Agreed but after so many similar posts that make me ask the same questions(some just as if not worse), sorry bud we are gonna be stuck with it.
Calling you out on one thing: prison beds are not soft. People have the right to talk about this kind of stuff, whether you like it or not. Unless this thread gets derailed or a heated argument happens, I see no reason for the staff to lock this thread. It does not break any rules, whereas advertising your EMC business on a thread unrelated to it is. P.S If someone isn't old enough to have an informed opinion on something political, they should learn while they're young and start to form one. A lot of people have no clue about how politics work and a lot of the time don't think they have an effect on their life... when, obviously, they plan out where your entire life is going to go. Hey there. I'm a supporter of the Labour party (they're more liberal than non-liberal, but they definitely aren't ), an atheist and I have mixed views on pro-life and pro...death (although in terms of abortion: I'm pro-choice, fo sho)? I can't tell if you're serious or not...
Like I clearly stated in my post, you don't have to post if you don't want to, and I stated to keep the thread PG rated. If you have a problem with this thread then go cry to the forum police about it, I'm doing nothing wrong posting this thread and having a discussion with people in the area that is designated "Community Discussions". Please think before you post.
This was posted in the wrong forum so it has been moved to Misc. Misc forum can be used for anything that is not related to EMC as long as it doesn't break rules... so this thread is ok.
Even if it isn't being used, why couldn't it still be legal as an option even if you don't plan on using it? Criminals are unpredictable, so keep your options open.
I don't see the point in that, mostely because, if you aren't using it, why would you still want it in the law?
But the death sentence also gives them tons of free things they don't need to pay for like incredibly expensive lawyers and home for the decade or more they will spend waiting on death row along with any other expenses of life. The death sentence is not cheap at all and has been proven many times to be much more expensive for taxpayers. If we are only talking about costs to taxpayers, it makes much more sense to ban it.
I think this a good thing. The death sentence has obviously never been a deterrent to any form of crime. If it was, no one would be getting the death sentence. And as others have stated, it's actually more expensive to keep someone on death row than to put them in life imprisonment. Also, is sentencing people to death any better than what the person being convicted did? It might not meet the definition of murder, but is it honestly any better? Is it simply lawful (not justified) killing?
I'm personally with the belief that once someone does something bad, they WILL do it again if they know they can get away with it or even be treated well after the fact. Murder is no exception; once these murderous people are let back onto the streets, what's to stop them from killing another person? Nothing, except maybe another lockup in prison. As for life sentences? Our tax money is keeping these people alive. Good for us, right? Also, we still have racial police killings and police getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist -- or "paid administrative leave," at best. But that's another topic altogether. The best part, however, that IS related to all this -- is they can get away with it over and over and over. And that's the key point here, folks. I don't understand why the death penalty is so bad. At the same time, I only think it should be used in dire cases in which someone actually DOES shoot several people up, or is more likely to shoot more people up in the future. As for me, I never touch a gun or knife anyway, so I'd obviously be exempt from death row, nor do I emotionally abuse people like another family member has (and you bet I'll get to that later). But you can't justify leaving someone alive who you KNOW will be a threat to humanity. Why does society try to keep these crazed lunatics alive, or even protect them? I should mention that just the use of the term "pro-life" itself makes me shudder uncomfortably, for many reasons. On a final note: 1. If you're purposely doing something that causes harm to humanity, or other living things around you because you believe you can get away with it time-and-time again, or if you're so abusive that you cause both physical AND emotional harm on someone's life while ENJOYING it... then yes. You deserve to die if you're a direct threat to multiple people around you. If you're contributing nothing to humanity, constantly punching, kicking, and beating the flesh out of everyone who doesn't agree with you, or you constantly belittle other human beings and tell them that they're worthless, then what makes you think you deserve to live? Especially if you've been this way for at least 50 years of your life; no amount of "facilitated correctioning" or "unconditional love" is going to change these peoples' minds. Some people actually DO get a high from making others feel depressed or beating their loved ones around them into a pulp. Yes, people like this DO exist in the world. I should know, I lived with such a human being myself... dare I even refer to him as a human being, and dare I even refer to him as family. A "nasty pile of garbage that's been sitting out for at least a year in sunlight" sounds more accurate. 2. Also, military killings. I can't stress this enough. It's 2015 and guess where over half our government funding is going? You guessed it. 55% on military spending. And look at that: 5% on housing/community, 2% on transportation and 1% on food/agriculture. Less than 10% of what living beings NEED to SURVIVE is government-funded. (up to 13% if you include Medicare/Health, something we wouldn't need funding on if only so many of us weren't so poor) "why would that be any different for a government?" Doesn't appear to be that different for OUR government, at least. HAY GAIZ LET'S ABOLISH DEATH ROW IN ONE STATE OUT OF THE 50 WE HAVE TO MAKE EVERYONE THINK WE'RE GOOD GAIZ BUT KEEP OUR COUNTRY FIGHTING IN WARS TO MAKE IRAQIS ETC LOOK LIKE TERRORISTS BECAUSE VIOLENCE IS NEVER THE ANSWER AMIRITE HYUCK HYUCK HYUCK ...Hypocrites.
painting everyone with broad strokes is generally not a good idea. i stole a toy once from a toy store when i was thirteen. i didn't continue stealing even when i knew i could get away with it.
Granted, most people don't fall into this category. But some do. It's because of people that do that have made it hard for me to trust others, especially after living with an individual who has directly negatively influenced me for the majority of my life now (and yes, I'm still getting over it, but it's a very long and painfully emotional process). As I stated before, Emphasis on some. I never said all people were like that. I never said everyone was like that. I said some people. I understand that most people don't. If these people have done things like this for, say, maybe a week or two or more, then they could be disciplined and educated and loved, and be let free afterwards without the death penalty, knowing that they could move on and better themselves. But for some people, who have had a huge history of doing harm to others since they were a child and this distinct behavior going completely unchecked even after they reach adulthood, that's not possible. Also... We're talking about murders and deaths. Not petty thefts. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
A few points: 1. I'm 41 years old and the older I get, the less I feel like taking sides on anything controversial. 2. I think the cost issue is a sort of red herring. The issue is about the death penalty and not cost. If you take one side or the other, defend your position about the morality of your side. I don't think I've seen any really good arguments on either side about the morality. Some emotional reactions, but no really good arguments. No offence. Just my opinion. 3. Stealing something from a store is a whole lot different than killing someone. Also, motivation for killing someone really does make a difference. I know this is horrible to talk about, but these situations happen. i.e. Someone violently rapes and kills your child. You know the person and go and shoot them dead in cold blood. This is murder. They did murder and you return with murder. Death penalty? No. This, by the court of law, is usually ruled as manslaughter. Why? Motivation. However, running into a crowded theater and shooting everyone breathing in there to kill as many people as possible? This is something else entirely. Pre-planned. Senselessly. For the thrill of the kill, or whatever motivation, it makes no difference. This should have a different definition. It is not the same thing. In that same line of logic, using the death penalty would not be the same as a violent person killing for fun. You can call it the same word 'murder', but it is not the same thing. You can be against it, but don't equate it. These things aren't equal. OK, that's enough from me. Please don't misinterpret anything I said above. I really don't know which side of this issue I fall on and I don't disrespect the earlier arguments. You are intelligent and thoughtful commentators. I just don't feel that any above arguments are very strong.
