How do you feel about the death penalty? - page 26.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3332

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: SimmonenY on May 09, 2017, 05:09:11 AM

It's funny how you're worried about fertility rates while earth's population is 7.5 billion people. Maybe all innovations and "negative" changes are just a natural way to protect the Earth from overpopulation.

What bothers me is the fact that the educated and the intelligent are not having children, while the least educated and the retards are having dozens. For example, people with the highest IQ can be found in East Asia, and they have the lowest fertility rates. On the other hand, Sub Saharan Africans, who normally have an IQ of less than 70 are having the highest fertility rates.

wolfracer

full member

Activity: 294

Merit: 102

Quote from: killgald on May 09, 2017, 06:16:46 PM

im agreed in the death penalty, with murder or child violators any human being that is able to kill or rape a child dont deserved to live.

Yes, any human being capable of kill for something like money or rape a child doesnt deserve to live, thats went the death penalty is for, severed crimes that a stay in a prision isnt enought

killgald

full member

Activity: 244

Merit: 100

im agreed in the death penalty, with murder or child violators any human being that is able to kill or rape a child dont deserved to live.

GreenBits

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1048

Quote from: MattScott on May 09, 2017, 03:05:55 PM

I support the existence of the death penalty. This is not the best option in the fight against crime, but it is a fair punishment for serious crimes. I think that if you have 100% proof of guilt then you need to apply the death penalty, and if the evidence is less it is better to apply a life sentence. If it was a mistake?

Exactly, what if there is indeed a mistake? Given how inefficient our judicial system is, and the known prejudices against poor populations and non white populations, is it OK to use such a final judgement? Also, how liable should the prosecuting party be if the suspect is later found innocent? Since we would have essentially murdered a free, non criminal citizen for no reason, should the prosecution be brought up on murder charges, with the possibility of death?

Also, given that it is pretty much impossible to obtain the proven drug combination historically used in executions, is it OK to use unknown, untested drugs as substitutes? Constitutionally, you can't punish people cruelly or unusually, if we don't actually know how cruel or unusual these drugs are, is it OK to use them?

MattScott

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

I support the existence of the death penalty. This is not the best option in the fight against crime, but it is a fair punishment for serious crimes. I think that if you have 100% proof of guilt then you need to apply the death penalty, and if the evidence is less it is better to apply a life sentence. If it was a mistake?

eduaro66

sr. member

Activity: 284

Merit: 250

Quote from: Casanova18 on May 09, 2017, 01:15:14 PM

Quote from: solitare on May 09, 2017, 06:54:07 AM

Quote from: sikke on April 15, 2017, 12:37:45 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on April 15, 2017, 10:50:25 AM

My argument is very simple. In almost all the nations where the death penalty was recently abolished, we have witnessed a sharp upswing in the crime rate. Therefore, IMO, the death penalty must be there to deter these sort of crimes.

My opinion is very similiar to yours, I also have spotted that in the countries where the death penalty has got out of use, the crime rate has grown.
It is because of one, very simple reason: criminals are not scared to do bad thing to other people.

If there would be a death penalty for killing someone ( excluding car accidents ) no matter what, Im one hundred percent sure that the murder rate would decrease.

Criminals need a vision of really brutal punishment for their crimes, because if the goverment will be kind with them, and the penalty will not be harmful, then the bad people will think that they might do what they want with impunity.

I have to agree with you on this.
Actual executions are definitely deterrents for others.

I don't see ant need to make executions "humane".
A firing squad or the electric chair are OK by me.

Currently you can only get the death penalty if you are convicted of first degree murder in the US.
I do think that should be expanded to child molesters and serial rapist.

For serial rapists, I think you need to use chemical castration. Rapists do not kill their victims. The punishment should be adequate. First they need to be connected to a sex machine, and then neutered. Murderers need to be destroyed.

Yes, for rapists need appropriate punishment so that they can not then no longer rape anyone or have sex, but do not deprive them of their lives.

Casanova18

member

Activity: 83

Merit: 10

Quote from: solitare on May 09, 2017, 06:54:07 AM

Quote from: sikke on April 15, 2017, 12:37:45 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on April 15, 2017, 10:50:25 AM

My argument is very simple. In almost all the nations where the death penalty was recently abolished, we have witnessed a sharp upswing in the crime rate. Therefore, IMO, the death penalty must be there to deter these sort of crimes.

My opinion is very similiar to yours, I also have spotted that in the countries where the death penalty has got out of use, the crime rate has grown.
It is because of one, very simple reason: criminals are not scared to do bad thing to other people.

If there would be a death penalty for killing someone ( excluding car accidents ) no matter what, Im one hundred percent sure that the murder rate would decrease.

Criminals need a vision of really brutal punishment for their crimes, because if the goverment will be kind with them, and the penalty will not be harmful, then the bad people will think that they might do what they want with impunity.

I have to agree with you on this.
Actual executions are definitely deterrents for others.

I don't see ant need to make executions "humane".
A firing squad or the electric chair are OK by me.

Currently you can only get the death penalty if you are convicted of first degree murder in the US.
I do think that should be expanded to child molesters and serial rapist.

For serial rapists, I think you need to use chemical castration. Rapists do not kill their victims. The punishment should be adequate. First they need to be connected to a sex machine, and then neutered. Murderers need to be destroyed.

crypto.classroom

newbie

Activity: 79

Merit: 0

A country that kills develops citizens that are ok with killing and when it comes down to it actually creates in some of its citizens as a result of that philosophy the criminal and anti social beliefs and tendencies that will lead to aberrant behaviors that the society will execute people for. A people that will kill people begets people that will kill people.

It is better to only kill any being when forced to in self-defense or for food. No other reason is moral or right.

ikilledcobain

sr. member

Activity: 446

Merit: 252

Personally, I'm against it. It doesn't seem to be an actual deterrent and you have to ask what is the acceptable rate of error for killing people? Not everyone executed is actually guilty. For me anything more than a margin of 0 isn't worth it.

Kotone

hero member

Activity: 1372

Merit: 503

If death penalty would implemented on my country then much better those killers,rapes will become less they don't afraid in jail that is why crimes is becoming more if this will be on my country then those bad people will think before they do a crime.

Magpieguy

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

I appreciate that the death penalty is a sensitive subject, but surely in this day and age it should stop. The economic argument about looking after them is irrelevant. Totally.

solitare

newbie

Activity: 43

Merit: 0

Quote from: sikke on April 15, 2017, 12:37:45 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on April 15, 2017, 10:50:25 AM

My argument is very simple. In almost all the nations where the death penalty was recently abolished, we have witnessed a sharp upswing in the crime rate. Therefore, IMO, the death penalty must be there to deter these sort of crimes.

My opinion is very similiar to yours, I also have spotted that in the countries where the death penalty has got out of use, the crime rate has grown.
It is because of one, very simple reason: criminals are not scared to do bad thing to other people.

If there would be a death penalty for killing someone ( excluding car accidents ) no matter what, Im one hundred percent sure that the murder rate would decrease.

Criminals need a vision of really brutal punishment for their crimes, because if the goverment will be kind with them, and the penalty will not be harmful, then the bad people will think that they might do what they want with impunity.

I have to agree with you on this.
Actual executions are definitely deterrents for others.

I don't see ant need to make executions "humane".
A firing squad or the electric chair are OK by me.

Currently you can only get the death penalty if you are convicted of first degree murder in the US.
I do think that should be expanded to child molesters and serial rapist.

Eternu

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 257

Quote from: signature200 on May 09, 2017, 05:48:48 AM

Quote from: Tradesinc on May 09, 2017, 05:16:36 AM

Although I support the death penalty under certain circumstances, I don't think it should be a public even in any society.
My reasoning is this: In certain parts of the world violence and bloodshed are every day occurrences and these people are not deterred by seeing or hearing that someone has been sentenced to death. I do however believe that the law abiding part of society does not need these criminals amongst them. They should not be expected to pay for their incarceration. Bluntly, any society does not want or need these people amongst the population.

I therefore believe that anyone found guilty of crimes such as pre-meditated murder, rape and paedophillia should just be removed from society and disposed of quietly to rid society of them.

No one argues with that, but you don't say how exactly they should be isolated from society. If they ever include the expense of taxpayers ' money that is not an option. Even human rights defenders are constantly screaming about the poor conditions of detention. It seems to me that the death penalty is the way out of the situation.

Human rights, i think that person who is murderer, pedophile or convicted for rape should not have any right. If punishments for this crimes are severe enough, that on its own would bring percentage of those crimes down. No one would want to rot in some dark, smelly hole and die like an animal. Or just deliver death sentence, and get on with it. People are animals, the more you give them the more they want. For criminals there should be no giving, only taking.

signature200

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: Tradesinc on May 09, 2017, 05:16:36 AM

Although I support the death penalty under certain circumstances, I don't think it should be a public even in any society.
My reasoning is this: In certain parts of the world violence and bloodshed are every day occurrences and these people are not deterred by seeing or hearing that someone has been sentenced to death. I do however believe that the law abiding part of society does not need these criminals amongst them. They should not be expected to pay for their incarceration. Bluntly, any society does not want or need these people amongst the population.

I therefore believe that anyone found guilty of crimes such as pre-meditated murder, rape and paedophillia should just be removed from society and disposed of quietly to rid society of them.

No one argues with that, but you don't say how exactly they should be isolated from society. If they ever include the expense of taxpayers ' money that is not an option. Even human rights defenders are constantly screaming about the poor conditions of detention. It seems to me that the death penalty is the way out of the situation.

Tradesinc

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Although I support the death penalty under certain circumstances, I don't think it should be a public even in any society.
My reasoning is this: In certain parts of the world violence and bloodshed are every day occurrences and these people are not deterred by seeing or hearing that someone has been sentenced to death. I do however believe that the law abiding part of society does not need these criminals amongst them. They should not be expected to pay for their incarceration. Bluntly, any society does not want or need these people amongst the population.

I therefore believe that anyone found guilty of crimes such as pre-meditated murder, rape and paedophillia should just be removed from society and disposed of quietly to rid society of them.

Reaper3

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: Okurkabinladin on May 08, 2017, 03:57:36 PM

Quote from: Lancusters on May 08, 2017, 03:52:40 PM

I highly doubt that liberals will ever die out. I'm all for it to distinguish where liberalism, and where permissiveness. We have reached the point that when North Korea threatens the us, many Americans are afraid to fight. We constantly hear calls to solve peacefully the problem.

You know word "liberal" has quite different meaning from 100 years ago Wink

by our current standarts the liberals of old would be conservatives today, while liberals of today would be called bolsheviks by liberals of old. So, you are completely correct, drive for innovation and change will not die out as it is inherent part of human nature.

Secular cultists, who see themselves above laws of nature will die out, however. Narcissism cannot defeat God and social engineering cannot defeat Nature.

What we call "liberalism" in 21st century is not future, it is graveyard headstone to evolutionary dead end. Fertility rates are just reflection of that.

I don't know if this is an edited picture, but thinking that every liberal thinks the same is a -bit- unrealistic.

Reaper3

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 09, 2017, 04:38:37 AM

Quote from: Okurkabinladin on May 08, 2017, 03:57:36 PM

You know word "liberal" has quite different meaning from 100 years ago Wink

by our current standarts the liberals of old would be conservatives today, while liberals of today would be called bolsheviks by liberals of old. So, you are completely correct, drive for innovation and change will not die out as it is inherent part of human nature.

Secular cultists, who see themselves above laws of nature will die out, however. Narcissism cannot defeat God and social engineering cannot defeat Nature.

What we call "liberalism" in 21st century is not future, it is graveyard headstone to evolutionary dead end. Fertility rates are just reflection of that.

In Western nations such as Italy and the United Kingdom, more than one-third of the women are likely to remain childless till the end of their life. This is what liberalism and radical feminism can do to you.

Declining birthrates is related with less dependency on your children. Your income is not dependent on your children anymore to a large extent, in comparison to third world countries where parents are dependent on the income and care of their children. Also child mortality has decreased, which makes it less necessary to have more children to ensure your offspring. This is what increased welfare does to a country, as it is the case in western societies but also Asian economies such as South Korea/Japan. By your logic people in Saudi-Arabia should have way more children then in Ghana. Life expectancy,wellfare and child mortality are however key denominators.

SimmonenY

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 09, 2017, 04:38:37 AM

Quote from: Okurkabinladin on May 08, 2017, 03:57:36 PM

You know word "liberal" has quite different meaning from 100 years ago Wink

by our current standarts the liberals of old would be conservatives today, while liberals of today would be called bolsheviks by liberals of old. So, you are completely correct, drive for innovation and change will not die out as it is inherent part of human nature.

Secular cultists, who see themselves above laws of nature will die out, however. Narcissism cannot defeat God and social engineering cannot defeat Nature.

What we call "liberalism" in 21st century is not future, it is graveyard headstone to evolutionary dead end. Fertility rates are just reflection of that.

In Western nations such as Italy and the United Kingdom, more than one-third of the women are likely to remain childless till the end of their life. This is what liberalism and radical feminism can do to you.

It's funny how you're worried about fertility rates while earth's population is 7.5 billion people. Maybe all innovations and "negative" changes are just a natural way to protect the Earth from overpopulation.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3332

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Okurkabinladin on May 08, 2017, 03:57:36 PM

You know word "liberal" has quite different meaning from 100 years ago Wink

by our current standarts the liberals of old would be conservatives today, while liberals of today would be called bolsheviks by liberals of old. So, you are completely correct, drive for innovation and change will not die out as it is inherent part of human nature.

Secular cultists, who see themselves above laws of nature will die out, however. Narcissism cannot defeat God and social engineering cannot defeat Nature.

What we call "liberalism" in 21st century is not future, it is graveyard headstone to evolutionary dead end. Fertility rates are just reflection of that.

In Western nations such as Italy and the United Kingdom, more than one-third of the women are likely to remain childless till the end of their life. This is what liberalism and radical feminism can do to you.

Okurkabinladin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 506

Quote from: Lancusters on May 08, 2017, 03:52:40 PM

I highly doubt that liberals will ever die out. I'm all for it to distinguish where liberalism, and where permissiveness. We have reached the point that when North Korea threatens the us, many Americans are afraid to fight. We constantly hear calls to solve peacefully the problem.

You know word "liberal" has quite different meaning from 100 years ago Wink

by our current standarts the liberals of old would be conservatives today, while liberals of today would be called bolsheviks by liberals of old. So, you are completely correct, drive for innovation and change will not die out as it is inherent part of human nature.

Secular cultists, who see themselves above laws of nature will die out, however. Narcissism cannot defeat God and social engineering cannot defeat Nature.

What we call "liberalism" in 21st century is not future, it is graveyard headstone to evolutionary dead end. Fertility rates are just reflection of that.

Topic: How do you feel about the death penalty? - page 26. (Read 26080 times)