DeletedUser
Guest
Which 'exact statement' are you referring to?
- Status
Which 'exact statement' are you referring to?
DeletedUser
Guest
that one
DeletedUser
Guest
And how does it mean "an eye for an eye"? I mean that they forfeit the right to be treated as a human, to receive a specific level of care, etc. It does not mean that they should be executed.
DeletedUser
Guest
You pointed out that they took someone else's life away,(which could be referred to as their human rights) and so should lose their own.
DeletedUser
Guest
Danny9990, do you know what the term 'human rights' refers to?
DeletedUser2595
Guest
I think they would still have to be covered by the basic tenants of Human Rights, e.g. right to life, and right to not be tortured. Otherwise the jailers are as bad as the criminals they are watching (which in my opinion is why the death penalty is wrong - the prosecutors end up stooping to the criminals level).
But things like family life, a life of comfort, free healthcare etc should be withheld.
But things like family life, a life of comfort, free healthcare etc should be withheld.
DeletedUser
Guest
That's almost exactly what I should have said, I suppose I wasn't very specific at all.
DeletedUser
Guest
The death penalty was expunged from my country back in the 1960's
My personal thoughts are it should depend on the crime. I think letting someone live could be worse than executing them.
Things like a spousal murder should be eye for an eye. They should die in the same form they put the spouse through.
child murder... They should in my mind be forced to live. I believe in something like Escape from Newyork movie setup where you live in a walled state and the rules are kinda suspended and you live in the world you want to live in. The food portions should be limited and any work they do for the food (you dont work you dont get fed) be a cash value and benificial to the rest of society so the money isnt wasted out of public coffers. The portion of the money would go to the family of the child till the person dies either from foul play in the prison or of old age
Though death sentence I believe should be enacted if the person has a chance of never reforming or does a heinous crime.
My personal thoughts are it should depend on the crime. I think letting someone live could be worse than executing them.
Things like a spousal murder should be eye for an eye. They should die in the same form they put the spouse through.
child murder... They should in my mind be forced to live. I believe in something like Escape from Newyork movie setup where you live in a walled state and the rules are kinda suspended and you live in the world you want to live in. The food portions should be limited and any work they do for the food (you dont work you dont get fed) be a cash value and benificial to the rest of society so the money isnt wasted out of public coffers. The portion of the money would go to the family of the child till the person dies either from foul play in the prison or of old age
Though death sentence I believe should be enacted if the person has a chance of never reforming or does a heinous crime.
DeletedUser
Guest
You have a right not to be murdered......
DeletedUser
Guest
That's the right to life, but that's not the only human right people have. Please don't make comments such as this (below) without knowing what you are talking about.
DeletedUser
Guest
Then you also have a right not to be executed.
DeletedUser
Guest
Well my point is if someone takes a life then you are allowed to take their life. To quote superman: 'if he shot a man then he should be shot in the leg and left to die, preferably with the victim's doing the shooting'
And Corinthian, do you really think i think that's the only human right
And Corinthian, do you really think i think that's the only human right
DeletedUser
Guest
Well my point is if someone takes a life then you are allowed to take their life. To quote superman: 'if he shot a man then he should be shot in the leg and left to die, preferably with the victim's doing the shooting'
And Corinthian, do you really think i think that's the only human right
What you are referring to is a law system based on "an eye for an eye" system. This system first came to be in the earliest forms of human law. Do you really think that, as a species, we have still not moved on from this primitive practice?
DeletedUser
Guest
We may have coated ourselves in intelligence and technology, but that does not mean we still share a lot of the same traits as our ancestors who hunted with rocks. And why move on when it is a perfectly good idea?
DeletedUser
Guest
Danny9990, the issue I have with your statements is that you show no regard for the value of human life. You've repeatedly mentioned sentencing innocent people to death, as if it's no big deal. This suggests to me that you do not give the issue due consideration.
Let me put a question to you, Danny9990. You are walking down the street one day, when you hear shots fired. Suddenly the police appear round a corner, run towards you and arrest you, accusing you of being a murderer. There's no evidence to prove you are guilty, indeed you are perfectly innocent, yet they are going to execute you because they think you MIGHT be guilty. What do you think of that? Are you happy with that happening?
Think very carefully before you answer.
Let me put a question to you, Danny9990. You are walking down the street one day, when you hear shots fired. Suddenly the police appear round a corner, run towards you and arrest you, accusing you of being a murderer. There's no evidence to prove you are guilty, indeed you are perfectly innocent, yet they are going to execute you because they think you MIGHT be guilty. What do you think of that? Are you happy with that happening?
Think very carefully before you answer.
DeletedUser
Guest
I dont need to think carefully. You summed it up yourself. there is no evidence to prove i am guilty. I may not be a lawyer but i am fairly sure you can't convict someone with no evidence.
DeletedUser
Guest
Oh, but it's happened in the past. People have been sentenced to death and executed without being proven to be guilty. In your own words:
If the judge were to make a ruling based on your words, here, he would sentence you to death without a second thought, simply because it would be better to die now as an innocent man, than to spend years in jail.
I told you to think carefully before you answered.
DeletedUser
Guest
I did. The only way a person can be sentenced to death with no evidence is if there is corruption involved. And if there is corruption involved they could get you killed anyways in an 'accident'. Did you think carefully?
DeletedUser
Guest
This has gone from debating to denying your own contradictions..
DeletedUser
Guest
Good lord, it's impossible to have a simple discussion with stupidity.
Do you even read the words you type, Danny9990? Or do you just type whatever comes into your head without even thinking about it?
Breaking news for you here, Danny9990, this is the real world. This isn't one of those crime shows that you watch on TV. You don't just get killed in an 'accident' if the police suspect you of being a criminal.
Ignoring the stupidity of your post, I am talking about a hypothetical situation, in a world where what you post is taken into consideration. You said, "it is kinder for the innocent person to be killed instantly is it not?". Following this train of thought, were you to be suspected of a murder it would be kinder to kill you, than to send you to jail and investigate your case properly.
- Status