o Isn't your post gonna get you banned for pointing out the obvious in a too harsh a manner?

Just to add nothing more than an analogy, I find it silly to believe that someone else taking revenge for you (if we're willing to stretch it even that far) is the same as getting real revenge. It's like one guy commits two murders, and two people go after him for revenge. One of the guy gets the revenge, and so you're assuming the other guy got... revenge done for him? O_o wtf? Is suicide automated revenge?

And to get back to what everyone SHOULD be talking about: The killer shouldn't have killed himself, but gotten a trial by peers and then raped.[/COLOR]

[sakurasuka]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]
It's revenge in that you're killing that person because of what they did. It's apparent the death penalty has zero benefit when nearly all of Europe, Canada, and even Mexico have abandoned it without ill consequence. Therefore, the exercise of killing them must be done just to do it, under the guise of "justice" and "the law."[/size][/QUOTE]

[size=1]Let's backtrack a bit. If you do something wrong, you should be punished, correct?

Let's say a six year old boy is sitting at a table with his mother. She's drinking a very full glass of wine. The little boy keeps grabbing at the glass. Now, the mother, know that the boy cannot drink the wine and his grabbing would only result in knocking it over, persists to tell him 'no, you can't have that' which only results in another grab at the glass.

Let's say the boy finally gets ahold of the glass while the mother isn't watching, knowing very well that he isn't allowed to touch it, and it spills all over the table. If the mother than slaps the boy's hand, is that a vengeful/spiteful attack at the boy, or a punihsment for his actions?

Now, we may not all agree that slapping the boy's hand is proper treatment, but it is equal to the crime. Some of us may suggest puting the boy in the corner, or giving him a good spanking for refusing to listen. At any rate, every person would have thier own way of dealing with the problem. Either way, the punishment should match the crime.



New senario. Same boy, age thirteen, throws mud at the little girl down the street. The mud splatters her little pink bike and her pretty white skirt. This deserves a bit more than a slap on the hand. Most likely he'd get grounded for x-amount of weeks, made to apologise to the girl, and possible even buy her a new skirt depending upon the situation. Yet again, the punishment should match the crime.

Does that mean that boy's parents are plotting thier revenge against him because he threw mud at that girl? Hell no, they're punishing him for his actions.



Same boy. Age eighteen. Sells drugs to an undercover police officer and goes to jail for x-amount of years. The police officers aren't seething with vengeance, they're merely matching the crime to the punishment. See where I'm going with this?



Same boy. Age 21. Wounds dozens of people. Kills one. Gets the death penalty. Yeah, this is more severe. Yeah, some of the people who got shot probably would like revenge. But does that mean we should want to save him from the death penalty? No way. It's his punishment. It fits the crime. He earned it.

Admiting that, as 'Mom did, isn't an act of vengeance, it's an act of logical thinking.

Not everyone is a bloodthirsty maniac.



Edit- Smurf, you really should let up on the personal attacks.

[/size]

[Retribution]

[size=1]...Wow.

I?ll try to be brief and to the point.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. The death penalty is not used in most of (if not all of?) the European Union (and Canada), yet the EU/Canada does not have a great deal of crime compared to the US. Therefore, what is the point of the death penalty? Considering it does not deter crime, it costs more than jailing someone for life, and only takes another life, what is the point?

With those points in mind, the death penalty does nothing but kill the murderer for the sake of killing the murderer. Yes it is technically the law, but does that change the fact that the only incentive to seeking the death penalty is to kill the criminal? Does that not make it a tool of pointless revenge and nothing more?

Call it what you will ? satisfaction, revenge, closure; it does not matter. There is no rational reason for the death penalty to exist in this day and age.[/size]

[sakurasuka]

[size=1]

Sure, it deters crime. You're less likely to kill someone if you yourself are going to get killed for it. If I really loathed someone and was going to kill them even though I'd get caught, I'd be more likely to do so if all I got was jailtime.

And how can it cost less to give someone a shot than to jail, feed, and clothe them for life? That.. Doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense, but if you'd like to prove me wrong go right ahead.

It doesn't make it a tool of revenge whatsoever, anyway. Do you think the judge is thinking 'I just hate this guy, let's give him the death penalty to suit my whim' when he sentances? No, he's thinking 'This man/woman deserves to be punished to the extent of the law for his crimes, and he should never be allowed the chance to commit them again'.



We all know that the US has more crime than nearly any other country, bringing that up doesn't help your argument. It probably means that we should make better use of the death penalty, if you ask me.

I know how I must sound, but I think there's just no help for anyone who would rape/torture/murder another human being. This speaking from a severely neutral standpoint with absolutely no thoughts of revenge/bloodlust/satisfaction, I think that people who commit crimes that severe don't have the right to continue life on this planet, and should likely all be shot.

[/size]

[Retribution]

[quote name='sakurasuka']Sure, it deters crime. You're less likely to kill someone if you yourself are going to get killed for it. If I really loathed someone and was going to kill them even though I'd get caught, I'd be more likely to do so if all I got was jailtime.[/quote]
[size=1]Your statement is a logically sound one, however...

[QUOTE]The murder rate in the U.S. in 1992 was 9.3 murders per 100,000 population. 16 States had a murder rate higher than the national average. Of those 16 all but one, the sixteenth, was a death penalty State.

[B](Uniform Crime Reports, Oct. 3, 1993. U.S. Department of Justice, F.B.I.)[/B][/QUOTE]

While this is more than a decade ago, I can't imagine a substantial change in the basic concept. The death penalty has changed little, just as crime has changed little over that period of time.

[QUOTE]And how can it cost less to give someone a shot than to jail, feed, and clothe them for life? That.. Doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense, but if you'd like to prove me wrong go right ahead.[/QUOTE]
I didn't really believe it either. I'm still looking for a more veritable source, but for now... (Well, [url=http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html][b]this[/b][/url] is a decent source.)

[QUOTE=The Onion][url=http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33368][b]Full article here.[/b][/url]

Mr. Jackson, my judgment in this matter must be dictated by higher ideals. One could argue that the cost of keeping you in prison for life would actually be less than that of executing you. No doubt, it will cost a great deal of taxpayer money to reject your appeal of this sentence. But the proud and noble state of Texas has never listened to the bookkeepers and accountants when the decision to kill a man must be made.[/QUOTE]
True, it's some old guy from Texas, but he's also a judge. Take his word for what you will.

[QUOTE]It doesn't make it a tool of revenge whatsoever, anyway. Do you think the judge is thinking 'I just hate this guy, let's give him the death penalty to suit my whim' when he sentances? No, he's thinking 'This man/woman deserves to be punished to the extent of the law for his crimes, and he should never be allowed the chance to commit them again'.[/QUOTE]
With those in mind, I can't really see any other reason for capital punishment aside from killing them just to do it (i.e.: satisfaction, closure, revenge, etc). When there are more effective ways of delivering justice, what's the reasoning for [i]still[/i] killing a criminal?

[QUOTE]We all know that the US has more crime than nearly any other country, bringing that up doesn't help your argument. It probably means that we should make better use of the death penalty, if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
If we already use the death penalty, but we still have a comparatively high crime rate, isn't that indicative that something's not working? Perhaps we should take a page out of their books and do what they're doing; if those aforementioned countries have lower crime rates, shouldn't we be trying to emulate what they've done?

[QUOTE]I know how I must sound, but I think there's just no help for anyone who would rape/torture/murder another human being. This speaking from a severely neutral standpoint with absolutely no thoughts of revenge/bloodlust/satisfaction, I think that people who commit crimes that severe don't have the right to continue life on this planet, and should likely all be shot.[/QUOTE]
I used to think like you did, it's not like it makes you sound ignorant. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, especially when there's no cut and dry answer.[/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1'] Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, especially when there's no cut and dry answer.[/size][/quote]That?s a good spot to wrap it up in my opinion. ;) It really is an issue that doesn?t have a good cut and dry answer. And I think both of us have good points even though our opinion differs. Also as much as I?ve enjoyed discussing it with you I am going to be gone for the next week so I won?t be around to continue the discussion. Though if it?s still going when I get back I may re-join the discussion at that point. Thanks for the responses to my points Retribution, I enjoyed discussing it with you. :)