Death Penalty...for or against?

[Loyalist]

The argument that it is a fitting punishment is valid. The argument that it is a deterrent is not.

That's your opinion, and the sources you provided are nonsensical rants from liberal entities like Amnesty International, who want to castrate the ability of nations, particularly the United States, to punish criminals the way they see fit.

[Revenant]

I am pro death penalty, but, there is a need to ensure very sound and solid evidence gathering procedures are used before the death penalty is applied.

The most overriding aim for the use of the death penalty is to protect society from a severe danger. If some kills someone and still represents a danger to society then that danger needs to be eliminated. But if someone kills someone and doesn't represent a continued danger to society, then we need to think very hard about what we're doing.

With people such as terrorists or serial killers we know they'll go out and kill again if they can, so they must be eliminated and with as little publicity and fanfare as possible. But where someone kills a specific individual for a specific reason, we need to closely examine if theyll kill others.

The injustice of a future release of the people who have comitted murder should be considered too, like somebody who murders in Australia when they are seventeen wont be tried as a adult and could be paroled in their late thirties, giving them a second chance they more than likely don't deserve.

If a lands lawful institutions won't eliminate known clear and present dangers to the lives of members of society, what's the point of having any laws or judicial system?.

[Arundel]

Yes, I firmly believe in the death penalty. I believe in a life for a life. It is always amazing how far a criminal will go to save his life, when he didn't give a hoot about his victim's life. I don't care how underprivileged they have been, many humans have been underprivileged, but they don't kill other people. I think the appeal system is disgusting. It usually takes a long time to find the criminal, then an even longer time to prosecute him legally, and actually get him in jail, and then he appeals and appeals, and may grow old on death row. In the mean time we tax payers are paying for his food, medicine, etc.

[Arundel]

I have been reading a book with a setting in medieval England. When they found a person guilty (without a doubt), as soon as the trial was over, they took them out and hung them, either man or woman.
I have also read in New England where they did the same. I doubt very much that any of them were not guilty, except of course, the poor witches. That is another example of regligious frenzy gone awry.
In my local county in the 1800's there was a man who went around murdering people. He was found guilty of one of the murders, and sent to the state penitentiary. He was a very beguiling man and soon started gardening for the governor. The governor became fond of him, and paroled him. Not long after he returned home, an entire farm family was murdered, father, two sons, and two daughters. It was a robbery, the father had a great deal of school tax money. But the law was not able to prove this man guilty, as everyone was afraid to testify against him, so they turned him loose again. He was warned not to return home, he arrogantly ignored the warnings. A large group of horsemen had gathered at his home, and when he arrived they hung him. I think that was good old fashioned justice. After that there were no more murders committed in the area.

[Arundel]

I wish someone would explain to me the term "for good behavior." I can't imagine what idiot thought that up, and put it in our penal system. When a criminal is finally caught, legally prosecuted, and locked up, there should be no question about his behaving 'good.'
If he does not behave he should receive a severe penalty, such as solitaire, or more time added to his term. Where on earth did anyone get the idea that they should reward him for behaving himself. Many dangerous criminals are paroled under the guise of 'good behavior.'

[Arrow Cross]

That's your opinion, and the sources you provided are nonsensical rants from liberal entities like Amnesty International, who want to castrate the ability of nations, particularly the United States, to punish criminals the way they see fit.

That's it in a nutshell. The same anti-logical rhetorics is used when speaking for anti-gun laws, eg: you won't be safer if you can have guns, because many big bad evil people will buy them too and shoot with them on the streets.

And sorry that I'm not fanatical enough on the topic to dig up various links of opinions for you, but I elaborated my stance twice here, and everyone else seemed to understand. Not that it matters at all. There will be no death penalty while the EU stands - and since a sick, EU-slave state is my natural enemy, it's not even such a sad thing.

[Oresai]

I wish we could carry guns in Scotland. Really I do.
I`m sorry I can`t remember where, but I read not too long ago of a town in America where it`s legal to openly carry guns. Their crime rate is one of the lowest in the USA. I suspect because, if you see others openly bearing weapons that can kill, you have to assume they know how to use them. And if so, you don`t know how good, or how fast a shot they will be. So why take the chance?
Now that to me is a great deterrent. Weapons put everyone on an equal footing, so to speak. I should say, personal weapons, not bombs or bio weapons, obviously.
I collect crossbows, archery bows, knives and axes. If I could afford it and pay for the licenses I`d also collect guns, though I prefer weapons such as bows and swords (I also collect those, working versions for reenactments).
The law in Britain of course, tries constantly to outlaw such things, without accepting if a criminal is going to stab someone he can just as easily do so with a plain old kitchen knife (which many of them do in fact use)
and very few of them use crossbows....

[Loki]

I wish we could carry guns in Scotland. Really I do.
I`m sorry I can`t remember where, but I read not too long ago of a town in America where it`s legal to openly carry guns.

I used to carry a nice 9mm with me in SA, loaded with hollowpoint bullets for maximum stopping power.

[Oisín]

That's your opinion, and the sources you provided are nonsensical rants from liberal entities like Amnesty International, who want to castrate the ability of nations, particularly the United States, to punish criminals the way they see fit.

Lol. Very easy to just ignore the facts when they don't suit your argument isn't it. There are plenty of sources other than AI that prove the death penalty doesn't lower the crime rate. Surely if the death penalty does lower the crime rate there is proof of this, why don't you post up a link?

[Oisín]

That's it in a nutshell. The same anti-logical rhetorics is used when speaking for anti-gun laws, eg: you won't be safer if you can have guns, because many big bad evil people will buy them too and shoot with them on the streets.

And sorry that I'm not fanatical enough on the topic to dig up various links of opinions for you, but I elaborated my stance twice here, and everyone else seemed to understand. Not that it matters at all. There will be no death penalty while the EU stands - and since a sick, EU-slave state is my natural enemy, it's not even such a sad thing.

You can't dig up any links to prove your point because they don't exist.