Do you support the death penalty?

[McBell]

The only concern I would have about being executioner is , creating a new generation of murder victims excluding the defendant.
Incarceration is where we in the UK draw the line ,life .
They get everyday to think about it . A life sentence that means life . Incarceration is justifiable where as punishing offenders family more than nessesary is revenge like punishment . Is not always mums fault if her son becomes a murderer .
I live in country without death penalty is unlikely we can agree .

What does this have to do with my post?

I am not completely blanket disagreeing with you.
I am merely pointing out that it is not the false dichotomy you presented.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

What does this have to do with my post?

I am not completely blanket disagreeing with you.
I am merely pointing out that it is not the false dichotomy you presented.

Wow insult much doing nothing was never an option .
I don't compose legal documents for Queens council was broad idea of reasoning , doing nothing would balance scale of justice ? No would it heck , then people be turning to revenge again , justice is a compromise.

 

[McBell]

Wow insult much doing nothing was never an option .
I don't compose legal documents for Queens council was broad idea of reasoning , doing nothing would balance scale of justice ? No would it heck , then people be turning to revenge again , justice is a compromise.

Insult?
What insult are you talking about?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Insult?
What insult are you talking about?

OASN:
Where do you draw the line?
Your above "reasoning" can be used to justify the not ever doing a thing to anyone.

You said is insult me you think I do not consider victims family like to contradict to rebalance the scale , is the requirement . Some need death is a DNA thing but we try not to be animals .

 

[McBell]

OASN:
Where do you draw the line?
Your above "reasoning" can be used to justify the not ever doing a thing to anyone.

You said is insult me you think I do not consider victims family like to contradict to rebalance the scale , is the requirement . Some need death is a DNA thing but we try not to be animals .

If you are honestly that thin skinned, the internet is not for you.

The fact is, your reasoning as presented can be used to justify never doing anything to punish anyone.
Thus the reason I asked where you draw the line.

 

[Poisonshady313]

http://mtabolitionco.org/issues/secondary-trauma/
Executions Create New Victims
Executions also create a new generation of murder victims in the families of the condemned. Families of condemned death row inmates must face “a prolonged period of anticipatory grieving” and must live with the shame that their family members “have been formally . . . judged unworthy to live."

Robert Meeropol, whose parents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, were executed in 1953 when he was six years old, was anxious and confused on the night of his parent’s execution. He says he only survived because of a supportive community.

When Bill Babbitt realized his brother Manny, a veteran, had taken the life of an elderly woman, he turned Manny over to authorities. He was told that Manny, who was seriously mentally ill, would get the help he needed. Instead, Manny was executed and Bill, his elderly mother, and the rest of his family became yet another set of victims"

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg made their son a victim. Not the executioner.
Manny made his family another set of victims. He could have prevented that by not taking the life of an elderly woman.

Whatever "families of condemned death row inmates must face" isn't the fault of the existence of the death penalty. It's the fault of the murderer who committed murder.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg made their son a victim. Not the executioner.
Manny made his family another set of victims. He could have prevented that by not taking the life of an elderly woman.

Whatever "families of condemned death row inmates must face" isn't the fault of the existence of the death penalty. It's the fault of the murderer who committed murder.

No doubt so long as we do not call it justice I have no problem

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

If you are honestly that thin skinned, the internet is not for you.

The fact is, your reasoning as presented can be used to justify never doing anything to punish anyone.
Thus the reason I asked where you draw the line.

Doing nothing would not do justice , is only as you do not understand the word justice in English language and English law in England is a problem
Doing nothing was never an option , life imprisonment was my line if you look back a minimum to balance the scales
It worry me that other country devalue the English word justice which can be seen working in my country , it devalue the rights my ancestors struggled for. It devalue all my belief of human rights .
Maybe is as I believe despite the rhetoric no one goes to hell , is like trying to send someone to hell , the logic to support argument is primitive .
If my daughter got murdered , I would want his mum and dad dead as well , and the family pets for good measure .
So even I accept a compromise for the greater good.
Sorry we tripped over each other on differences maybe due to not living in same country .

 

[Kirran]

Well, for what reason are they saying it is not okay? I don't see it not okay unless stunning hurts more than slaughtering. I have more to say, but I don't wanna get off-topic.

I don't know really, there've been lots of fatwas flying. In fact the whole reason for prior stunning is that it prevents some degree of the suffering which would be occurring otherwise.

I don't think this is off-topic, it's both about killing sentient creatures.

Yes, more opinions of more parties, just like the ones you and I are having. Thanks for sharing

Yes Although another very good point raised by one of the bishops there was that the death penalty leaves no possibility for living redemption.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I don't know really, there've been lots of fatwas flying. In fact the whole reason for prior stunning is that it prevents some degree of the suffering which would be occurring otherwise.

I don't think this is off-topic, it's both about killing sentient creatures.



Yes Although another very good point raised by one of the bishops there was that the death penalty leaves no possibility for living redemption.

Some animals get the jist of what's going on emotionally Animals pain builds up slower however becomes just as intense within fractions of seconds . That's why is more humane to do quick.
Reality I can go bone to bone with our Irish staffy leaves me in agony he never flinches, looks at me like I'm soft.
If it needs halal type death penalty is time chuck in towel ?

What does this have to do with my post?

I am not completely blanket disagreeing with you.
I am merely pointing out that it is not the false dichotomy you presented.

I understand now , yes you did misunderstand ,defendants parents are not murder victims , until after execution .
New generation of murder victim I said .

 

[McBell]

Doing nothing would not do justice , is only as you do not understand the word justice in English language and English law in England is a problem
Doing nothing was never an option , life imprisonment was my line if you look back a minimum to balance the scales
It worry me that other country devalue the English word justice which can be seen working in my country , it devalue the rights my ancestors struggled for. It devalue all my belief of human rights .
Maybe is as I believe despite the rhetoric no one goes to hell , is like trying to send someone to hell , the logic to support argument is primitive .
If my daughter got murdered , I would want his mum and dad dead as well , and the family pets for good measure .
So even I accept a compromise for the greater good.
Sorry we tripped over each other on differences maybe due to not living in same country .

Thank you.
That is the line I was asking about.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I don't know really, there've been lots of fatwas flying. In fact the whole reason for prior stunning is that it prevents some degree of the suffering which would be occurring otherwise.

I don't think this is off-topic, it's both about killing sentient creatures.

I actually come across studies in an extensive research yesterday that say halal slaughtering does not inflict pain that's worth it and the twitching we see is a physical reaction because of pulses going down the brain to the body while having no blood supply from the body to the brain causes no pain to happen. It is like having numbness in wounds using anesthesia, or having a brain dead body while body parts are still alive. Right now it is related to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Schulze and that they used devices to monitor brain pulses.

I think this is off-topic. The OP is about death penalty, regardless to pain. The pain sub-topic was brought as a side note due to a series of explanations. Either way, this will be lost in this thread if it goes on like this. You can start a new thread to go on with it. I of course don't say for sure that hala slaughtering does not inflict pain for sure.

Yes Although another very good point raised by one of the bishops there was that the death penalty leaves no possibility for living redemption.

Which was an interesting point really. I enjoyed the video.

 

[9Westy9]

Continuing from another thread. Do you support the death penalty and if you do, what crimes should be punished with death?

What reasons do you have for being for or against? If you are for or against the penalty are there any exceptions where you think it should or shouldn't be applied?

Vehemently against it. Juries are never going to be 100% correct in all their decisions.

 

[icehorse]

No, I do not support the death penalty.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Continuing from another thread. Do you support the death penalty and if you do, what crimes should be punished with death?

What reasons do you have for being for or against? If you are for or against the penalty are there any exceptions where you think it should or shouldn't be applied?

I am for it, with regards to cold blooded murder (without evidence of mental illness), rape and pediphilia, just off the top of my head. The reasons should be pretty obvious.

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

I'm 100% in favor of the death penalty. Murderers deserve their comeuppance.

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

I don't support death penalty out of some revenge emotion but if it's an effective deterrent I support it. Why is it more humane to make them rot in jail for the rest of their lives?

What's wrong with a revenge? If a guy slaughtered your daughter, wouldn't you want him to die? Vengeance is human nature and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

I'm against the death penalty. For one, I like giving people the opportunity to repent and change their thinking internally and help their spiritual condition. 2) It also seems cruel and barbaric. 3) Forgiveness is healthier than vengeance. 4) Court convictions can be in error too.

Vengeance is pretty healthy, if you ask me. Suppression is unhealthy.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

What's wrong with a revenge? If a guy slaughtered your daughter, wouldn't you want him to die? Vengeance is human nature and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Why is everything in 'human nature' correct or desirable?