The death sentence.

I'm still against.

If it has to be done, though, do it quickly. to torture someone is probably one of the worst things u could possibly do.

Ahhh...you may think me obssessed with revenge and retribution. But I'm not. For example, I'm one of the 4% of the British public who actually support the early release of the killers of James Bulger. All the calls to keep them locked up are because of revenge (euphamism "justice"), but since they are not fully responsible for what they did, they should get another chance. As I said, loads of bad things happen every day by "natural" or "accidental" causes, and murders without full culpability should be similarly regarded as natural disasters.

I just think that it is necessary to set an example that people who cruelly and sadistically torture people to death will get the same treatment in return.

Darth ATAT, maybe "totally wrong" was a bit too strongly put, but death sentence really shouldn't be practised under any circumstances. It is no way for a modern democracy to act.

Hey, I'm not saying this for the sake of argument, but please explain to me why it is just so totally wrong.

In my current view death happens to everybody anyway, so there's no way it can be an inumane punishment as we will all face it someday.

But if you have a reason why it is totally wrong, please let me hear it. I'm open minded on the subject, and I don't like holding opinions without being properly informed. If you've got something that could make me reconsider, please do say it.

Oh, and I've edited the post. I'm not condoning legalised torture by any society, just saying that people who have killed painfully themselves shouldn't have any special trouble bestowed upon them to ensure a quick death.

Take a life; lose yours.

Seems like a fair deal.

I sure don't want anyone living for killing another.

Yes, E. that's what "an eye for an eye means" and all the do gooders and "let's all get along" won't change the outcome for those who have died at the hands of others.

1. How much does it cost to keep a person alive for a day? I mean the things absolutely needed to live. When you calculate it out, it's only a few dollars.

2. Shipping criminals to Antarctica would cost a lot (think "heating fees" and "transportation"). Either that, or it would be a very expensive way to make prisoners die through the slow torture of freezing.

3. Spock1: Gandalf once said something about this, but I can't recall the exact words...

and all the do gooders and "let's all get along" won't change the outcome for those who have died at the hands of others.

Gee, seems like you've been reading some newspaper propaganda and are fairly biased... (I don't know what the reporters are like where you live, so don't blame me if I'm wrong)

Ahh yes, the quote from Gandalf. I have it remembered (it may not be exact):

Frodo: (about Gollum) He deserves death.
Gandalf: Death does not happen to many people who deserve it, and yet happens to many people who do not, so do not be too quick to deal out death as a punishment.

1. Cost of keeping a person alive? That's not the point. Plus it does cost alot to keep them in acceptable conditions.

2. Shipping criminals to Antarctica. That is wholly unacceptable, as was the bygone British sentence of transportation. It is sending the problems away to another country.

As for bias, well to argue a case, you have to be biased. And where he got it from is not relevant, they are his valid views and points all the same.

If someone has a "valid excuse" for the cold-blooded murder of another person (be it a mental disorder or something like that), the thing that is overlooked is that the same circumstances could lead to another killing of the same type.

(Brain fart)

Would anyone be offended if I said I supported torture?

1. No, I wouldn't be offended, I would disagree with it.

2. Put them in a mental hospital, see if they can be corrected. If they truly can be fixed then they can be let out. Executing them when their crime has come from a curable mental disorder is just a waste of human potential.

So it's fair if one person kills another with malicious intent and gives his own life when caught. But what happens when one person kills two others? He has only one life to give. Torture can compensate for that.

LOL... for the record, I'm not being serious about this; if this system was indeed instigated, I'd probably be a torture victim in the future.

... although more than some criminals' deeds deserve, is something that I would never seek to see taken away. Although, if it was instigated, we could actually see people plea-bargaining to "only" be shot...

FOTR, copywrite '65
Frodo says Golum deserves death to which Gandalf replies..."Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

That's the quote.

However, I prefer another: "The good of the many, out weight the needs of the one."
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Spock, STIII

Well, that's Gollum. Gollum rules.

It's often said that you forfeit a right by denying it to others... However, there is no point in torturing a criminal who is going to die anyway. It won't undo the suffering of their victims, and they would commit suicide beforehand anyway.

1. Cost of keeping a person alive? That's not the point. Plus it does cost alot to keep them in acceptable conditions.

Who says they have to be acceptable?.. Nah, I know very little about what it's like in jail in the US, so I won't say anything.

2. Shipping criminals to Antarctica. That is wholly unacceptable, as was the bygone British sentence of transportation. It is sending the problems away to another country.

I agree with your idea, but on another basis. (Antarctica is not a country and never was, and is not divided into small countries. It is so cold that if the prisoners managed to escape from a prison they would turn into an iceblock in a minute at most, therefor not causing any risk to the scientific research labs which are on the continent.)

As for bias, well to argue a case, you have to be biased. And where he got it from is not relevant, they are his valid views and points all the same.

You misunderstand. I was talking about the part where he said "...and all you do-gooders and "let's get along"..."

Antarctica is not a country and never was, and is not divided into small countries. It is so cold that if the prisoners managed to escape from a prison they would turn into an iceblock in a minute at most, therefor not causing any risk to the scientific research labs which are on the continent.

Which is what makes it an excellent alternative if we are to do away with the death penalty world wide.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGHHH!!!!!!!!

Did anyone read the message I wrote before that one, saying why Antarctica was a very bad idea, or do I have to repeat my previous points in every new message that I write?!

*.......*

Sorry for the outburst, but I hope I made my point...

Anyway, for those of you who are unwilling to scroll up a bit, the main problem with shipping criminals to Antarctica is money; heating (major money), transporting food, transporting criminals, transporting medicins, electricity...
plus nobody would want to work as a guard in an Antarctic prison because they wouldn't be able to go outside a lot of the time.
Very few countries have the money and materials for all that.
I'm surprised I'm the only one who sees the problems.
The "ship them away because they're obviously guilty" solution is no longer acceptable or practical.

Can we send this back on topic? It's supposed to be about executions, not sending ppl to Antarctica.

If you want a punishment worse than death, then transfer your consciousness into a computer running Microsoft Windows.

Darth ATAT....get yourself a nice G3 running O/S 9.....then your problems will be solved.