Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

Death Penalty

ruthlessp8ntballer

You And Your ****ing Rope
Oct 10, 2003
276
0
0
United States......BITCHES!
Allright,

Dealth Penalty...Pro or Against?

Back up your beliefs, and why something should be changed. Got any theories on why some things are the way they are (pertaining to the dealth penalty, and how its sentenced.)

I'll start. Should people die if they do the wrong thing...sure. Back it up, and pull the switch. Why has this measure not been abolished? Because its a huge money maker. The lawyer representing the poor ******* on trial gets money, the baliff gets paid, the judge, and courts get paid, as do the jury members, and even the janitors. That's why, its makes too much money for everyone, and has been kept there not so much for amoral ideal, but for a monetary gain to the growing judicial branch. Does the death penalty mess up, no. It always does it job (in the respect that it kills the person), however, people were killed posthaste without a proper trial, and that wasnt a fault of the dealth penalty...please share your thoughs and rants, but if you're gonna rant, please, make it in english; and back it up. Dont go into this half-assed backwards. Prove your Point. :cool:
 

dr.strangelove

PrematurelyPost-Traumatic
Sep 14, 2002
1,499
0
61
Earth
Did you seriously just post this? Instead of debating the death penalty, let's take wagers on how long it takes the mods to close this thread and ban you :D
 

SHOG1

Registered (ANGEL) User
Jul 26, 2004
105
1
0
Wales
www.mh2paintballteam.tk
Lunatic?

Dealth Penalty...Pro or Against?
You need to get out more.............
Then again it's probably best if you lock yourself in your house(if you own a firearm).....and wait for the men in white coats to come knocking:D :D :D
I give him 15 hours b4 ban:D
 

ruthlessp8ntballer

You And Your ****ing Rope
Oct 10, 2003
276
0
0
United States......BITCHES!
Bolter, I second that feeling.

Instead of putting wagers on when I'll be banned, how about donating some brain-cells to the thread....wait one second though, most of you cannot spare them; nevermind.

Shog, about those braincells, keep em moving; and I do enjoy posting ideas other than paintball.

Oh, and as for the banning, I took the luxury of asking a mod about the start of this thread, and they gave it a temporary pass; but It'll be killed now; either way, just wanted to get my two cents in before this is closed.

Got Intelligence? :confused: :rolleyes:
 

Baca Loco

Ex-Fun Police
It's good to see the TFP Irregulars jump on this thread with such speed. They're better than flying monkeys.

However, I'm afraid I must insist posts stick to the topic presented.

And, yes, this thread has official sanction--temporarily. Frankly I'm not expecting much when among our current top threads is getting shot in the nuts and picture threads where a fair percentage of posters can't manage to post pictures. Best of luck.

Oh, and about the thread-starter. You might want to reconsider the money angle. Criminal courts do not make money, they cost money.

Last time I got a jury duty notice the daily stipend for being a juror was $25 a day so I think it's pretty safe to say the only jurors making money are otherwise busy being homeless alcoholics. Heck, even PB referees do better than that. :)
 

Ms Bossy

wotever :o)
Aug 26, 2002
470
0
0
Was supposed to be tongue in cheek Baca

Topic
The death penalty in the UK has failed the convicted in the past and will fail them in the future if reinstated, there have been cases in the UK and US where police have planted forensic evidence to gain a conviction and an innocent person (of that crime) has been removed for good.
It has a lot of pro's but only if the authorities can do an honest job.
 

JoseDominguez

New cut and carved spine!
Oct 25, 2002
3,185
0
0
www.myspace.com
Pretty simple argument from me really........ in cases where guilt for a serious crime has been proven beyond any doubt, then the death penalty is realistic and justifiable. I mean in cases where guilt is unquestioned and the crime is horrific..... say the brutal slaying of your ex wife and her new partner. So brutal that she is almost decapitated and the killer leaves his own blood at the scene, plus various other unquestionable evidence.


Thing is, O.J got off didn't he? and if the legal system allows the defence to blind a jury with pseudo science that casts doubt on solid evidence..... then what about the people who didn't do it and get convicted?
So how can the death penalty be justified in a legal system that relies on who is most convincing on the day?

Not knocking it really, if one of mine was murdered/raped etc... I'd want the criminal dead. But I have no faith in anyone's legal system.
 

dr.strangelove

PrematurelyPost-Traumatic
Sep 14, 2002
1,499
0
61
Earth
This thread is going to set a precedent, I feel the overthrow of The Fun Police is imminent. But, as long as it's sanctioned...

I'm actually for the death penalty in murder cases that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What form of justice is there for taking a life other than to have yours taken? Capital punishment is basically the definition of the sanctity of human life in our society. Now obviously the legal system isn't perfect, and wrongful convictions that result in the death of an innocent person are tragic, which is why the conditions for death penalty cases are so exact, and could probably even be more so. Another problem in today's legal system is, like Jose said, the attorney with the nicest hair is usually the one who wins the jury over. I pin this problem mostly on the simplicity of the average juror, and personally, I think murder cases should be presented without a traditional jury, either to a pre-qualified panel of experts or directly to a judge. I'm afraid that the average person is just not qualified to decide someone's life or death based on the increasingly complex evidence presented to them in recent times. A lack of a national standard for sentencing is also a problem, as one guy could commit a crime in one state and be sentenced to death, move 10 feet over the border into another state and get 25 years. A more uniform national sentencing guideline would go a long way towards ensuring that equal justice is always served, and ensure that innocent people are not executed. Despite these drawbacks, I still support the death penalty even in our flawed system. The appeals system is in place to help ensure that a fair trial has taken place, and with our modern science and technology, the occurance of flawed evidence is getting increasingly rare. A person sentenced to death is given a minimum of 20 years to dispute his case, uncover new evidence, and convince the legal system that he's innocent. The rare convictions that are faulty can usually, especially in our present science and information age, be vindicated in the 20+ year span between conviction and execution. Of course, any margin of error is tragic, but such is our legal system. I find it tragic that the drunken driver who ran over an 18 year old girl and rendered her a vegetable for 20 years got 6 months in jail for drunk driving and fleeing a crime scene. I find it tragic that in my home state, people who have killed others are being released years and decades ahead of schedule because our law now reads that if you kill someone during the committment or in the furtherence of another crime, that you can only be charged with the original crime and not the killing. It's tragic for anyone wronfully convicted, whether they're spending 15, 25, 50 years in jail, or life in jail for crimes they didn't commit, just the same as it is with the death penalty. But since we don't live in a perfect world, you just have to weigh the good against the bad and decide whether it balances out. Personally, I think the death penalty, and our sentencing for crimes in general, has served more justice than it has injustice by a large enough margin that it is still valid.

And there's my spare braincell for the day. If TFP sanctions any other political or religous threads that you may be interested in, I've got others to spare as well. ;)

EDIT:
I live in the US, so my opinion is based on the legal system here. I know there are alot of UK and Euro ballers here, so just want to avoid any confusion, as I'm not all that familiar with foreign legal systems.
 

Dusty

Don't run, you'll only die tired....
May 19, 2004
7,606
2,407
348
46
Northern Ireland
in order to reduce serious crimes, dna samples should be taken and recorded at birth. we have the technology and we have the resources. dna cannot be replicated (yet) and is something stupidly accurate like 99.999997% accurate.

for serious crimes like premeditated murder, and acts of terrorism (ie bombing) the death penalty should be the only form of punishment.

as for giving dna samples, any decent and semi law abiding citizens who do not intend to break the law, should have no fear or need to refuse.

just my tuppence worth..............