I am not a supporter of the death penalty.

If a close acquaintance of yours was sentenced to the death penalty what execution method would you prefer?

The death sentence via lethal injection is fine until they find a faster way to kill you without pain. There is also the need for NO loopholes(drug-wise). Perhaps the inmate isn't given enough to knock him out for long enough, or something just goes horribly wrong.



I also want to point out that I am only for the death sentence when there is no reasonable doubt. Obviously you shouldn't be in jail if the jury thinks there is..but then some actual murderers wouldn't get locked up. The solution? Well I'm not here to give one, I just think the death sentence shouldn't be applied if there is even a smidgen of doubt...just give them a life sentence.

The government needs to liven up a little and find new forms of torture...torture that isn't cruel and unusual under the terms of the law. Make an inmate watch Martha Stewart of Barney non-stop. Promise them cake and ice-cream, and don't give it to them.


Humans will do anything for cake and ice-cream




Anyways..if the murdering sons of a b****es want to construe the law for THEIR own good..then we construe for ours.




While posting constructively..also give an idea of torture that isn't and could not possibly be flagged as cruel and unusual punishment.


Seriously, if an inmate says watching Barney is cruel and unusual, the case would probably be thrown out.



Edit: If a family member were convicted of murder beyond all reasonable doubt(I would make sure of this, and appeal as many times as I could if not) then I would say lethal injection. I might or might not be there to watch...who knows.

Refuses to vote on the grounds of murder by the state is still murder.

Well, the killing of anything saddens me, but when someone kills another, there's no exception, they must get the same punishment.

I say, kill them the same way they killed thier victim(s).

Unless they killed in self defense of course.

I'd say the death penalty is necessary in some cases. There's no real need to get cruel and unusual over it though..
I'm thinking of something along these lines. Give the convicted an execution date, and then kill them sometime before that. I don't mean jump out and yell "Surprise" from a corner, while you shank them in the stomach.
I mean gas them in thier cell as they sleep on some night picked at random..
That way you avoid the whole media circus, dramatic last words, and stressful build-up that goes along with the state executions we have now..

But is the execution of a killer who has snuffed out the lives of 2 to 200 victims truly a "murder by the State" or is it a instead a surgical procedure to save the lives of that miscreant's potential future victims?

If that killer is set free, or even escapes from prison, to resume his murderous career, aren't all those victims-yet-to-come ALSO "murders abetted by the State"?

If that close aquaintance was deserving of the death penalty, I would prefer any method that does what it's supposed to do, and removes them from society. How could you sympathize with a murderer? I don't care how sorry someone is, I don't care how much they can turn themselves around, if you take a life for no good reason, you should not be a coward and accept the consequences of your actions. That's the only way you can make it up if you murder someone, give your life in memory of them. But most murderers do not feel remorse for what they do. It takes a very sick individual to look an innocent person in the eyes and then kill them... and that is simply an unforgivable crime.

Well said KBA.

To me it takes a 'sick individual' to look anyone in the eyes and then kill them... not just the innocent.

how about if you make them overdose on crack or something ?


thats very interesting and worth consideration.....though the family would complain that they didnt get to be there


now i agree with that 100%

if i got life without parole i would try and escape everyday.....why not, what are they gonna do give you a few extra years ?

I picked other I think we should kill them like they killed the victim or if multiple kill them the most painful way that they murdered a victim. Or make them fight liek gladiators tell them they can get off death row if they fight there way to glor. Pay for the prisions with the money that is raised by selling tickets to watch the fight and when the person who has fought the most gets ready to get out tell everyone he moved and kill him anyway. just a fantisy I know but it would be cool as I would have tickets every fight

public hanging!!!!

So that is your opinion. I do not consider it sick to kill someone deserving of death and in the process potentially save the lives of their next victims. Killing is not a good, a happy, or a fun thing. But in certain cases, it is a necessary thing. If people throw away their right to life, their death is their own fault. The executioner is merely fulfilling their own sentence that they created for themselves. For every action there is a consequence, for every effect there is a cause. The action of murder comes with the consequence of death. That should be pursued to the point that helps to achieve balance in society, not for hate nor revenge, but for what is the correct order of things. Killing someone else is also throwing your life away, and it's a conscious choice to do so.

That's it exactly. We execute the murderer who's taken 10 lives so he can't make it TWENTY. It's called having mercy on those people who won't become murder victims.

Prisoners on death row often claim that the death penalty is no deterrent against future murders.

But the lie is given to that by the fact that there'll be no future murders by THEM.

And there's still that matter of "lifers" who continue to murder while in prison. What do we do with them? Do we just issue them a license to kill? What gives them, and them alone, the right to "capital punish" other prisoners and even prison staff?

I've got nothing else really to add because I've said it all before I think. But let me just say again that I'm happy my country doesnt support capital punishment. Because I really would feel like I was living in the dark ages if I knew my country was killing its own citizens like that. It would make me feel kinda sick to know that and I would feel ashamed I think. So I've very thankful on where I live.

Seriously, Kazahel, what do we do with the serial killer who continues to kill in prison? Just let him do it? But in that case isn't the State aiding and abetting those additional murders?

There was a British poisoner, a criminal genius of chemicals and poisons, in fairly recent years (he'd be only in his middle 60s today, although he died a quarter-century ago) who continued to poison fellow inmates during TWO prison stretches. While efforts were made to keep poisons away from him, he easily extracted some of the most deadly from the six varieties of ivy growing on the prison walls.

Are state-issued de factor "licenses to kill" somehow more moral than the death penalty for certain (by no means all or even most) murderers?

I've already said my beliefs in that way(I'm againsts capital punishment no matter what). But for someone in the example you used you would just limit their time with others and watch them more closely. Or solitary I guess. But personally I havent heard of many serial killers who keep killing in jail. If that was the case I would imagine if the other prisoners felt threatened they would take care of that in their own way. So I wouldnt see a serial killer lasting long if others felt threatened by him basically.

I'm very sorry, but now you have me REALLY confused, and probably others as well. So you're saying that capital punishment is okay, just so long as it's carried out by other prisoners and NOT by any agency of the State?

The problem with murders committed inside prisons is far greater than you seem to believe. Often it's a "lifer" who winds up as the "enforcer" who kills stoolies and squealers. He can't be punished for that crime, you see.

By the way, many death penalty opponents claim that solitary confinement is ALSO inhumane and demand that it be outlawed.

No I'm saying that if the prisoners felt really threatened by another person who was out of control in the way in which you said they would take care of that in their own way. But that does not mean I agree with it. That just means I recognise probably what they would do to make themselves feel safer in those cases.


In those cases of some prisoners being a danger to others I would think they would just be seperated until they were not considered a danger. If they were seperated from other prisoners how could they then be an enforcer?


To me that depends on how they do it I guess. Like I dont like the idea that much either but in these cases I dont really know what else would be done. I think most solitary is probably alot harsher than it needs to be though.

But why wouldn't the community at large ALSO perceive repeat killers as threats and need to be safe from them?

I had trouble deciding between a hanging and firing squad.

It should be they get shot in both knees, THEN get hanged.

Publicly.

I'm not sure I understand fully what you mean. The convicted killers are behind bars where they are kept away from the community anyway. So the community is quite safe and shouldnt really think of them as a threat. If they did the jails wouldnt really be doing there jobs which is rehabilitation and security, yeah?

Saw the list and I think all are too easy...I think the punishment should fit the crime and then some

IE - Kill em slowly....very slowly....inject them with a virus...send people in every day to beat the tar out of them, but just enough to keep em alive. This is what I feel should be done to those that rape and kill lil babies....there was a 2 year old killed recently in the UK (was on the news) her mom found the todler covered in blood, later reports claim the todler was also raped.......hanging, firing round, is way too good of a punishment for someone that does this...I say cut off their tackle slowly have him raped by some big tranny...show him a pic of the lil one he hurt and killed..then beat him some more...make him dread every day...right up till its time to pay the firing squad a visit....but to put more fear into him...make the firing squad miss a few times freaking him out...then blow his head off...thats justice the BM way

One of the problems with capital punishment is that sometimes the person is actually innocent. There are people being found not guilty ten to twenty years later. I heard on the news about six years ago of a person that I knew in high school who was falsely accused of killing a guy at a bar. They had no physical evidence, just some 'eye witnesses' (they people that actually did the crime). After ten difficult years in jail, people change their story and he is set free. Had he been sentenced to death rather than inprisonment, it would have been too late.

Because in the US and the UK they let them out again to resume killing. I would MUCH prefer to see genuine life in prison rather than the death pernalty, but that's the one we're not allowed to have. What we have in its place is "state-assisted serial killings," where the states budget the time killers are allowed to be on the streets.

kill them if they killed in a cold blood without remorse, kill them the way they killed, anyone who wants to keep these scumbags alive, or give them life as they say, why don't they pay half of their salary, to keep the scum alive, i personaly think that everyone who got convicted of violent crime, third time, should be shot. 1 exeception, self defence is not a murder

That's one of the reasons I believe the death penalty should be restricted to especially heinous murderers. Nobody doubts that John Wayne Gacy, with his 35 victims buried in his basement, was guilty as sin, nor Ted Bundy with his 200 dead young women.



Individuals rarely receive the death penalty for murder of that kind. And even people sentenced to death usually spend at least 10 years on death row as they exhaust their appeals.

However, I hope your friend received a healthy cash settlement for his false imprisonment. He seems to have been really railroaded.

I just think if they have served their time then they should be let out. And I dont think they would let them out to resume their killing like how you say... I think they must let them out for a reason. Like are you trying to say that everyone who takes a life is going to take another when they get out of jail or just the serial killers? It's just if they are considered a danger to society then the prison generally doesnt let them out.. and if they have served their time for their crime then they should be given a chance to try to get a life back on track.


Yes but you might have to prove that in court. And it isnt always so simple either. So if you almost luck out(from drunk 'witnesses'/friends of the deceased, for prosecutions side for example) it can go the whole other way, and you can then be called a murderer and sentenced for acting in self defence.

He was really railroaded! I don't know if he got a settlement of any kind, as I only heard about his case on the news and I didn't know him very well.

But he spent 10 years hard labor in a Florida prison, was gang raped in jail and got aids. There case against later fell apart as people changed their stories, so they kicked him out of the state, and that's the last I heard about it. He was driving to have breakfast with some of the people that were at the bar (the actual killers, there was two couples) the next morning after the shooting when they got stopped. The killers fingered him, even though he was not at the bar, to protect the real trigger person (it was a drive by shooting). The guy was definitely at the wrong place at the wrong time.

By the way, if there has to be capital punishment, I vote for the firing squad. It seems to be the quickest and surest way of going. If I had to choose which way to die given the choices, I would choose that one.

Abolish the death penalty in all Countries!

Once again, you fail to address the problem of convicted murderers who continue to kill in prison. Do they then have an official license to murder?

You seem unaware of prison recividism rates.

And why do you think killing in self-defense is okay? Isn't that merely Citizen A enacting his own private "death penalty" on Citizen B because Citizen B attempted to murder him?

What kind of question is that. No.. they do not then have an offical license to murder. And this is what I said before in an earlier post when you asked.. But for someone in the example you used you would just limit their time with others and watch them more closely.

What do you think they do with the ones that continue to kill when they dont have capital punishment?...I mean they must be doing something... Do they simply move them to where they cant hurt others until they show themselves as trust worthy again? I mean if it was such a problem of people killing in jails then it surely would be in my country where they dont have capital punishment at all yes? But we dont really hear about the people constantly killing others in jail over here you know. But maybe thats different in other countries... you's tell me... how often do you's hear about the same criminals killing each other in jail? Like how common is that in your country?... Do you's hear that often? And if you do maybe you prisons arnt doing their jobs correctly.. which is security and rehabilitation.


Well I think if someone is trying to kill you or that you believe so in that moment of attack, then I think if you want to live, I think its ok to do whatever you need to do to live. And I think thats fair enough. And that is the law isnt it? Are you trying to tell me that you wouldnt defend against someone who was trying to kill you? Would you just let them kill you.. Or do you think its just ok for innocent people to do that but just not prisoners?

I think killing in self defence is something that just 'is'. It isnt something you intend to do or think about... it just happens. So I dont think its ok to try to kill in self defence, but I think its ok if you do kill someone through defending yourself from their attack on your life.

A very serious one.



And how does the State determine when a repeat killer is "trustworthy" again? Was he ever "trustworthy" to begin with? Is a solitary confiment cell some sort of enchanted chamber that magically instills "trustworthiness"? Does the State merely go "oops - another corpse" and resume "trustworthy" training? Hope that the prison enforcer will eventually agree to a new occupation?

lol and what kind of answer is that. I not going to bother much anymore hey. Considering you dont really answer any of my questions.


Each killer has their own story in regards to being trustworthy. And I think solitary is to show that if you cant be nice to people you cant be around them(a teaching thing). Just like prison in general. And its the job to monitor the prisoners to see who is more of a danger to others or themselves. Thats the prison staffs job I think.. to monitor the prisoners and know what is happening with them and to also protect them.

Anyway you didnt really answer... 'What do you think they do with the ones that continue to kill when they dont have capital punishment?...I mean they must be doing something... '

Well, it seems as though your legal system is in the mire.

In this Country, those who are given a life sentence (especially those with high profile cases), are put in their own cell, with guards constantly supervising outside.

I like your approach Becky's Mom, but with all due respect i think i mentioned it way back in the thread. How would you apply ^^ that to the slime that 'molester and or rape children'.

I say turn them into compost then distribute it to all the local parks and gardens. That way at least they contribute something back into society on the way out.
The community become happier on all counts...Worried parents can rest a little easier, no more hard earned tax payer dollars spent keeping these pieces of human trash in prison, nice lush healthy green parks & gardens(thats the part i like)and finally one less slime bag predator off the face of the earth...every and everyone is happy. But before all that takes place...as you said so light heartedly, prolonged torture, public humiliation etc etc.

ciao

Hilarious, I love your suggestion (especially the part about finally contributing something back into society).

Don't they ever let them out into the prison yard for an hour or two, so they can look up and see blue sky? It's considered inhumane not to grant them that.

And if it's a medium-sized to large prison, there's going to be more than one prisoner in the yard at any given time.

Yes, I believe you are correct in saying that they are allowed outside for an hour or so.

I do not know what kind of arrangements they have for inmates though, so I don't know how they control the risks.

I DO know what they did with genius chemist/arch-poisoner Graham Young. After he killed his mother and attempted to kill his sister he was confined to Broadmoor.

There he continued his experiments in poisoning, killing more than a half-dozen of his fellow inmates. Though efforts were made to keep Young away from poisons, he was extracting all he needed from the six varieties of ivy that grow on the Broadmoor walls.

Young was released after a few years and the Broadmoor authorities found him employment running the darkroom for a major London firm of commercial photographers.

Broadmoor told the new employers that Young had been confined there, but said that he was not and never had been dangerous and in any case was entirely cured.

Large commercial photographic darkrooms are filled with hundreds of poisons, especially corrosive ones.

Over the next year seven or eight of the staff members died slowly and painfully.

Young was then given life in prison. He CONTINUED poisoning fellow inmates until he himself died from a heart attack at age 42 (around 20 years ago).

Your witness.

Your witness. Nice avoid and all based so far around this one case you keep mentioning.

How about you answer the actual question though which you quoted.

Avoid?????



I thought I just did!

Well that's a nasty story, but that was 20 years ago.

If you want to know how they deal with killers these days, find some information on 'Ian Huntley'.

Not really... or you kinda did but only using one case. One case in which the people in charge of him were at fault kinda(for thinking he was cured when he wasnt). So that case sounds more like a case of people not really doing their jobs in the first place. Or thats how I see it anyway. And also you speak of what they did with a genius chemist turned bad... Which isnt really the.. norm either in regards to murder. And for the prison staff to find him work around those kinds of chemicals is pretty silly dont you think? And then after going back to jail for him to still be able to get his hands on poisons is just showing how the system is still failing them and the rest of the public.

So this case you are trying to use to justify capitial punishment imo is only showing how the system failed. It doesnt show why we should have capital punishment, it only shows how bad the system can be from people not doing their jobs in the first place.

I agree with you on this one.

I agree with you baby d.

Push them into a wood chipper
Choke them with Barbed wire
Concrete Boots
Set them on fire
Lethal Injection

It really dose not matter how you end someone’s life the fact that there dead is the objective.

As you probably have guessed I do not agree will the Death Sentence, I personally feel people should be incarcerated and treated with medication and counselling in an attempt to make them realise the atrocities they have committed.

I personally do not like the idea of the death penalty, however, If I had to choose I would go with whatever would be the most humane or least cruel way of putting someone to death. With that said, I chose lethal injection.