Teen sentenced to 90 years

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Four.

As soon as we get to five it's absolutely out-of-hand.

So sarcasm is it. It's an alternative form of misdirection. But you have made your assertion, so we see that you condone murder, no more than 4 per year, yet want to kill murderers.

Actually, I haven't stated anything of the sort. How can you ask "How many innocent people is it okay to execute?" The answer is obviously none, but the only way to guarantee that is to not execute anybody. Fair enough. I get the point.

I don't know how I feel about the death penalty. There are some people who don't deserve to be out in society. I don't care whether they're dead or locked up for life, as long as their "life sentence" is actually life and not twenty years. There are some people who should never be allowed in society. My personal opinion is that, if I was to be locked up for my entire life, I'd rather be dead, which is why I would rather execute somebody who is plainly guilty and isn't going to be released. At the same time, I understand that the justice system isn't perfect, that we have executed and locked up innocent people. I also understand that sending someone to death row costs more than simply imprisoning him for life. I also understand that many of the proponents for the death penalty are so because of a desire for revenge, and justice is not about revenge.

In the end, I don't care about the death penalty. Removal from society is sufficient. However, at the same time, there have been those who have been powerful enough to cause deaths from within prison. These people should be terminated.

I'll see if I can find the thread about the guy I'm thinking of.

Quote

How can you hate guys like Dahmer, Bundy, Gacey when you condone murder? Or is it that they just exceeded the number?

If a killer has a gun to your child's head and is most likely going to pull the trigger, but you are behind him, out of his view, and can kill him first, would you do so?

If yes, how can you hate guys like Dahmer, Bundy, Gacey, when you too would kill somebody?

Quote

If a killer has a gun to your child's head and is most likely going to pull the trigger, but you are behind him, out of his view, and can kill him first, would you do so?

Of course, it's called justifyable homicide.

Quote

If yes, how can you hate guys like Dahmer, Bundy, Gacey, when you too would kill somebody?

Killing out of saving teh life of someone else and killing to exact revenge, retribution, etc are WORLDS apart. I can;t believe you actually think they are the same. All of the above people killed as a part of a sexual ritual, saving your kid or another kid is not only justifyable it is neccessary. Are you that out of gas that you need to group Dahmer with the guy killing an intruder to save his child?

[unformed 0]

Quote

Killing out of saving teh life of someone else and killing to exact revenge, retribution, etc are WORLDS apart. I can;t believe you actually think they are the same. All of the above people killed as a part of a sexual ritual, saving your kid or another kid is not only justifyable it is neccessary. Are you that out of gas that you need to group Dahmer with the guy killing an intruder to save his child?

Execution for revenge is wrong. As I stated above, someone should not be executed simply to get revenge or retribution.

However, some people are dangerous even while in prison. Take Clarence Ray Allen who successfully ordered hits from prison against those who had testified against him. So was he not still a danger to society even after being locked up?

Ted Bundy escaped more than once, his last time he killed quite a few people before he was caught again. Should he have been kept alive as well?

What about leaders of terrorist organizations, where the organization would undoubtedly try to free them if it was at all possible? Should they be allowed to live as well?

Not every execution is done solely for revenge.

This ad space for sale.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Killing out of saving teh life of someone else and killing to exact revenge, retribution, etc are WORLDS apart. I can;t believe you actually think they are the same. All of the above people killed as a part of a sexual ritual, saving your kid or another kid is not only justifyable it is neccessary. Are you that out of gas that you need to group Dahmer with the guy killing an intruder to save his child?

Execution for revenge is wrong. As I stated above, someone should not be executed simply to get revenge or retribution.

However, some people are dangerous even while in prison. Take Clarence Ray Allen who successfully ordered hits from prison against those who had testified against him. So was he not still a danger to society even after being locked up?

Ted Bundy escaped more than once, his last time he killed quite a few people before he was caught again. Should he have been kept alive as well?

What about leaders of terrorist organizations, where the organization would undoubtedly try to free them if it was at all possible? Should they be allowed to live as well?

Not every execution is done solely for revenge.

There was a show about gang leaders in prison for life without parole in solitary confinement that were able to run their gangs (inside the prison and outside the prison) by encrypting messages in letters. These individuals will never be rehabilitated or released and will always pose a threat to society (innocent individuals) even in solitary confinement in prison. Is justice served?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch