So what do you suggest Risk for the barbaric and cowardess who selfishly take the life or harm an innocent against their free will...Lock them in a cage and throw the key away?

Or better yet try to rehabilitate them to send back into a scoiety that they had no respect for in the first place, because if they did they would respect human life and charish it, but they didn't.

So now in return for their selfless act of crime, with disregard for the law they are found guilty in a public court of law; by the people. And if death is a fiesable option, than so be it.

As hard as it maybe to give such a sentence, it is the law of the land, some crimes are punishable by death. If the crime fits the punishment, than so be it.

In the U.S. capital punishment is a settled law of the land, that under great strain and burden should and will be carried out.

the death penalty has no place in a modern society, it is shameful the US has executed its 1000th person since the re-introduction of capital punishment...putting aside the problem of wrongful execution, the death penalty is barbaric and has no place in democracy. Some of the only other nations who execute more people than the US include China, Iran and Vietnam, this speaks for itself.

It is also proven the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, it is purly sick of an authority to derive the power to take someones life, no matter what the evil is they have committed.

I believe that the death penalty has a purpose. It should be used for 1st degree murders and repeating criminals. Because, they won't stop until you just execute them.

I say if someone kills another then they should die the same way it happended. For ex, Stabbed you get stabbed shot you get shoot. The poisen mixture stuff is a cheap way out. I agree with the death penalty.

The death penalty should be illegal. Mistakes can be made when investigating a crime. I would reccomend you all watch "The Life of David Gale." It's based on a true story and deals with the death penalty issue.

The bible says don't kill but it also says a life for a life. I don't know. It's confusing. I think we should keep it though.

Alot of people think that God is th eonly one who has any right ot take a persons life, if that is true then why don't we punish the people who DO take other peoples lives.

quote:

---

No one should decide if you deserve to live or die.

---

agreed, SoftballLauren. we're all human and subject to emotions such as pride, anger, fear, etc., so how can we justly decide who dies? life is sacred, and nobody has the right to take it without absolute necessity (i.e. a carnivore in the wild must eat meat or starve to death. there is no way around it).

also, thank you for bringing the topic back to the death penalty, and away from insults and Lincoln and who knows what.

-silverspirit

Oh, civility, eh? I would also appreciate some thought on the part of Messuer Barrio.

A missive to the Honorary Billy Psuedonym,
Kind sir, it is with a sadness in my breast that I must submit that there are some matters of politic on which I split with you. It has been recorded that, on twenty-nine May, two thousand three, year of our lord, at the slight hour of one of the clock and 16 minutes, you put forward that "Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to put a stop to the Union." Unfortunatly, in mine eyes this is quite the silly pettifoggery, in fact I must say that you're just plain wrong.

Sincerely,
Sir Reginald Gemrey VIII.

Translation: That's just wrong.

Jah Love

quote:

---

Yes. The possibility of death keeps people from committing crimes they may otherwise commit. (61%) = 1137

No. If a person's going to do something bad, they're going to do it regardless. (36%) = 671

I don't know. (3%) = 52

---

What the hell is that, a survery? So whether or not the DP is a deterrent is decided by a survey? What the hell, you copy someone elses Death Penalty essay, and its one based on misleading data? If your gonna plagarize, at least plagarize something good.

Salaam

Billy, if you'll see my last two posts, you didn't respond to any of my points, except Lincoln being liberal.

Okay fine, lets go by your version of events, Lincoln didn't care about the slaves, and Lincoln wasn't Liberal. So, doesn't that reflect poorly on conservatives, are you saying conservatives didn't actaully care about the slaves, and Lincoln was conservative? Just looking for some clarification.

Salaam

no person should determine someone elses fate then your self

God should be th eonly peson or spirit that determines somones fate. No one should decide if you deserve to live or die. They should serve the rest of their life in jail. Say if a man name joe killed a woman and the parents of the the woman cam eto see joe to be put to death, do you think it would comfort them? well, yea, but what about joes family? everyone has family, and im sure no one wants to go thru that.

its not the www its because you put 3 / after http.

comrade, billy, and seeyouin -
Enough generalizations and name calling. If you are gonna continue this debate use some civility.

The link in my last message doesn't work. Just take out the "www." in the address bar.

quote:

---

Republicans are closer to the Nazi Party.

---

I don't think so, but I'll also state for you, I am not a republican. I am a fence walker...an Indy...and the grass is looking pretty green on the right side.

quote:

---

Lincoln WAS liberal. Liberals are progressive. Lincoln was a progressive, are you trying to say Abolistionists weren't Liberal? Liberals want the system to change. Getting rid of slavery would remove a hundreds year old system, how ISNT that liberal?

---

please research your history more...Lincoln freed the slaves in an effort to put a stop to the Union. It wasn't the slaves he cared about, it was the Union, and anyone will tell you that. If you'll note my little fact says after the Civil War Lincoln gave slaves rights, that was his deal so they would fight. He kept his word, hence "Honest Abe" and rights for blacks(where civil rights began, not in the 60s).

maybe some of that liberal censorship going on in school is preventing you from learning history....hmmmm

quote:

---

Democrats are Nazis.

---

Are they really? Come on, in reference to the political spectrum, Republicans are closer to the Nazi Party. The perfect example is the relation between the current White House and the Press. Did you know that when the press started asking tough questions concerning the president, that the White House blacklisted some members of press and refused to call on them at news conferences. Basically, they were holding "staged" news conferences. It's kind of like watch a play... it's all scripted. Did you know that after 9/11, anyone who didn't agree with the White House was labeled "unpatriotic". These tactics came straight out of Hitler's strategy guide. He used these tactics all the time to control the flow of information and silence his political enemies. Republicans-Nazis, Democrats-communists. That's usually the way it goes. Which makes sense considering that the democrats and republicans are opposites while the Nazis and Communists are opposites.

Follow the Link - Link and read the first few sentences.

quote:

---

yeah something changed, back then you would be burned at the stake for molesting children...a Democrat would most likely be holding the match..

---

What the *** k is that supposed to mean? Please explain yourself on that comment. Funny you should say that, as a DP adovocate, and anti-DP's are Liberals...

quote:

---

now the majority of people arrested on child pornography charges are democrats...oh I bet I'm lying again....better go look it up

---

You might want to also explain that one. Your generalites prove nothing, and provide nothing.

quote:

---

please don't give me the whole Lincoln was very liberal....which he was not, can you tell me why Lincold freed the slaves or do you just have more useless banter??

---

Lincoln WAS liberal. Liberals are progressive. Lincoln was a progressive, are you trying to say Abolistionists weren't Liberal? Liberals want the system to change. Getting rid of slavery would remove a hundreds year old system, how ISNT that liberal? Once again you disagreed with us, without explaining why.

Salaam

yeah something changed, back then you would be burned at the stake for molesting children...a Democrat would most likely be holding the match..


now the majority of people arrested on child pornography charges are democrats...oh I bet I'm lying again....better go look it up


please don't give me the whole Lincoln was very liberal....which he was not, can you tell me why Lincold freed the slaves or do you just have more useless banter??

OH MY GOD YOU'RE RETARDED.

You know, just because the Republican party has the same name as a party 150 years ago doesn't mean they have much to do with each other!!!

The "party-of-Lincoln" argument is so positively stupid. Hmmm....most republicans back then were from the North, while most republicans these days are from the South?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! Do you think maybe something has changed? I WONDER!

Jah Love