Wonderful. Now go look up Derek Bentley. Perfect example of an eye for an eye killing.
Then tell me that's justified.
Troy Davis October 9, 1968 – September 21, 2011
- Thread starter GodCubed
- Start date
- Replies 55
- Views 5K
Wonderful. Now go look up Derek Bentley. Perfect example of an eye for an eye killing.
Then tell me that's justified.
That isn't justified.
Now explain to me how all the murders are justified.
Specifically the ones that get off with light sentences, or don't get caught at all.
Oh I see, so an eye for an eye is justified... SOMETIMES. When the people who make the rules decide it? How and where do we draw the line? It's a rotten law, an eye for an eye. You either have it or you don't, and you seem to be advocating both.
Murders aren't justified, and I never said they were. All I'm saying is that killing them is not only inhumane, but it's not giving them the chance at redemption, ever.
If you don't catch someone, how are you meant to sentence them to anything at all? :s
Them killing is also inhumane, to which point surely "inhumane" isn't considered. :/
Why should they be given the chance at redemption though?
Last edited:
Im on the fence to be honest. GC has made some good points with the fact that killing another isn't always the correct way.The death penalty should only be used, if such hard evidence is brought to the table. If there is even a slight doubt, this shouldn't happen. In this case it should be the latter.
However, there are some instances that need this. I could name a few people who have done some sickening things that deserve the death penalty.
Im glad it's not in use over here in Britain, but tougher sentences are needed, because people are getting off very lightly.
However, there are some instances that need this. I could name a few people who have done some sickening things that deserve the death penalty.
Im glad it's not in use over here in Britain, but tougher sentences are needed, because people are getting off very lightly.
Of course it is, so if we kill them we're just lowering ourself to their levels. "You've done something very bad. Because we don't want it to happen we'll... err... do it to you."
Yes, I am a firm believer in second chances. Not third chances, mind you: if they blow their second chance they should be locked up and the key thrown away. But not all murders are vicious psychopathic killers. Some can be rehabilitated. James Hamm, for instance. Their former life will always count against them (as indeed in the case of Hamm) but they can change their ways. There will always be some people who are incorrigible, who just want to see the world burn, but that is a small minority.
J
jmoser
Guest
I know this was a really long time ago, but 1). It should never be forgotten until there is no more death penalty, and 2). I just heard this song again while I was doing my calc homework.
[video=youtube;HsNAJN8mmns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsNAJN8mmns[/video]
I still get kinda angry every time I hear that song. Chadwick Stokes is probably my favorite artist of all time, partly because he is a great guy and does stuff like this, and also because he is the lead singer of Dispatch and State Radio, two of my favorite bands, and he has awesome hair. Most of his music is really laid back acoustic music, almost in a reggae style (unlike this song), but you can just feel the emotion in this song.
[video=youtube;HsNAJN8mmns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsNAJN8mmns[/video]
I still get kinda angry every time I hear that song. Chadwick Stokes is probably my favorite artist of all time, partly because he is a great guy and does stuff like this, and also because he is the lead singer of Dispatch and State Radio, two of my favorite bands, and he has awesome hair. Most of his music is really laid back acoustic music, almost in a reggae style (unlike this song), but you can just feel the emotion in this song.
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
The main problem here is that people don't realise the judicial system might be wrong, and definitely isn't justice. Death should be reserved for treason and people who repeatedly offend. Also, fasces would be great to reintroduce. Politicians who **** up get battered to death
Last edited:
I guess it all comes down to, 'an eye for an eye'. Although I do, in some cases, agree with the death penalty, if you kill someone, I feel the only thing that is just is for you to be killed, but the case must be heavily scrutinized. This just looks like a botch job by th e investigators who said '**** it, need to go shopping in a bit, lets call him guilty.' It seems that he wasn't subject to a fair trial, but then again in a court its someones word vs another. Unless your the all seeing eye, you need to make a judgement and sometimes it may not be the right one. Although this case does seem wrong and inhumane to me. Although 'an eye for an eye' does seem a bit wrong ... how can you honestly justify letting a person, who has unrighteously taken the life of an innocent man still live free to roam the Earth. Note: That does not apply to this case.
Let GC ripping me commence
Let GC ripping me commence
I guess it all comes down to, 'an eye for an eye'. Although I do, in some cases, agree with the death penalty, if you kill someone, I feel the only thing that is just is for you to be killed, but the case must be heavily scrutinized. This just looks like a botch job by th e investigators who said '**** it, need to go shopping in a bit, lets call him guilty.' It seems that he wasn't subject to a fair trial, but then again in a court its someones word vs another. Unless your the all seeing eye, you need to make a judgement and sometimes it may not be the right one. Although this case does seem wrong and inhumane to me. Although 'an eye for an eye' does seem a bit wrong ... how can you honestly justify letting a person, who has unrighteously taken the life of an innocent man still live free to roam the Earth. Note: That does not apply to this case.
Let GC ripping me commence
How can you say the part in bold and agree with the death penalty? :/
I guess it all comes down to, 'an eye for an eye'. Although I do, in some cases, agree with the death penalty, if you kill someone, I feel the only thing that is just is for you to be killed, but the case must be heavily scrutinized. This just looks like a botch job by th e investigators who said '**** it, need to go shopping in a bit, lets call him guilty.' It seems that he wasn't subject to a fair trial, but then again in a court its someones word vs another. Unless your the all seeing eye, you need to make a judgement and sometimes it may not be the right one. Although this case does seem wrong and inhumane to me. Although 'an eye for an eye' does seem a bit wrong ... how can you honestly justify letting a person, who has unrighteously taken the life of an innocent man still live free to roam the Earth. Note: That does not apply to this case.
Let GC ripping me commence
CIDER POWERS ACTIVATE
Ever heard of the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? It's as applicable now as it is in any other case. The death penalties has and will continue to lead to tragedies of justice. See this case, see Derek Bentley. And I would rather imprison ten people than let one innocent man die.
Unrighteously taken the life of an innocent man and roaming free? That's what prisons are for, babe.
Because, if you take an innocent persons life, you should be killed IMO. Although I'm not condoning that sometimes the courts will make the wrong choice, but, I sorta agree with the death penalty, because its the only viable punishment for being as savage as to take ones life, when the person is innocent.
CIDER POWERS ACTIVATE
Ever heard of the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? It's as applicable now as it is in any other case. The death penalties has and will continue to lead to tragedies of justice. See this case, see Derek Bentley. And I would rather imprison ten people than let one innocent man die.
Unrighteously taken the life of an innocent man and roaming free? That's what prisons are for, babe.
Yes, but imagine if someone looney killed an innocent person close to you, I'd think that them going to prison would be getting off lightly, because after all, they'll probably get out of there after 20 years.
And unfortunately we don't live in a world where we can all be Ghandi's, if it was a world of peace and compassion then yes there would be no need for the death penalty, but alas we don't.
Yes, but you can admit that the court WILL make mistakes, and therefore the court will eventually execute an innocent man. How can you live with an innocent man being killed for no reason by the state? It drops the state to the same level as the person you wanted to punish in the first place.
I see what you mean about the punishment being just, but it's inhumane and unworkable due to the fact there will always be uncertainty in a verdict. As GC said, I'd rather see 1000 guilty people live, than execute one innocent man.
I see what you mean about the punishment being just, but it's inhumane and unworkable due to the fact there will always be uncertainty in a verdict. As GC said, I'd rather see 1000 guilty people live, than execute one innocent man.