I don't see the death penalty as vengeance. I see it as, "You fucked up big time and we can't have you around anymore."

They really can only do a very limited amount of harm in prison, and prison breaks are practically a myth (they almost never happen). They're not around when they're locked up.

I dont want to get off topic, but the death penalty really does exist to satisfy the will of the people - not to make the world safer.

You may say that the right to life should be absolute and it is wrong to sacrifice some individuals (who we all agree do terrible things) to satisfy this, but I think this is the rationale

I think though, 'the people' have mental difficulty in accepting that the death penalty appeases something in them that precedes the development of the 'civil society.' Therefore they endeavor to imagine all sorts of practical reasons for deliberately killing these people. I have far more tolerance for people who just accept and voice clearly that their support of the death penalty is based on simple emotional appeasment, rather than some practical fantasy about making the world a safer place.

*edit* or even worse, the 'saving money' tact...

I know. But why start a line of discussion that will almost guarantee a post filled with bold orange letters?

Haven't seen it yet. Maybe because it wasn't even off topic. But this bickering is, if you want to bitch more, PM me.

I haven't noticed anything go off topic. Let's not quibble. :)

All right, all right. I was being a preemptive dickface here. Can you forgive me?

@ Will:
Why is it Olive?

No, it doesn't - in the UK, for instance, there is a small majority (and has been for some years) in support of the death penalty - yet the death penalty was abolished.

It obviously does not exist to satisfy the will of the people. It was abolished in spite of what "the people" may have wanted.

Agreed! You just did something so barbaric / heinous that you do not belong here anymore, good luck in the afterlife.

But the real question here is should death row inmates get the right to vote, and would they overwhelmingly support Obama? :hyper:

This line of inquiry is not productive

Because I'm colorblind. :thumbsup:
I'd be willing to bet that a lot would vote for Hillary because she has a vujayjay.

Well, the will of the people if not always carried out.

sorry if this seems like a threadjack, but what form of execution might be appropriate here:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080321/...HL6Zcxk10E1vAI

That's flawed logic arising from an admittedly incomplete statement. In order to be complete, Strange Famous' statement should've read 'where it exists, the death penalty exists to satisfy the will of the people,' thus removing anywhere the death penalty isn't used from the discussion. If the majority of the population in a democratic state supports a policy and that policy isn't enacted, the failure belongs to the governing body of that state and not to the policy itself.

EDIT for Unclephil - that is something of a threadjack as it strays outside of the original stated premise of the thread. The appropriate argument would be whether or not the death penalty is appropriate in that case, which is a different discussion and one that's been done to death. Suffice to say that as I'm against the death penalty I don't think any form of execution is appropriate. Lock them away for life? Sure. But I will not be a party to murder, state-sanctioned or not. The problem is that this seems to be largely a matter of opinions and the old saying about how opinions are like assholes seems to apply here.

I started another thread regarding this very article. The actions of these people made me incredibly ill and sad all at the same time.

I stand by my original answer regarding this subject... killing people is wrong.

your point being?

qualified...stated...opinion?

I could not call for the hanging of a woman, under any circumstances... even a crime as disgusting as the one quoted above... but for I think for any crime the appropriate measure is for the killer to swing for it. The death penalty must carry gravitas, if it does exist.

Define a qualified opinion. These are, as always, simply my musings on the subject. I am not an expert in these matters, I have no credentials. I personally do not believe in execution as a penalty. I do not believe that it serves as an effective deterrent and I find the concept of an eye for an eye to be morally objectionable. However, if you're looking for me to come right out and say 'execution is wrong because...' you are unfortunately doomed to disappointment. I have no reason to think that my opinion carries any more weight than that of anyone else and will therefore not state it as fact.

The only appropriate execution is self-defense or defense of others. It is wrong to kill another when other options are readily available, and by executing someone, we are sinking to the level of the murderers.

Execution is not murder exactly, it is an act of proof that the murder is cast out of the human race.

One thing I think of is the executioner. On top of the rest of it, the death penalty forces someone to kill legally. I read a biography of Albert Pierrepoint recently... who was the last well known hangman in the UK: he was self important, pompous, arrogant, greedy, ultimately indiscrete... but a hard man - someone forced to wear the blood on his hands that the police, the politicians, the people all called for, but could not stomach. I couldnt help but admire this man who did the job that his political masters were not man enough to do themselves.

I agree


I disagree.

"The true face of America..."

The disgust alone makes me laugh such that my face is red and my stomach hurts.

"Maybe something else sucks... the public."

Well, you could always go for the same means of execution that befell Ole Hugh, gay lover of King Edward II....

(Those Brits don't fuck around)


Immediately after the trial, he was dragged behind four horses to his place of execution, where a great fire was lit. He was stripped naked, and biblical verses denouncing arrogance and evil were written on his skin. He was then hanged from a gallows 50 ft (15 m) high, but cut down before he could choke to death, and was tied to a ladder, in full view of the crowd. The executioner climbed up beside him, and sliced off his penis and testicles which were then burnt before him, while he was still alive and conscious. Subsequently, the executioner plunged his knife into his abdomen, and slowly pulled out, and cut out, his entrails and heart, which were likewise burnt before the ecstatic crowd. Just before he died, it is recorded that he let out a "low inhuman howl," much to the delight and merriment of the spectators. Finally, his corpse was beheaded, and his body cut into four pieces, and his head was mounted on the gates of London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_the_younger_Despenser

You read children bedtime stories, too, huh? :oogle:

Oh, and there's always sawing... (for all you blood lust folks)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing