I was reading an article in the BBC website re: the EU, Texas and the death penalty. The arguments in brief are as follows:

The populations of Western Europe combined and that of the USA are similar, yet the murder rate for the former, where this is no death penalty, is so much lower. So the death penalty as a deterrent is not really a solid argument. So in this instance it becomes more of a moral question, ie can the argument for an eye for an eye be justified and is it a quick-fix by just sweeping a greater social crisis under the carpet?

Never !!

Execustion is an easy way out for criminals... Real punishment is Life imprisonment... Plus i believe that unless its self defence.. we have no right to take another life.

I never saw it as a deterrent.
It's the most extreme type of punishment reserved for most extreme cases.

Do I agree with it...?
Yes, what is the point of feeding and looking after Martin Bryant for the next few decades...?

For non Aussies, he killed 35 and injured 37 in a single 'Port Arthur Massacre' in 1996.

Death penalty for sickos like paedofiles. Ill give you an example. Von Einem. This guy is sick and depraved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevan_Spencer_von_Einem


How can you not see it as a detterent Canal? Would you commit a crime, knowing that if your caught, the punishment by law was the death penalty?

Stupid question.
Are you saying you wouldn’t kill anyone because you are afraid of being killed yourself…?

Anyone in the frame of mind to kill someone will not be deterred by the consequences. I am talking about cold-blooded, first degree murder here and not accidental deaths referred to as manslaughter, which is not punished by death penalty anyway.

I support the death penalty for fuckfaces like Ocelan. Why do we keep the fuckface alive? Hang the prick.

Im talking about planned, pre-calculated crimes.

Right, let me rephrase my question.

Are you saying you are not planning and calculating massacres because you are afraid of the death sentence…?

If you are already at the stage of planning murders, the thought of copping the death penalty as punishment wouldn’t enter your mind, and if it did enter, I doubt it would help change your plans.

I dislike some people on this forum but do not wish to harm any of them. I borderline hate one individual but wouldn’t think about killing him. For the first reason that it is morally wrong. Second and just as important reason is that I don’t want my family taken away from me as the consequent punishment, regardless of whether it’s the death penalty or not. And some other reasons like losing other things I have in life and basically ending up being a social outcast.

Now, if I was in a position where I had nothing to lose, like some psycho had just murdered my family, I would most likely take the law in my own hands and shred that psycho to bits without even considering the repercussions. Having to face death row would be inconsequential.

where are u gonna draw the line separating "fuckfaces" from "non-fuckfaces"??????
how r u gonna define who is a "fuckface" and who is not???????

Pretty simple. If you're a terrorist then you are also a fuckface. If you support terror then you are a fuckface as well. Should I continue?

please do babeaaa

The obvious answer is no. The state cannot approve of death. But what you do on your own accord is up to you.

I support it now, for those bastard arsonists.

I will NEVER support or condone state sanctioned killing.

It is against every principle that I stand for to give the State power to kill its own citizens.

As an aside, it is neither a deterrent, and nor is it cheaper than incarcerating the prisoners, as the various legal avenues for appeals against a capital sentence usually cost far more than a lifetime of incarceration.

Finally, better that 1000 sick bastards rot in prison, than a single innocent man be hung.