What's Your View On The Death Penalty?

[Jack]

Oh, come on. I purposely  put the actual quote from you right after, for direct comparison,  to make it absolutely clear that was just my interpretation of your words , not an actual word-for-word quote. The speech marks were there for the sake of readabilty/grammar, not to mislead.   I thought my version was somewhat more light-hearted in tone than the actual quote (inasmuch as the "silly girl" bit was clearly my own insertion. I didn't anticipate that not being clear)

I thought our gender was the same? At least it's clear that others believe  you're female and I assumed they were right.  Sorry if I got that wrong. But anyway, that being so, it wouldn't occur to me to accuse you of a personal gender -based attack. well not unless it was so blatant it couldn't be taken any other way.

Anyway, sorry if I pissed you off. That wasn't my intention. A bit of a friendly dig at most was all I intended

er. Ooooooooooooooooooooops. Am i allowed to say that on Intensity? 

-Walkie

Not really worthy of genuine anger. Just didn't care for it and wanted to make that clear.

I thought our gender was the same?

That's correct. When I attack our gender, you'll know it.

[Graelwyn]

Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack 

[Jack]

Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack 

It's a reasonable assumption considering my choice of username. Though do try to make a point of letting people know whenever noticing male pronouns being referred to me.

[Graelwyn]

Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack 

It's a reasonable assumption considering my choice of username. Though do try to make a point of letting people know whenever noticing male pronouns being referred to me.

Ah, well, at least I know now so I wont make that error.
I suppose my name can be a little ambiguous, though to me it sounds feminine enough.

[Walkie]

That's seems it might be a very wordy way of saying it's not a high priority. There's nothing wrong with saying it simply doesn't rank high in importance when considering the views of political candidates, or to not even care at all.

nothing wrong with saying that at all, if that's what i meant.
But what I meant is that the sub- question  I was currently considering  was a very complex, very grey area wherein  I'm not qualified to judge, nor ever likely to be qualified. Nether will I ever be invited to vote on it, cme to that, because polling issues are presented in stark black and white. Answers like  "Avoid at all costs, but don't completely rule out"  don't appear on any ballot paper that I've ever seen.

how do you make it the voter's job to think about every important issue?

It just is. You said no one has the right to weigh all of those things, but that's exactly what voters do. The best a voter can do is to be as informed as possible about the views of candidates, weigh that information, and vote according to the issues they personally find most important. It's unlikely a voter will encounter a political candidate who agrees with them on every issue, and it's perfectly acceptable if voters might believe the lives of murders don't take high priority in the issues the find important when voting.

No, voters are misled by a load of emotive twaddle  into supposing that they've weighed the information. 
Not all voters, evidently, but enough to turn politics into a pantomime.

For a long time I didn't vote at all, because I really didn't feel I was qualified to vote. I thought it was irresponsible to offer an uninformed opinion.  I don't follow the media very closely. But now I've come round to thinking that's more of an advantage than a disadvantage as regards arriving at an unprejudiced view. I've come around to thinking that I'm better qualified than most, because i actually do use my brain.

So i'll be joining the usual  rush of lemmings this year, what the heck. But if I don't have faith in what we're pleased to call "Democracy"; and if I don't have unbounded faith in my own judgment,  it doesn't follow that I'm not interested , or don't care. Actually, it's precisely because I'm intersted and care that I lost my faith in all that.

[Walkie]

Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack 

It's a reasonable assumption considering my choice of username. Though do try to make a point of letting people know whenever noticing male pronouns being referred to me.

Almost everybody assumes I'm male, too.  I also set them straight when i see the male pronouns.
I just don't like "feminine" names. Not for myself, anyway.  And I really don't think that gender is especially relevant  to most things.
I can't blame people for opting for male pronouns if unsure, cos male is the closest we have in English to neutral , without resorting to "it" which is offesive, or s/he which is grotesque. But I find it interesting that most people do actually make the  assumption that I'm male.
And I find it interesting that some people opine that I ought  change my name to something pretty and feminine . That helps to flag up the people I'd be best off avoiding  (as being far too much like my Mum... or something. )

[Graelwyn]

Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack 

It's a reasonable assumption considering my choice of username. Though do try to make a point of letting people know whenever noticing male pronouns being referred to me.

Almost everybody assumes I'm male, too.  I also set them straight when i see the male pronouns.
I just don't like "feminine" names. Not for myself, anyway.  And I really don't think that gender is especially relevant  to most things.
I can't blame people for opting for male pronouns if unsure, cos male is the closest we have in English to neutral , without resorting to "it" which is offesive, or s/he which is grotesque. But I find it interesting that most people do actually make the  assumption that I'm male.
And I find it interesting that some people opine that I ought  change my name to something pretty and feminine . That helps to flag up the people I'd be best off avoiding  (as being far too much like my Mum... or something. )

I thought you were a male too, until you posted about having had a child in the other thread 
But, you are right... gender is not really relevant in most things, or discussions.

[Al Swearegen]

I have often said it. There are "monsters" in our world. Fred and Rosemary West for example. The pedophiles, torturers, Psychopaths, Rapists, and the like that I feel have stepped away from humanity. They are not animals nor humans , but simply monsters and NEED to be exterminated with prejudice.
My thoughts is take them into the outback. Drop them into an unsaleable pit unarmed. Have them welcomed by a couple of hungry feral pigs.
Now you may say "What about if they are innocent?" Look in a LOT of cases, it is proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt. We do not have our suspicious about Charles Manson or Fred West or that Austrian guy who read and sodomised his daughter for all those years. These people are not under a cloud of suspicion. They are guilty.
You may say "Well what if they are psychologically unwell, don't we owe it to them to try to reform them?" No.
Maybe you say "Well would would push them into the pit?" I would. Gladly. Pay me well and I will be the pig feeder, without a second's regret.

[Walkie]

I have often said it. There are "monsters" in our world. Fred and Rosemary West for example. The pedophiles, torturers, Psychopaths, Rapists, and the like that I feel have stepped away from humanity. They are not animals nor humans , but simply monsters and NEED to be exterminated with prejudice.
My thoughts is take them into the outback. Drop them into an unsaleable pit unarmed. Have them welcomed by a couple of hungry feral pigs.
Now you may say "What about if they are innocent?" Look in a LOT of cases, it is proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt. We do not have our suspicious about Charles Manson or Fred West or that Austrian guy who read and sodomised his daughter for all those years. These people are not under a cloud of suspicion. They are guilty.
You may say "Well what if they are psychologically unwell, don't we owe it to them to try to reform them?" No.
Maybe you say "Well would would push them into the pit?" I would. Gladly. Pay me well and I will be the pig feeder, without a second's regret.

Then you're a dangerous fool

History shows us, very clearly, that ordinary humans are capable of committing inhuman, monstrous acts, given the right circumstances.  If that makes them into monsters, then we are all monsters, at least potentially.

Society needs protecting from some deranged people. But if you have to put them down, then you have to do it with regret, not self-righteous anger.

If you dehumanise people, in your own mind, then subject them to a barbaric punishment, then you're putting yourself in the way of becoming the next "inhuman  monster" who needs to be put down. Seriously. And if you want modern society to sanction that, then we're heading back into the dark ages.

 It's gonna be witch-burnings next.  And who will the "witches" be? Aspies, you bet. Most people already think that we're inhuman monsters.

- Walkie

[Jack]

No, voters are misled by a load of emotive twaddle  into supposing that they've weighed the information. 

Probably both making some level of assumption, but personally prefer to believe it's more likely for citizens who care enough to take the time to vote, to also take the time to know the political stance of the people they elect.

[Icequeen]

I believe there's a margin of error, but if you catch someone with the smoking gun...and it's beyond doubt...then I say, do as you will.

John Wayne Gacy had 26 bodies in the crawlspace of his house, he was accused of killing a minimum of 33 teenage boys.
Do I have any doubt he was guilty? No.
Do I believe he should have been put to death? Yes.

I just believe he was let off too easy...I think he should have died terrified and afraid, fighting for life...like all those young boys that he killed.

[DirtDawg]

Murder is murder.

... and if you have never met a piece of shit human animal that just needs to be put down, then you are well blessed.
I carry a forty five auto, just in case I meet another one.
   sad  ... but true.

I will never again be a victim. I am an enforcer.

[Arya Quinn]

Murder is murder.

... and if you have never met a piece of shit human animal that just needs to be put down.

I see the whole human race that way. Doesn't mean I think that every single man, woman and child should be killed though. After all, being a piece of shit is part of human nature.

[ZEGH8578]

I have a certain limit, where my conviction fades into a gray zone.

It comes down to:
Keeping an individual inside a locked space, for the duration of his life. This locked space is a waste, the food he eats, every day of his life - is a waste. Medical care and other attentions are a waste.
Mathematically speaking, it's all a huge waste.
We're always talking "worst of the worst" here, serial killers, spree shooters, child rapists/killers, and so on.

The cue should be this: Will we ever be able to release this person, into society, without him commiting similar crimes right away? If the answer is "nope, never." then it should come under consideration, of course along with an evaluation of, well, the "evilness" of a person.

Someone who believes he is Napoleon all his life, and therefore needs to be held in a room, fed, cared for, his entire life, did - after all - not end peoples lives, didn't tear apart some kids butthole, didn't ravage or ruin or destroy what can never be repaired or brought back.

Pain and loss must be taken into consideration.
However, in all of this I am also taking for granted a prison system that works as intended, one where mere druggies aren't gathered up, and where rehabilitation actually has precedence over simply punishing and stowing away.

To be absolutely fair I would consider - as a perfectly legitimate alternative to death, as the utmost penalty - to be banishment. In fact, in viking society, banishment was often used instead of death penalty, and it serves mostly the same purpose - you are left to your own device - see how long you make it, out in the woods, with just your fists and your teeth.

['andersom']

Overall, I am against death penalty.
But, there are exceptions.

In WWII the resistance in my country had emergency court hearings on people. And people would be brought to death. Only option. There was no prison. Safety of people was at stake.

Those courts were organised, controlled, no matter how small they were. There was accountability.

This will be a thing in many countries at war with underground resistance happening.

If a death penalty is taken through, I think it should be as quick as possible. No need for society to be as cruel as the one put to death may have been.


As for Zegh, and the costs; if you want to keep your legal system sacred, death penalty may be more expensive than life long imprisonment, because of all the appeals. And taking the options of appeals away is undermining the safety of a legal system.


Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?