It's quite weird that you might talk about biological weapons since I just watched a Nicholas Cage movie about this...
Comment has been collapsed.
for those who's against it:
if you kill a spider,rat or any not wanted living creatures near your house, you commit this as a murder?
some kind of crime is unforgivable and those people have to die.
not just because that is another weight for the normal peoples who's paying taxes and want to live as a normal human being, but all the time when those "creatues" are living,there is a small chance to break free and reapeat the process.
who is kill another man because they want to stole his money is deserve to death.
nobody had the right to kill somebody for his money,if he did it than he is deserve to die,because he will do again.
best prevent is kill the source of danger.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes. yes i am. which is why i advocate animal testing on rats and mice, even if they are cute and cuddly. it's a necessary evil.
why would you think otherwise? would you be as saddened at the death of an ant or rodent (if it wasn't a pet, even then) as you would if you witnessed a human dying?
Comment has been collapsed.
Being saddened at the death of an ant (or any other example) is probably wrong way to put it. The opposite way to look at it is the correct perspective. Look at ourselves...are we saddened at the death of unknown human beings around the world?
Comment has been collapsed.
something occurring on the other side of the world is wholly different to witnessing the death of something, which is why i specified that.
you've probably stepped on countless insects without even realising, and even if you did, i honestly doubt you would be as upset as if you had witnessed someone die in some way or another, by a fault of yours or another person.
Comment has been collapsed.
For it. I believe that the punishment for a crime should be equal to said crime. However, I also do feel that the system for punishing criminals at least in the US is a complete joke and fails to act as a deterrent to crime and overall needs a major overhaul both for crimes such as murder and for lesser crimes as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course I'm against it. It's an easy way out for people who deserve to suffer. Daily torture all the way!
Comment has been collapsed.
Against it because it's too easy a way out for the people that would get it.
Enslavement to generate electricity for the rest of their life is a better punishment because we at least get something back
Comment has been collapsed.
In theory I am in favor of it, but only for those who are not remediable. Those use up resources and are a bad influence and a threat to others, while not contributing to society.
In praxis it's impossible to determine who is and who is not remediable or even innocent, so as of now I am against it.
And the way the death penalty is implemented in the U.S.A. for example is even more expensive than lifelong imprisonment.
Comment has been collapsed.
For it, absolutely. In cases of child rape and aggravated first degree murder, death penalty should be almost automatic, if the suspect is considered unanimously guilty, of course. People who do this kind of things either don't deserve to live, or deserve to live in agony regretting what they have done for the rest of their lives, living in prison and getting beat up every day until they give up and die. Scum.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm against it.
Whilst some countries are better than others when it comes to their justice systems, I don't think any system is infallible. Guilty people do sometimes get found not guilty and not guilty people get found guilty of allsorts of crimes. Seeing as you can't bring back someone to life if you sentence them to death and it later turns out they were not guilty then I'm against it.
Being released after years in jail as a result of a miscarriage of justice wouldn't exactly be great either, but at least it's better than being dead. You might be able to re-build some semblance of a life. The potential for one innocent person to be put to death is enough to make me against it.
Comment has been collapsed.
For, if the evidence is flawless. Unless we can be absolutely, 100% certain, we ought to hold back, but if someone has done something significant, they ought to be punished for it. Of course, I don't always like the way we do the death penalty; I like reciprocation, within reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rouge like games are fun. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
well, if they didn't exist, what would happen to those who really had no concept of right and wrong? i don't mean in a sociopathic/psychopathic way, but someone who genuinely lacked mental capacity or someone who is so completely deranged they don't know what is real or what isn't?
do they deserve to be punished as harshly as someone who is fully aware of what they've done and how it's effected people?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm for it, mostly for the reason that I know personally that I'd choose death over life without parole in prison. Also, some people just don't deserve to live. That may sound callous, but it is the truth. That said, the justice system (in the US) is flawed to the point that the death penalty should probably not be used except in the most extreme of circumstances. It's far too easy for a killer or get off scott free, or an innocent person to be convicted, for the extreme sentences (including the death penalty) to be allowed to exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right. All you would need is one corrupt or manipulated juror or judge and you basically get off murder scott-free. The legal system in the USA is a joke sometimes. Did you hear about the attempted burglarer who won his case against the people who owned the house we was trying to rob? The burglarer went on the roof the house, fell through glass window pane and landed on a knife that was facing upright in the kitchen area. He sued the owners of the house for unsafe premises AND won in a civil court! LOL
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, that's not the only case of something like that happening either. It's mind boggling. As long as you have enough money in the US, you can pretty much get away with anything as long as you don't confess on video, or get actively caught (even then, it's no guarantee). The reverse is also true, sadly. If you can't afford a lawyer, your Public Defender is going to be so overworked (they typically have 30-50 cases at any given time because they're so under paid, and the system has too many 'criminals' waiting for trial) that he or she will practically force you to take a plea deal, even if you're innocent.
Comment has been collapsed.
All you need is one corrupt or manipulated judge and you can convict an innocent person and give him the death penalty. That alone is reason enough to not want the death penalty.
Yes in utopian societies it might theoretically be an acceptable punishment, but in the real world it most certainly isnt.
Besides that Im also worried about people saying "some peoople just dont deserve to live". Who are you to decide that? Who is allowed to live, who is not? Its a slippery slope and very dangerous.
Comment has been collapsed.
who is kill other people because want their money or want some kind of revenge or anything, these people decide! they had a right to kill someone else, for their own good.
people like this will do this again and again.
because they decide once and after that they not respect other people life.
those deserved to not live in the "free world".
Comment has been collapsed.
Depending on the crime and the actual evidence against the person, I'm for it. The amount of money we are paying in taxes for people who are in jail with "life without parole" sentences is far too high. Seems a little inhumane to think about it that way, but if you commit mass murder or some heinous crime, you forfeited your life as far as I'm concerned. I mean... we're paying money out to feed criminals, yet none of that money goes to a homeless person? Prisoners are living better than the homeless and I think there's something wrong with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never actually heard of any of those stories, but I'm sure they are true. It's ridiculous how a prisoner gets meals, a roof, and a bed, but a homeless person has to live with hardly anything and they've never committed a crime. I'm not sure why our country is fond of this trend, but it's rather disgusting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally agree. Many homeless people have neurological disorders or addictions (a type of neurological disorder) which makes them unemployable. In many cases, it is genetic and mostly unrelated to their lifestyle choices! It really isn't fair... Some people will say "that's nature. survival of the fittest, baby" but I tend to disagree. I believe in humanity.
Comment has been collapsed.
After doing some research, it's debatable since not a lot of information is actually taken to give a conclusive answer as to whether or not the death penalty costs more. However, there are some things that I noted that needs to change: 1). [Defendants facing the death penalty get two lawyers.] Okay? Why does s/he need two? Is this in the system somewhere just to make it cost more money to put someone to death than life without parol)? Absolutely ridiculous. 2). [Death row inmates still spend time in jail.] Uhm...Why? They are on death row for a reason and, if evidence is brought to the table correctly and not withheld (never happens right?), there is no way they'll avoid this.
Basically, the ways we execute people is expensive, I get this. However, I'm fairly certain it costs less for a bullet than inject them, use a gas chamber, electric chair, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems a little harsh, I think we'll just stick with our suspension system for now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Though to who the morals apply is up to question.
Inside tribe they are likely to apply, but outside they don't. And that is part of nature too.
And you should say that we evolved from chimps, but from common ancestor, no point giving those creationist any ammo...
I think we are capable and should raise above the inherit morals. It's rational to understand that we aren't playing zero-sum game. And thus we should extend our basic morals to apply to outsiders too, even if it is against our nature.
By basic morals I mean at minimum:
Don't kill
Don't steal
Don't give false testimony
Comment has been collapsed.
none of these are abolutes, killing is permissable even desirable in certain situations say a person is a danger to others the moral thing is to kill them if it saves others. to steal a loaf of bread to keep you or your family is a lesser crime to me than allowing them to starve. and id lie my ass of if i was in late 30's europe and was asked where the jewsish fellas were by those fellas in hugo boss uniforms, its all about knowing when to follow the rules and when to ignore them morality
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know about this. I believe morals are intrinsic to human nature, meaning we are born with them. But there have been many psychological studies worldwide that have looked at childhood behavior. Many children have the tendency to lie and sometimes steal when they really want something. As they age, they think more about the consequences to other and are less likely to do those behaviors. So morals may actually part of human/animal reasoning rather than "inherit" morals.
Comment has been collapsed.
But schizoprenia is usually managed/treated with drugs. But what about cases of neurological disorder which can't be treated. What would we do with these "moralless" individuals? Do we lock them up? Or should we kill them before they commit heinous crimes? Morbid I know..
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more of group having to develop certain morals or behaviours to survive in long run.
For individual it might work to certain extent, but for group they are needed. I think this goes to many other species as well.
I can't say if some morals are much more than certain common behaviour paterns that automatically form in groups in long run...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're right about morals being behavioral and needed to survive in the long run. But brings the question of what to do with individuals who physically lack morals? Individuals who have some sort of neurological disorder which cannot be treated with drugs. What then?
Comment has been collapsed.
morality is a societal thing broadly, 100 years ago being gay was a crime punishable by imprisonment, we're months away from gay marriage being legal id wager here in the uk and about time too so in some peoples lifetime that issue alone has gone from crime to just another part of life
Comment has been collapsed.
But that was mostly out of the ignorance. 100 years ago there were many misconceptions about gays. People thought they transmitted disease and harm. Science has enlightened and changed our societal views. Hence why there were people who thought killing gays was a "good" idea back then. They thought they were doing good and not bad.
So I don't think the "moral" changed. We still want to help society in the long run. But only ignorance changed.
Comment has been collapsed.
i don't believe in reincarnation, heaven or life after death in any way.
i believe every man should be able to live his life to his fullest regardless of his actions against others but confined so that he can't hurt others anymore.
life sentence in a library, with access to knowledge and entertainment but limiting human interaction according to crimes committed.
Comment has been collapsed.
for a serious crime i would say only direct family and one religious representative of his choosing.
and i do know that on some level it could be considered torture, but all our actual solutions to these problems are in some way torture, books can help ease that psychological pressure.
Comment has been collapsed.
The death penalty is a terrible sin. In our current society we have no reason to kill a human being like that if they can be locked up.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe the death penalty is completely fair and just. If a man or woman kills a person why shouldn't they them selves loose their own life? They have taken another fully aware of what they have done. They way we currently kill people is taking to long the person that is on death row for many years before finally getting their sentence. Kill the murder go own with life.
Comment has been collapsed.
8 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by szacsoka
0 Comments - Created 27 minutes ago by pb1
16,403 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by MLD
47,139 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by kbronct
31 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by NoctuaVentus
20 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by OneManArmyStar
1,952 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Ashtart
48 Comments - Last post 28 seconds ago by wigglenose
755 Comments - Last post 41 seconds ago by alexfirehouse
269 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Dinoshu
39 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by ChrisKutcher
6,950 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by stabilo102
2,097 Comments - Last post 55 minutes ago by Pebbletool
124 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Vampus
Why are you for it or against it?
Comment has been collapsed.