Death Penalty Yay or Nay?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]I don't know if this question has been asked recently, but after yesturday where a man who intentionally killed a New York State trooper reportedly did it because New York State doesn't have the death penalty I figured I'd go ahead and start this thread. I'm curious to see how both the veteran and new members feel about the death penalty.

I feel a bit divided on the death penalty. Right now as I've said New York doesn't have it, but we have in the past and I believe it may have deterred some people from commiting crimes that would have warrented it. But I also realize that even if the person is on death row they are still allowed to request numorous appeals, and that there are more minorities executed than whites which makes it unfair.

I'm not sure what else to say right now since I'm a bit pressed for time and I have to get ready for a job interview in a bit. So maybe some other people can share their views and I'll get back to everyone on this subject tonight.[/color][/font]

[Hanabishi Recca]

[B][COLOR=Purple][FONT=Verdana] You know what, most times I think they derserve the death penalty. But after thinking about it for a little bit if it was my family member then I wouldn't want them to have the death penalty. I don't think they should have the death penalty because they are going to jail anyway. They have some time to think of what they did and to see if the time they spent was worth it.

If they did it again, then they should make the sentence longer. I mean, its their life they are ruining. The should just notice what they are doing isn't working , right? Its just commen sence. Too bad not too many people have it these days.

If they did want to keep on being stupid then they are going to pay the time.

PS. Have a good interview![/FONT][/COLOR][/B]

(Oh, I don't have time to spell check!)

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

It should come as little surprise to anyone that I oppose the death penalty in every way, shape and form. When a society begins to activity kill it's own citizens for the crimes they have committed, then in my mind that's a step backwards in civilisation rather than a step forward, regardless of a person's crimes, nobody has the right to sentence another person to die. Personally I advocate rehabilitation where possible, and full life sentences where rehabilitation is not possible.

I know some people will read that and think that it is unrealistic to confine every capital offender for their entire lives, from an economic point of view and perhaps even a humanitarian point of view. However, when we began activity looking at those fallen members of our society as simply a financial drain that could be more easily removed with a quick execution, then I do think we've become rather cynical and cold-hearted.[/SIZE]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue]The only issue I have with the Death Penalty is that the legal system is flawed. You could be sentencing someone to death who is innocent of wrongdoing. Once someone is dead you can?t undo that fact if you find out later that they are innocent.

On the other side, if it is provable and that can be difficult to do, then if the crime is severe enough I am not bothered by the idea of someone being executed for their crimes. But since proving something can be difficult I think the Death Penalty is outdated and needs to be done away with.

Personally I?m more in favor of criminals who have committed acts severe enough to qualify for the Death Penalty being put in prison for life without Parole options. Then if it turns out the system was wrong and an innocent person was put in jail, we don?t have to worry about having killed someone who did nothing wrong. And if they are guilty, they won?t be released and given the opportunity to commit even more crimes. [/COLOR]

[vegeta rocker]

I am against the death penalty because i believe no person has the right to take a human life.

In the previous thread dealing with this i think my side was a little blurred by a poor choice of words on my own behalf.

But i think it is wrong, simply because we don't have the right. You can't take away something you can't give.

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

It should come as little surprise to anyone that I oppose the death penalty in every way, shape and form. When a society begins to activity kill it's own citizens for the crimes they have committed, then in my mind that's a step backwards in civilisation rather than a step forward, regardless of a person's crimes, nobody has the right to sentence another person to die. Personally I advocate rehabilitation where possible, and full life sentences where rehabilitation is not possible.

I know some people will read that and think that it is unrealistic to confine every capital offender for their entire lives, from an economic point of view and perhaps even a humanitarian point of view. However, when we began activity looking at those fallen members of our society as simply a financial drain that could be more easily removed with a quick execution, then I do think we've become rather cynical and cold-hearted.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
[size=1]It's scary, almost. You and I agree, almost word for word. However, I think that rehabilitating a murder is a pointless process. If they are rehabiilitated, are they actually fit to leave jail? Is that fair?

Anyway, it actually costs less to jail someone for life than to give them the death penalty. The economic drain is coming from those who are seeking the death penalty.[/size]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]I'm for the death penalty. I believe that the government has the right to sentence someone to death for crimes considered grievous enough.

Looking to history nations up to now have consistently had periods where the rulers of the nations caused rampant suffering to the citizenry. Even in modern times you have rulers like Mao whose decisions lead to millions of deaths. I cannot buy that it is somehow a step backwards for society, a society whose nations have such a constant cycle of rulers causing such suffering, when a seemingly stable government with limited corruption uses a competent justice system to deliberate if a criminal who has committed drastically horrible crimes should be put to death as punishment for what he did.

How flawed it is seems moot to me. Every system humans create is full of flaws- our governments, our inventions, everything. People will fall through the cracks, there will be mistakes- it can't be made perfect, nothing human-made can be. Since it's dealing with people's lives though I would hope that every effort is made to make sure the right choices are made. I know even with that there will still be mistakes though. I'm not sure if it the death penalty should be stopped because of that- I don't really have an opinion.

Information about the death penalty in Texas: Since 1976 Texas has killed 376 people (four times higher than the next state) and has 400 people on death row. Uh, I'm not really sure why Texas has such a high number to be honest. I'm sure there's something more to it than bloodlust. ;P[/color]

[Sho Ayori]

I agree with the Death penalty. I believe that if you intentionally murder someone, you don't have the right to exist anymore. Why should you when you've just ended someone else's. Everyone on this planet is given life, but to take it away from someone innocent is one of the most dispicable sins I can think of.

With most cases I've read about, the murder gets a ridiculous sentence in jail, some of them are only 6 years or less, and most of the time they get out before that anyway. Even when they are released, they are most likely to commit their crime again, which shows that confinement just doesn't work well enough.

If you want my idea of punishment for these filthy murderers, it's this: Instead of testing substances, new products, chemicals etc on animals, the scientists should test them on the murderers. Maybe then it will show them the misery they put people through, and somehow get away with it.

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]It's scary, almost. You and I agree, almost word for word. However, I think that rehabilitating a murder is a pointless process. If they are rehabiilitated, are they actually fit to leave jail? Is that fair?

Anyway, it actually costs less to jail someone for life than to give them the death penalty. The economic drain is coming from those who are seeking the death penalty.[/size][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]
For me it would depend very much on the murder, I prefer not to buy into the idea that every murderer is completely remorseless about their crime, crime by nature is brought on more so by need than desire. I mean if we take the case where a man finds his wife in bed with another guy and kills them in a fit of rage, I could certainly understand that after a number of years (say 10-15) of rehabilitation he could be fit to rejoin society.

The problem is however with keeping them locked up for decades at a time is that once they become institutionalised, they have no idea how to function in the outside world. And really it's nearly as cruel to send them back out without any prospect for life than it is to keep them confined.

As for the cost, I always thought it would be cheaper to execute someone than to feed, clothe and keep them warm their entire life. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not.[/SIZE]

[Hanabishi Recca]

[quote name='Sho Ayori']I agree with the Death penalty. I believe that if you intentionally murder someone, you don't have the right to exist anymore. [/quote]

So, saying it that like that, if your BEST friend got hit with it would you still feel the same way toward the penalty?

If someone killed someone then get the death penalty they aren't only hurting the person who commited the crime. Their hurting their family, their friends, and everyone around them.

If you killed someone do you think that you would derserve the death penalty? I think that you have to take these things personally for you to get the real answer out of you. I mean, saying that you make one mistake (Worse than your others) then your WHOLE life is ruined. How would you feel?

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Hanabishi Recca']So, saying it that like that, if your BEST friend got hit with it would you still feel the same way toward the penalty?[/quote]

[color=crimson]Yes. You should pay the penalty for your actions no matter who you are.

If your state/nation/tribe of losers says that the penalty for killing someone is the death penalty then there you go. If it's life in prison, there you go.[/color]

[quote name='Hanabishi Recca']Their hurting their family, their friends, and everyone around them.[/quote]

[color=crimson]They [i]killed[/i] someone. Just because their family/friends/dog get weepy over them facing the consequences doesn't mean you should be soft on them.[/color]

[quote name='Hanabishi Recca']If you killed someone do you think that you would deserve the death penalty? I think that you have to take these things personally for you to get the real answer out of you. I mean, saying that you make one mistake (Worse than your others) then your WHOLE life is ruined. How would you feel?[/quote]

[color=crimson][b]Yes[/b], damn it. If I take the life of another human being then I should face an equivalent punishment to pay for my actions, anyone should. In Texas I'd be on the fast track to lethal injection so that is what I'd have to face.

My whole life is ruined? How bloody self-centered can you be? You [b]took someone else's life[/b]. That's pretty high on the scale o' ruination, don't you think?[/color]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']Information about the death penalty in Texas: Since 1976 Texas has killed 376 people (four times higher than the next state) and has 400 people on death row. Uh, I'm not really sure why Texas has such a high number to be honest. I'm sure there's something more to it than bloodlust. ;P[/color][/quote] Interesting that you would mention Texas. Perhaps that is part of why I support the Death Penalty as though I?ve lived most of my life in Utah, I was originally born and raised in East Texas, so the idea of the Death Penalty is something that until I grew older I assumed was normal everywhere. Like most kids do, until they grow up and learn about other states and countries that is. And since I have relatives all across that state I still hear about the changes going on in regards to that policy. If anyone wants to know more just check out this website: [URL=http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm ] [U]Death Penalty in Texas[/U][/URL]

[QUOTE=Hanabishi Recca]If someone killed someone then get the death penalty they aren't only hurting the person who commited the crime. Their hurting their family, their friends, and everyone around them.

If you killed someone do you think that you would derserve the death penalty? I think that you have to take these things personally for you to get the real answer out of you. I mean, saying that you make one mistake (Worse than your others) then your WHOLE life is ruined. How would you feel?[/QUOTE]Hun, stop and think about what you just said. The person hurting others is the [I]one who got the death penalty for what they did[/I]. They and no one else hurt their family, their friends and even innocent strangers around them. Say someone shots one of your family members and kills them, if they get the death penalty it does not mean [I]you[/I] are hurting their loved ones, it means[I] they hurt them[/I] by killing [I]your loved one[/I]. As much as it would hurt, if one of my own children did something horrible enough to get the Death Penalty, if it was appropriate, I would be upset, but I would not try to save them. Hopefully I never have to face that issue, but I can only imagine how hard it must be to realize that someone you knew and loved would do something that could warrant being given the Death Penalty.

Every criminal is someone?s sister, brother or spouse or kid. They don?t just magically appear from under a rock somewhere. And if they are committing heinous crimes why should society pay to keep them fed and clothed and then eventually release them back into mainstream society to potentially hurt even more innocent people? I hear the argument on how its wrong to take a life and yet we shy away from punishing those who do, or even making sure they can?t ever do so again.

I think part of the problem with crimes is that people know that they won?t be punished severely. Or even if they commit murder there is a chance they will be back on the streets again. I hear others say how other countries don?t have the law, but they don?t bother to explain what a punishment is for say murder. Do they let them out? Or is it a life sentence?

It?s easy to say the Death Penalty is wrong without bothering to come up with a more viable solution. And until our law changes to make the punishment more fitting for the crime, and by fitting I mean murder gets life without parole, then I think the law should stay.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I hear the argument on how its wrong to take a life and yet we shy away from punishing those who do, or even making sure they can?t ever do so again.[/quote]
[size=1]So it's right for the government to disapprove and punish those who take lives, but then take a life to deal justice? Does anyone see the contradiction?

Here's another point. [QUOTE]A civil society is one where disputes are settled by reasonable means. From this, it can be inferred that violence is excluded from civil society except under emergency/self-defense conditions.

As for self-defense: Once you've rendered you opponent helpless and you have the means to maintain him in that condition, then the emergency prerequisite to the use of violence no longer exists. At this point, to kill your opponent would be irrational from the standpoint of civil society.

The death penalty is a violent act and it is not administered under emergency/self-defense conditions.

Ipso facto:
Those who would engage in the action of capital punishment are either uncivilized or irrational.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I think part of the problem with crimes is that people know that they won?t be punished severely. Or even if they commit murder there is a chance they will be back on the streets again. I hear others say how other countries don?t have the law, but they don?t bother to explain what a punishment is for say murder. Do they let them out? Or is it a life sentence?[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure the punishment is life without parole, but I might be wrong. Either way, they must be doing something right; they have less violent crime (homicides, primarily). That also proves that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent.

[QUOTE]It?s easy to say the Death Penalty is wrong without bothering to come up with a more viable solution. And until our law changes to make the punishment more fitting for the crime, and by fitting I mean murder gets life without parole, then I think the law should stay.[/QUOTE]
Coming up with a viable solution? It's called life without parole, and we have that in the States already. I'm also a bit confused by the last sentence... until our law changes to make murder get life without parole, you support the death penalty? Why?[/size]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']Does anyone see the contradiction?[/quote][/size]

[color=crimson]No. You are not the government and you do not have the responsibility it does.

The rules that apply to a common citizen do not always apply to the massive machine that rules him and 300 million of his peers.[/color]

[quote]A civil society is one where disputes are settled by reasonable means. From this, it can be inferred that violence is excluded from civil society except under emergency/self-defense conditions.[/quote]

[color=crimson]Uncontrolled violence is excluded from civil society. Violence brought on by trained personnel for a purpose- soldiers, police officers, executioners- who are in service of the state and it's mission is different.

Flaws appear but I already commented on flaws in human things.[/color]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']That also proves that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent.[/quote][/size]

[color=crimson]It doesn't have to be. It's a equal punishment and does not need to be anything more than that.[/color]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]No. You are not the government and you do not have the responsibility it does.

The rules that apply to a common citizen do not always apply to the massive machine that rules him and 300 million of his peers.[/color][/QUOTE]
[size=1]So it doesn't strike you as hypocritical when a mother tells her child not to hit people with sticks, but when the child does so, that mother hits him with a stick to punish?

[QUOTE][color=crimson]Uncontrolled violence is excluded from civil society. Violence brought on by trained personnel for a purpose- soldiers, police officers, executioners- who are in service of the state and it's mission is different.[/color][/QUOTE]
Right, so it can be assumed that the attacker is excluded from civil society...

"From this, it can be inferred that violence is excluded from civil society except under emergency/self-defense conditions."

...and that the victim defending themselves via violence is still part of civil society. Basically, I think what the quote is saying is that if the violence is not used only during self-defense, you are being irrational. For example, if a robber were to mug you, but you beat him up so that he couldn't rob you, but after you neutralize his ability to hurt you, you decide to just kill the robber, you are being irrational.

[QUOTE][color=crimson]It doesn't have to be. It's a equal punishment and does not need to be anything more than that.[/color][/QUOTE]
It was more an offhand remark than anything else. I know alot of people like to say "if I knew I got the death penalty for murder, I wouldn't," but the statistics refute that pretty thoroughly.[/size]

[eleanor]

[color=dimgray] Mostly I support life without parole.

But if I had to argue against the death penalty, I'd bring up inhumane ways of killing death row prisoners. Death by electrocution is just ****ing lame, as well as hanging, firing squad, and gas chamber. If you're going to kill someone, just use lethal injection.

And I don't know if this matters to anyone, but I'm pretty sure having death row prisoners costs the state more money than just holding prisoners for life. [/color]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']So it doesn't strike you as hypocritical when a mother tells her child not to hit people with sticks, but when the child does so, that mother hits him with a stick to punish?[/quote][/size]

[color=crimson]Sigh.

I was pretty clear about the government not being the same as normal, everyday people part right?

It's hard to be any clearer dude. [/color]


[quote name='Retribution][size=1']For example, if a robber were to mug you, but you beat him up so that he couldn't rob you, but after you neutralize his ability to hurt you, you decide to just kill the robber, you are being irrational.[/quote][/size]

[color=crimson]A neutralized person (who was neutralized so he could not commit any further actions to harm the public) still has to pay the price for the actions he has already committed and within certain states the price for taking a life is your life which, surprisingly enough, is a really effective way to neutralize people too.[/color]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]Sigh.

I was pretty clear about the government not being the same as normal, everyday people part right?

It's hard to be any clearer dude. [/color][/quote]
[size=1]The concept is the same, except in this analogy, the mother is not the same as her child.

[QUOTE][color=crimson]...neutralized so he could not commit any further actions to harm the public[/color][/QUOTE]
Jail...

[QUOTE][color=crimson]...still has to pay the price for the actions he has already committed...[/color][/QUOTE]
...for life without parole.

[QUOTE][color=crimson][Taking your life] is a really effective way to neutralize people too.[/color][/QUOTE]
Why execute them when they can be effectively neutralized, and for a lower cost, with a life sentence?[/size]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']The concept is the same, except in this analogy, the mother is not the same as her child.[/quote][/size]

[color=crimson]I can't agree. It's not "Don't kill because we'll kill you" it's "You killed and you will be killed".

They've already killed and, instead of it being a punishment to teach or something similar it's simply a payment, an equivalent sacrifice for what they took.

So, no, that analogy doesn't really fit well with me although I can understand what you're saying.[/color]


[quote=Retribution][size=1]Jail for life without parole.

Why execute them when they can be effectively neutralized, and for a lower cost, with a life sentence?[/size][/quote]

[color=crimson]That is not a sufficient enough punishment for taking someone's life to me and many others. Neutralization and punishment for their actions are separate in my mind. Once you capture them, you make them pay for what they did in as equal a way as possible and the most equal thing I see is they take a life, you take their life.

And I think it's pretty obvious Retri ol' boy that this is going to be an endless cycle of disagreeing replies between us so I'm going to make this one my last.[/color]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']So it's right for the government to disapprove and punish those who take lives, but then take a life to deal justice? Does anyone see the contradiction?[/size][/quote]I think we are all agreed that it?s wrong to take a life. However, at the same time by refusing to punish those who do we are indirectly saying it?s okay for them to kill others. Somewhere you have to set your foot down and say no, and it doesn?t necessarily have to be the Death Penalty. Life without Parole is one option. However?[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]I'm pretty sure the punishment is life without parole, but I might be wrong. Either way, they must be doing something right; they have less violent crime (homicides, primarily). That also proves that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent.


Coming up with a viable solution? It's called life without parole, and we have that in the States already. I'm also a bit confused by the last sentence... until our law changes to make murder get life without parole, you support the death penalty? Why?[/size][/QUOTE] Even when a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials have the power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served. So no it is not completely a life without parole type of deal. Which is where my objection comes in. Most of the time it is a done deal, but there are still convicted murders being released back into society and that is what I disapprove of. Life without parole should be just that.

To quote an example, a study of twenty Oregon murders released on Parole in 1979 found that one committed a homicide within five years of being released. Another study found that out of 11,404 people originally convicted of murder and released during 1965 and 1974, 34 were returned to prison for committing a criminal homicide during the first year they had been released.

Until we clean up the system to prevent murderers from being released back on the streets I will continue to support the Death Penalty. I?ve already mentioned before that it?s not a perfect system, but if we are going to do away with the Death Penalty we need to fix our current laws first. A criminal who has been executed for their crimes can?t be released back into society where they can once again kill another human being. [quote name='Retribution][size=1']So it doesn't strike you as hypocritical when a mother tells her child not to hit people with sticks, but when the child does so, that mother hits him with a stick to punish?[/size][/quote]It would depend on their intent. If the child is hitting others with no good reason (self-defense, etc) then I see no contradiction in punishing a child for hurting others. What method a parent takes is up to them obviously and I?ve always preferred to ground or take away privileges for a brief time. If the parent is hitting the kid for no good reason then yes it?s hypocritical to hit a child who has done nothing that warrants punishment. Sometimes a kid doesn't understand the concept that doing something can hurt. Like telling them to not touch a hot stove, some times it takes getting burned to realize that the parent isn't just being mean, but that it really does hurt when you touch the stove or get hit by a stick.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]I'm not going to quote every single pro-DP post since I've last replied to this thread as it would simply take too long, however Ken your pursuit of the eye-for-an-eye solution is highly flawed. While a good majority of OB's members are Americans, there are plenty of us who aren't, who do come from countries where the Death Penalty is not part of the penal system. And it's not as if any country who doesn't execute it's murderers is suddenly overwhelmed with crimes the moment their murderers are released.

Take for instance in Ireland we have massive problems with road deaths, should anyone who causes a road death be put into a car and slammed into a brick wall at seventy miles and hour to ensure that they will never be the cause of such a death again ? Our respective criminal systems still continue to support the idea "Innocent until proven guilty", and given the numbers of people who have been exonerated of their crimes while on death row, it leads one to wonder exactly why such an obviously flawed and draconian system of punishment is kept in operation.

To give another example seeing as you effectively believe that you deserve the punishment of your crime, i.e. murder for murder, should someone who insults another person over race/creed/gender/orientation/etc have their tongue cut out ? It's a relatively simple procedure that only barely disables the person who is forced to have their tongue removed, and this way at least they can't ever insult anyone again. By this time the absurdity of this and your argument should be setting in.

To Aaryanna_Mom, "putting your foot down" by confining someone to a small cell for the rest of their existence with only brief reprieves for some fresh air and exercise seems enough for me. Maybe if someone close to me was murdered, my brother, mother, father, sister whatever, I might be inclined to demand the person who committed the crime be killed as punishment, but in doing so, I'm basically dropping down to that person's level by demanding their life in retribution for my loss.

Justice should never be about revenge, justice is a system designed to take into account the crime and serve a fit punishment, not to sate the bloodlust of the victims family. I mean Jesus, allowing the family to actually watch the person being executed is a sick, sick thing, nobody wins in that scenario.
[/SIZE]
[quote name='Lunox][color=dimgray']If you're going to kill someone, just use lethal injection. [/color][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Lethal injection is actually the most sadistic of all executions in my mind, at least of modern ones, the LI actually stops your lungs before it stops your heart, while paralysing you, ergo you actually suffocate to death without being able to alert people to your predicament. Now regardless of a person's crime, suffocating them while they're paralysed is a really screwed up way to kill anyone.[/SIZE]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']While a good majority of OB's members are Americans, there are plenty of us who aren't, who do come from countries where the Death Penalty is not part of the penal system.[/quote][/size]

[color=crimson]I'll direct you to the part where I said you get the punishment deemed necessary not "lolz kill all murderers prease".

If a state or nation decides that it's not to be part of the penal system then I'd presume that punishment wouldn't be given out. ;)[/color]

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']And it's not as if any country who doesn't execute it's murderers is suddenly overwhelmed with crimes the moment their murderers are released.[/quote][/size]

[color=crimson]And I said that the death penalty doesn't [b]need[/b] to be a deterrent so I don't think that it [b]is[/b] one.[/color]

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']Take for instance in Ireland we have massive problems with road deaths, should anyone who causes a road death be put into a car and slammed into a brick wall at seventy miles and hour to ensure that they will never be the cause of such a death again ?[/size][/quote]

[color=crimson]Oh, hell yes! That's all part of the stable government and competent justice system I was talking about obviously.

I'm not sure where you're from but it's pretty obvious that any intellectual, competent system would do that. It's the American way since, you know, being an American really influences all of my opinions in contrast to your enlightening European standpoint.[/color]

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']Our respective criminal systems still continue to support the idea "Innocent until proven guilty", and given the numbers of people who have been exonerated of their crimes while on death row, it leads one to wonder exactly why such an obviously flawed and draconian system of punishment is kept in operation. [/size][/quote]

[color=crimson][b]Everything crafted by our hands and minds is flawed[/b]. You do not avoid it, you simply try to get as close to 100% as possible.

Draconian as it is it's still the most efficient trade off I can see.[/color]

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']By this time the absurdity of this and your argument should be setting in.[/quote][/size]

[color=crimson]No, the absurdity of your attempts to disarm my argument should be apparent. Just, give it up please lol. It's becoming more humorous than anything else.

It's not horrible, it's not dramatically nightmarish- it's their price for taking someone else's life. Your own. It's very cut and dry, almost too simple to describe anymore. Everyone suffers in these situations, there's no silver lining to it so let's not pretend there can be. I don't view the death penalty as adding to the suffering.

A final point: if people eventually cease the death penalty in the U.S. completely I'm not going to adamantly oppose it. I understand your points and wish for you to understand that in no way am I claiming that what you say is mistaken or illogical. I disagree. That's just it. It would be a step forward if we stopped the death penalty entirely. I do not find life without parole to be the adequate alternative to it so.. I disagree with you.[/color]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Lethal injection is actually the most sadistic of all executions in my mind, at least of modern ones, the LI actually stops your lungs before it stops your heart, while paralysing you, ergo you actually suffocate to death without being able to alert people to your predicament. Now regardless of a person's crime, suffocating them while they're paralysed is a really screwed up way to kill anyone.[/SIZE][/quote]Just to clear up any misunderstanding in regards to how lethal injection actually works, read this:
[INDENT]
[SIZE=1] When this method is used, the condemned person is usually bound to a gurney and a member of the execution team positions several heart monitors on this skin. Two needles (one is a back-up) are then inserted into usable veins, usually in the inmates arms. Long tubes connect the needle through a hole in a cement block wall to several intravenous drips. The first is a harmless saline solution that is started immediately. Then, the inmate is injected with sodium thiopental - an anesthetic, which puts the inmate to sleep. Next flows pavulon or pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the entire muscle system and stops the inmate's breathing. Finally, the flow of potassium chloride stops the heart. Death results from anesthetic overdose and respiratory and cardiac arrest while the condemned person is unconscious.[/SIZE][/INDENT]

So as barbaric as it may sound the person is put to sleep first and is not awake for the rest of the procedure. It?s part of why lethal injection was used as a method as putting them to sleep first was considered more humane than other methods like using a firing squad, gas or electrocution.

[Retribution]

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']It would be a step forward if we stopped the death penalty entirely. I do not find life without parole to be the adequate alternative to it so.. I disagree with you.[/color][/quote]
[size=1]A step forward by discontinuing capital punishment? I thought you were pro-capital punishment, so how could you consider an end to what you believe in a step forward?

And if you think discontinuing capital punishment is a step in the right direction (assuming forward is the right direction in your opinion), but you don't think life without parole is good enough, what would you suggest?[/size]

[sakurasuka]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]A step forward by discontinuing capital punishment? I thought you were pro-capital punishment, so how could you consider an end to what you believe in a step forward?

And if you think discontinuing capital punishment is a step in the right direction (assuming forward is the right direction in your opinion), but you don't think life without parole is good enough, what would you suggest?[/size][/QUOTE]

[size=1]If I'm not very much mistaken, and please correct me if I am, that's the entire point.

Capital Punishment isn't ideal, but it's a better alternative than life without parole. When given the two options, life without parole just isn't good enough. And since there really are no other options, CP, while flawed, is the best bet as of yet.

[/size]