• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Inhumane behaviour

I do not think any judicial system is up to having a death penalty, in spite of the idea of some abhorrent criminal dying.

As for execution, firing squad or guillotine appear much faster than e.g. gassing, injections, or electricity.
 
The Painter said:
It's this kind of British arrogance that turns my stomach.

PS. Rolfe, didn't you say you are a veterinarian? How many animals did you put down (KILL) last year? Is it your blood-lust for killing puppies? There is nothing more inhumane than taking a cute little puppy and killing it. It is the beginning of all our inhumanities.
Click to expand...
Brilliant. Equating the killing with a suffering animal with an execution. Well done. Add Australian arrogance to your lexicon.
 
The Painter said:
PS. Rolfe, didn't you say you are a veterinarian? How many animals did you put down (KILL) last year? Is it your blood-lust for killing puppies? There is nothing more inhumane than taking a cute little puppy and killing it. It is the beginning of all our inhumanities.
Click to expand...
:dl:

Oh my god, is this kind of goodness what I have been missing by putting you on my ignore list?

lionking said:
Brilliant. Equating the killing with a suffering animal with an execution.
Click to expand...
If I see a puppy with a gun on a cruise ship...
 
The executed man had a fair trial. A jury of his peers in an unbiased court. The man was obviously guilty of
murder under aggravating circumstances. He knew he was in a state that carried the death penalty. After he was convicted he had years of appeals which is something his victim didn't have. He got what he asked for.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
:dl:

Oh my god, is this kind of goodness what I have been missing by putting you on my ignore list?

If I see a puppy with a gun on a cruise ship...
Click to expand...

At least you seem to get my satirical sense of humor, but I'm not sure. It could be going over your head.

And please put me back on your ignore list. I feel like a lesser person for not being there.

Oh, if I was on your ignore list how did you see my post??? Oh that's right, the ignore list only works when you are logged on. So when you are just looking and not logged on, you can see everything. Kind of makes the "ignore" button useless.
 
The executed man had a fair trial. A jury of his peers in an unbiased court. The man was obviously guilty of murder under aggravating circumstances. He knew he was in a state that carried the death penalty. After he was convicted he had years of appeals which is something his victim didn't have. He got what he asked for.
Click to expand...
"He knew what he was getting into" has always struck me as a very lacking argument, as you can pretty much defend whatever law and punishment you want by saying that.

Either a punishment is just, or it's unjust. Whether the perpetrator knows what he or she is getting into isn't really a factor in my eyes.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
"He knew what he was getting into" has always struck me as a very lacking argument, as you can pretty much defend whatever law and punishment you want by saying that.

Either a punishment is just, or it's unjust. Whether the perpetrator knows what he or she is getting into isn't really a factor in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Ok I'll say this. The punishment was just.
 
Brian-M said:
The first reason is a problem with th judicial system, not with the death penalty itself. And the second reason is not necessarily valid.

If the execution were done in a quick and timely manner after conviction (with a reasonably adequate delay for an appeal to be lodged or new evidence to be uncovered), then it would be vastly cheaper than life imprisonment.
Click to expand...

The two are related: a poorly functioning court system leads to an expensive set of safeguards before anyone feels comfortable pulling the switch.

I think the biggest (and possibly only) real argument against the death penalty is the risk of execution of people who don't deserve it, such as innocent people convicted for a crime they didn't commit, or people sentenced to death penalty due to a misperception of the nature of their crime (for example, killing in self defense or accidental killing, being mistaken for premeditated murder).

This alone is reason enough not to employ the death penalty in societies capable of imprisoning people for life. And I think there are very, very few situations short of premeditated murder where the death penalty could ever be justified.
Click to expand...

I agree, and kinda lumped that in with my "inequitable judiciary": it's biased against certain classes and biased against the accused.

The success of the Innocence Project shows that we are incapable of determining guilt on a reliable enough basis to be entrusted with this final punishment.
 
Damn, I thought this thread was about Gary Glitter.

*puts Champaign back in fridge*
 
Cainkane1 said:
Ok I'll say this. The punishment was just.
Click to expand...

I'm opposed to capital punishment, but not because I think it's unjust -- there's many a murdering scum whose death I would greet with something approaching glee. Instead, my opposition is more based upon the conviction (no pun intended) that society shouldn't be in the business of killing people; it's simply too big a decicion to make dispassionately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom