PDA

View Full Version : The Death Penalty - Yes? No? Maybe? Why?


GodOfLight
28-08-06, 06:55
Do you approve or disaprove of the death penalty? And what are you reasons for this.

Living in a country now for over a year in which the death penalty is still active, i have become very observant and contemplative about this and how the rest of the world and other countries view this. What are all your views on death penalties?

MiCkiZ88
28-08-06, 06:57
Hmm.. I dont aprove this.. Maybe I've been watching too many movies with those kinda things.. but I beliave in second chances.. and what if the ''guilty'' aint guilty..

angelika
28-08-06, 07:01
Well some crimes do deserve the death penalty. It's just that humans are too minor to decide who deserves to live or die,imo. So I vote against.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 07:31
For.
Some people really should not be allowed to live after certain crimes the commit, Murder/rape ect.

Its too early in the day for me to think of any other reasonable answer. :o

Thorir
28-08-06, 08:40
Against. Death is no punishment, it´s a blessing.

Geck-o-Lizard
28-08-06, 08:42
Against.

- No matter what they did, they should be forced to live with the consequence of it for the rest of their life, not have their punishment over with in a few minutes.

- And no matter what their crime was, I still see that it's wrong to take another's life (except in combat where it's either your life or theirs), even if they're not worthy of having one.

- Innocent people have been killed before. Imagine how it would feel if you were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death? Without a death penalty, there's always time for innocents to be freed from wrongful incarceration, but I've yet to hear of any necromancy to bring them back from the execution.

I do understand that a good reason for the death penalty is its permanence, ensuring the convict will never be able to escape and cause more damage. My dream solution to that would be to create a sort of second Alcatraz, where prisoners who'd otherwise be sentenced to death would be sent out to a max. security prison on an isolated island where they'd live for the rest of their days without chance of escape. Strip them of everything but their most basic human rights.

Draco
28-08-06, 08:44
I am for the Death Penalty. People fear it, even when they call it the ultimate freedom.

Geck-o-Lizard
28-08-06, 08:47
I am for the Death Penalty. People fear it, even when they call it the ultimate freedom.

The problem is, it doesn't really cut crimes enough to justify it with that reason.

Comparison of states with and without the death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V .%20STATES%20WITHOUT)

Draco
28-08-06, 08:50
The problem is, it doesn't really cut crimes enough to justify it with that reason.

Comparison of states with and without the death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V .%20STATES%20WITHOUT)

The cost difference alone is enough for me.

Geck-o-Lizard
28-08-06, 08:54
Money above human life.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 08:54
Whether it reduces crime rate or not, I'm sure it would make one of the victims family/friends who have been affected, feel a whole lot better to know that the person behind it all got what they deserved.

Draco
28-08-06, 08:57
Anyone who actually earns the death penalty has more than demonstrated their lack of value in human life.

Besides, you can't be for abortion AND against the death penalty at the same time...and still use that line of reasoning.

Paul H
28-08-06, 09:31
Since 1973, 123 US death row inmates have had to be released after proof of their wrongful convictions was established. The most recent of these was John Ballard (Florida) in February of this year.

This is thanks not to the justice system itself, but to organisations such as Barry Scheck's Innocence Project which has secured the release of 183 wrongfully convicted people (including non death penalty cases) over the last 14 years by presenting exculpatory DNA evidence.

The US justice system, relying as it does on juries driven by emotion and whipped up by local media presenting the prosecution's case (and more) for them before trials have even begun, will always return a very high rate of wrongful convictions. Add to that the ludicrous system of electing prosecutors, which leads to corruption and fraudulently obtained convictions (e.g. Rolando Cruz, Louise Woodward and many more).

And the situation in the UK, in spite of the Contempt Of Court Act preventing the media from polluting jury pools once a case becomes subjudice, is not much better as cases such as Sally Clarke's and Barry George's prove.

No justice system in the world is sufficiently reliable to ensure that innocent people will never be executed, and for that reason the death penalty should be abolished everywhere.

VonCroy360
28-08-06, 09:35
For.
Keeping people like that in jails just costs too much, and they deserve to have it; "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Twiin
28-08-06, 09:38
I agree eith all the anti-capital punishment posts... we can't trust our legal systems with sentencing someone to death without there being a chance of that person's innocence.
And death would be a release to people who have to live with the knowledge of ther crime.
There are religious reasons, also... perhaps someone will find God and be 'saved' in prison, whilst they wouldn't have the chance if they were executed.

B-thoven66
28-08-06, 11:59
Against. Lots of reasons. I'll edit to post them later (I must go to work now).

Andromeda66
28-08-06, 12:01
To quote Victor Hugo:

"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing."

VonCroy360
28-08-06, 12:14
To quote Victor Hugo:
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing."

God was supposed to judge the death of those innocent people that got killed by some maniac, too.

Lara's Boy
28-08-06, 12:20
I am on the fence on this issue as of late. I used to be for it, but know I view life sentences as more appropriate, depending on the situation. For example, if a serial killer has been caught and sentenced, I don't think he will mind 'living with his decisions' because he has already psychologically altered himself to feel that he was in the right and that it is the Justice system in the wrong; in that case the person in question needs to be terminated.

Other than that, I am a firm believer in Incapacitation, and in that process there is chance for Rehabilitation.


:wve:

Andromeda66
28-08-06, 12:23
Other than that, I am a firm believer in Incapacitation, and in that process there is chance for Rehabilitation.


:wve:

Not for the mentally deranged there isn't.

Anyways its hard to tell which is more cruel - a life sentence or a death penalty. Depends on the nature of the crime committed and the mental stability of the perpetrator.

God was supposed to judge the death of those innocent people that got killed by some maniac, too.

Well people like that always have their punishment, whether by legal judgement or not.

Neteru
28-08-06, 14:17
Against.

1. Becasue death is a release and not a punishment.

2. Because two wrongs don't make a right.

3. Because if murder is wrong, then murder is wrong. There is no inbetween.

Lara Croft!
28-08-06, 14:25
Some criminals like rapists and paedophiliacs deserve a sit in the chair....As long as the evidence is solid!

LegenDarY
28-08-06, 14:28
I am for the Death Penalty. People fear it, even when they call it the ultimate freedom.
same here.. i'd rather have them suffer their whole life for what they did.. but the fear of getting the death penalty will probably make a lot of killers out there think twice..

so.. For

tha_mattster
28-08-06, 14:34
Against :)

I would never live in a country with the death penalty, it's a sign of an uncivilised society. Nobody should decide if another human being should live or die. And if you say they deserve to die if they killed another human, then you are making the same choice the murderer made.

Greenkey2
28-08-06, 14:52
Against.

1. Becasue death is a release and not a punishment.

2. Because two wrongs don't make a right.

3. Because if murder is wrong, then murder is wrong. There is no inbetween.

I was about to write a long and invloved post about my views but Neteru - as usual - managed to sum it all up simply and eloquently first :tmb:

Cochrane
28-08-06, 14:58
Against. Reasons:


The idea behind punishing someone for murder is that killing other people is bad. Why is it only bad if you do it, but not if the state does it?
In a way, it is a form of revenge, where people get killed to make their victims (or their victims' relatives) feel better. Revenge is however explicitly not the goal of any other form of punishment, instead the idea is to make the criminal realise his mistake and become a better person.
Risk of killing someone innocent. I don't know if the US courts really operate upon the principle of "whoever tells the best story wins", which is portrayed by the media, but even if they don't, killing someone is still a decision that has too many consequences to be decided by lawyers.
It's unfair, because people with lower income might have less of a chance to defend themselves succesfully because they can't afford a good lawyer. This is always a problem, but when it comes to the issue of whether someone may be killed, it gets much, much more important.
Death penalty is the only penalty which does not allow a criminal to rehabilitate himself or regret his actions.
Unjustified death penalty is one of the trademarks of tyrannic rule. In a democratic nation, the constitution is usually written so that a would-be dictator cannot possibly abuse the constitutional system to create a despotic ruling. Death penalty is directly opposed to this.
The claim that it makes would-be murderers think twice is often heard, but I've never seen it confirmed. Does anyone have a link to an interview with any murderer serving a life sentence who said "Well, if there was death penalty here, I wouldn't have done it"? Life-long imprisonment is probably enough to make someone reconsider his plans.
Supporting it for economic reasons seems to me to be similar to supporting legislature that mandates that old people have to cross streets when the lights read "Don't Walk", to reduce the amount of money spent for pensions.

tlr online
28-08-06, 14:59
No. Do not approve of legalised murder.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 15:01
Undecided.

One can't argue at the effeciveness of Capital punishment; Especially the more humiliating methods (yes, I am talking about public decapitation.) Strict punishments for crimes make for an excellent buffer against criminal intent.

However, one must also think of the possibility of wrongful convictions. If a man gets excecuted due to the faliure of to awknowladge and degree of possible doubt by an overzealous Judicial system, one would ask the question; Is it Justice, or Tyranny?

LegenDarY
28-08-06, 15:03
However, one must also think of the possibility of wrongful convictions. If a man gets excecuted due to the faliure of to awknowladge and degree of possible doubt by an overzealous Judicial system, one would ask the question; Is it Justice, or Tyranny?
i agree.. it's something that should be used when you're absolutely 110% sure someone is in fact the person who commited the crime(s)

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 15:06
If anybody ever murdered a member of my family or friends, I honestly can say i'd want them to be executed in the worst, most painful way possible.
I don't like the idea of them 'Living it up' In Jail.

Mona Sax
28-08-06, 15:08
Against. It's not proven that the death penalty actually has a preventive impact. A lifelong sentence is more expensive, but at least no innocent people would be killed due to judicial errors.

mau3genius
28-08-06, 15:21
If anybody ever murdered a member of my family or friends, I honestly can say i'd want them to be executed in the worst, most painful way possible.
I don't like the idea of them 'Living it up' In Jail.
I'm sure most people would feel like you do. It's the 'heat' of the bad moment people goes thru when the crime is done and Justice gets to the 'guilty ones'.
But, put it this way.
What If in [let's say] 7 years, you are acused of the murder of an old woman, but you didn't do it. The evidence is not solid/is wrongly used, and you are condemned to death penalty, even though you're innocent.
You can't proof Justice is wrong, so you are going to die.
Are you gonna feel the same way about taking criminals' lifes?

With death penalty, there's always the huge 'What If...'
What If the person who's dying there [on the chair, lethal injection, etc] is innocent?
What If you do realize death is not the proper punishment?

So I'm against [for now :whi:] death penalty.
Instead of acting like we humans can control, give, and take life, we should really get a deeper view of every situation.


EDIT. Sorry, didn't check the spelling/grammar mistakes.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 15:34
It's rare.... There are case of people being wrongly executed, but it's not often at all.

Mona Sax
28-08-06, 15:36
It's rare.... There are case of people being wrongly executed, but it's not often at all.
IMO every single one is one too many.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 15:41
IMO every single one is one too many.
But same with sentances for life, When people have done nothing wrong.

Mona Sax
28-08-06, 15:43
But same with sentances for life, When people have done nothing wrong.
Of course, but there's at least the possibility to correct mistakes. When you've executed somebody, it's obviously over.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 15:47
Of course, but there's at least the possibility to correct mistakes. When you've executed somebody, it's obviously over.

There's always going to be doubt, Even if a person admitted to it, you'd ask yourself whether there sane at mind... And perhaps did or did not do it.
Even with bucket loads of evidence.... You'll always ALWAYS question the outcome.

Mona Sax
28-08-06, 15:53
There's always going to be doubt, Even if a person admitted to it, you'd ask yourself whether there sane at mind... And perhaps did or did not do it.
Even with bucket loads of evidences.... You'll always ALWAYS question the outcome.
Yeah, but do you know the alternative? Not punishing anybody anymore. Then you wouldn't do anybody injustice with absolute certainty, but you'd have millions of criminals running free.

There's some sort of balance we have to find. Both the death penalty and total amnesty are unsuitable extremes.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 15:55
Yeah, but do you know the alternative? Not punishing anybody anymore. Then you wouldn't do anybody injustice with absolute certainty, but you'd have millions of criminals running free.

There's some sort of balance we have to find. Both the death penalty and total amnesty are unsuitable extremes.

I rarely think about the criminals and more about what would make family/friends of the victims feel a whole lot better.

Mona Sax
28-08-06, 15:57
I rarely think about the criminals and more about what would make family/friends of the victims feel a whole lot better.
Then we could just go back to the ancient "eye for an eye" method. Anarchy and law of the jungle, basically.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 16:00
Then we could just go back to the ancient "eye for an eye" method. Anarchy and law of the jungle, basically.

What do you think wars are? This world runs on basic instincts. No matter how civilized we claim ourselves to be, when it comes down to it we all act out of order.

If anarchy is to eliminated, Strict control and guidance will have to take its place, and that means deterence.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 16:02
Then we could just go back to the ancient "eye for an eye" method. Anarchy and law of the jungle, basically.

That's one of the best moto's to go by, But then of course there's the old bible quote 'Treat others as you would like to be treated'.... what goes around comes around.

Mona Sax
28-08-06, 16:11
What do you think wars are? This world runs on basic instincts. No matter how civilized we claim ourselves to be, when it comes down to it we all act out of order.

If anarchy is to eliminated, Strict control and guidance will have to take its place, and that means deterence.
I'm not too fond of wars, either.

Criminologists tend to downgrade the role of deterrence nowadays - it simply doesn't work. You get much better results with integration and observation (electronic shackles, for example). Of course, that's not suitable for capital criminals because most people wouldn't feel comfortable at all knowing they're not locked away.

IMO the state shouldn't patronize its citizens, it simply has to provide a (mandatory) replacement for good old-fashioned revenge. The victims' wishes have to be respected, but executing somebody is just too big a risk because, well, you could have the wrong guy. Anarchy isn't a problem per se, it's what people make of it.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 16:15
There is the possibility of Enforced control :whi: (I.e. Brawinwash the cloots and make them into more productive members of society; IF we ever get that far with technology.)

Then again, we'll be blamed for "taking away their lives" almost on the borderline of killing them. Well, we aren't killing them now are we? There is a slight chance of abuse in that system as well (gross Exaduration.)

Mona Sax
28-08-06, 16:21
I'd never mess with somebody's identity and individuality. Trying to teach somebody something about what's acceptable in a certain society is one thing, but forcing it on them? No. If they don't want to learn, they'll just have to pay the price and spend some time in the pen.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 16:23
pay the price and spend some time in the pen.
Nowadays 'the pen' isn't such a bad way of life.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 16:25
Nowadays 'the pen' isn't such a bad way of life.

Not here it isn't.

Mona Sax
28-08-06, 16:26
Nowadays 'the pen' isn't such a bad way of life.
For a short while, agreed. But believe me, spending 24 hours a day in a narrow cell without much outside contact or privacy isn't funny. I've seen it in the military, and I was there voluntarily.

PirateRose
28-08-06, 16:26
Someone once said this to me:

"If its an eye for an eye, then we would all go blind"

I say:

"What a sick, sad people we are to take the first eye,"

Hybrid Soldier
28-08-06, 16:28
No i don't believe in it. Why? Simply because it just going to show were no better then the people commiting whatever they may have done.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 16:28
For a short while, agreed. But believe me, spending 24 hours a day in a narrow cell without much outside contact or privacy isn't funny. I've seen it in the military, and I was there voluntarily.

Dependant on the crime.... It seems the worser the crime, The better treatment you get... Especially if your on Suicide watch aswell.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 16:34
Dependant on the crime.... It seems the worser the crime, The better treatment you get... Especially if your on Suicide watch aswell.

On the contrary, A petifile under prison conditions has to be the worst person to be there. He will be under solitary confinement for most of his time period, and away from other inmates (since there is a possibility that they will beat him to death; Petifiles and rapists aren't exactly liked in Prisons.)

Gomes
28-08-06, 16:37
I have no pity for evil people but there is the risk of sentencing innocent people. Courts are not infalible.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 16:41
(since there is a possibility that they will beat him to death; Petifiles and rapists aren't exactly liked in Prisons.)
Of course, It doesn't take much for other prisoners to learn information about certain other prisoners which they happen to be sharing the same place with.

My Idea of a prision - A few sheets, a crud toilet and NO WINDOWS.
Realistic Prision cell- Normal size bed, Matress, quilts, pillows, toilets, Mirror's, and a window with a great view of freedom.
I think somehow the goverment have got their priorities wrong.

interstellardave
28-08-06, 16:49
I have no pity for evil people but there is the risk of sentencing innocent people. Courts are not infalible.

Courts are not infallible, true. And governments are not trustworthy. Anything limiting government power is good IMO. Even though we have the death penalty in the US it's very good that it's always looked at very closely. If not, the probability of people being rail-roaded through the system goes way up because death would be the ultimate coverup. At least if they're in prison they have a chance to be heard--and maybe be freed if they are wrongfully accused.

Neteru
28-08-06, 16:55
My Idea of a prision - A few sheets, a crud toilet and NO WINDOWS.Firstly; and you think that would make you better than them? You need to think again.

Secondly, I think you have a distorted, politicised and tabloid view of prison that bears little resemblance to reality. Have you ever actually been to a prison, visited a prisoner or had a friend or relative who is or was imprisoned?

So you think it's a holiday to have your freedom taken away, to have to get up, go to the toilet, eat and sleep when someone else tells you to. To spend 23hrs of a 24hr day in your small cell (whatever the 'quality' of your bed linen), where very often you have to go to the toilet in a bucket and not a proper toilet, and in most cases in front of your cellmate. A cellmate who very well could be threatening to kill you unless you perform certain sexual acts for him, and you know you can't tell the prison guards or the governor because that will get you killed for being a 'grass' (or a 'snitch' as the Americans call them). Or where your cellmate may be suffering from a serious mental health problem, such as paranoid psychosis, and he could very well kill you because of that illness. Do I really need to go on?

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 17:46
. Do I really need to go on?

Hence why i'm all for the death penalty.

Taleigha
28-08-06, 17:53
i say yes. for some crimes. if someone kills someone else, then they deserve to die.

but then theres all the 'oh what if theyre innocent?' and 'but they did a good thing killing them, because that person was evil.'

i guess its down to circumstance. people who are cruel to children and animals derserve to die.

Neteru
28-08-06, 17:55
Hence why i'm all for the death penalty.Oh, so you want to save them from what isn't actually a holiday camp now, but an awful experience?

Melonie Tomb Raider
28-08-06, 17:56
Yes, I'm for the death penalty.

I'll explain later, I gtg.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 17:56
i guess its down to circumstance. people who are cruel to children and animals derserve to die.

That would include 2/3rds of the world's population. Talk about generalization.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 17:57
Oh, so you want to save them from what isn't actually a holiday camp now, but an awful experience?

Nope, What you stated was merely an extra which i could have used earlier to back up points Mona made.
I still stick by the expression 'An eye for an eye'.

Taleigha
28-08-06, 18:13
That would include 2/3rds of the world's population. Talk about generalization.
talk about your mother - god, whats she like?

Catapharact
28-08-06, 18:16
talk about your mother - god, whats she like?

You sure you're 21? You act like a 12 yr. old sometimes. Not surprised though :whi:.

Taleigha
28-08-06, 18:18
yeah, d'you think i care?

Catapharact
28-08-06, 18:21
yeah, d'you think i care?

You should. Act your age for a change, because you simply give the impression of some mindless blabermouth.

*waves hand* Now away with thee; Come back with something worth discussing about.

Assassino
28-08-06, 18:22
Relax people!:D

If I had my way...every person who committed a serious crime i.e. rape, murder, torture etc would have their heads removed. And don't give me 'human rights' all I can say is...screw that they didn't care about other's rights.
Leah for Prime Minister!:D

Geck-o-Lizard
28-08-06, 18:23
On the contrary, A petifile under prison conditions has to be the worst person to be there. He will be under solitary confinement for most of his time period, and away from other inmates (since there is a possibility that they will beat him to death; Petifiles and rapists aren't exactly liked in Prisons.)

Not to be pedantic here, but it's spelled "paedophile" (or "pedophile" if you're American), not "petifile". Paedo = child and phile = prefrence. Just a friendly FYI from a spelling nerd. :D


Enough, Taleigha. I don't care how you talk when you're out with your mates offline, but please post responsibly when you're here. If you're annoyed at what someone says, please don't do the "yer maw" routine, just go to another page.

interstellardave
28-08-06, 18:24
Relax people!:D

If I had my way...every person who committed a serious crime i.e. rape, murder, torture etc would have their heads removed. And don't give me 'human rights' all I can say is...screw that they didn't care about other's rights.
Leah for Prime Minister!:D

Things are bad enough now, if things were like that next thing you know we'd have Hitler in the White House! (I'll now wait for someone to say we do, so we can move on :p )

Taleigha
28-08-06, 18:24
You should. Act your age for a change, because you simply give the impression of some mindless blabermouth.

*waves hand* Now away with thee; Come back with something worth discussing about.
excuse me. i did have something to say, and i said it.

but ofcourse you, being the vulgar way you are, always attack my opinion.

youre like something waiting to pounce all the time like 'oh - theres Taleigha giving an opinion - raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!! attack!!'

so - away with thee. and yo mama too!

Hybrid Soldier
28-08-06, 18:25
talk about your mother - god, whats she like?

What the hell? :rolleyes:

Catapharact
28-08-06, 18:26
Pfft... She calls that vulagar? Lady, you don't know what vulgar is. And well Geck, looks like she put herself in the noose.

Wanna pull the lever?

interstellardave
28-08-06, 18:27
And the POINT IS.... lost in all the bickering... as usual...

Taleigha
28-08-06, 18:28
and - cataphract - its people like you who give forums like these a bad name.

Lara's Boy
28-08-06, 18:30
And the POINT IS.... lost in all the bickering... as usual...

Exactly. I was enjoying reading others' opinions, and then it suddenly began circling the drain.....


Shame, it seems to happen to every good topic that comes about, and those don't happen very often :(

Catapharact
28-08-06, 18:31
And the POINT IS.... lost in all the bickering... as usual...

Never mind dave; An overzealous mouth is out spewing the usual "yer maw" thing.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

Though yes ppl cringe over such strict actions as that of the Hitler Regime; One cannot argue that crime would totally be erradicated if strict control was applied over such situations. However, there is always the element of "abusing the power" as such applied with regimes in control. Thenagain, if humans were perfect, would we even have crime?

tha_mattster
28-08-06, 18:33
Lets move on :)

Look at the top 20 countries in the UN Human Development Index
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index)

Only Japan and the USA have capital punishment. (I'm not sure if japan has the death penalty, please tell me)
Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway) (=)
Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland) (↑ 5)
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) (=)
Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg) (↑ 11)
Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) (↑ 1)
Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) (↓ 4)
Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) (↑ 4)
Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland) (↑ 2)
Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) (↓ 3)
United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) (↓ 2)
Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) (↓ 2)
Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) (↓ 7)
Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland) (=)
Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark) (↑ 3)
United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) (↓ 3)
France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) (=)
Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria) (↓ 3)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) (↑ 3)
New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) (↓ 1)
Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) (↓ 1)also look this is quite interesting...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Death_Penalty_World_Map2.png

the USA seems to be the only developed western nation that still has capital punishment!

Taleigha
28-08-06, 18:33
Exactly. I was enjoying reading others' opinions, and then it suddenly began circling the drain.....


Shame, it seems to happen to every good topic that comes about, and those don't happen very often :(
yeah - and if you check back youll find it was that cataract guy trying to pick beef with me - as ever... *sigh* wheres the love?

but i stick by my opinion:

i say yes. for some crimes. if someone kills someone else, then they deserve to die.

but then theres all the 'oh what if theyre innocent?' and 'but they did a good thing killing them, because that person was evil.'

i guess its down to circumstance. people who are cruel to children and animals derserve to die.

Lara's Boy
28-08-06, 18:34
I can't conceive of humans being 'perfect', otherwise communism in it's purist form would have succeded without a problem. We will always have crime simply because other people will always be psychologically altered whether biologically from birth or from their social surroundings; it is impossible to avoid. I do not believe in the Death Penalty in all cases, as I said in an earlier post I rather agree with the Incapacitation method. It's not about making the person feel bad, it is about keeping them from society to inflict more damage and possibly influence others.

@Taleigh: I actually haven't seen Cat attack anyone in this thread, I have found his posts a good read and in polite form :wve:

Catapharact
28-08-06, 18:35
But its interesting to see that Japan (having one of the lowest crime rates in the world) have adopted the death penelty.

interstellardave
28-08-06, 18:36
Yes, I'm extremely suspicious of my own government--it's abuses are sometimes well known but, in most cases, covered up. People in other countries know of our military "adventures" but somewhat less known is the treatment of certain citizens here. Like those who have had drugs planted on their property by agents of the government who then turn around and confiscate said property under the aegis of "the war on drugs". Our government--for decades now--has declared "war" on many social problems... they are all nothing more than a war on our freedoms. :mad:

Catapharact
28-08-06, 18:38
yeah - and if you check back youll find it was that cataract guy trying to pick beef with me - as ever... *sigh* wheres the love?

Beef? *sigh* I made a comment at what you posted. I did not characterize anything about you. As I said... this place has such fragile egos.

interstellardave
28-08-06, 18:41
I refuse to take sides--not because I can't, but because it would just keep this thing going. I DO urge one of you two to let the other have the last word already! You can think of it as being the bigger person--and then you can be done with it. ;)

tha_mattster
28-08-06, 18:41
But its interesting to see that Japan (having one of the lowest crime rates in the world) have adopted the death penelty.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

if you look there it shows that some countries with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without - so I wonder what effect if any the death penalty has on deterring murders :confused:



#24 United States (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime) 0.042802 per 1,000 people

#54 Norway (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/no-norway/cri-crime) 0.0106684 per 1,000 people

so the USA still has higher murder rate than Norway even with the death penalty.


#40 France (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/fr-france/cri-crime) 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#61 Saudi Arabia (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sa-saudi-arabia/cri-crime) 0.00397456 per 1,000 people



and france (no death penalty) has a higher murder rate than saudi arabia, which does have the death penalty.

Geck-o-Lizard
28-08-06, 18:41
Taleigha, Cat's like this to all of us. He's not picking on you. :p So let's cool it, and get back to the topic. :)

Mattster: that's something that I noticed too, though I don't know whether it might be that it's just the places with the higher crime rates who introduce the death penalty.

interstellardave
28-08-06, 18:44
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

if you look there it shows that some countries with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without - so I wonder what effect if any the death penalty has on deterring murders :confused:



#24 United States (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime) 0.042802 per 1,000 people

#54 Norway (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/no-norway/cri-crime) 0.0106684 per 1,000 people

so the USA still has higher murder rate than Norway even with the death penalty.


#40 France (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/fr-france/cri-crime) 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#61 Saudi Arabia (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sa-saudi-arabia/cri-crime) 0.00397456 per 1,000 people



and france (no death penalty) has a higher murder rate than saudi arabia, which does have the death penalty.

I would guess that countries that are more homogenous will have a lower murder rate... countries like the USA and France with the multitude of ethnic and national backgrounds present would logically have higher murder rates.

Lara's Boy
28-08-06, 18:47
I would guess that countries that are more homogenous will have a lower murder rate... countries like the USA and France with the multitude of ethnic and national backgrounds present would logicall have higher murder rates.


I think so as well. With such a 'Melting Pot' of sorts, it is easier for people to exhibit Racism and Bigotry, and I think we all know what kind of horror people inflict upon one another in the name of Racisim.....blech. Our Captial Punishment is an attempt of deterrence that works in theory, because the offender receiving the punishment certainly won't offend again, but it really doesnt' do anything to potential offenders.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 18:52
Mattster: that's something that I noticed too, though I don't know whether it might be that it's just the places with the higher crime rates who introduce the death penalty.

I see it more as a view society's view on punishment, rather than what that world thinks. Some ppl may find Jail time as an insult upon the fact that their loved one died and the person who commited the attocity lives.

Yes I know, an eye for an eye my not be the best case sometimes, but you have to put yourselves in the victim's family's shoes. What would your reaction be?

Neteru
28-08-06, 18:52
Nope, What you stated was merely an extra which i could have used earlier to back up points Mona made.
I still stick by the expression 'An eye for an eye'.Ok, well you haven't said anything to convince me that prison is the holiday camp you assert it is.

And 'an eye for an eye' is an extract from the bible that in fact merely relates to the lending of money.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 18:54
I would guess that countries that are more homogenous will have a lower murder rate... countries like the USA and France with the multitude of ethnic and national backgrounds present would logically have higher murder rates.

Hmmm... Possible. Believe it or not, there are areas in Saudi Arabia that have segrigated communities for Non-Muslims (though that idea is quickly diminishing.)

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 18:56
Ok, well you haven't said anything to convince me that prison is the holiday camp you assert it is.

And 'an eye for an eye' is an extract from the bible that in fact merely relates to the lending of money.

I don't have to convince you to anything, Since i'm not trying to sway yours or anybody elses views, I'm expressing my opinion on it all. That is all.

Nowadays it doesn't matter what the original meaning behind the expression mean's, It's still used for the whole idea of revenge.
'Treat others as you would like to be treated'.... Im going to stab someone today, but hey they can stab me right back.

Draco
28-08-06, 18:57
As far as I am concerned, a person who earns the Death Penalty knew the consequences of their actions and accepted them.

Softening society is what is leading to even worse crime rates.

Melonie Tomb Raider
28-08-06, 18:58
And 'an eye for an eye' is an extract from the bible that in fact merely relates to the lending of money.

Related to the lending of money? I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one. "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is the notion that for every wrong doing there should be a compensating measure of justice. I really don't see it relating to money at all.

Catapharact
28-08-06, 19:00
As far as I am concerned, a person who earns the Death Penalty knew the consequences of their actions and accepted them.

Softening society is what is leading to even worse crime rates.

No arguments there, but again there comes the question of wrongful convictions. Logically, a minor fraction of deaths due to wrongful convictions isn't a reason to change the system. However, the moral delimma does come into mind.

Melonie Tomb Raider
28-08-06, 19:00
As far as I am concerned, a person who earns the Death Penalty knew the consequences of their actions and accepted them.

Softening society is what is leading to even worse crime rates.

Exactly. :tmb:

The death penalty is used for particularly heinous crimes, and even then, a lot of people still don't receive the punishment. Think of it this way: If some one brutally tortured and murdered your entire family, would you want that person to get the death penalty? I sure would!

I believe in the death penalty because I believe in justice.

Assassino
28-08-06, 19:02
I love your views mel!:D
I also think corporal punishment should be back...teach 'em young!

Melonie Tomb Raider
28-08-06, 19:14
No arguments there, but again there comes the question of wrongful convictions. Logically, a minor fraction of deaths due to wrongful convictions isn't a reason to change the system. However, the moral delimma does come into mind.

The death penalty is rarely given out. The chances of an innocent person getting it are slim to none. Even then, do you think wrongfully accusing them and sending them to jail for life is any better? They'll die there anyway. We're human beings, we make sincere mistakes, and sadly, some innocent people have to suffer for it. It's a fact of life, and we shouldn't soften up our laws because of the "possibility" that an innocent person might suffer.

If I was wrongfully accused of something and sent to death with the law truly, honestly, 100% believing that I really did it, it would be worth me dying, because that means criminals who actually deserve death will still die as well.

Bad things happen to good people, we can't change that no matter what we do. We shouldn't take justice out of our system to prevent it, because in the end, we won't.

interstellardave
28-08-06, 19:14
As far as I am concerned, a person who earns the Death Penalty knew the consequences of their actions and accepted them.

Softening society is what is leading to even worse crime rates.

The continued criminalization of drugs is what really boosts the crime problem in the US and probably other countries as well. First you are a criminal for using drugs, so you have to go to other criminals to get the drugs. Then those criminals will fight to control the drug market (that's where a lot of muders occur--criminals killing other criminals). Same with prostitution--both the seller and buyer are criminals by definition, and the women who "sell" are abused because they are marginalized by the legal system. Smart legalization of things like these will automatically cut crime rates and better the general health of the population to boot.

Melonie Tomb Raider
28-08-06, 19:15
I love your views mel!:D


Thank you :hug:

Neteru
28-08-06, 19:17
I don't have to convince you to anything, Since i'm not trying to sway yours or anybody elses views, I'm expressing my opinion on it all. That is all.Of course you don't, but I rather thought you would simply enjoy the discussion.

Related to the lending of money? I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one. "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is the notion that for every wrong doing there should be a compensating measure of justice. I really don't see it relating to money at all.In the Talmud, the original Jewish Hebrew texts, the phrase 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot.' relates purely to monetary compensation in tort cases.

Draco
28-08-06, 19:20
The continued criminalization of drugs is what really boosts the crime problem in the US and probably other countries as well. First you are a criminal for using drugs, so you have to go to other criminals to get the drugs. Then those criminals will fight to control the drug market (that's where a lot of muders occur--criminals killing other criminals). Same with prostitution--both the seller and buyer are criminals by definition, and the women who "sell" are abused because they are marginalized by the legal system. Smart legalization of things like these will automatically cut crime rates and better the general health of the population to boot.

I already support legalization and the subsequent taxation of prostitution. Drugs I view similarly...but if you drive under the influence even miniscule influence, you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law up to and including the death penalty if circumstances are appropriate (killing someone in an accident).

Catapharact
28-08-06, 19:21
The death penalty is rarely given out. The chances of an innocent person getting it are slim to none. Even then, do you think wrongfully accusing them and sending them to jail for life is any better? They'll die there anyway. We're human beings, we make sincere mistakes, and sadly, some innocent people have to suffer for it. It's a fact of life, and we shouldn't soften up our laws because of the "possibility" that an innocent person might suffer.

If I was wrongfully accused of something and sent to death with the law truly, honestly, 100% believing that I really did it, it would be worth me dying, because that means criminals who actually deserve death will still die as well.

Bad things happen to good people, we can't change that no matter what we do. We shouldn't take justice out of our system to prevent it, because in the end, we won't.

My opinion:

IF wrongful convictions do happen, I want to see the govenment give fair and full compensation to the victims of the family (regardless of the cost.) If you keep in mind that if the wrongly accused happened to be the sole provider of the family, him not being there anymore could lead the family into dire hardships.

Again, it comes down to overzealousy. We tend to apply the reverse onus on an accused these days (guilty until proven innocent) where as it should be the other way around.

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 19:21
Of course you don't, but I rather thought you would simply enjoy the discussion.


Don't get me wrong Net, I enjoy a discussion as much as anybody else, But the way im seeing it is that your trying to make me prove my points are correct over yours, Whereas there just as valid as anybody else's.

I value opinions from anybody, but at the end of the day... There just opinions not wrong or right, I believe in the death penalty whereas you do not, there is no right or wrong answer :)

Neteru
28-08-06, 19:32
I just like the discussion Mitch. It's never my intention to dissuade anyone from any view because that's a waste of energy to me. No, like I said, I just like the discussion. Intellectual masturbation if you will. Excuse the expression. :D

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 19:34
Intellectual masturbation if you will.

LOL there are 1000's of expression's which you could have used, but that has to be the cherry on the cake.

IMO....I'm gonna have to use that in the future.

Paul H
28-08-06, 19:54
Yes, I'm extremely suspicious of my own government--it's abuses are sometimes well known but, in most cases, covered up. People in other countries know of our military "adventures" but somewhat less known is the treatment of certain citizens here. Like those who have had drugs planted on their property by agents of the government who then turn around and confiscate said property under the aegis of "the war on drugs". Our government--for decades now--has declared "war" on many social problems... they are all nothing more than a war on our freedoms. :mad:
I agree. You have this monstrosity called the Patriot Act and in the UK, unless people wake up in time, we will soon have compulsory biometric ID cards for everyone. Governments deliberately create and spread fear for the sole purpose of then offering the "cure" for those things they have been scaring people with. Then, as you say, they promise a war on this, and a war on that. Then it's: "Surrender all your freedoms to us, so we can protect you from the things we have been scaring you with."

People seem to forget that governments are supposed to be servants of the people, not their masters.

Cochrane
28-08-06, 20:07
Exactly. :tmb:

The death penalty is used for particularly heinous crimes, and even then, a lot of people still don't receive the punishment. Think of it this way: If some one brutally tortured and murdered your entire family, would you want that person to get the death penalty? I sure would!

I believe in the death penalty because I believe in justice.

This is not justice, it is revenge. In my opinion, this is a very different thing. If justice really only meant "An eye for an eye", then doing justice to someone who stole a car would be stealing his car.

I think the basic issue is whether someone who killed someone is still human. Death penalty can only be justified if murdering someone removes the murderer's humanity. I think that being human is a quality that no action can remove from you, and therefore you always deserve to be treated as a human being.

Melonie Tomb Raider
28-08-06, 21:37
If you do something wrong, you better be prepared to suffer the consequences. That doesn't sound like revenge to me. With every action ther is a reaction. People need to learn to be responsible for their actions. A slap on the wrist doesn't cut it. If you call the death penalty "revenge", then I guess there shouldn't be any punishment whatsoever...

Like Draco said, the persons comitting the crimes know the consequences, it's their own fault. Let's say I deliberately jumped off my roof right now and broke my leg. Would anyone here actually suggest that I didn't deserve to get my leg broken? I jumped off the roof knowing that I could get a bad result, yet I did it anyway. I'd definitely deserve it!

Murderers know exactly what they are getting into. If they brutally torture and kill people, then by george, they deserve to die themselves. I have a hard time comprehending a legitimate argument against that.

tampi
28-08-06, 22:22
I mean that in the hospitals if you have too much sugar in the blood they cut a leg to you.
Everything is terrible :confused: :(

Hurrah4Lara
28-08-06, 23:00
Governments deliberately create and spread fear for the sole purpose of then offering the "cure" for those things they have been scaring people with.
"The easiest way to gain control of the people is to carry out acts of terror upon them" :yik: - J Stalin

If I was wrongfully accused of something and sent to death with the law truly, honestly, 100% believing that I really did it, it would be worth me dying, because that means criminals who actually deserve death will still die as well.

Bad things happen to good people, we can't change that no matter what we do. We shouldn't take justice out of our system to prevent it, because in the end, we won't.
Melonie, I hadn't heard it put like that before. I am not sure I am brave enough or noble enough to agree, though:D.

Well, I support the death penalty. Heh, our Boss has been away so I've been speaking my mind here lately:jmp:.

In the Talmud, the original Jewish Hebrew texts, the phrase 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot.' relates purely to monetary compensation in tort cases.
Hi Neteru, that is only one Talmudic interpretation. For isn't the full Exodus quote they mean "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." I know it as the Lex Talionis. I don't know how exactly to say that in English - Payback-Law would be closest, I suppose, but I am sure the spirit is not only money.

H4L:wve:

Neteru
28-08-06, 23:24
Hi Neteru, that is only one Talmudic interpretation. For isn't the full Exodus quote they mean "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." I know it as the Lex Talionis. I don't know how exactly to say that in English - Payback-Law would be closest, I suppose, but I am sure the spirit is not only money.

H4L:wve:

Hi :wve:

I have heard it often enough from scholars of the subject to accept that it does strictly relate to tort law. And I would rather accept that than the over used interpretation so readily vocalised nowadays. Anyway, this bugged me, so I googled. On This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#Lex_talionis_in_Judaism) page it also indicates that it relates to tort law, and futhermore:

Since there is no form of punishment in the Torah that calls for the maiming of an offender ... it is impossible to read "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" literally in the context of a conspiratorial witness, indicating that the phrase is never meant literally in the Torah.

Hurrah4Lara
28-08-06, 23:48
Hi :wve:

I have heard it often enough from scholars of the subject to accept that it does strictly relate to tort law. And I would rather accept that than the over used interpretation so readily vocalised nowadays. Anyway, this bugged me, so I googled. On This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#Lex_talionis_in_Judaism) page it also indicates that it relates to tort law, and futhermore:

Oh Neteru, I'm meant to be sleeping. Hehe, well I suppose we have listened to different scholars then:D! I don't want to argue about multi-thousand year old misquotes:D, so i shall go with Mitch:

Nowadays it doesn't matter what the original meaning behind the expression mean's, It's still used for the whole idea of revenge.

It is nice, though, to encounter another student of the Old Testament:hug:. I love the beautiful poems:hug:.

Oh well, back to discussing killing people, everyone:whi:.

H4L:wve:

tr_mitch
28-08-06, 23:54
Oh Neteru, I'm meant to be sleeping. Hehe, well I suppose we have listened to different scholars then:D! I don't want to argue about multi-thousand year old misquotes:D, so i shall go with Mitch:



It is nice, though, to encounter another student of the Old Testament:hug:. I love the beautiful poems:hug:.
H4L:wve:

LOL... I don't read the old testament at all and don't think i ever will, just a little thing i learnt in my Religious Study lessons. :o

CerebralAssassin
29-08-06, 00:10
Do you approve or disaprove of the death penalty? And what are you reasons for this.

I disagree with the death penalty...because it's unethical...but it looks like we're heading in the right direction...since "sudden death" has been abolished...it's only a matter of time till the death penalty will be abolished...only a matter of time!!

Camera Obscura
29-08-06, 01:56
I'm against Captial Punishment.

I live in Texas which happens to be the state in the U.S to execute the most people. And I got to say I'm not proud of my state, or the U.S for that matter. So here's my brief list of why I'm against it.

1. It's wrong, "Hey you killed that family so we'll kill you to make everyone feel better." :rolleyes:

2. So we kill the accused, innocent or not, then what? The victim will magically be resurrected? Reality check.

3. "It saves money."

"Illegal immigrants are costing the United States over 24 billion dollars a year in taxpayers money (National Review 12.13.93)"

Does that mean we should kill off all illigal immigrants to save money? It doesn't matter if you save money on one thing, it'll just be taken from another source.

4. We can't just sweep all the world's problems under the rug now can we? We have to take responsiblity as a society. We can't set the wrongfully accused up for execution when there may be a chance to save an innocent life.

5. Ending someone's life just ends the punishment right away. By giving a life sentence, the innocent still have a chance. The wrong doers spend their life thinking about what they have done and possibly feeling regret.

6. If there is no other way around Capital Punishment, then one should be executed on the behalf that there is enough DNA evidence, as well as other types of evidence, to prove someone guilty. Without sufficient evidence, and lack of DNA evidence, an innocent man could be put to death.

Jake Croft
29-08-06, 01:57
I think no because they could execute someone who was perfectly innocent.

GodOfLight
29-08-06, 05:48
i myself am against the death penality for a number of reasons already mentioned.

however, the main one i think is that simply killing someone off and getting rid of them is a lame cop-out on the behalf of our government and society. i believe that all of us are responsible for our actions, and since our actions affect everyone else's actions, then in the greater picture we are infact responisble for everything. so, the fact that a certian criminal has even grown up to turn into a criminal is our fault and responsibility as a society. this is why i feel that the death penalty is a lame and quite way for us to avoid confronting what we ourselves are actually responsible for.

Mona Sax
29-08-06, 16:07
Murderers know exactly what they are getting into. If they brutally torture and kill people, then by george, they deserve to die themselves. I have a hard time comprehending a legitimate argument against that.
That may be true. However, the problem is that there'll always be innocent people who are executed due to judicial errors, and in my opinion, that's something that's unacceptable in a modern, enlightened constitutional state.

If I had a 100% guarantee that no falsely accused people would die, maybe I'd think differently on the death penalty.

Draco
29-08-06, 18:54
The jury is the wild card. And because of that there can never be a 100% Guarantee.

It is very hard to get someone convicted if they didn't do the crime. Unless there is a conspiracy to frame that person.

Cochrane
29-08-06, 19:21
If you do something wrong, you better be prepared to suffer the consequences. That doesn't sound like revenge to me. With every action ther is a reaction. People need to learn to be responsible for their actions. A slap on the wrist doesn't cut it. If you call the death penalty "revenge", then I guess there shouldn't be any punishment whatsoever...

Like Draco said, the persons comitting the crimes know the consequences, it's their own fault. Let's say I deliberately jumped off my roof right now and broke my leg. Would anyone here actually suggest that I didn't deserve to get my leg broken? I jumped off the roof knowing that I could get a bad result, yet I did it anyway. I'd definitely deserve it!

Murderers know exactly what they are getting into. If they brutally torture and kill people, then by george, they deserve to die themselves. I have a hard time comprehending a legitimate argument against that.

With revenge, I meant the example "If someone kills your family, you'd want to see them dead, don't you?". Of course I would want to see the murderer dead. But I would not act rationally in this case. Acting rationally, however, is, in my opinion, an absolute requirement before sentencing someone to death. That is, in my opinion, the difference: Revenge is emotional and subjective. Justice is rational and objective.

Murderers knowing that they could be executed for killing someone does not make this execution right. My point is: If it is wrong to kill someone, it is wrong to kill someone. Making an exception to that is just wrong.

jackles
29-08-06, 19:43
I do not agree with the capital punishment, mainly because unless someone is caught in the act and there is irrefutable DNA evidence then there is always a possibilty of killing an innocent person.

I know that some evil people deserve to die but then I become no better than the person who has killed. BUT life should mean LIFE. None of this get twelve years and out on six stuff. If someone has denied another human being the right of life then they should have no more freedom. No parole..you do the crime baby...then do the time.

Of course there is generalization here..someone who kills in self defence etc should be dealt with in a different scale than some one who has killed a child.

belter_21
29-08-06, 22:53
Against. It diminishes humanity.

Tombreaper
29-08-06, 22:56
Death Penalty? Only supported by countries which have something to hide.

Assassino
29-08-06, 22:57
You'd put a dog down if it mauled a person...why not put a person down for doing a similar act?

Melonie Tomb Raider
29-08-06, 23:02
You'd put a dog down if it mauled a person...why not put a person down for doing a similar act?

Wow, I've never heard it stated like that before, great point. :tmb:

Neteru
29-08-06, 23:16
You'd put a dog down if it mauled a person...why not put a person down for doing a similar act?You'd shoot a horse if it broke it's leg. Why not do the same to people?

Draco
29-08-06, 23:40
You'd shoot a horse if it broke it's leg. Why not do the same to people?

There is a reason you shoot a horse when it breaks it's leg.

Neteru
29-08-06, 23:46
I'm sure there is, but that's not my point.

Draco
29-08-06, 23:56
Your point is flawed.

Neteru
30-08-06, 00:07
You're welcome to your opinion.

GodOfLight
30-08-06, 00:33
You'd put a dog down if it mauled a person...why not put a person down for doing a similar act?

yes... and that is a cruel and disgusting practice :wve: reminds me of miss gulch in "the wizard of oz"... the so called 'wicked witch'... think about it :whi:

Spitfire
30-08-06, 01:03
If you can commit murder then u can recieve what you deserve.
I call it getting even.

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-06, 01:05
If you can commit murder then u can recieve what you deserve.


:tmb: Precisely.

Ward Dragon
30-08-06, 01:40
I'm in favor of the death penalty under certain circumstances. I draw a distinction between killing and murder. Murder is killing that is not justified. Self-defense, for example, I don't count as murder. I also don't think it is murder to kill someone in order to prevent that person from murdering other people. I know that the criminal justice system is flawed and sometimes innocent people get convicted. I think that the appropriate response to that is to work at fixing the system so less innocent people are convicted rather than trying to determine punishments on the basis of drawing out a person's fate indeterminately until they are exonerated, released due to a legal loophole, or die in prison. If someone commits a truly heinous act and there is substantial proof (DNA, for example), then that person should be executed in order to remove that person from society. If the person is ever released or escapes, it is incredibly likely that person will continue to brutalize victims. Even if the person remains in prison until death, unless that person is isolated 100% from the rest of the prison population, then lesser offenders will learn all sorts of cruel and violent practices from the death-penalty candidate. The only effective way to truly isolate someone is death.

About the legalization of drugs: I do believe that a large part of crime is due to there being a black market for illegal drugs. It's like prohibition fueling the mob and bootleggers. I think that drugs should be legal and government regulated, and I do mean regulated.

About an eye for an eye, that shows how much I know. I thought it was from the Code of Hammurabi:o

SpongeBob Lover
30-08-06, 01:55
You'd put a dog down if it mauled a person...why not put a person down for doing a similar act?

i think the same way :tmb:

B-thoven66
30-08-06, 02:50
You'd put a dog down if it mauled a person...why not put a person down for doing a similar act?
Sorry, your comparison is at least distasteful for me. I respect life in all its forms, human or dog or Koch's bacillus, but this metaphore is too much disgusting for me.
Now I get what you're meaning with your screen name...

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-06, 03:10
Sorry, your comparison is at least distasteful for me. I respect life in all its forms, human or dog or Koch's bacillus, but this metaphore is too much disgusting for me.
Now I get what you're meaning with your screen name...

So if a dog killed innocent people, do you think it should live?

I remember being at a yard sale with my mom once, and there were a couple of people there as well, even a little girl about 4 years old. One of the women running the yard sale opened the door to get something when out came this collie (biggest collie I'd ever seen :eek:) ferociously barking and growling, charging straight for the little girl. Thankfully her father was right there, and he guarded her while the dog viciously latched on to his arm. It took about 4 or 5 people to get the dog off of him, and when it was over, his arm looked like mence meat. Tell me, B-thoven, do you think this dog's life should have been spared?

Thank goodness it wasn't. They were making a phone call to get him put down after that, it wasn't even his first attack!

B-thoven66
30-08-06, 05:12
As far as I can remember, we were talking about death penalty, not about dogs attacking people. But about your own example, you blame it on the dog, while I blame it in on its owner's head. And that's doesn't mean that I would put him (the owner) on the electric chair. And no, I won't take the dog's life if I can avoid it. I should think of another solution.
My complain was about the quoted comparison. I can't understand someone talking about taking off a life without any kind of respect about it.

Back on topic. We were talking about death penalty, and I say against. Because beyond all statistics and all religious beliefs, it implies our absolute failure as a civilized society.
I don't believe that there's something like "genetical fate". We all got a natural born tendency wich may push us towards a given behaviour, of course. But it isn't something that cannot be corrected by appropriate education.
If we, as a society, cannot teach our kids the difference between proper and improper behaviour (I mean, inside this society), then we are failing as elder members of society. And trying to correct any individual's misconducts by the capital punishment, is accepting that we are defeated in our fight against our most basic instincts, therefore our wish for a more civilized society becomes an utopia.

I've lived twice as long as you, and that doesn't make me some kind of Yoda. But at least I still have some hope on that civilized society. And I have some hope that young people like you, MTR, has some hope too for that better society.

Sorry for the longest post I'll ever write, and my poor english,
B66

GodOfLight
30-08-06, 05:23
So if a dog killed innocent people, do you think it should live?

I remember being at a yard sale with my mom once, and there were a couple of people there as well, even a little girl about 4 years old. One of the women running the yard sale opened the door to get something when out came this collie (biggest collie I'd ever seen :eek:) ferociously barking and growling, charging straight for the little girl. Thankfully her father was right there, and he guarded her while the dog viciously latched on to his arm. It took about 4 or 5 people to get the dog off of him, and when it was over, his arm looked like mence meat. Tell me, B-thoven, do you think this dog's life should have been spared?

Thank goodness it wasn't. They were making a phone call to get him put down after that, it wasn't even his first attack!

this is entire post ultimatley proves the pathetic and stupid nature of some human beings. once again humans simply kill off and destroy something they cannot deal with.. wether it be human, animal, or an entire country. this is america's policy on war as well... the american army is the most stupid of all because all it does is launch massive bombing raids, killing thousands of people in between. war in general is crap imo, but there could at least be some sort of precision.

when it comes to viscious animals, it is the owners responsibility. you cannot just kill off something that doesn't fit in with the main stream form of behaviour.. that's what hitler tried to do :whi:

as i said before in one of my earlier posts: criminals, and the reason they become criminals, is our responsibility and fault as a society. merely extinguishing the problem instead of properly dealing with it bit by bit, is a lame cop-out on our behalf because we as a people are responsible for everything.

it's like if someone hates going to school... you can quit school entirely and escape from it, or you can continue to return and try to come to terms with it. same goes with criminals: we can quickly knock them off and pretend all is hunky-dory... or we can actually realize that they are just as human as we ourselves are.

SpongeBob Lover
30-08-06, 05:28
couldnt agree more godoflight :tmb:

GodOfLight
30-08-06, 05:29
couldnt agree more godoflight :tmb:

i thought you said above that you were for the death penality? :confused:

SpongeBob Lover
30-08-06, 05:32
noooooo i was just wait im confused :o the way im thinking is why put a dog down and its the animal inxtinct not the owners fault but a dog can get help for its agresivness.

GodOfLight
30-08-06, 05:42
noooooo i was just wait im confused :o the way im thinking is why put a dog down and its the animal inxtinct not the owners fault but a dog can get help for its agresivness.

ah yes. that makes sense now ;)

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-06, 05:48
I'm only on for a second, so I noticed you replied to what I said GOL. I just wantedt o make clear that my story wasn't referring to the death penalty, I sort of went off topic with animal euthanization there.

Spitfire
30-08-06, 05:57
Why are people comparing a simple minded animal which basically strives off of instinct and hunches whether it should attack or not vs. a human who has a much more complex contemplation system of morality and choices.

madderakka
30-08-06, 06:05
It's a hard decision: the world becomes infinitely more complicated when you know a victim of a violent crime (murder, rape, child molestation etc.) and wonder why the perpetrator gets probation or even a life term- which is spent in a facility that is air conditioned, has 3 meals a day, cable, internet access, they are even allowed to take college courses: basically they have a better qality of life than a lot of law abiding citizens. What's even more sick is that many violent offenders get "fan clubs" where people (usually women) think either the man is wrongfully accused or they can change them.

DREWY
30-08-06, 06:05
this is entire post ultimatley proves the pathetic and stupid nature of some human beings. once again humans simply kill off and destroy something they cannot deal with.. wether it be human, animal, or an entire country. this is america's policy on war as well... the american army is the most stupid of all because all it does is launch massive bombing raids, killing thousands of people in between. war in general is crap imo, but there could at least be some sort of precision.

when it comes to viscious animals, it is the owners responsibility. you cannot just kill off something that doesn't fit in with the main stream form of behaviour.. that's what hitler tried to do :whi:

as i said before in one of my earlier posts: criminals, and the reason they become criminals, is our responsibility and fault as a society. merely extinguishing the problem instead of properly dealing with it bit by bit, is a lame cop-out on our behalf because we as a people are responsible for everything.

it's like if someone hates going to school... you can quit school entirely and escape from it, or you can continue to return and try to come to terms with it. same goes with criminals: we can quickly knock them off and pretend all is hunky-dory... or we can actually realize that they are just as human as we ourselves are.



I wonder (and I can't stress strongly enough that I hope this doesn't happen) if some member of your family, or someone that you loved, was brutally and sensessly tortured and murdered that you would show the same compassion and understanding. I personally agree with capital punishment where it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I used to follow the same line of thinking as what seems to be the majority here until unfortunate circumstances changed my thinking. Walk a mile in my shoes and all that.

Draco
30-08-06, 06:16
this is entire post ultimatley proves the pathetic and stupid nature of some human beings. once again humans simply kill off and destroy something they cannot deal with.. wether it be human, animal, or an entire country. this is america's policy on war as well... the american army is the most stupid of all because all it does is launch massive bombing raids, killing thousands of people in between. war in general is crap imo, but there could at least be some sort of precision.

Overpopulation isn't much better...but that is a bit off topic.

Precision warfare is a very recent idea which is pretty much at the forefront of US military doctrine.

By the way, the US Army does very little bombing, infact the US Army is probably the most precision geared when it comes to air to ground warfare.

The US Air Force is more about the bombs, but even they don't just arbitrarily drop them.

This precision warfare you moan about the lack of is what is keeping death tolls out of the millions.

Spitfire
30-08-06, 06:18
this is entire post ultimatley proves the pathetic and stupid nature of some human beings. once again humans simply kill off and destroy something they cannot deal with.. wether it be human, animal, or an entire country. this is america's policy on war as well... the american army is the most stupid of all because all it does is launch massive bombing raids, killing thousands of people in between. war in general is crap imo, but there could at least be some sort of precision.

when it comes to viscious animals, it is the owners responsibility. you cannot just kill off something that doesn't fit in with the main stream form of behaviour.. that's what hitler tried to do :whi:

as i said before in one of my earlier posts: criminals, and the reason they become criminals, is our responsibility and fault as a society. merely extinguishing the problem instead of properly dealing with it bit by bit, is a lame cop-out on our behalf because we as a people are responsible for everything.

it's like if someone hates going to school... you can quit school entirely and escape from it, or you can continue to return and try to come to terms with it. same goes with criminals: we can quickly knock them off and pretend all is hunky-dory... or we can actually realize that they are just as human as we ourselves are.

Everyone is effected by sociely, you don't see everyone picking up a knife and waiting by a school to grab a kid that they've been attracted to and torture them and finally kill them. No I'm sorry but that is not merely the fault of society. That my friend is the choice a killer/murderer/abuser/molester makes freely through their own moral beliefs.

You ever heard "can't teach an old dog new tricks" Well since everyone insists on comparing animals to humans I'll play along with your silly games. A killer is an old dog who's trick is to abuse his victims brutally and then kill them in some horrific way. You can't just simply fix his way of thinking and set him free after some time and expect him to not be tempted to commit a crime again, thats just ludicrous thinking!

Yes, we are dealing with a problem by getting rid of it, where is the harm in that. Your taking away the life of one to spare the life of his next 5 or ten victims. I'll take capital punishment anyday.

jackles
30-08-06, 07:45
We cant compare animals with humans who deliberatley seek out another human to hurt and kill. Animals work on instinct. Most killers plan and fantasize about such acts.

Besides some of the people who carry on committing acts not of murder but repeated sexual abuse, they are not given the death penalty but they continue to commit crimes. Do we kill them too? We should be committed to maintaining a proper prison service and have sentences that protect sociiety.

Being human is about being morally sound, yes revenge is sweet but were does it end?

GodOfLight
30-08-06, 08:55
I'm only on for a second, so I noticed you replied to what I said GOL. I just wantedt o make clear that my story wasn't referring to the death penalty, I sort of went off topic with animal euthanization there.

yes, but i was not only refering to that post. i actually find all your substantions for the death penalty (which you actually still havent posted yet thoroughly) not very convincing.

GodOfLight
30-08-06, 09:03
I wonder (and I can't stress strongly enough that I hope this doesn't happen) if some member of your family, or someone that you loved, was brutally and sensessly tortured and murdered that you would show the same compassion and understanding. I personally agree with capital punishment where it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I used to follow the same line of thinking as what seems to be the majority here until unfortunate circumstances changed my thinking. Walk a mile in my shoes and all that.

of course i cannot know this until it happens to me. this goes for everything i believe. you cannot judge something or someone until you have been in their shoes. this is why i cannot really support the death penalty. at the same time i cannot really speak against it. after all, i didnt make this thread in order to post about how i am against it... my first post clearly states that i am very contemplative about it. so, unless a member of my family is ever murdered raped etc, or i this happens to me i cannot know what it will bel ike to be in that situation.

the same goes for abortion though. i think people who judge abortion as being evil or sinful are complete hypocrites. i am aware that the act of aborting a baby is a very tough and painful descision for the mother, yet at the same time it is a very strong and decisive move on her part, and whatever choice she makes, it should be respected. men who cannot give birth and never have to worry about becoming pregnant have no right to judge abortion therefore imo. women who have also not been in that situation and felt how painful and what a weight such a decision can be also have no right to judge. the only one who has a right to judge is the pregnant woman herself.

in the same way, the only one who has a right to judge on capital punishment are the ones who have been affected by certain crimes. this is why i myself (since nothing terrible like this has happened to me so far) cannot judge. what disgusts me is certain members of our forum going: :) :D :tmb: to capital punishment, and then turning around and pretending to be the most moral and kind individuals there are.

Ward Dragon
30-08-06, 15:24
as i said before in one of my earlier posts: criminals, and the reason they become criminals, is our responsibility and fault as a society. merely extinguishing the problem instead of properly dealing with it bit by bit, is a lame cop-out on our behalf because we as a people are responsible for everything.

You can, perhaps with some legitimacy, lay blame on a vicious murderer's family, friends, chemical imbalances, society, etc. However the blame may fall, that doesn't change the fact that this murderer right now is a very twisted individual who will commit more atrocities and teach others to do the same if given half the chance. I think that refusing to acknowledge that a certain person is beyond our help is the true "lame cop-out." We are not omnipotent and we cannot rewire someone's brain or force them to change if they do not want to. As for morality, which you mentioned in the post right before this-- I consider it to be a far greater sin to allow a murderer to claim more innocent victims than it would be to kill that murderer myself.

Spitfire
30-08-06, 15:38
of course i cannot know this until it happens to me. this goes for everything i believe. you cannot judge something or someone until you have been in their shoes. this is why i cannot really support the death penalty. at the same time i cannot really speak against it. after all, i didnt make this thread in order to post about how i am against it... my first post clearly states that i am very contemplative about it. so, unless a member of my family is ever murdered raped etc, or i this happens to me i cannot know what it will bel ike to be in that situation.

the same goes for abortion though. i think people who judge abortion as being evil or sinful are complete hypocrites. i am aware that the act of aborting a baby is a very tough and painful descision for the mother, yet at the same time it is a very strong and decisive move on her part, and whatever choice she makes, it should be respected. men who cannot give birth and never have to worry about becoming pregnant have no right to judge abortion therefore imo. women who have also not been in that situation and felt how painful and what a weight such a decision can be also have no right to judge. the only one who has a right to judge is the pregnant woman herself.

in the same way, the only one who has a right to judge on capital punishment are the ones who have been affected by certain crimes. this is why i myself (since nothing terrible like this has happened to me so far) cannot judge. what disgusts me is certain members of our forum going: :) :D :tmb: to capital punishment, and then turning around and pretending to be the most moral and kind individuals there are.
There's nothing hard about wanting to kill the murderer of a family member. I don't care what a killers life was that gave them no right to do what they do, or an abuser. They inspire no sympathy on my behalf and hope to god if i go crazy one day and do something as sick as that i be treated the same because i don't know how the hell they live with themselves.

As for abortion, i feel that's very one sided when having sex and procreating can't happen with a woman alone, i believe the term is "It takes two". A man definitely has a say when it comes to the abortion of his child too. I know it weighs more on a woman's judgement but there isn't room to say a man has no say when he is very much involved in the situation.


Being human is about being morally sound, yes revenge is sweet but were does it end?
As sick as it sounds, it ends with them, their death.

Spitfire
30-08-06, 15:40
Sorry double post

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-06, 17:12
There's nothing hard about wanting to kill the murderer of a family member. I don't care what a killers life was that gave them no right to do what they do, or an abuser. They inspire no sympathy on my behalf and hope to god if i go crazy one day and do something as sick as that i be treated the same because i don't know how the hell they live with themselves.

As for abortion, i feel that's very one sided when having sex and procreating can't happen with a woman alone, i believe the term is "It takes two". A man definitely has a say when it comes to the abortion of his child too. I know it weighs more on a woman's judgement but there isn't room to say a man has no say when he is very much involved in the situation.


:tmb: I completely agree.

Personally, I'm 100% against abortion; however, it is still being practiced, and if the decision to abort a child is made, I believe that the father should have a say in it. Sure, the baby is in the woman's body, but it wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the man, it's his flesh and blood too.

Angel666
31-08-06, 01:13
I am 100% for the death penalty, abortion too but that's another topic for another day. I have commented on a different topic of the same nature and will just rehash what I wrote there: I don't believe that whole "let em rot in prison with their guilt" shtick. Not everyone feels guilty. Not everyone feels remorse. The whole death is a release thing is a noble idea but death scares the majority even if they say it doesn't. I'll admit it. I'm afraid to die. And if my head was on the chopping block I'd be doing my damndest to stop the axe. The millions of tax money keeping these criminals alive could be put to better use in schools or medical programs for those who are not condemned. Prisons today have TV, libraries, and I remember one guy had a fully furnished cell, cable TV, and Three course dinners. These people are drains on society and should die.

Camera Obscura
31-08-06, 01:52
Life's unfair. Get use to it people.

The murderer is put to death and happens to be innocent. - Lose on the accuser's side
The murderer is in jail, feels no regret, and doesn't get what he/she deserves. - Lose on the victim's side.

Although each scenario has some type of benefit overall the situation is a LOSE - LOSE case.


So I'll stay on the fence on this topic.

peeves
31-08-06, 01:54
I disapprove it cuz they shouldn't be killin people.

Tombreaper
31-08-06, 02:28
Deciding if a murderer should die for his/her crimes, makes the person who makes the decision, a murderer too.
It's getting even worse if that person asks God to bless his/her country/decision (weirdos)
That's asking for a ticket to Hell in the same Train to Hell the murderer travels.

Gabi
31-08-06, 13:17
I am against the death penalty: One death does not right another one.


The murderer is in jail, feels no regret, and doesn't get what he/she deserves.



Hard labour, minimal food rations and no privileges (as visitors, books, television etc.) might just change that and be a deterrent to others.

Assassino
31-08-06, 16:21
Sorry, your comparison is at least distasteful for me. I respect life in all its forms, human or dog or Koch's bacillus, but this metaphore is too much disgusting for me.
Now I get what you're meaning with your screen name...
Well i'm so very very sorry if you don't agree...but you don't have to make it personal.
You wouldn't say that if it was you...as I was almost mauled by my neighbours dog as a child...luckily someone managed to get it off me in time.

tr_mitch
31-08-06, 16:23
Well i'm so very very sorry if you don't agree...but you don't have to make it personal.
You wouldn't say that if it was you...as I was almost mauled by my neighbours dog as a child...luckily someone managed to get it off me in time.

Leah, Do not take any notice... Some people make judgements on the internet, and don't know wtf their on about half the time.
Just let it role off your back hun. :)

Assassino
31-08-06, 16:26
Leah, Do not take any notice... Some people make judgements on the internet, and don't know wtf their on about half the time.
Just let it role off your back hun. :)
I find it difficult to do so...;)

Melonie Tomb Raider
31-08-06, 17:54
It's ok Leah, don't let him bother you. You're such a wonderful person to have around here, I would hate to see your spirits dampered. :hug:

Assassino
31-08-06, 17:54
*Cries*
Thank you Mel!:hug:

jackles
31-08-06, 17:56
They were discussing this case on the ITV news this evening...

http://www.amnestyinternational.be/doc/article7735.html


Apparently a judge has declared his case should be aquitted but the death penalty still currently stands.

Ward Dragon
31-08-06, 18:05
They were discussing this case on the ITV news this evening...

http://www.amnestyinternational.be/doc/article7735.html


Apparently a judge has declared his case should be aquitted but the death penalty still currently stands.

Mirza Tahir Hussain was tried and convicted of murdering a taxi driver while travelling to the village of Bhubar from Rawalpindi, Punjab Province, on 17 December 1988. The taxi driver reportedly stopped the car and produced a gun, and Mirza Tahir Hussain, who was 18 years old at the time, was reportedly physically and sexually assaulted by the taxi driver. In the scuffle that followed, the gun went off, and the taxi driver was fatally injured.

If I was on that jury, he would have gotten off because it sounds like self-defense to me. I'm not familiar with the court system in other countries, so I don't know how the death penalty is determined there. I'm working from the USA perspective where the jury has to be unanimous to execution and the condemned person has years and tons of appeals before the sentence is carried out.

jackles
31-08-06, 18:17
Has anyone else here seen Fourteen days in may? It was a documentary made of the two weeks before a mans execution.

http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/heroult/rde/reporters/14daysinmay.htm


http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=191655


If I remember rightly there was a follow up where the documentary maker went looking for the person who he believed had really committed the crimes.

rika2
31-08-06, 18:45
Against:

Death is too fast... for rapists and the like, torture for eternity and pain is better... Bring back the Iron Maiden :mis:

B-thoven66
31-08-06, 23:18
Well i'm so very very sorry if you don't agree...but you don't have to make it personal.
You wouldn't say that if it was you...as I was almost mauled by my neighbours dog as a child...luckily someone managed to get it off me in time.
Maybe you're right about making it personal, and I promise that wasn't my intention. I have nothing personal with you, as I hardly know you. But I apologize deeply if my words hurted you.
About your story with the dog, of course that's an awful experience. But think it this way: also, unlickily someone left a door opened or something, wich released a dog with a real bad temper and a defficient education. I still keep blaming it on your neighbour's head. And I still would make an attempt to relocate the dog somewhere far from the possibility of hurting somebody, if there's no chance to educate it.
Apply the same reasoning to the topic of this thread, and you'll get my point about it.
I apologize again,
B66
Some people make judgements on the internet, and don't know wtf their on about half the time.
Yes indeed, young man. I guess we both have to think seriously about that.

kangaxx
01-09-06, 01:38
Yes, some people deserve it. no because inocents victim of a bad judgment could be killed....so, it's a dead end it the subject. never use it, and get stick just with the perpetual life sentence.

Assassino
01-09-06, 15:35
Maybe you're right about making it personal, and I promise that wasn't my intention. I have nothing personal with you, as I hardly know you. But I apologize deeply if my words hurted you.
About your story with the dog, of course that's an awful experience. But think it this way: also, unlickily someone left a door opened or something, wich released a dog with a real bad temper and a defficient education. I still keep blaming it on your neighbour's head. And I still would make an attempt to relocate the dog somewhere far from the possibility of hurting somebody, if there's no chance to educate it.
Apply the same reasoning to the topic of this thread, and you'll get my point about it.
I apologize again,
B66


It's ok B66 don't worry about it...I hold no grudge. I understand it wasn't your intention and I respect your views about what I said initially.:)

tampi
01-09-06, 19:30
I am not in favor of the capital punishment, I think.
Everything is very complicated.
I wrote in this thread that in the hospitals cuts a leg to you if you have too much sugar in the blood, like metaphor of the capital punishment if something does not work well in the society.
If I am implied suddenly in a critical situation I don't know what could I do. Perhaps to die of fear or to attack mouthfuls.
But passed the time, months or even years, is judged to which killed and the capital punishment is applied to him.
Who is the person that kills him?
I think now that if I were the one who has to kill him after court, I wouldn't impose the capital punishment to him.
By serious that had been its sin.
He, at the moment that he committed the crime had the alibi that was, none , his life.
I don't want to have nothing in common with that life, if it's possible.
If I were doctor and I didn't to know to cure the excess of sugar in the blood and had to cut the leg to a patient, I would do it.
But soon, without no doubt, I would think, I cut the leg to that patient by my incapacity like doctor.