The Death Penalty

[SlowwHand]

In a last attempt to save DinoDoc's thread from total trolldom, here's a death penalty thread.

I advocate it.
Bear in mind that the death penalty is not mandated for all murder convictions.
It is presented as an option

As a representative case, let me reach back in time and use the Charles Manson Family as an example.
Texas leads the United States, easily, in executions.
I'm doubtful that any of the family (Charles Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkle, Squeaky Fromme, and whomever else I may be forgetting at the moment) or Charlie himself, would have been executed in Texas.
In California, the death penalty was given out, but later overturned and life sentences assessed.

The death penalty is reserved for the most evil of people
who have committed the most heinous (villainous; wicked; hateful) of crimes.
Those of which there is no hope of rehabilitation.

It is an option, not a required penalty.








Take over.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh crap... this thread won't end well...

(FWIW, I support the death penalty only for the most heinous crimes, where there exists DNA evidence... basically where there is no question of guilt)

[SlowwHand]

Imran, have you lost your ability to make any meaningful input?
Do you merely exist to stalk me?
You're beginning to remind me of ****, who almost creamed his jeans over seeing his vacuum cleaner written about.

Now, go ahead.

Edit: To add recognition of your edit.
At least there's added input.

Edit 2: Following your mouthy statement as appears below.
**** is a person who doesn't need to be slammed by name.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Vacuum cleaner? And which oriface do you put that one in, Slow? Does it pleasure you?

[Japher]

I say we kill all criminals, from rapist to repeat offenders of any type of crime.

If you can't fit in to society, you don't belong. So, you either can go to Mexico/Canada or be killed you stupid bastards.

I could really care less about your sob story about being sorry or about never doing it again... my arse

[Aphex_Twin2]

I would propose keeping the inmates in an enclosed space and having them working for their own living (and quarters). If that's not suitable, well...

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh crap... this thread won't end well...

(FWIW, I support the death penalty only for the most heinous crimes, where there exists DNA evidence... basically where there is no question of guilt)

I would like to remind you Imran that DNA evidence is subject to human error.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Less human error than not having DNA evidence at all .

[mrmitchell]

Damn kids shouldn't be stealing gum in the first place. Death penalty for them all! Back in the day the shopkeeper woulda taken 'em out before they walked in the store, and woulda got an honorary badge from the Police Chief for it. They'll think twice about being accused of a crime after they've sizzled in the Chair for it.

Seriously, everyone here has already heard all the arguments against the DP, and if they haven't changed their minds now, those certain proponents that post threads like this must just like to hear their keyboard keys keying away ...

[Agathon]

It doesn't work. It's expensive, and there are better alternatives.

End of story.

[SlowwHand]

No, end of your opinion.

[Agathon]

No one has ever come up with some reason that wasn't cloaked religious justification for it.

Only idiots believe in it.

[Sava]

our justice system should be more like JUDGE DREDD, where if you commit a crime you are just shot in the head right there...

you kill someone and are caught red handed, BANG, you are executed right there

sentence... death

[Lorizael]

It doesn't work? I'm certain the people are actually dead. I mean, we're not that stupid.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh crap... this thread won't end well...

(FWIW, I support the death penalty only for the most heinous crimes, where there exists DNA evidence... basically where there is no question of guilt)

You'd make the severity of the punishment dependant on the conclusiveness of the evidence?