The death penalty

[ST GERARD]

Iam For it String the bastards up

[Zebedaeus]

Our government strongly believes that Death Penalty = Murder.
Nobody as the right for no reason to kill anybody.

The severity of the punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the crime but never bring anybody to death.

[Delanshar]

The severity of the punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the crime but never bring anybody to death.

In other words, justice isn't proportional, but we'll say it is anyway...

[Keronians]

The severity of the punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the crime but never bring anybody to death.

In other words, justice isn't proportional, but we'll say it is anyway...

Killing someone isn't carrying out justice, it is taking revenge.

[Strykla]

In other words, justice isn't proportional, but we'll say it is anyway...

Killing someone isn't carrying out justice, it is taking revenge.

Okay, you might say it's revenge. But it is also a deterrent. Potential criminals could look at capital punishment and say, "Oh, I probably shouldn't do (Insert really bad thing here) because that guy did it and was killed".

[UCUMAY]

Killing someone isn't carrying out justice, it is taking revenge.

Okay, you might say it's revenge. But it is also a deterrent. Potential criminals could look at capital punishment and say, "Oh, I probably shouldn't do (Insert really bad thing here) because that guy did it and was killed".

Stats say it doesn't work as a deterrent. I personally don't mind using capital punishment on mass murderers, serial killers, and prisoners who present a valid threat to others.

[Keronians]

Killing someone isn't carrying out justice, it is taking revenge.

Okay, you might say it's revenge. But it is also a deterrent. Potential criminals could look at capital punishment and say, "Oh, I probably shouldn't do (Insert really bad thing here) because that guy did it and was killed".

Except it doesn't serve as a deterrent.

When you commit murder, you don't think about getting caught. When you commit murder, getting locked up forever and being killed by the government isn't much of a difference.

The crime rates in Europe have stayed more or less the same (actually, they've declined) since the abolition of the death penalty in 48 out of the 50 countries that make up the continent.

[Delanshar]

Okay, you might say it's revenge. But it is also a deterrent. Potential criminals could look at capital punishment and say, "Oh, I probably shouldn't do (Insert really bad thing here) because that guy did it and was killed".

Except it doesn't serve as a deterrent.

When you commit murder, you don't think about getting caught. When you commit murder, getting locked up forever and being killed by the government isn't much of a difference.

The crime rates in Europe have stayed more or less the same (actually, they've declined) since the abolition of the death penalty in 48 out of the 50 countries that make up the continent.

Low crime in Europe has nothing to do with the death penalty (or lack of it). It is because, thanks to their colonial history and post-war money from the USA (see Marshall Plan), they have a very high (and dare I say unsustainable) standard of living.

The United State, despite being much richer than any one country in Europe, also has much more people to feed.

And besides, it is clear that European society is slowly unraveling. As we have seen with the riots in England/Greece/Spain/ France/ Pretty much everywhere else, economic unsustainability (hope I spelled that right) coupled with rampant immigration is beginning to take it's toll on the so-called utopian European model.

[Keronians]

Except it doesn't serve as a deterrent.

When you commit murder, you don't think about getting caught. When you commit murder, getting locked up forever and being killed by the government isn't much of a difference.

The crime rates in Europe have stayed more or less the same (actually, they've declined) since the abolition of the death penalty in 48 out of the 50 countries that make up the continent.

Low crime in Europe has nothing to do with the death penalty (or lack of it). It is because, thanks to their colonial history and post-war money from the USA (see Marshall Plan), they have a very high (and dare I say unsustainable) standard of living.

The United State, despite being much richer than any one country in Europe, also has much more people to feed.

Europe as a whole has more people to feed than the US.

And the post-war money benefitted the US as well. It wasn't one way.

The Marshall Plan gave US companies a source of labour, a guaranteed market, a monopoly on world trade, and allowed them to expand their operations and production.

The Marshall Plan, though the product of a genuine desire to help the people of Europe, was just as much about ensuring lasting economic growth for the US and ever increasing dominance.

And the low crime rates is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about no rise in crime rates after abolition.

Though why, exactly, do you think that we have an unsustainable standard of living?

[Keronians]

Except it doesn't serve as a deterrent.

When you commit murder, you don't think about getting caught. When you commit murder, getting locked up forever and being killed by the government isn't much of a difference.

The crime rates in Europe have stayed more or less the same (actually, they've declined) since the abolition of the death penalty in 48 out of the 50 countries that make up the continent.

Low crime in Europe has nothing to do with the death penalty (or lack of it). It is because, thanks to their colonial history and post-war money from the USA (see Marshall Plan), they have a very high (and dare I say unsustainable) standard of living.

The United State, despite being much richer than any one country in Europe, also has much more people to feed.

And besides, it is clear that European society is slowly unraveling. As we have seen with the riots in England/Greece/Spain/ France/ Pretty much everywhere else, economic unsustainability (hope I spelled that right) coupled with rampant immigration is beginning to take it's toll on the so-called utopian European model.

It is not utopian. Far from it.

Our economic model is fine. The social market and the Nordic model work extremely well, as evidenced by Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland.

The problem arises when you have incompetent fools who decide to ignore the rules of economics like our beloved Prime Minister, the great Zapatero.

[Strykla]

Okay, you might say it's revenge. But it is also a deterrent. Potential criminals could look at capital punishment and say, "Oh, I probably shouldn't do (Insert really bad thing here) because that guy did it and was killed".

Except it doesn't serve as a deterrent.

When you commit murder, you don't think about getting caught. When you commit murder, getting locked up forever and being killed by the government isn't much of a difference.

The crime rates in Europe have stayed more or less the same (actually, they've declined) since the abolition of the death penalty in 48 out of the 50 countries that make up the continent.

You're generalizing. That doesn't work.
I'd think that a murderer on the run would think a lot about getting caught. But I don't know. I'm not a murderer, and what one person thinks is not necessarily what many people think. But you seem to be an expert. How would you know? Have you committed murder?

[Keronians]

Except it doesn't serve as a deterrent.

When you commit murder, you don't think about getting caught. When you commit murder, getting locked up forever and being killed by the government isn't much of a difference.

The crime rates in Europe have stayed more or less the same (actually, they've declined) since the abolition of the death penalty in 48 out of the 50 countries that make up the continent.

You're generalizing. That doesn't work.
I'd think that a murderer on the run would think a lot about getting caught. But I don't know. I'm not a murderer, and what one person thinks is not necessarily what many people think. But you seem to be an expert. How would you know? Have you committed murder?

Because statistics show that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime. New York didn't see a rise in crime rates after the abolition of the death penalty.

[Strykla]

You're generalizing. That doesn't work.
I'd think that a murderer on the run would think a lot about getting caught. But I don't know. I'm not a murderer, and what one person thinks is not necessarily what many people think. But you seem to be an expert. How would you know? Have you committed murder?

Because statistics show that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime. New York didn't see a rise in crime rates after the abolition of the death penalty.

Well, according to the death penalty information board, you are correct. But also according to them, 87% of criminologists believe that abolition would not have a large impact on crime rates.
Also, in the short term life imprisonment might be less costly. In the long term, however, when you have thousands of prisoners in your jails for life, you might find that it costs a lot of money to supply them all.

But that brings up a good question: Are jails a very good way of punishment? go back a few hundred years and you'll find that things like the whip and other ways of inflicting physical punishment can be much more effective than getting in the slammer.

[Sorratsin]

Because statistics show that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime. New York didn't see a rise in crime rates after the abolition of the death penalty.

Well, according to the death penalty information board, you are correct. But also according to them, 87% of criminologists believe that abolition would not have a large impact on crime rates.
Also, in the short term life imprisonment might be less costly. In the long term, however, when you have thousands of prisoners in your jails for life, you might find that it costs a lot of money to supply them all.

But that brings up a good question: Are jails a very good way of punishment? go back a few hundred years and you'll find that things like the whip and other ways of inflicting physical punishment can be much more effective than getting in the slammer.

No.

[Zebedaeus]

I agree with the things said by Keronians and Strykla all in all sentencing someone to death serves only to quench the revenge thirst and the rage against the criminal.

[Trixiestan]

I am in favor of the death penalty if it meets the following requirements...
1. Carefully used only for those who have proven they are of no use to society and are beyond rehabilitation.

How the smeg did people in this thread miss this?

[Delanshar]

Low crime in Europe has nothing to do with the death penalty (or lack of it). It is because, thanks to their colonial history and post-war money from the USA (see Marshall Plan), they have a very high (and dare I say unsustainable) standard of living.

The United State, despite being much richer than any one country in Europe, also has much more people to feed.

Europe as a whole has more people to feed than the US.

And the post-war money benefitted the US as well. It wasn't one way.

The Marshall Plan gave US companies a source of labour, a guaranteed market, a monopoly on world trade, and allowed them to expand their operations and production.

The Marshall Plan, though the product of a genuine desire to help the people of Europe, was just as much about ensuring lasting economic growth for the US and ever increasing dominance.

And the low crime rates is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about no rise in crime rates after abolition.

Though why, exactly, do you think that we have an unsustainable standard of living?

It's unsustainable for the reason you mentioned yourself: hardworking Germans and others have to prop up horrible economies with inefficient work-forces (Greece for example).

In any case, this is for another thread. My point is simply that their economic success has off-setted any rise in crime due to the revoking of the death penalty. But this is short term, and will end when their economic shield degenerates.

[Alyakia]

Also, in the short term life imprisonment might be less costly. In the long term, however, when you have thousands of prisoners in your jails for life, you might find that it costs a lot of money to supply them all.

I shouldn't even need to bloody say it at this point.

~*the death penalty is long-term*~

[Alyakia]

Killing someone isn't carrying out justice, it is taking revenge.

Okay, you might say it's revenge. But it is also a deterrent. Potential criminals could look at capital punishment and say, "Oh, I probably shouldn't do (Insert really bad thing here) because that guy did it and was killed".

That guy was an idiot! I'm far too smart to get caught by these bumbling idiots.

ARHDFSADBGDFGSDFDSFDSFASFDSAF STAB STAB STAB ASDFDSGBSDGSGHDFHRDHGSRGS

Who gives a shit? I'm going to heaven!

[Horsefish]

It's unsustainable for the reason you mentioned yourself: hardworking Germans and others have to prop up horrible economies with inefficient work-forces (Greece for example).

In any case, this is for another thread. My point is simply that their economic success has off-setted any rise in crime due to the revoking of the death penalty. But this is short term, and will end when their economic shield degenerates.

No it doesn't. Economic success has little or nothing to do with the rate of murder, it affects the rate of robbery and stealing shit.

And I'm pretty sure killing someone for stealing stuff is a tad extreme.

And besides, it is clear that European society is slowly unraveling. As we have seen with the riots in England/Greece/Spain/ France/ Pretty much everywhere else, economic unsustainability (hope I spelled that right) coupled with rampant immigration is beginning to take it's toll on the so-called utopian European model.

Riots everywhere? You mean, the ones that haven't been that widespread (country wise) and have been unreleated to each other? And please, stop with all this shit about society unravelling and immigration. Thats definatly an arguement for another thread.

[Horsefish]

I'd think that a murderer on the run would think a lot about getting caught. But I don't know. I'm not a murderer, and what one person thinks is not necessarily what many people think. But you seem to be an expert. How would you know? Have you committed murder?

Thats cause he's on the run. They don't tend to think they will get caught until after the act when they genrally do.
You know that bit in scooby doo when they unmask the villian? It's basicly that but with police instead of "meddeling kids"

And Keronions is a well known mass murderer in spain. It caused a big stir to the fact he's indian really

[Xenohumanity]

I am in favor of the death penalty if it meets the following requirements...
1. Carefully used only for those who have proven they are of no use to society and are beyond rehabilitation.

How the smeg did people in this thread miss this?

By 'no use', I mean 'will make detriments greater than their contribution'. For example, a serial rapist might be a very productive baker, but is it worth all the pain and tears his crimes bring about for his goods and services, especially if he has served a decade, been released on parole, and commits the same crime again?

[Alyakia]

How the smeg did people in this thread miss this?

By 'no use', I mean 'will make detriments greater than their contribution'. For example, a serial rapist might be a very productive baker, but is it worth all the pain and tears his crimes bring about for his goods and services, especially if he has served a decade, been released on parole, and commits the same crime again?

It's funny because "will make detriments greater than their contribution" applies to 99% of people under 18 and many disabled people.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

I'd be more in favor of the death penalty if the legal system were better.

Until then, I vote for pineapples and lube. Or, better yet, no lube. Even cheaper.

[Xenohumanity]

By 'no use', I mean 'will make detriments greater than their contribution'. For example, a serial rapist might be a very productive baker, but is it worth all the pain and tears his crimes bring about for his goods and services, especially if he has served a decade, been released on parole, and commits the same crime again?

It's funny because "will make detriments greater than their contribution" applies to 99% of people under 18 and many disabled people.

Well, I didn't see that coming.
Nevertheless, I adapt.
People under 18 (like myself, ho ho!) have the potential to become very productive, and the disabled can serve to serve as the moral anchor that keeps us human and ethical.
I am not good at eloquence and thus cannot explain the second part well enough. I know. I'm dumb. The more you know.
OR
>become cybermen
>delete
>delete
>delete
That too.