Oh really? So I suppose all those third-world nations and the refugee camps frequently associated with them choose to be poor?



I sincerely doubt that a bullet to the base of the skull, from a gun of reasonable caliber, will ever fail to kill. For all intents and purposes, instantly.

While I'm all for the death penalty myself, you just hit the problem right on the head. How do we make 100% certain that we're applying it to the truly guilty parties? The appeals system is part of that. Personally, I don't see the death sentence making a large comeback until after we develop a foolproof lie detector of some kind.

I think they should get half xp for about 1 level and have to graveyard run back to their corpse.

The problem with that is that doners gave their consent to have thier organs used, where as the prisoner probably didn't.

I personally don't support the death penalty, even in the case of mass-murderers. I don't feel it is the right of another human to take someone's life- even if said person has taken another. Why move them into the afterlife, in whatever form it may take, when you can instead make them dwell on the matter for 50, 60 or 70 years, every day? I also feel we VASTLY confuse our lengths of prison sentences- you can commit a terrible act of violence against someone with a gun and serve 5 years in prison, but if you have sex with a 17 year old you can serve 10 or 20 years? That's laughably insane.

The real problem is prison is SUPPOSED to be about rehabilitation, and it doesn't do that whatsoever. It also is supposed to be a severe penalty, and with television and outdoor time and social interaction, it is for some in our society a "comfortable" place to be.

Prison should be solitary, always- no outdoor access, no "things to do"- no letters, no writing, no reading, period. It should be you, an empty room and nothing to do but THINK. Combine that with constant visits by qualified professionals in mental health, and you might actually be able to fix the mental defects within some of those who commit these violent crimes.

All other crimes- white or societally meaningless (shoplifting, fist fighting, etc.) should never have severe chunks of their lives taken away- if you're serving more than a year for the worst of those offenses, it's wrong. Society is taking away too much of your short life. Yes, you did something wrong and should be punished, but 3 months and a stiff fine is acceptable for stealing. 5 years? That's criminal in itself.

All of this is meaningless however if people weren't so inherently capable of crimes. I've never gotten into a fight in my life, I've never stolen, and I've never even committed a driving infraction. Why? I have a respect for authority most others seem to have lost somewhere. It's just not in my blood to do something outside the bounds of the law- no matter how tempting it may be to do so. The problem is the people out there who think doing so is fun, because authority figures "need" to have someone challenge them. THAT is who we need to focus on in our society- before they commit the crimes.

Main beef with the death penalty seems to be an error rate.

Why are we allowed to drive cars? Taking baths kills innocent people too, we should ban the filling of tubs. I fail to see how a cause of death so low can be such a sticking point.

There are things that are reasonable standards though. Circumstantial evidence for instance should never make a death penalty case, it probably shouldn't be allowed to make any case period. I'd go so far as to say unsupported eye witnesses shouldn't make one either. If your perp leaves his dna all over his victim, fry the fucker. Hard evidence doesn't lie, it takes corrupt officials to put the wrong guy in jail with real evidence present. In the exceedingly rare event of a perfect frame job by a third party, an injustice will be done, but what's the big deal? Millions of people die in accidents every year, it's just another accident, an arguably more horrible one than most, but it's not some monstrous thing beyond the pale.

Now, on to my evil right winger ways. Compassion without reason is worse than contempt.

"Oh, really? So we should cut of all aid to the 1.3 million poeple in Burma who just suffered a typhoon? And we should also endorse the Israelli blockade of the Gaza strip until everyone there starves to death? And should we also allow the World Bank to continue to line its pockets by demanding 1.3 billion dollars a month from Haiti where over a million people now face starvation because their government has to confiscate food production and lower trade barrier to pay off its debt that was run up by the western endorsed dictator in exile?"

Well, I like the first couple. The IMF is another example of why helping people that wont help themselves is fucking stupid. The Burmese are in the shitter because the Burmese wont kill the guys that took their country over. Sending them aid is largely irrelevant since they wont get rid of those assholes. If Burma weren't a slum in the first place, a little problem like a typhoon wouldn't leave them starving. Odds are, if their dictators let us in to help, they wont get any better either, and the next minor weather event will completely wipe them out again. It's just amazing how people can live on an Island for thousands of years before discovering weather.

If I must defend the IMF though, I'm prepared for such idiocy as well. Did you know the western backed dictator didn't turn Haiti into a shithole? Personally I'd have shot the fucking communist on the spot and sent them his corpse. Clinton, unfortunately, was a fucking idiot. Alas, we can't blame Clinton for Haiti, when Aristide got there, it was already a disaster filled with starving people. They've been cooking dirt for 20 years, he hasn't been there that long. The doc they had during the 60's was a real nice chap of course, but you can't blame him on us. They elected him, let him build his own private army, and then take them from a country that exported food to a country that starved. So, while the IMF and the World Bank should never have been created, Haiti is a product of it's own making, and their starvation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Besides, if Aristide wants to, he has plenty of money to pay back the loans he kept for his own personal use. The Haitians need to kill their military off if they want to get anywhere though, that's the real problem they have, a lack of balls.

"Oh really? So I suppose all those third-world nations and the refugee camps frequently associated with them choose to be poor?"

Why yes Ron, they do! If you let a military despot take over your country, steal all your land, and put you in a hovel with nothing to eat, it's your own fucking fault. If you reproduce while living in a hovel with nothing to eat, I wish you dead for your sins against your children.

Do you know what would have happened to all the starving people in Africa if we'd fucked off and let them starve? A lot of them would have died. Problem solved. The people that survived would be able to live off the land they had available, or they would have killed the stupid bastards that put them into that position. What has feeding them gotten us? More starving Africans. It's just so humane to make them dependent on our grain shipments, wasting their entire lives on the verge of death in a disease infested refugee camp. Sick, hungry, devoid of any hope for the future, completely worthless in every way. We kill millions every year that never would have been born into poverty to start with. All because asshats like the red bishop can't think beyond today.

When France was where places like Haiti are today because a corrupt and decadent aristocracy was more interested in trying to outwit each other than the survival of their own subjects, the French rose up. Feeling bad for them means you're a bleeding heart liberal, not a particularly bad trait, illogical, but excellent for saving puppies and giving hugs to strangers. Perpetuating their misery on the other hand is a simple lack of courage.

Grow a pair and let them die, the instinct for survival will kick in and they will help themselves.

Part of that post was unfair. While Clinton is a fucking idiot, it's really not fair to blame him for Aristide. The Haitians did elect him to start with, he just had a bit of trouble with a military coup before we sent him back...

And the Children are there because? Think, don't just feel. Feeling bad for them isn't helpful. There are several million people starving in Haiti, they have been starving for over 40 years. Which generation of children would you like me to think about?

Ignoring the reasons a catastrophe becomes a catastrophe is what gets us into these messes. Our feeding the starving masses has got us more starving masses. When the Haitians started starving, they had enough land to feed themselves, they might have enough farmland even today, they're not even using all of it.



Irrelevant. When their options are die of starvation or fight, the complacency that is destroying their civilization will end, or they will die. It's suicide at that point for the military to resist a full scale revolt anyway. You need peasants to get your food. Historically speaking, the bulk of the military follows the people in an armed revolt, not the government. In the case of Haiti, there are eight million people there, most of them hungry, and they don't even have a military taking their lands anymore. It exists entirely on paper, completely gone. They still wont take their lives into their own hands, get off their asses, and go work arable land that sits unused. Instead, they cook dirt in the slums. Our generosity has destroyed them, broken a self sufficient island in a single generation.



I called you a bleeding heart liberal, you've identified yourself as such repeatedly, you feel bad for the children, you feed the children. Textbook bleeding heart liberal. Aside from being true, and thus not an insult, I fail to see how it's taken as such unless you think liberal is a derogatory word.

You on the other hand call me a monster for disliking a death toll in the millions year after year. We've been breeding the walking dead for decades now, all so we don't have to live with not interfering.

The rest... FDR was a died in the wool communist, he was still strong on national defense and proactive in implementation. One can be liberal in one area and conservative in another just fine.

yeah, I think so, because why would anyone get upset that their organs are saving lives? The only people that would care is the family, and the would have to complete pricks to deny a vital organ to someone in need just to keep their phycopath son's dignity. (he wouldn't have much left anyway)

The main reason the Haitans are starving was not because we fed them and made them lazy. On the contrary, and ironicly, its organizations that are supposed to be getting rid of poverty(ie. The World Bank) that is causing the mass starvation.

I never said the basic problem didn't need fixing; only that cutting off aid is not the way to fix it. Because you are -- by definition -- then cutting the aid off to the children involved.

Then my argument applies to the various third world "democracies" wherein it is relevant.

This is NOT a Flame: but most people against the death penalty presume to have some moral high ground. That the state should never "stoop" to the level of the criminal. The truth is all laws are the moral imposition of the state upon its people; don't kill -- it's immoral, don't steal -- it's immoral. Yet when the ultimate penalty is warranted, when the victim's rights are so unjustly taken, the state does not have the moral certitude to dispense with said justice. The victim's "right" to life is now just a priviledge compared to the criminal's right to live. A state which fails to protect the innocents' rights is not moral, and sparing the criminal doesn't make up for that.

A country that has no crime for which the penalty is death has no morality. It presumes upon its people a certainty that there will be some that can ultimately deprive the innocent of their rights without true penalty. It fails in the one true moral function of government: to protect its people.

He did not say liberals were Nazis, he said "the liberalnazis" There are two different groups of thought. I have had to deal with both of them.

I have sometimes been called a liberal, but not a "liberalnazi".

Being overly simplistic about this the difference is this.
Retort from a liberal: I am sorry that you feel that way on this subject, allow me to introduce you to another way of thinking on this and perhaps we could find some common ground to work on, to better both you and society.

Retort from a liberalnazi: You filthy stinking Pig, you chauvinistic cave dwelling knuckle dragging capitalist Neanderthal. You demonstrate all that is wrong with all white middle age heterosexual American males. Die!! Die!! Die!!! You worthless pig!!!!
Granted this is such an 80’s concept, but I really get a bug in my butt from the politically correct crowd myself..

As for the question in the post: I argue that the families should not be allowed to have a say in the level of punishment melded out to someone concerning a crime. The primary reason for this is passion. The wounded parties often want revenge as well as punishment for the wrongs done them. (I include myself in this).
Until the bombing of The Murrow building I was adamantly opposed to the death penalty for any reason. When I read the headlines about the bombing my first reaction was “fry the bastard”.

So until someone actually has to face the situation, I do not think any of us can honestly answer your question. Not because we don’t think we know, but that until faced with such a horror we only know how we think we will respond or hope we will respond.

I only pray that should this happen to a loved one of mine I would be strong enough not to kill the SOB. Because I'd rather that person suffer for the rest of their life, if not by the authorities then by my hand.