Messages

Severe sunburn: for that authentic 'flesh falling off' zombie look.

Why did they put up shit poetry?  Do they expect people to go:

"Damn those dickhead hac...  oh...  wait a minute...  look - poetry!  They must be deep and profound and stuff!"

I can never understand why shock deaths are always announced beforehand, removing the major part of the shock.

It definitely sounds like OCD, and I think you should seek some more information about it and/or look into treatment.

When I was a kid, I used to rub one ear on my shoulder, and then I would have to do the other ear, to 'even it out'.  I think I grew out of that one naturally.

More recently, if I turned 360 degrees clockwise, I would feel uncomfortable unless I turned back the other way.  I made myself stop doing that when I realised it was irrational, and now I'm fine.

The worst OCDish thingy I had was a period where I had to wash my hands all the time - if I touched a flat surface at all, stroked the cat, before I ate a biscuit, etc.  Eventually, the skin on my hands started to flake.  I made myself stop doing that (with difficulty) when I realised it was completely nuts!

And now I'm free of irritating habits.

* Nellie picks his nose.

And Mods' user pic should be a link to free porn.

1. A program with which we can neatly plan out complex dialogue trees.

or

2. A program that plays 'Barbie Girl' on a constant loop until you stop browsing the forums and start working on your game.

Yes, definitely save the robot anchorman thread.  That was funny as hell.

The blurb was written to get movie bigwigs interested, which is why it sounds all conventional cheesy sci-fi-ey.  I've heard it's mainly going to be based on the books.

Is Botticelli's Chris turning anyone else on?








...just me then.

The last two series weren't as good because one of the writers left.  However (according to imdb) he's back for the film, so hopefully things will be much closer to the Red Dwarf we know and love.

Also, the film is apparently going to be based on the original (also co-written) books, which are very good, so that's a positive indication too.

Liberty X were on a program called 'Re:Covered', where bands do cover versions of songs that they like - they did a Radiohead song.

But it was just for that program, so you'll never ever hear it again.  Ever.  Ever.

We hope.

Ah, that trailer is so, so good.  If they keep up that level of humour in the game I'll be very happy.

Star Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country is a superb film.

You just can't beat a Shakespeare-quoting, eyepatch-wearing Klingon for sheer entertainment value.

Wait, right thing to do? How is this right? Killing someone because it is the right thing to do? Explain how this is so. If it isnt to make the family happy what is it for?

It is certainly not, and should never be, to make the family 'happy'.  It is the right thing to do because the killer should receive a punishment that equals the crime they committed - namely, taking a person's life.

If you don’t see life as sacred than what is the big deal of someone killing someone...If you don’t see life as sacred, than you have no basis for even thinking that homicide is wrong.

How can you determine these to be lesser crimes? You don’t hold life sacred, you said do yourself, therefore, since we’re all going to die, what does it matter if women are raped daily. Or our bank accounts are suddenly flushed?

I don't see life as sacred, but why do you assume that I therefore must see it as worthless?  Life is very important, but that does not make every human being's life so precious that to kill them would be wrong no matter what their actions.  Life is so important, that to see an innocent human being killed or hurt is a terrible thing, but it is not so important that it renders us completely powerless to give the killer what s/he justly deserves.

Yes, the killers’ life is sacred and precious...he has a life, and that it isn’t ours to take.

So somebody who, lets say, murders ten people in cold blood, has a life that is sacred and precious?

...The state should never be in control of someone’s life, and how they are going to die. How are these elected leaders any better then you, me, or even Gandalf?...

If we follow this logic, then how can the state ever make any important decision that will affect people's lives, including war, healthcare, social security, etc?  The state exists to make these important and vital decisions and in a democracy it exists at the behest of the people.  Your belief that the state has no right to make such important decisions would render the whole country impotent - if the elected representatives of the majority have no right to decide, then who does?

No, it just isn’t an equal morally justifiable punishment.

At various points in this debate you have argued that the death penalty is too severe a punishment, a not severe enough punishment, and a punishment that does not equal the crime.  To claim all three positions is impossible.  I have consistently argued that the death penalty equals the crime, and you are yet to show me why you think this is not the case.  A person chooses to kill another human being, and in return they are punished by the removal of their own life - how is this not equal?  And why do you keep changing your opinion so freely and easily?  Is it because there is no sure footing to your stance?

Just because a man is trained means he’s perfect?...You think that this training magically wipes away the prejudices this man carries with him?

How many cases have you seen brought against judges?  And how much margin of error can there be in appropriately punishing somebody who has already been found guilty?

1.   “The defendant is found guilty of murder by the jury.” Yes, but they are not the determinate of whether or not the man will get the death penalty. These twelve, untrained, people only choose who is guilty from the evidence presented. I don’t doubt that they get the correct criminal most of the time.

Then what's the problem?

2.   Or are they prejudiced towards the black, asian, poor white trash that come their way? What makes this murderer better than that murderer that he should live? What makes these two hundredths of a percentile special? Maybe they don’t take baths?

On what basis are you assuming this?  This is incredible - if the two hundredths of a percentile of people that are sentenced to death only receive it because of judicial prejudice, then that must mean nobody ever receives the death penalty because they simply deserve it.  Have you considered that a convicted killer might actually deserve the death penalty, rather than assume rampant prejudice in the law over the whole land?

...These statistics seem flawed to me...

Okay, I'll get some more then.  Here's something about the results of a temporary halt of the death penalty in Texas...

'Our evidence suggests that as a result of the unofficial moratorium on executions during most of 1996 and early 1997, Texas experienced a net increase in the number of homicides over what would have been expected had no such moratorium been in place. During the interim, there were 40 executions or three more per year than during the "normal" 1993-1995 period. The execution hiatus, therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost.'

Source: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Moratoriums.htm

There are all sorts of statistics that both of us could find to support our cases, but I doubt this will get us anywhere.

What other selling points? A deterrent from criminal homicide would be the only reason this system might be feasible. Which it fails to do.

1. The selling points you acknowledged when you said 'one of its many selling points'.

2. Deterrence is not the sole reason the death penalty is morally justifiable.  The main reason it is the right thing to do is because the killer receives a punishment that matches their crime.

3. We haven't, and cannot, establish whether the deterrence effect exists or not.  I believe it does, you believe it doesn't.

This small percentage, as you so call it, accounts for more homicides than any other kind of homicide. Whether that be Domestic, Political, or a constant criminal. These groups of gangs committed 34% of all homicides in 1997. That doesn’t seem so small to me.

Alright then.  I concede that the death penalty will have less of a deterrent effect on the people who caused that 34% of homicides, and that the deterrent effect will be relatively stronger for the remaining 66%.

What fits these crimes into a magical number of years at a state penitentiary? If the greater the crime accounts for more years in prison, it seems to me, that killing a man should be the longest sentence, not the shortest

So now you're arguing that the death penalty is not severe enough again.  Didn't you argue the exact opposite earlier in your post?  I still don't see how you can deny that the death penalty is an equal and moral punishment for somebody who has taken another human life.

Okay, so you take peoples freedom. That’s one thing. To take their life is completely different...The quality of life has been improved in the scenario comparative to the last scenario.

So despite having killed a human being, the killer gets to occupy themselves in work for the time they are imprisoned (however long/short that may be), and the family receives a small amount of money as a recompense for a dead relative?  And then presumably the killer gets released on a good behaviour scheme, because I can't imagine anybody other than the most disciplined and well-behaved prisoners will be permitted to take this job.  And so the killer never truly receives the just punishment for the crime they committed.  Brilliant solution.

No, I said both were just as guilty. They both killed a man. I consider them both to be mentally ill.

I believe we have got our wires crossed here.  This thread of the debated started as a discussion of the mentally ill, but morphed into a discussion of the difference between 'heat of the moment' killers and 'cold blooded' killers.  I've been thinking your arguments were incredibly strange, and no doubt you've been thinking mine were too.

So for the record, I do believe there is a difference between those who kill in the heat of the moment (presumably due to severe provocation or accident), and those who plan and carry out murder.  And I believe the law makes a distinction between these different types of crime too, and rightly so.

Legal processes, it seems to me, take years upon years to decide something like that...

Are you suggesting that if the majority of the electorate voted for a president who promised to abolish the death penalty, the death penalty would not be abolished?  That's all it would take.  If you believe the moral will of the majority is against the death penalty, then that will prove true by the next election, right?

Anything you said about proof...I have no definite way of proving it, do I? No, but I believe in it. Just like I believe in the sanctity of life above all other things.

Agreed, we can't get anywhere by seeking for proof, only by trying to justify our values.  And I believe in the value of giving murderers the punishment they deserve.

Maybe you should ask the families of the killer what they think. Are they not victim too?

Yes they are.  More victims of the choice the killer made.

(I've jiggled the order of the quotes about a bit, so that I can respond to similarly themed arguments in one go.  And also to BAMBOOZLE and BEFUDDLE you, MUAHAHAHAHAAA!! *flashing red eyes*)

(P.S. Aaargh, too long post here too.  Elipses city!)

Yes, my morals to come from the bible, but I am free to interpret the bible anyway I see fit.

One person may interpret the Bible as commanding that the death penalty is immoral, another may interpret it as commanding that it is moral.  I guess this part of the discussion is a dead-end avenue.

Life is sacred, important...and, yes, a man should not commit murder.

Well as I don't see life as sacred, and considering the hundreds of millions of people who have died throughout history, and that we are all also going to die one day, I don't see what the big deal is about 'sparing' the life of a person who has chosen to kill another human being.

If life is sacred and precious, then the killer's life is as sacred and precious as the life of their victim.  But, oh dear...  somebody chose to take away the life of their victim - but we must respect the sacredness and preciousness of the killer's life, musn't we?

This man does deserve punishment, but killing the man should not be decided by the state.

I don’t consider state killings justice.

The well-defined line, at least brings some sense of fairness to this system. However, it too, should be a line that the state should not be allowed to draw.

However, the state should not be the one to give out consequences of that degree...(etc)

What is this aversion to the state making decisions?  If a state run by democratically elected leaders should not be in control of how the law works then who should?  You?  Me?  Gandalf?

It is not an equal sentence for a crime. He’ll be dead before his time, and instead of feeling the pain of life, as the victims family is surely feeling, he gets an easy way out. The death penalty doesn’t seem to be equal to me.

So the death penalty isn't a tough enough punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

And I don’t think their punishment will be grim, so to speak...Your punishment isn’t just or humane...He has a life, and we shouldn’t take it away.

No, I wouldn’t say their punishment is worse than the crime. They get to live...These people are given a chance to at least evaluate their life, a right that is theirs from birth, which no government should take away from any man.

So the death penalty is too tough a punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

...only a judge is able to decide whether a man is to be put to death, the jury can only plead that the man be put to death. One man decides whether or not this persons life is better than another’s. Still leaving plenty of room for prejudice.

The final verdict can only be decided by a judge, that’s one man. Prejudice still ensues.

The line hasn’t been drawn, the line is decided by one man. Prejudices can result from this. This gray area should not exist, nor should a line. This line has not been drawn. It is not well defined. Instead we have a gray blob in which a judge can decide a man’s fate.

The rule, by which a mans life or death are given or taken aren’t well defined. One man decides if this person should live or die. This is not a fair system.

So the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury, and you're worried that the judge (who has been trained for these matters) has power over the sentence?  Two things:

1. I think the operative phrase here is: the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury.

2. As you earlier pointed out (and criticised), only a small percentage of those convicted of murder ever actually receive the death penalty.  If judges are prejudiced at all when passing sentence, then they are obviously prejudiced in favour of the defendants.

Let’s take Oklahoma’s reintroduction to capital punishment in 1990. After which there has been a lasting increase of about one additional homicide a month. But if the system was really working, the opposite should happen. What about states with the death penalty that border stated without, they should be relatively homogenous, right? In Wisconsin and Iowa, which are non-death-penalty states, the homicide rate is half that of Illinois. The death penalty, obviously has no case as a deterrent of crime.

Well, I'm pretty sure anyone can easily find statistics to support their case by an internet search, so I'm going to do one myself...

...yep, here's a juicy one:

'Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (2) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.'

Source: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/deterrenteffect.htm

We could sit and trade statistics until the end of the debate, but I doubt either of us would get anywhere.

Besides, even if it could be shown that the death penalty had no deterrent effect whatsoever, that wouldn't stop it from being the right thing to do.

Which brings me to...

It hasn’t been proven to reduce homicide rates, which is one of its many selling points.

Thank goodness it has all those other selling points left over, then.

Yes, there is less of a deterrent affect for criminal’s pf this nature.

Alright, I'll concede this one.  A small percentage of the total number of criminals liable to receive the death penalty are not as deterred by it as the rest of those criminals.

Than why don’t you seek other ways in which to punish these criminals. If your so passionate about seeing justice, you should at least consider alternative punishments.

You’re not searching for justice, because you only consider one alternative. That doesn’t sound like searching to me.

I would be a fool to only consider one alternative.  Naturally I have considered many alternatives, but have decided that the death penalty is the most just.

Would you argue that people who have committed rape should be raped themselves? People who steal millions of dollars should just have that money stolen back?

Thankfully these lesser crimes can be fittingly punished by a suitable prison sentence.  For the ultimate crime of taking another life (or many other lives), however, the only fitting and just punishment is to deprive the killer of what they sought to deprive others - their life.

Wait, if killing is never a good thing, than how can you support the capital punishment? If your so against the killing of a person, I don’t understand how you can support this system.

It's not so difficult to understand.  Do you consider taking away people's freedom as a good thing?  Of course not, but sometimes it is a necessary measure used to see justice done because of the crimes these people have committed.  I look at the death penalty in the same way.  I would be truly sick if I thought that the death penalty, or any punishment, was somehow an enjoyable measure.

Where did the mentally ill even enter the equation?

It was in the paragraph where you suggested they were more guilty than sane murderers.

Who are you to say that the people who are killed from emotional heightening are as mentally ill as the person who plans it?

It's not for me to decide who is mentally ill or not - that's a job for trained doctors.  I'm not sure 'emotional heightening' is a recognised medical condition, however.

I advocate the treatment of everyone. I don’t bias myself towards one killer or the other.

Are you telling me you don't distinguish between someone who kills because they chose to of their own free will, and somebody who kills because they are severely mentally ill?

I don’t recall being asked to write a sentence or two in the laws that mandate the death penalty. If I conclude that these laws are immoral, than isn’t my will, and the will of other with my ideals, good enough for you?

Well, get enough of your similarly idealed people together, and you can vote together to change that bit of writing in the law.  You live in a democracy after all.  And the reason that bit of writing is there is because the will of the majority has not decided to vote to remove it - they obviously don't share your view that the death penalty is immoral.  Their ideals are as good as yours, and yours are as good as theirs.

There is no such thing as proof.

Fair enough.

The states have shown not to deter criminal action.

How have they shown it?  Where's the proof?

There is no such thing as proof.

Oh yeah, sorry.

There are no conclusive results to show that the death penalty is an affective way of lowering crime.

Would that be because there is no such thing as proof?

Now lets consider an alternative, that doesn’t kill the criminal, and justice is done for the family.

Maybe you should ask the families if they share your idea of justice.

Did you hear that the Duracell bunny got arrested?

Apparently the police charged him with battery.

(Spent ages typing my first reply, then the bloody page refreshed on me for no discernable reason :.  Feel my pain.)

Yes indeed it is bringing religion into the debate, because without religion, the idea that people being killed is a bad thing might never have arisen. How could one not bring religion into this debate? That wouldn't make any sense at all. Even if a person is not a religious man, his life has been affected by religions, and the fact that we are so against killing a man has a great deal to do with western religion.

If your morals come from the Bible, then the parts of the Bible where God commands that people should be killed for their sins means that the death penalty is moral.

Yes, you do disagree. However, why after saying life is important, life is sacred, and the preservation of life is important to us, would you kill a man for killing another man? Why should we hold a naïve social view that there is only one way to take care of a man who has committed murder with purpose, and that killing that man is the only way to take care of the problem?

I never gave an indication of how sacred or otherwise I believe life to be.  And it is precisely because society deems life so important that a person who unjustly takes away that life should be punished in a likewise manner.  If life is so important to you why are you arguing that victims of murder should not receive proper justice for the act committed against them?

No, what I am showing is unfairness in your system. To give a man the ability to decide who should be put to death and who shouldn’t is a big unfairness. If you advocate a system, such as the death penalty, I can only expect that you would attempt to do so with fairness. The line that determines a mans death is undefined and up to a man who could be a racist bigot who hates the poor.

That's a lot of prejudices to put on a single judge.  Thankfully the system also has a jury, which is a measure implemented to filter out the prejudices of individuals.  Would all the jurors have the same prejudices as this crazy judge you've invented?  And would they all be completely blind to the evidence put before them?  The system is set up so that defendants can never be convicted by a 'racist bigot who hates the poor'.

Let me rephrase that. There are twelve states that do not incorporate the death penalty. The states without this system do not show an increased rate of crime. This says that the death penalty does not deter people from a life of crime, which is one of the reasons the death penalty is used. To say to other criminals “If you do this, we’ll do this.” While admittedly, a good idea, it hasn’t proven to have worked. Criminal activity is just as high in states with the death penalty as states without it.

To compare one state with another is an unfair comparison.  The only fair way to see the deterrent effect of the death penalty would be to look at crime figures of a state without the death penalty, and then after the same state introduced the death penalty (or vice versa).  Otherwise, you might as well argue that Deverry has a higher crime rate than Melee Island.

You’re taking my words out of context. I was showing how the danger of the death penalty was useless to men who’s “jobs” entailed that risk in the first place. And as I already stated, a system that chooses who dies and who doesn’t is biased, and therefore is not a just system.

How is that out of context?  Certainly, there may be a lesser deterrent effect on criminals who face potential death anyway, but that doesn't alter the fact that a justly and humanely given execution is better than whatever other grisly fate might await the people you mention.

Nothing defends any defendant from prejudice. The whole system is flawed.

Then how can we ever punish anyone for anything?

However, we are centering in on the death penalty, which has a much higher consequence, which I am sure you’d agree, otherwise you wouldn’t be so passionate about killing people who kill people.

Yes, I agree.  And I am certainly passionate about seeing justice for the victims of murder.

I didn’t say anything about not going to courtrooms with a jury. I’m not sure where you inferred this. I said the people who run this are prejudiced. However, the system should not be affected by prejudice.

I didn't infer it.  I simply pointed out that the jury is a wonderful method of filtering out prejudice from the final verdict.  And lets not forget there's evidence in the equation - juries aren't making their decision based on a toin coss.

There should be a drawn line in your system as to what needs to be done that absolutely requires the death penalty. Not a gray area where the judge can choose of the man should be killed or not, which puts prejudice into the system.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I see that we both seek a fair and just death penalty.

No, we decided that killing them is the only choice. To say there is only one choice is limiting you. They have decided to put their lives actions to the court by committing this act, but should the court be able to handle their death?

When a person makes the decision to kill another human being, in full knowledge of the lawful consequences of their action, they make the decision to face those consequences.

Wait, I thought they decided themselves when they chose to kill another human that they forfeit their own lives? Well here is their life. There is a chance for them to live a very unhappy life. What better punishment could there be? What punishment would you rather have?  A quick painless death or a life filled with the knowledge that you’ve made a grave error.

First you advocated a punishment that was less than the crime committed.  Now you advocate a punishment that is worse than the crime committed.  Why not accept that the only just way is a punishment that equals the crime committed?

Yes the death penalty is immoral. And yes, it is indeed hardly worth it for the number of death it gets rid of. Do I want more death, though? No. I am arguing for no death penalty. One life is too many for the death penalty to take. I am just commenting again, at how inefficient your system is.

Thankfully, and contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not coldly in search of an 'efficient' way to conveniently dispose of hundreds of murderers.  I am simply searching for justice for the victims of murder.  How can you argue that only a few people receive justice, so there might as well be nobody receiving justice?

Earlier you argued that there should be a line drawn that prevents 'grey area' defendants from being given the death penalty.  Surely your consistent argument that only a small percentage of convicted murderers finally receive the death penalty is an indication that this line has already been drawn.

I agree it would be a sad society that got to kill people because of revenge. But if killing a person is a wrong thing, what makes killing the killer a good thing? Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not the right thing to do.

To kill a person is never a good thing, just as putting somebody in jail is never a good thing, but sometimes it is necessary to see justice done.  If you want to argue that seeing justice done is not the right thing to do, be my guest.

I’d be more afraid of the people who can’t control their actions versus those who could. Who would I rather meet? Who really is guiltier? Both took someone’s life. Only the one to plan it, at least thought it out. There was a reason, for them to kill someone. The person, who’s emotionally instable, just does it because of an emotional heightening. I’d be more afraid of them.

Where is this argument going?  Are you advocating the death penalty for mentally ill people?  Are you arguing that ill people should be punished rather than treated?  Are you arguing that people who knowingly, of their own free will, commit murder are committing a lesser crime than those who kill because of mental illness?

If his life is grimmer, so be it.  He killed someone.  We don't feel sympathy for the man.

Again you show that you would rather a murderer be given a grimmer punishment than death, because you simply don't care.  I advocate justice for the victims, but thankfully my humanity compels me to advocate fairness in the treatment of the killer.  You are clearly happy to see a criminal subjected to this treatment, but I would rather have the punishment that is both just and, compared to your suggestions, humane.

We just don’t feel that any man’s life should be ended because of paragraph 3 article 26…blah blah blah

Because the written laws that are based on the moral will of the people aren't good enough for you?

This system isn’t well defined. It doesn’t defer criminal action. I don’t see how anyone, after seeing its results, can still be in favor of it.

Mainly because you have proved neither of the points you make in that paragraph.

How could we, a society in the 21st century, condone Capital Punishment? You talk of morals, but last time I checked, one of the biggest moral and ethical rules to live by is “thou shalt not kill.” To kill is a sin, right? So how can we tell someone that because they don’t value the life of a person, we therefore, do not need to value his/her life?

'Thou shalt not kill' is a religious commandment, and if you're going to bring religion to the debate, there are plenty of instances in the Bible where people have been killed for their sins.

As far as the idea of not killing being an absolute 'rule', because all life is to be valued, even of those that choose to kill others, I disagree.  Just as a lesser criminal forfeits their right to freedom when they act, a killer, by choosing to take an innocent life, forfeits their own right to life.  Why should a naive social view of 'absolute', inflexible rules deny justice to the victim of murder?

The system doesn’t even work. You have only about one percent of known homicides, of the first degree, actually getting the death penalty. Of that one percent, only two percent of those people are put to death. So what is that, then? Two hundredths of a percent of the people who commit homicide are punished for the crime. What makes one persons’ homicide worse than another person?

Indeed, what does?  It sounds like you are advocating the extension of the death penalty to all homicides, to rectify this unfairness in the justice system.

Death penalty states, in the U.S.A., do not have a lower crime rate. So the death penalty does not deter criminal action, in anyway.

How do you know that criminals aren't deterred?  Who's to say that if the penalty was removed, crime wouldn't rise?  Presumably one of the reasons these states introduced the death penalty in the first place was to put a lid on rising crime rates.  I would imagine, if anything, crime rates would be higher in states with the death penalty, and that is why the death penalty exists there.

Which is reasonable, considering many of the people that are in danger of the death penalty (i.e. Mobsters, drug lords, etc…), are people who are at risk of being killed in or out of the state prison system. It’s like giving a warning to a suicide bomber, that should he happen to survive, we’ll kill him!

You're right.  Much better for these people to be gunned down in the streets than executed after being justly tried and convicted by a jury.

Why should anyone be given the responsibility to send someone to his or her death? What makes this person so special, that he/she is above racial, cultural, and class prejudice? We’ve already concluded that very little of all first-degree homicides are put to death, so there must be something that makes those guys special? Or is it more the fact, that people are determining whether or not a person deserves to live, and these people are biased.

In that case, what protects any defendant from prejudice?  Are the convictions of all prisoners to be cast into doubt because of this risk you perceive?  Maybe nobody can ever be punished for anything because of the danger of prejudice.  Personally, I'd prefer to count on the hard evidence presented in courtrooms, and the social mix of jury members as a defence against prejudice, rather than be frightened into refusing to give any criminal a just punishment.

The truth is, that even though these criminals have done something unforgivable, that we don’t condone, to kill them is the greatest irony I’ve ever heard. We should not decide the lives of these men and women!

We didn't.  They decided it themselves when they chose to kill another human being.

We should merely decide upon a punishment that takes this man away from the society, where he can do no harm.

Because to shut a human apart from society for the rest of their natural lives is more humane than to end their lives quickly?

It’s all or nothing, and as the percentages show that 2 hundredths of a percent are actually being treated to the death penalty; it might as well be nothing!

So your argument is not that the death penalty is immoral, but that it is hardly worth it for the number of murderers it gets rid of?

2.) The family of the deceased person thought the would be happier when the killer (or whatever) died, when actually they dont feel much better.

I understand that the family of the deceased feel bad but does killing the killer make it any better? Doesnt that make you up for the death penality also? So why do we keep killing these people? The families think that they should be to death when they mostly feel that they should feel the same way that the deceased person felt.

If the justice system worked purely to make the victims of crime 'happy' by satisfying their desire for revenge, then society would be in a sorry state.  But the death penalty should not exist for the supposed comfort of the victim's relatives, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

The majority or these people are obviously insane and have no morals, whom should instead be put in rehab or something.

Naturally, any person not in control of their actions when they commit murder, cannot be held accountable for those actions.  But how about the people who do knowingly and willingly commit murder?  How do you feel about them?

Now lets talk about jail. Jail sucks, it really does. People that go overnight think it is bad. Imagine staying there for the rest of you life. No one to talk to. All alone. Nothing much to do. Having to change your life. I think that sounds much more reasonable then killing the person.

So in your desire to see a terrible punishment for perpetrators of murder, you reject the death penalty in favour of a fate that (as you describe it) sounds even grimmer?

Capital Punishment is the morally correct way to gain justice for the victims of murder.  How could anything else be the case?  Are we to believe that to purposefully cause the death of a human being should result in a punishment that in no way equals the crime commited?  No.  A murderer should be dealt with in the same way that they, as a sane human being, chose to deal with their victim.  When they, by their own free will, commit the horrendous act of ending another human being's life, then they forfeit their own life.  How can we claim true justice if this is not the case?

Please enlighten me...

Two aerials met on a roof, fell in love, and got married.  The wedding ceremony was rubbish, but the reception was brilliant.

A man walks into the psychiatrist's wearing clingfilm for shorts.  The psychiatrist says: "Well, I can clearly see you're nuts."

I went shopping for camouflage trousers the other day, but I couldn't find any.