death penalty

[Diroga]

what is your opinion

[Rhiannon]

it's more expensive to send someone to death row than life in prison.

[Agamemnus]

No.

[toonski84]

yes, aga.  It's called the appeals process.  But this is if the person has a good lawyer and some money.  If a bum kills a guy, there won't be much fuss over his execution.

But screw costs.  Either way, it's going to cost a lot to keep a dangerous person from society.  I'm against the death penalty soley because the court isnt perfect, and there's been a ridiculous amount of innocently executed people in the past 20 years.  If you could be sure, I'd be cool with it, but it's better to have 10 guilty men locked up than 1 innocent man executed.

[Agamemnus]

Yeah, I agree precisely on that point.

[na_th_an]

Death penalty is animals' stuff.

A shame that you, "the guardians of freedom" allow it in so many states. Shame.

[Zap]

Even more so because it's hard to get some one back from the death if you suddenly find out they didn't commit the crime. From my point of view, death penalty is like torture.

[na_th_an]

Exactly my point. In Spanish, when a judge gives a veredict, it is called "fail", it is something like "The judge's fail is 'guilty'" or "The judge's fail is 'innocent'", assuming that humans can make mistakes. Anyhow, if you are judging someone 'cause he decided that he could kill someone (and that's wrong) and then you kill that person if you find him or her guilty, you are commiting the same crime. "An eye for an eye" doesn't work nowadays, from my point of view. It is just a nonsense from its basis. Who has the will to decide upon another human being right to live?

This is a messy territory, I know. Everyone who has suffered of a kill in his or her family is obviously biased and wants "justice". I just think that there are several ways to apply justice. If you are out of the trouble, you can always think that everyone can make mistakes and probably many people will feel remorseful after that, and that fact obviously changes if you are related to an assassined person. But even in that situation, I strongly feel that a life on jail is far a bigger punishment than death penalty, and it is more "human" for the solely reason that you are not becoming what the offender is: an assassin.

[Agamemnus]

The death penalty is a tricky issue and one that is embroiled in the a general problem of the US government (and I'm sure other governments too).

Even if a person is "for the death penalty", the potential for ambiguity is enourmous. For instance, what constitutes incriminating evidence? First one can consider the case of blood on the hands of the criminal with a knife in hand and no one else (except the police) for miles. That would definetly say S/HE'S GUILTY. But then you add all other sorts of things and it becomes increasingly likely that S/HE'S NOT GUILTY.

This rambling could now continue into a discussion of the welfare state in the US, but it would just be rambling from that point...

[oracle]

I'm just interested by the fact that of all the developed countries in the world, only the U.S. kills children by death penalty. Even China doesn't kill under 18s!

The US even kills retarded people!!!!

That's one reason why I'm against GB. How many people did he execute? Directly or indirectly?

[Plasma]

Er, no. Minors never get the death penalty, unless they are tried as adults for extreme reasons. And retarded or insane people can plea that they are mentally stable.

Furthermore, even IF the things you said were true (and they're not), the President has nothing to do with them.

[oracle]

Er, no. Minors never get the death penalty, unless they are tried as adults for extreme reasons.

Thus, minors can be executed. I don't care whether they're tried as adults or not, they're still <18.

And retarded or insane people can plea that they are mentally stable.

Pah. People can say they're sane or mental in the US, all they need to do is find a psychiratrist (sp?) to say they are. That's the sad thing about the US system - if you've got the money, you can say what you like and you'll be believed.

Furthermore, even IF the things you said were true (and they're not), the President has nothing to do with them.

He does not abolish the death penalty, thus he condones it. And he comes from Texas, the "kill em all" state of america. He supports the death penalty, thus he's a bad man.

If crims have no right to kill, the state has no right to kill.

[Plasma]

What age constitutes adulthood? 16? 18? 21?

And you just disproved your second statement...

Maybe you should learn more about how the US government works before flaming. The President doesn't have the power to overturn the death penalty. (Your preconceived notions about Texas probably aren't helping a whole lot either.)

[Zack]

Hm, I must say, I believe that generalizing Texas as the "kill em' all" state is being a little harsh.

[Agamemnus]

Every President has favored the death penalty. Even Kerry, the leading Democrat, favors the death penalty. Oracle, you need to get your facts straight.

Also, all you Bush haters out there, guess how many democrats favor private/religious school vouchers? (ie: money that would have gone to a public school going back into the taxpayer's pocket to pay for a private/religious school) 0.