question: why such a humane way?

[PistachioByAzul]

You have to remember that the system is not flawless and the innocent ARE killed.

Collateral damage. Besides, how innocent are these people? If you're going along with a group of guys robbing a liquor store, someone else shoots the guy behind the register and you get charged with the murder, that's not exactly innocent.

 

[marketsons1985]

LOL @ Russ' last comment,

 

[Raspewtin]

Russ,

Even though we can't bring those victims back, at least this will help deter others who would otherwise bomb a federal building. it will also save the tax payers tons of money by killing him instead of keeping him alive. oh wait, none of that's true.

 

[riddelrp]

<< Russ,

Even though we can't bring those victims back, at least this will help deter others who would otherwise bomb a federal building. it will also save the tax payers tons of money by killing him instead of keeping him alive. oh wait, none of that's true. >>


lol
no kidding!

-Ryan

 

[Russ]

Raspewtin,

It wasn't necessary to add your last sentence.

Russ, NCNE

 

[EvanFerguson]

heh

 

[Croton]

i still say that we should kill them in a similar way they killed their victims.

 

[Raspewtin]

<< It wasn't necessary to add your last sentence. >>



i didn't want to be dishonest.

 

[bikman]

<< Why can't you feel bad for both? >>




Because he is not worth the effort.

 

[yellowperil]

The death penalty is not an infallible institution. Innocent people can and have been put to death. There are many factors contributing to this - racial profiling by police, the high reliance on eyewitness testimony which has proven to be inaccurate in many cases, unscrupulous lawyers, a media which likes to paint pictures of monsters, and a society which finds guilty until proven innocent easier to believe than vice versa. When people say &quot;they should be killed in the same way that they killed their victims&quot;, that does not address the issue. Regardless of whether it is a legitimate right of the state to torture the convicted before killing them, you have to be 100% sure you have the right guy in your hands.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Because he is not worth the effort.

That reflects poorly on you, not him.

 

[soapdish]

Well,

Why should we as a civilized people lower ourselves to his level? I am definitely against the death penalty, but thinking up sadistic ways of murder, regardless of who does it or for what reason is plain immoral.

If you would under any pretext cause suffering to another, then I don't think you are much different then the perpetrator.


I know it is a high minded concept, but thats the way our country was founded.

No cruel and unusual punishment. If we do unto monsters what the monsters did to others, then we become no better than the monster.

 

[palad]

State sanctioned murder may not bring the victims back, but state-sanctioned torture would be more of a deterrent for future would-be murderers. If people knew they could look forward to 30 years of daily torture, taking them to the brink of death and then back again, only to do it over and over, it might do more to dissuade them than knowing they will get an injection and a painless falling asleep.

 

[Electrode]

Well, one reason I see for not allowing cruel and inhumane methods of execution, is because of the toll it would take on the victims' friends and relatives. Think about it: you've lost someone you love, which really stresses you out, and now you have to live the rest of your life knowing that you may have indirectly caused the unbelievably painful, suffering death of someone.

Lots of people would go nuts or commit suicide, don't you think?

 

[Mikal]

<< State sanctioned murder may not bring the victims back, but state-sanctioned torture would be more of a deterrent for future would-be murderers. If people knew they could look forward to 30 years of daily torture, taking them to the brink of death and then back again, only to do it over and over, it might do more to dissuade them than knowing they will get an injection and a painless falling asleep. >>



You must be caught in a timewarp, bro!

 

[Diffusion]

<<

<< State sanctioned murder may not bring the victims back, but state-sanctioned torture would be more of a deterrent for future would-be murderers. If people knew they could look forward to 30 years of daily torture, taking them to the brink of death and then back again, only to do it over and over, it might do more to dissuade them than knowing they will get an injection and a painless falling asleep. >>



You must be caught in a timewarp, bro! >>


You live in Israel? Pleasent country I'm told, especially with the government torture and all.

 

[MajesticMoose]

the problem is that you would have to find some psycho willing to perform these turtuos acts. I'd also like to think that we are a little more civilized than that.

m00se

 

[LordMaul]

<< What is humane about being killed in any form? Can you not feel for this young man? He did only what he believed he needed to do.

Russ, NCNE >>



Boy, I hope that was sarcastic, Russ. Why would *anyone* feel a need to do something like that? They have to be just utterly stupid.

 

[Raspewtin]

<< He did only what he believed he needed to do. >>



According to Russ, this was a quote verbatim from anti-death penalty liberal. Those damn liberal ex-military sympthasizers!

 

[chiwawa626]

well if society murders him in a unhumane way, then how are we better then him? but first of all who gave society and the gov to take the life of one of gods creatures? are we taking toomuch power?

 

[Feanor]

Raspewtin is absolutely right. I can't remember the figure off the top of my head, but executing someone costs something like 10x as much as it does to jail them without parole for 70 years (assuming they live that long). Besides, if you truly believe no human being has the right to take life from another (the basis behind the whole murder is wrong argument), then what makes you think that a murderer should be put to death? Two wrongs don't make a right. The society that executes criminals is not on any greater moral ground than the criminals themselves. Besides, if you're all that concerned about &quot;retribution&quot; or &quot;revenge&quot;, somehow I don't think Timmy would have a very good time in prison. Based on the experiences of an ex-con I knew (he died), child-killers/molesters don't get treated very well by their fellow inmates.

 

[bikman]

<< That reflects poorly on you, not him. >>



ya right. A mass murderer has no right to expect, or deserve any sympathy. My tears were shed for his victims, and the only tears I'll shed for him will be in happiness knowing he will no longer be among us.

 

[CJZ]

Then what method of killing do you favor? I think you'll have a lot of trouble finding executioners if we still executed killers by hanging, drawing, and then quartering them.

CJZ

 

[shiner]

Lethal injection is letting the bastards off too easy. They shoot them up with sodium penethol, they go to sleep, then the two drugs that actually kill them are injected. Far too humane if you ask me.

How would I have them put to death? Electrocution, firing squad, hanging, stoned to death, beaten with a spatula, don't care as long as they don't go out easy.

 

[hubbs]

Russ, this man expresses absolutley NO SORROW for what he has done. He has no excuse in the world to have done what he has. None of the people did anything to him. But he hated the government so he blew up a gov building full of people. I'm sure TONS of others aren't to fond of the government either but they don't go blowing up people. And besides it costs on average 40k a year to take care of a prisoner. So why should taxpayers pay money so it could go towards this lowlife.