Here are the most likely reasons for this: 1. You are young and naïve, reveling in your sense of youthful invincibility and therefore have not so much as considered the possibility of your death and its consequences. 2. You are young and naïve, and your lack of life experience has led you to the sort of extreme cynicism that you have exhibited here on previous occasions and even now. Your depression and naïveté have led you, as a result, to see death as an ideal escape. Regardless, you do not speak for the majority, or even a significant portion thereof. Your personal views on death, however misinformed, do not change a thing. Straw man argument. Religion is totally irrelevant. If you took the time to actually learn a little about pretty much any religion ever, you'd see that love and peace are almost always principle tenets. If you're as cynical as you seem, you'd also be well aware that it's mankind's exploitation of religion as an excuse for war that's at fault here. >implying objectivity Don't get so high and mighty like that when all you're presenting is your own malformed opinion. Attempting to instill the very fear you claim not to feel. Is this cognitive dissonance or mere hypocrisy?
Human beings just aren't smart enough to come up with a sure-fire way of killing someone and never getting caught.
What crimes i think you should get convicted for a death penalty: Raping Murder Assassination Drug Possesion/Smuggling. It's that simple. If there werent any damn drugs in this world wed have a better environment around us... not like now, where theres guns and crime and drugs, etc....
Yeah..!! all those millions that would die of malaria, aids, cancer and peptic ulcers. Who needs drugs?! We could kerb the street with dead bodies, what an environment that would be.
Lol, Nex Anyway, all the killing because of drugs is because they are illegal, simple fix, make drugs legal! gotta get high brb
What loony said. Here's an example:death-penalty-and-innocence Those are some cases of people that were able to get away.How can you be sure that all of them do? Lol, that was good. What was even better was StreetRacer's response to that. ;D By the same logic, how can we be sure they are smart enough to always convict the right person? Add to that corruption and other human errors, and there's a good chance an innocent life might be lost.
trust me, i wish i was that young. i know, if the majority was willing to see the true, they wont protest. they want show mercy, good for them, just not to murderer. also those people who openly protest, most likely never experience the grief of their beloved forcefully being taken away from them. all they see is, the government is killing a human, regardless of what it did. like i said, if you want to save a murderer, next time it escapes dont blame the government for not doing their job, especially it take someone you loved with them. life time imprison is a temporarily solution while death penalty is the permanent solution. well except for Buddhism, every religion is operating in the core of, be good or you'll goto hell, period. i dont see where the love and peace are the core in a religion when you need to be good or you'll goto hell. people will do whatever they will if you scared them enough, in religion case going to hell, to those religious are doing good just to not go to hell, not doing good just because its the right thing to do. however that is how the religion used to work anyway, in the time of science more and more people dont believe that anymore and leaving the religion. as for going for war because of religion, well that another story. malformed or not, its the true. people who protest (like you) doesnt want to kill the murderer, saying he or she have human rights (or blah blah whatever reason), but you guys surely doesnt want a murderer to kill again. from what i see, you cant get one if you get another. IF you guys want to save the murderer, you are giving the murderer another chance to kill again, so if you doesnt want him to kill again, you have to kill the murderer. there is no other way. i dont fear death, but i never said i dont fear dying (dying and death is very differ things), thats why i welcome a painless death, because i skiped the dying part. but i doubt the murderer will give me a painless death. without drug, most people would have died right now, drug isnt limited to morphine or cocaine. nicotine (cigarette), alcohol (beer) and all the medicine you take is drug. without them i would most likely died of suffocation in my last asthma attack or blood poisoning from my infect wound in my last deep cut. drug arent to blame, its the people who abuse drug is to blame. join an international organize crime organization, you will most likely never get caught for murdering, well if you do get caught, they will either rescue you or let you rot in prison or kill you them self depending how deep are you in the organization....
Young at heart, young in mind. I was talking about your disregard for death. You may not appreciate its significance, but most do. Again, implying objectivity in calling your opinion truth. I can see your "truth", but I'm sure as hell not bending my own sense of right or wrong to accommodate it. You're presupposing that certain actions deserve to be punished by death and acting like this is an axiomatic truth. It's not; it's merely your opinion. I heard a story a while back of the wife of a murdered man who told the culprit that she forgave him at the conclusion of his trial. Holding grudges is emotionally exhausting and destructive rather than productive, which is something few people (including you) seem to realise. The government's job is to administrate a functional society, to which crime is detrimental. However, capital punishment is not the only means of achieving this as you seem to believe. Secure internment of convicts or better training for law enforcement officials, for example, go a long way in this regard. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Solution to what? Capital punishment causes a whole new range of issues for which there is no solution, such as the waste of genetic code and a life that could still be put to use in serving society in some capacity. It can also be used as a threat during plea bargain negotiations, which may lead to agreements under duress. Again, straw man argument. If you want to debate religion, I'd be happy to oblige you, but it's completely irrelevant here. At any rate, this again is merely your cynically distorted view and not an established fact of nature. There is no other way? You're saying that every murderer would jump at the chance to re-offend, while innocent people would perish the thought. If that were the case, then how would one become a murderer to begin with? Most are first-offenders, after all. The distinction is redundant here. The problem with one's "life being robbed away" (your words) is the same as the problem people have with death itself; ie, the loss of opportunity to do, have, or experience.
that women was noble, but i also heard (more like watch in penn and teller bullshit), a little girl got rape and murder the second the murderer got paroled (or it is escape, i dont remember). If that murderer got his death penalty, that father would still have his little girl with him right now. not only that, i also heard a countless case of murderer who escape or got paroled offend as soon as there are free. still think there is another way? vengeance may be is a bad thing, but having this one revenge will save the rest of you from having the same fate and emotional pain. dying and death are 2 differ things. death is when you brain dies, you doesnt know anything nor able to feel anything.... while dying is when is suffer, pain, and other signal that are telling you that your body are dying. i may agree IF the government have the system like the minority report, but in reality, you can never preventing crime 100%, you can only take precaution to minimize your encounter with criminal. so in crime fighting, cure is more importance since we cant prevent crime. oh, it just came into my mind, Death Penalty can be use to imply fear to soon-to-be-criminal so they wont kill.... a prevention in a form of punishment... who am i kidding, isnt that how law work in the 1st place?
This is what comes under the government not doing its job. Nonetheless, statistically speaking, there are extremely few cases like that proportional to the number of convicted murderers. Therefore, the cases you refer to can be dismissed as an availability heuristic. By the way, I can easily provide you with a list of wrongful executions if you so desire. According to the prominent Jewish philosopher Maimonides, "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." This is still assuming that convicted murderers are more likely to kill than those who haven't yet. I specifically said the distinction is redundant here as we were both referring to the same concept. The deterrence effect of capital punishment is highly questionable. There are two ways of examining this: statistically and psychologically. For the former, use of the death penalty is so rare in proportion to the number of convictions that any change in murder rates could just as likely be attributed to a plethora of other factors. For the latter, there is another hypothesis which claims that legal executions may lead people to believe that killing, especially retaliatory, is permissible. Furthermore, many murders are committed on impulse without proper consideration of the potential consequences.
like i said earlier dont blame the government for not doing its job if you want to save the murderer. the government want them death, but you guys want to keep them alive. maybe they will, maybe they wont, can you say for sure they wont kill again? arent you the one who said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. by killing a convicted murderer, you are prevent it from killing in the future, its an vaccination for the society. arent people are allow to kill in self defense? i dont really understand the bolded part. and also like you say murderer are committed on impluse (instinct), or compulsion (needed to) (most series killier kill by either by one of those)... there is no solution for stoping them other then killing them.
As I said, proper enforcement of law is not exclusive to the application of capital punishment. I already listed a few alternatives to that effect. If a government is not able to meet the standards of the people it represents, it should be criticised to promote improvement. A look at the circumstances of each murderer on a case by case basis should be should be sufficient to determine how long to incarcerate them for. Indiscriminate execution, however, is a slippery slope that could lead to unnecessary loss of life. Not necessarily that kind of retaliation. For example, the owner of a corner shop might murder the manager of the big Walmart down the road that's been stealing his customers, or a cuckold might murder the person who stole the attention of their spouse. There's also the issues of vigilante justice and extrajudicial execution. By that logic, everyone everywhere should be executed to prevent them from ever murdering anyone else.
improvement for dealling with murderer does not exist. would that work to people like Charles Manson or that animal who rape and kill that little girl in penn and teller? you can never be sure if the killer would or would not kill again. there is a problem with that... those people in your example arent law enforcement nor the victim is declare guilty in the court of law. except that logic only apply to murderer. even they have the impulse to kill as long as they didnt kill yet, they arent murderer....
