The death penalty makes no sense.

[The Valkyrie]

I could care less if it's revenge driven. Y'all say that like it should change my mind.

I'm not above saying the death penalty is flawed and needs a serious overall but I don't want to get rid of it. I want the person who is witnessed by cameras or lots of people killing others to die. The kid that shot up the Aurora movie theater- kill him. The person that shot up Los Vegas during the concerts- kill em. Guy that shot up the church? Kill em. Guy that killed everyone from the UT tower? Kill em. (Yes I know most of people in these situations end up dead by either self inflicted GSW or are brought down before the end of the stand off but for those that aren't) Have pictures of yourself with your victims' body for your sick photo album? Get caught red handed? Kill the sick fucks. You will not sway my mind with "justice".

This.

There are certain crimes, as far as I'm concerned, that are worthy of removal from the planet.

Serial killers.
Terrorists who commit a terrorist act.
Serial rapists.
Serial kiddie fiddlers.
Anyone who commits a murder that results in the prolonged suffering of the victim.
And others...

BUT...

...ther must be absolutely no doubt (and such cases do exist).

If you're not going to have the death penalty then the other penalties need to reflect the severity of the crime. Life should mean life, not out in ten or twenty years.

If you deliberately murder someone then your prison sentence should result in you leaving in a box.

It seems often that laws are all about the rights of the criminal and not the rights of the victims or their families.

I could rant a lot more but I'll stop here..

[LadyForCamus]

I’m not sure what you’re asking me.

I'm responding with the question will killing person X pay  pay for killing person Y is there a justified exchange that merits that person death . What party is this debt owned to and why ?And should people forever be condemned for an act ?

People who deliberately rape, torture, and murder others for their own sexual gratification; who subject others to the maximum possible pain and suffering; who know what they’re doing is wrong and actively evade capture so that they can continue to inflict pain, don’t deserve to continue living.  IMO.  Yes, I think that serial killers should be condemned forever for serial raping/killing.

[Nay_Sayer]

The way I see it, Fewer resources wasted (Food, Oxygen, Bed).

[Amarok]

There are certain crimes, as far as I'm concerned, that are worthy of removal from the planet.

Serial killers.
Terrorists who commit a terrorist act.
Serial rapists.
Serial kiddie fiddlers.
Anyone who commits a murder that results in the prolonged suffering of the victim.
And others...

BUT...

...ther must be absolutely no doubt (and such cases do exist).

Why these crimes and not others ?

If you're not going to have the death penalty then the other penalties need to reflect the severity of the crime. Life should mean life, not out in ten or twenty years.

If you deliberately murder someone then your prison sentence should result in you leaving in a box.

So you would replace state sanctioned murder with state sanctioned torture?

It seems often that laws are all about the rights of the criminal and not the rights of the victims or their families.

Society is judged by how we treat the worst .Brutality towards them is easy . What right do victims have to some else life ?

---

People who deliberately rape, torture, and murder others for their own sexual gratification; who subject others to the maximum possible pain and suffering; who know what they’re doing is wrong and actively evade capture so that they can continue to inflict pain, don’t deserve to continue living. 

This does not answer my question it simply states what acts you think deserve society should be allowed to indulge in vengeance over . 

 IMO.  Yes, I think that serial killers should be condemned forever for serial raping/killing.

Again why that crime and not another ?

---

The way I see it, Fewer resources wasted (Food, Oxygen, Bed).

And who decides if it's being wasted ?

[The Valkyrie]

There are certain crimes, as far as I'm concerned, that are worthy of removal from the planet.

Serial killers.
Terrorists who commit a terrorist act.
Serial rapists.
Serial kiddie fiddlers.
Anyone who commits a murder that results in the prolonged suffering of the victim.
And others...

BUT...

...ther must be absolutely no doubt (and such cases do exist).

Why these crimes and not others ?

If you're not going to have the death penalty then the other penalties need to reflect the severity of the crime. Life should mean life, not out in ten or twenty years.

If you deliberately murder someone then your prison sentence should result in you leaving in a box.

So you would replace state sanctioned murder with state sanctioned torture?

It seems often that laws are all about the rights of the criminal and not the rights of the victims or their families.

Society is judged by how we treat the worst .Brutality towards them is easy . What right do victims have to some else life ?

Where to start...

Because those crimes, as far as I am concerned, are serious enough to warrant permanent removal from the planet. Stealing a loaf of bread, isn't. Even though people were hanged in the past for it.

Locking a murderer up for the rest of his life is torture?

What would you want, smack him on the butt and tell him not to do it again?

Actually, a society is generally judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. Murderers, rapists, and terrorists are generally not the most vulnerable.

I keep hearing about this or that serial offender coming from a broken home or having a rough childhood. There are millions who gave suffered the same or worse but don't become serial offenders.

Who says the victims or their families will be raking a life? I don't even allude to that anywhere. What I said is that laws are too often about the rights of the criminal, not tge family or the victim.

I KNOW this is a sensitive subject, but please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth.

[Amarok]

Why these crimes and not others ?


So you would replace state sanctioned murder with state sanctioned torture?


Society is judged by how we treat the worst .Brutality towards them is easy . What right do victims have to some else life ?

Where to start...

Because those crimes, as far as I am concerned, are serious enough to warrant permanent removal from the planet.  Stealing a loaf of bread, isn't.  Even though people were hanged in the past for it.

Locking a murderer up for the rest of his life is torture?

What would you want, smack him on the butt and tell him not to do it again?

Actually, a society is generally judged on how it treats its most vulnerable.  Murderers, rapists, and terrorists are generally not the most vulnerable.

I keep hearing about this or that serial offender coming from a broken home or having a rough childhood.  There are millions who gave suffered the same or worse but don't become serial offenders.

Who says the victims or their families will be raking a life?  I don't even allude to that anywhere.  What I said is that laws are too often about the rights of the criminal, not tge family or the victim.

I KNOW this is a sensitive subject, but please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth.

1. So people the past clearly that it was alright to kill but this was in error .So why is your opinion be more accurate on what crime should equal death ?

2. would spending the rest of your life in a cage with no hope of escape often in solitary confinement not be torturous to you ?

3.Nope the worst. We have compassion for the vulnerable .The worst are the hardiest to feel sorry for .

4. Two people deal with the same situation differently

5. So what rights do the victims have? And sorry if i misread you .

[The Valkyrie]

1. Once again it's MY opinion. Others aren't going to agree. Some people are so hung up on being advocates for the criminals that they would consider letting murderers out of jail after only a few years of "rehabilitation". While others would advocate just stringing them up.

2. Possibly it would. But if I had gone out and murdered people would it be realistic for me for society to just say it's okay? No, society needs to be protected and I'm not prepared to risk the life if more victims just because the poor murderer/rapist/whatever feels he's being hard dine by.

3. Compassion for the most vulnerable? That doesn't seem to be as common as you may think it us.

4. Of course they do. That's not in dispute.

5. The right not to be raped/murdered/molested. The right to see justice done against the offender.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not about advocacy for a criminal.  What the state does is a seperate issue to what a criminal does.  Criminals are criminals.  Terrible people are terrible people.

What does that have to do with the state being a terrible state? Why should we make our states terrible states...on account of criminals being criminals?

Are they in charge, somehow...are the criminals steering the ship? Why?

If we substitute how we feel about criminals in the consideration of what the state does..it's not surprising that we end up thinking weird things. We're engaging in convenient self deception.

[Amarok]

1.  Once again it's MY opinion.  Others aren't going to agree.  Some people are so hung up on being advocates for the criminals that they would consider letting murderers out of jail after only a few years of "rehabilitation".  While others would advocate just stringing them up.

2.  Possibly it would.  But if I had gone out and murdered people would it be realistic for me for society to just say it's okay?  No, society needs to be protected and I'm not prepared to risk the life if more victims just because the poor murderer/rapist/whatever feels he's being hard dine by.

3.  Compassion for the most vulnerable?  That doesn't seem to be as common as you may think it us.

4.  Of course they do.  That's not in dispute.

5.  The right not to be raped/murdered/molested.  The right to see justice done against the offender.

1. I am a advocate civilized treatment of prisoners and for a just and good society i don't consider that a hang up and please air mark "rehabilitation" it works i have done it . And while it's true Re-offense happens it's also true that at least in America little effort is put in in trying .

2.I'm not saying what they did is okay it just does not warrant inhumane treatment and i think pyschological torture is a bit more then feeling hard done by .

3.Thousands of charities would say otherwise 

4. Good 

5. And not killing a person or psychologically torturing them dies them these rights ?

[The Valkyrie]

1.  Once again it's MY opinion.  Others aren't going to agree.  Some people are so hung up on being advocates for the criminals that they would consider letting murderers out of jail after only a few years of "rehabilitation".  While others would advocate just stringing them up.

2.  Possibly it would.  But if I had gone out and murdered people would it be realistic for me for society to just say it's okay?  No, society needs to be protected and I'm not prepared to risk the life if more victims just because the poor murderer/rapist/whatever feels he's being hard dine by.

3.  Compassion for the most vulnerable?  That doesn't seem to be as common as you may think it us.

4.  Of course they do.  That's not in dispute.

5.  The right not to be raped/murdered/molested.  The right to see justice done against the offender.

1. I am a advocate civilized treatment of prisoners and for a just and good society i don't consider that a hang up and please air mark "rehabilitation" it works i have done it . And while it's true Re-offense happens it's also true that at least in America little effort is put in in trying .

2.I'm not saying what they did is okay it just does not warrant inhumane treatment and i think pyschological torture is a bit more then feeling hard done by .

3.Thousands of charities would say otherwise 

4. Good 

5. And not killing a person or psychologically torturing them dies them these rights ?

1. The re-offending rate in released offenders does not justify the threat of letting dangerous offenders loose to repeat their barbarous acts. While there is some success -kudos to you - seriius offenders shouldn't be allowed out.

2. I'm not justifying physical or psychological abuse or torture. But I don't see locking up a prisoner, especially a violent repeat offender, as torture. Of course the prisoner might disagree but we see them playing the victim game all too often. An example is the piece of shit neo nazi who murdered so many kids in Norway. A few years ago he complained of inhumane treatment because the authorities wouldn't provide him with an xbox.

3. Yes thousands of charities and the millions who support them would disagree. But the tens of millions who voted for the likes of Trump wouldn't.

4. Good part 2.

5. Again, who said the victims or their families would get to torture anyone? And I don't see prison sentence as torture. In fact many prisoners in the West get better access to food and medical treatment than the average citizen. Such a shame they're inconvenienced by being jailed for their crimes...

Hypothetical: Eight year old Tina is walking to school one morning and is attacked by one or more dogs. She suffers horrible wounds and eventually dies of the wounds.

Should the dogs be put to sleep or smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and told not to do it again?

I hope your answer would be the former.

Now, replace the dogs in the scenario with humans. They kidnap, rape and torture Tina before killing her.

Should they be treated any differently than the dogs?

Why?