Most in U.S. Favor Death if Saddam Is Convicted

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

You make it sound like justice is constant. It isn't. One form of justice does not transcend borders. Each culture has a different definition of what justice is. Putting someone in prison for life is also revenge... is it not? You're doing it to punish the person and to get back at them. It's revenge.

For the record... some of the most technologically advanced have the death penalty. Not bad for "barbarians," eh?

The first three prhases make some sense...but putting someone in prison isnt a thing called JUSTICE? or maybe you discored a new defi ition to it...Lets use a simple example to your new concept :I thought that 'punishing' a child for example her dad was educating -showing how wrong she was acting etc...but not using revenge...

A State condening someone to a prison jail isnt showing the consequence to wrong acts but using revenge...

As for the links...did you read that????

1)Executions cost more than life in prison.
$2 million per person vs. $500,000 (4x as much!). Free counsel for defense, for appeals, maximum security on a separate death row wing.

2)In fact, the murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain and 5 times that of Australia. Neither country has the DP. Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the DP. Texas and Oklahoma have historically executed the most number of DR inmates, yet in 2003 their state murder rates increased, and both have murder rates higher than the national

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

The first three prhases make some sense...but putting someone in prison isnt a thing called JUSTICE? or maybe you discored a new defi ition to it...Lets use a simple example to your new concept :I thought that 'punishing' a child for example her dad was educating -showing how wrong she was acting etc...but not using revenge...

A State condening someone to a prison jail isnt showing the consequence to wrong acts but using revenge...

As for the links...did you read that????

1)Executions cost more than life in prison.
$2 million per person vs. $500,000 (4x as much!). Free counsel for defense, for appeals, maximum security on a separate death row wing.

2)In fact, the murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain and 5 times that of Australia. Neither country has the DP. Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the DP. Texas and Oklahoma have historically executed the most number of DR inmates, yet in 2003 their state murder rates increased, and both have murder rates higher than the national

The population of America is like 4 times that of Britain... of course there are going to be murders. Look at how different American and Britain are... and even Australia and America. We have a lot of race riots, ethnic gangs, and drugs coming from south of the border. That alone will add to a murder rate.

Texas is like the second most populous state and Wisconsin is ranked 18th. The proportions in these comparisons don't even work. They're not equal comparisons. I mean, the majority of U.S. states have the death penalty. You gave two states. Maybe they are two exceptions. The fact that you're getting your information from a biased source makes me question it.

As for the financial burden... I've heard varying numbers. There are a lot more guys serving life in prison than are on death row. So, even if it's cheaper to have the guy serving life... multiply that by the large number of inmates who are serving life. That's still very expensive on taxpayers.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

You make it sound like justice is constant. It isn't. One form of justice does not transcend borders. Each culture has a different definition of what justice is. Putting someone in prison for life is also revenge... is it not? You're doing it to punish the person and to get back at them. It's revenge.

For the record... some of the most technologically advanced have the death penalty. Not bad for "barbarians," eh?

As for the financial burden... I've heard varying numbers. There are a lot more guys serving life in prison than are on death row. So, even if it's cheaper to have the guy serving life... multiply that by the large number of inmates who are serving life. That's still very expensive on taxpayers.

Technological advancement has little to do with barbarism. Rome was the most advanced state in ancient times, yet we consider their gladiator fights as barbaric. And you yourself are committing the greatest barbarism by simply saying "let's kill the murderers, instead of locking them up, because it might be cheaper. What's the next step? Let's kill all rapists too, that might be cheaper too." Someone once said that the level of civilization of a nation can be measured by the way they treat their criminals. What's the best method for educating your children? Giving the good example! The same applies for a state and its citizens.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Technological advancement has little to do with barbarism. Rome was the most advanced state in ancient times, yet we consider their gladiator fights as barbaric. And you yourself are committing the greatest barbarism by simply saying "let's kill the murderers, instead of locking them up, because it might be cheaper. What's the next step? Let's kill all rapists too, that might be cheaper too." Someone once said that the level of civilization of a nation can be measured by the way they treat their criminals. What's the best method for educating your children? Giving the good example! The same applies for a state and its citizens.

No... no one here is saying "let's kill rapists." Some people think that the execution of a man who was responsible for thousands of murders is giving him what he deserves. I just think it's funny that you guys cry "bararism!" about my nation... but getting you to say one bad about a terrorist who shoots a blind folded woman in the back of the head is like pulling teeth.

What I also don't understand is that some of you strike as the type of people who believe in killing the unborn child... but when it comes to a man who has brutalized the lives of people... you believe his life is everso precious.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

No... no one here is saying "let's kill rapists." Some people think that the execution of a man who was responsible for thousands of murders is giving him what he deserves. I just think it's funny that you guys cry "bararism!" about my nation... but getting you to say one bad about a terrorist who shoots a blind folded woman in the back of the head is like pulling teeth.

What I also don't understand is that some of you strike as the type of people who believe in killing the unborn child... but when it comes to a man who has brutalized the lives of people... you believe his life is everso precious.

First, I never stated that the USA was a barbaric nation, Ana thinks that the death penalty is barbaric, I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think a civilized nation should have a death penalty. I only commented on you saying that an advanced society could not be called barbaric.

Second, I have no problem calling the terrorists or Saddam barbarians, they are, but that doesn't mean we have to stoop to their level, if we lower our standards, because of the terrorists, the terrorists have already wun. Two wrongs don't make a right, if they stoop to barbaric levels, we should do anything to stop them, however without losing the civilization that we claim to fight for.

Third, there is no such thing as an unborn child imho.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

First, I never stated that the USA was a barbaric nation, Ana thinks that the death penalty is barbaric, I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think a civilized nation should have a death penalty. I only commented on you saying that an advanced society could not be called barbaric.

Second, I have no problem calling the terrorists or Saddam barbarians, they are, but that doesn't mean we have to stoop to their level, if we lower our standards, because of the terrorists, the terrorists have already wun. Two wrongs don't make a right, if they stoop to barbaric levels, we should do anything to stop them, however without losing the civilization that we claim to fight for.

Third, there is no such thing as an unborn child imho.

Okay, sure... so... those premature babies are just a sack of lifeless bones then right? At the time that some mothers are giving birth prematurely, there are other people who are killing the child. When a woman is "with child" that means she's pregant. And when she's pregnant, there's another beating heart inside her. Tell me, is it more wrong to stop that beating heart than that of a genocidal tyrant? Everybody here has gone through the stage of being in a womb... and had you not been in there, you wouldn't be here today.

Executing a bloodthirsty murderer is not "barbaric." I understand your point... but the reality of the world is that there are still a lot of people who find closure and justice in knowing that the person who ruthlessly murdered their loved one is no longer living. I honestly don't see what the difference is if the police shoot and kill a man running around on a shooting spree. Many Iraqis still see executing Saddam Hussein as being done in self-defense because many of them have a credible fear that Hussein will return to power.

I can guarantee you that if World War II happened today in Europe... and a man like Adolf Hitler destroyed and conquered country after country... and killed six million Jews, there would be quite a large number of Europeans who would want the man dead. I mean, it's easier said than done... it really is. I have had friends and a family member who were murdered in cold blood... and trust me, you don't exactly have a self-righteous feeling of joy when thinking of the killer. I honestly don't see a jury or judicial system that decides to execute a cold blooded killer as "wrong."

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Okay, sure... so... those premature babies are just a sack of lifeless bones then right? At the time that some mothers are giving birth prematurely, there are other people who are killing the child. When a woman is "with child" that means she's pregant. And when she's pregnant, there's another beating heart inside her. Tell me, is it more wrong to stop that beating heart than that of a genocidal tyrant? Everybody here has gone through the stage of being in a womb... and had you not been in there, you wouldn't be here today.

Premature babies aren't unborn, are they? They are BORN prematurely. And to be honest I'm certainly not saying that abortions are great, and especially abortions in the third trimester I do not approve of. It all has to do with intelligence and consciousness, sure I've been in the womb, so have you, but I can't remember it, can you? Therefore I cannot consider an embryo, especially in the early stages of a pregnancy a conscious, intelligent human being. Any animal is more intelligent and conscious than an embryo, so why don't you protest the slaughtering of cows, pigs or whatever? When is a human considered a separate entity for the judicial system? At the moment of birth, and I want it to stay that way. But I don't want this to turn into a abortion-thread, so if you want to discuss it more open a new thread.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Executing a bloodthirsty murderer is not "barbaric." I understand your point... but the reality of the world is that there are still a lot of people who find closure and justice in knowing that the person who ruthlessly murdered their loved one is no longer living. I honestly don't see what the difference is if the police shoot and kill a man running around on a shooting spree. Many Iraqis still see executing Saddam Hussein as being done in self-defense because many of them have a credible fear that Hussein will return to power.

So in fact were killing the criminals, because it makes the relatives/friends of the victim feel better, well why stop at murderer's than, wouldn't a raped woman feel better (find more closure and justice) if her rapist was executed?
And if we only kill murderers as punishment, why don't we rape rapists as punishment? Sure I understand that victims feel no love towards someone who caused them pain, but justice is a set of rules that we have to deal with those who break these rules. One of these rules is, killing is wrong, so I just don't see why breaking the rule twice is better than breaking it once.

And ofcourse there is a difference when there is a direct threat at hand that one or more other lifes are in danger, but Saddam isn't in a position to kill anyone at this time anymore and the same goes for convicted murderers in the USA. We often disagree on a lot, Chase, but claiming self defense against unarmed, chained people, you are not that dumb!

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I can guarantee you that if World War II happened today in Europe... and a man like Adolf Hitler destroyed and conquered country after country... and killed six million Jews, there would be quite a large number of Europeans who would want the man dead. I mean, it's easier said than done... it really is. I have had friends and a family member who were murdered in cold blood... and trust me, you don't exactly have a self-righteous feeling of joy when thinking of the killer. I honestly don't see a jury or judicial system that decides to execute a cold blooded killer as "wrong."

I understand why people are in favor of the death penalty, and even here in Holland at this time it's near 40%, who are still in favor according to surveys, but me personally I am not and I do think it is "wrong" and I hope that if I ever came in a position, hopefully not, that someone, who I cared deeply for was murdered, that I will be able to stand by the convictions that I have now. I would hope to find a way to heal within myself and with the support system (friends/family) that I have, without needing another death to get 'closure'. What some people seem to forget is that murderers also have parents, sometimes children, who are (maybe for some, up to a point) innocent, but who will also be victimized if the murderer is executed. Do you wish the pain that you felt when losing your family member or friend upon anyone else, who is blameless? It isn't easy to take the moral highground and sure if someone strikes you, the first impulse is to strike back, but look at people like Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Jesus himself, and don't you find a sense of respect for that. That's what I mean by giving the good example, even when it's hard.

[metalchris25]

I say we take him out back and have no mercy on him.