But being placed in a cell for the rest of his life is being held accountable. You'd rather see him dead than perhaps helps hundreds of other people turn their lives around?

I'm not saying he should be let off the hook, he should be punished, but I can't see the death of one criminal outweighing the potential to help hundreds (thousands?) of people.



Every study that I've seen has shown that executing a criminal is much more costly than sentencing him to life in prison (link).

And death penalty proponents in this thread have yet to offer a justification for the wrongly executed. Are the wrongfully convicted on death row simply expendable in your eyes? An acceptable loss?

OK, I was thinking about this and came up with an idea.

As opposed to killing them, let them live their life in a cell and never see the sunlight again. Allow no mail or coomunication with the outside world, and don't kill them.

I also remember spe having an extreme idea to gouge out their eyes, cut off all limbs, and cut off their tongue so they're living, but can't do anything. Feed them daily, and let them breathe was his idea. It's a little extreme, but since we don't know how bad death it that's punishing them for their actions.

He can start by advocating that the Crips be dissolved immediately and all of the members strive to do good. To date, he has not done such. In fact, he still does business with them. And he's helping hundreds (thousands) save their lives? Better yet why does he not save his own children from these nefarious deeds.

Oh and by the way, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, yeah that court, struck his appeal down. If they cannot find a way to stay his execution then you know he absolutely does not deserve it.

That's because there are numerous appeals that are frightfully expensive.

You know, I'm sitting up here in Canada and I'm laughing at every single one of you who supports execution. The police are too lazy and incompetent to find the people who actually killed someone, the witnesses are too frightened and inept to finger the right person, and the jurists are mad at you for wasting their time. I hope your belief in execution is strong enough that you'd be willing to die for it.

I am against the Death Penalty. To me, it's not a deterrence to violent crimes, it's a cheap release for criminals.

And "seeking justice for the families"? Ya, I don't buy that bull**** either. Eye for an eye doesnt work, and many US citizens profess a belief in the tenets of Christianity and... death penalty just doesnt fly with the teachings of Christ.

Yay for generalizations!

Like I said... I hope you are willing to die for your beliefs, because other innocent people are dying for you every damn day. And I'm not just talking about execution.

Although I really doubt you would be willing to die for (or because) of them. I think, the second you were wrongly accused of murder and put up for the death penalty, you'd be making impassioned pleas for your life and explaining how bad and unjust the death penalty is. But that's just a generalization.

What other innocent people? I do not believe that to this day, there has not been a person executed and yet later to be found innocent. If this is to what you're referring.

I will take away your homes,
take away your job,
take away your savings,
take away your family,
take away your friends,
take away your car.

But I will give you a pistol and a ski mask.

What now seperates you from a criminal? Will you discard these tools? Will you kill me? Will you make a desperate bid to regain money? Will you try to fight to get your family and friends back, or avenge their deaths, assuming I killed them? Will you steal a car? Will you join a gang?

The criminals are you. Stand most criminals next to you and you can't tell the difference. Most criminals were never going to commit a crime until circumstance pushed them to it. That by no means makes it right, but neither does it utterly condemn them.

And everytime I say this, some self righteous ******* comes out and yells at me and spews some crap that, while not directly saying it, relegates criminals to less-than-human status. I ignore them, because I know that they are probably not aquianted in any way with desperation, and probably not death. Exceptions of course, but in general, it is a person who simply can't see the criminal inside of themself that arbitrarily promotes the death penalty. Then, someone usually hears me say 'criminal inside themselves' and condemns me for hinting that crime is a natural act. Guess what, it is. You have choices, you can choose paths of crime or paths of service, but that doesn't stop either from being inside of you already.

eye for an eye is such bull****

if someone murders a whole family what do you do to them? if you believe in eye for an eye you would murder their whole family


eye for an eye is a position no one supports in the modern world, you simply haven't thought about it.

The people supporting the death penalty may be laughable, but those advocating torture, mutilation and otherwise opposing the death penalty in favour of punishments 'worse than death', are just plain disgusting. People like:


What is even supposed to be the point of this? It certainly isn't 'justice', and it isn't even 'revenge' - it is purely to satisfy your perverse bloodlust. It is narrowmindedness to such a ridiculous extent to see nothing beyond a kneejerk reaction.

I expect civilised society to grant everyone basic human rights. And by everyone I mean everyone. The civility of a society can be judged by its treatment of its least desireables.


Considering the nonsense in much of this thread, I shall quote this one thoroughly sensible reply just so that you get to read it twice:

I recall at least 2 people from this thread alone that believe in eye for an eye.. So no, your point is moot.

To those that say "WHY?".. My response is that any person that willingly kills someone else deserves it.

In your worldview.

You see, while the moral of murder being wrongful is (virtually) universal, the punishment for such act is not. However, related concepts are.

You see, the thing is, eye for an eye doesn't really exist. It's more of a 'they did something bad, let's do something bad to them back' situation than anything. That is not justice, that is revenge. Justice is about setting things right and keeping order. Revenge is about satisfying an animal instict that is on the most base level of human existence. There are people who are perfectly okay with that, the people who want to 'satisfy their natural yearnings'. Oh, goodness, aren't people like that often criminals?

The people who have said they believe in eye for an eye, do not believe in it, as the concept truly stands. They may believe in relatively harsh retrobution, and they can call that eye for an eye if they like, but it is not. Eye for an eye involves directly returning a wrong onto the head of whomever commited it. Civilized people don't do that, we started to figure this out in something hundred B.C.E. and the third grade. Unfortunately, not everyone gets it. Those are the people, who generate disharmony. Those are-often-the criminals, the war mongers, the hateful wretches who fill the wonderful media with horrid images to give the good people something to be apalled toward. But again, they are people, they are the same as we are, they just have a different view of the world, one which is (because it cannot exist peacefully alongside that of most people) wrong.

Consider the law. If you see a man on the street rape a woman, in full view, and then shoot her in the head, and you return the favor by raping him, and shooting him in the head, will you go to jail? Yes, you have commited a crime, no less heinous because you did it to someone who had just done the same thing. This is where an odd incongruency emerges between the death penalty, and American society (and more importantly, civilized society, of which America is only a part).

Even if the majority of the people in the world wanted the death penalty (debatable) that does not mean it should stand. It deprives people of what is widley held to be one of the basic human rights;

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (property)

It's the first one! This phrase was originated by John Locke, and changed from property to happiness by Thomas Jefferson and his posse. However, it is fairly universally held, that these are the things which all human beings, regardless of race, religion, social standing (criminals alike) or moral character, are entitled. If you choose to disagree with this, you are setting yourselves at odds with the body of the civilized world.

(edit)Something obvious I just realized. Read your post. Anyone who willingly kills someone deserves it? What then do we deserve for the killing of criminals who 'deserve it'? Shall we all be killed as well?

No, because we're purging society of something that is directly harmful to it. If he manages to get parole or serves his time, what's to stop a repeat occurence? With capital punishment, it's guaranteed he won't kill someone inside or outside the walls.

Keeping someone alive in iso until they die is stupid. They're already dead to society, stop wasting money on the air they breathe

Fair enough, JG. However, unless the letters I've seen were forged, he has helped kids turn their lives around. But I understand your skepticism.


I'm aware of that. So, you acknowledge that executing a criminal is much more expensive for taxpayers than letting him live in prison?


I'll say it one more time: Executions cost the tax payers more than life sentences.

So... it doesn't deter crime, it's more expensive for the taxpayers, and there is the risk of executing innocent people. Can anyone give a logical reason for supporting the death penalty? "I think bad people should die" does not count as practical reason.

....if everybody joined gangs there wouldn't be enough loot to go around? Maybe?

Of course I do. I advocate steam lining the system so the executions of the worst criminals happens a lot faster, thus reducing the cost.

Wouldn't that increase the possibility of wrongful execution?

Not so much today. The problem is that the appeals take years and years and years when that could be whittled down and done faster. Also, I'm talking about people whith multiple murders under their belt, so people who've committed one would be locked up for life and never let out.

whew man... this is a toutchy topic. i'm not going to state my opinion on the death sentance, but. to the best of my knoledge there has NEVER been anyone who has been executed and then later found to be innocent. if anyone has evidence showing otherwise please do tell. as for tookie, nothing he has done or can ever do will ever even begin to make up for what he did. even if he is helping keep kids out of gangs he still does not dserve to be recognized for it. he still to this day will not help police with anything concerning the crip(sp?) gangs. i believe that if you take the life of an innocent person then your basic human rights are forfeit. even ifhe has changed i still dont think he feserves anything! he killed four innocent people! one man a convenience store clerk was shot in the back twice by williams with a shotgun and then williams proceeded to make fun of the mans gurgling sounds as he died. he also killed a family of asian people, an elderly couple and their daughter, and called them budda heads.... BUDDA HEADS!!! wtf!!! if he had stolen money he could pay it back if he had dammaged property he could fix it, or pay for it to get fixxed, you cannot pay back a human life. not even by saving others.
and for anyone who is thinking what about war? innocent people die in war dont they? yes they do and its tragic, but sometimes war is necessary, if the civilized countries fefused to do what is necessary during times of war we would all probably be speaking german or japaneese right now. there was nothing necessary about the death of those four innocent people.

Again, it's only more expensive because our legal system is incapable of disallowing PROVEN criminals appeals and parole hearings.

If a criminal wants to appeal his sentence and is on death row, his loved ones should have to pay the entire costs of his living and his court fees in full OUT OF POCKET. That way the taxpayers aren't supporting him.

Take the costs of the appeals system out of the equation, and it doesn't cost much to pump somebody full of chemicals to make them die.

And stop looking for logic in the death penalty. The logic lies in that it makes people at ease after crisis. It provides ultimate closure. If a murderer / rapist is put to death, the families of his victims feel that justice has been served. It's not you who decides whether it's justice or revenge. You've not had it happen to you. So STFU.

And if you give him a sentance of life in prison with parole, what's to stop him from turning his life around and eventually helping many, many people? You can't base an argument on what-ifs.

Temperamental: You say people deserve and eye for an eye just because they deserve it. Nice circular logic. How about a REAL reason.

If they are already dead to society, nothing harmful is being removed from society. As, by your own admission, they were no longer in society. Now I'm not saying that Bubba who strangled his girlfriend, his girlfriend's husband, and her 13 children should get six years and parole, he probably shouldn't get paroled. However, it is irrational that he should die.

The death penalty puts the government above law and common morality. As far as I know that is a bad thing in most cases, though there are admitedly exceptions, but those exceptions are things that provide for common defense and safety. Killing a criminal who probably would not have gotten parole in the first place does not protect anyone.

so if one kills an entire family, the eye for an eye principle would say that an equal punishment is justified, so you would say to kill his whole family?


or if someone tortures someone you believe that they should be tortured by the system? if so, you have strange morals

eye for an eye is a principle that no one truly believes because if you do, then you would believe in things like i just listed which just shows a lack of knowledge about the subject




but what good does it do to kill the killers?




this has happened a few times actually



anyone who does a crime serious enough to get capital punishment would not get a chance for parole in a life sentence

You could also put them all in a wheel, and have them run around to generate electricity, so it's kinda a win/win situation. Noone dies + electricity.

Amendment VIII defeats that!

Yeah, as much as I would love to have a gulag built in the northern most wastes of Alaska to send our most hardended criminals, the 8th Amendment would surely stop that.

Here's a long spiel about capitol punishment and the 8th Amendment.

That's bull****.

Carla Homolka, released after 10+ years (i believe) in prison for participating in the brutal rapes and subsequent murders of Kristen French, Her own sister, and Lesley Mahaffey.

Only reason she got out was that she ratted out Paul Barnardo. Yet she was just as much a participant in all of the acts.

Not only that, but my grilfriends uncle got stabbed in the throat by some guy and brutally murdered. He only got 10 years in prison, but served 7 as a cellmate was a friend of the murdered uncle, and killed him in his cell.

Don't tell me bull**** like you just posted.

well if he only got 10 years then he wouldn't have gotten the death penalty



calm down

What an assanine question.

Why? Because if they sacrifice someone elses right to live, why should their right to live be protected?

Get over yourself.

Their right to live should be protected for several reasons. For one, two wrongs don't make a right. What does killing the killer accomplish? Is the world a better place now that he is dead instead of in jail? You may argue that when dead, there is no possibility of escape or parol, which could lead to further acts of crime. But that's a very "what if" argument. You cannot be sure that would ever happen. That person could easily turn their life around while in jail and end up helping thousands or millions of people. But you don't know that.

Two, the values of murder-is-wrong and capital punishment are contradictory. We're told murder is wrong. Yet it is okay to kill someone in revenge? Because that's what capital punishment is. Revenge. All it does is help you sleep at night and is a way for adults to let out their pent up angst.

I find it sad and sickening that it is so often proponents of abortion that oppose the death penalty.

Murderers have been known to kill again after being released on parole. It doesn't matter how many. The fact that any have killed again is enough. Protecting life is the important thing here, isn't it? So keep them locked up and protect the innocent.

Except the unborn, right?







Not trying to derail, sorry.

Ohhhh yes you are. :p

This goes both ways, you know. Why don't you criticize the people who oppose abortion and favor the death penalty?

This is another viewpoint problem. It has not been objectively determined when life begins, because there are different qualifiers for 'life'.

Not taking a side, I know my side, but just saying.

Well, if there's overwhelming evidence that says a criminal is likely to kill again, keep him locked up. It's not the best solution, but it is one. Maybe sometime in the future we'll have infallible lie detectors and it won't be a problem. But just don't kill them.

I'm not quite sure why so many liberals oppose the death penalty yet support abortion. I mean, you've got a fetus with arms, legs, a head, it's HUMAN. Just very young. I'm not sure how you can justify sucking it out with a vacuum. But maybe it's better than making it illegal, because of back ally abortions and whatnot? But then again we could just let that happen, and maybe young women will learn to be more responsible in the first place. Morals and law shouldn't have to conform to stupidity. I wasn't gonna try to derail the thread, but I think it's gone anyway.

Now if we had the tecnology of the Matrix, we would have a solution... :p




That's very different, IMHO. On one hand, you have someone who has committed a terrible crime. On the other, you have that of an unborn child, who has done nothing at all.