PDA

View Full Version : Death Penalty



Acetriad
09-23-2007, 03:39
If those who victomised law following citicens were told, after their first offence, to "walk the streight and narrow" from then on, and simply shot in the head if they didn't listen the first time, what would happen to society?

Hoebawt
09-23-2007, 15:58
We would have alot more money in our pockets due to less taxes coz we woudlnt have to pay so much for jails :P

Acetriad
09-24-2007, 04:31
I certainly expected to hear a bit more on this subject, but that is likely going on in the other thread I started, I'll go look there.

Hamlet
09-24-2007, 04:48
You need ppl like Will to comment on those kind of subjects, then you'll get an (over)heated debate ;) Anyway, I think the subject of death penalty was raised in a thread a couple of weeks ago; I remember writing something about it (maybe in the 'Guns for everyone' thread?).

Acetriad
09-24-2007, 05:09
I'm sure it probably was... actually, yeah, it was. Reguardless, this is a separte debate.

To quote you else where, and it seems more apropriate here.

This thread + the 'Dead penalty' thread; seems like you are busy exterminating US citizens

Ok, Let me play the Devil's advicate once again. Lets say I am advocateing the extermination of oh... say 20% of the American population. What of it? I don't see a problem with exterminating the scum of the earth. You kill someone, you die. You rob someone, you die. You don't get off your but and you are an able bodied human being, we either shoot you, or escort you to the border(to be nice). You want to do whatever you want as long as your not hurting anyone else and you suport yourself... have a blast.
Would a good portion of the population be either killed or driven off? Sure, but what would be left? The people who want to mind their own darn bussiness and contribute to society. So some scum of the earth either dies or decides to make something of themselves... there is a problem where?

Missionary
09-24-2007, 05:45
Ok, Let me play the Devil's advicate once again. Lets say I am advocateing the extermination of oh... say 20% of the American population. What of it? I don't see a problem with exterminating the scum of the earth. You kill someone, you die. You rob someone, you die. You don't get off your but and you are an able bodied human being, we either shoot you, or escort you to the border(to be nice). You want to do whatever you want as long as your not hurting anyone else and you suport yourself... have a blast.
Would a good portion of the population be either killed or driven off? Sure, but what would be left? The people who want to mind their own darn bussiness and contribute to society. So some scum of the earth either dies or decides to make something of themselves... there is a problem where?

round of aplause for that guy, run for president. id move to america do tha silly test and vote for ya :)

to many soft people around, humanitarianies would cry so much the hassle wouldnt be worth it. although i think the death penalty should be used alot more often. i mean yeh a few inocent people might get killed, but they must have been doing something wrong to be named a suspect to start with :P

WoodPecker
09-24-2007, 08:53
lets all kill jews and homosexuals and maybe a few gypsies. oh and whatever happened to spetz?

Acetriad
09-25-2007, 05:21
Well, if you want to start killing those with gypsy blood. You are dealing with one right here right now.

And I miss Will ALOT. When I first came to the WOW forums me and him got into it bigtime. I remember alot of personal insults flying (mainly from me I am ashamed to admit). However, he was a darn good debater. As for Spetz... well, the evil Spaz part of his personality overruled the good Spetz part of his personality one too many times.
Also, I have absolutely no problems with homosexuals. I have some good freinds who are gay. They work, they contribute to society and are all around nice people. (By the same token I have some gay aquaintances who should probably be put down. They expect something from the rest of us just because they are a minority and at least one of those who I am thinking about attempted to take advantage of me when I was drunk and later lied about it. I have some VERY strong feelings about what homosexuals are and are NOT allowed to do, if you want to follow up on that, start a thread)
As for Jews, again, there are good and bad in every creed, race, religion, etc. Why single them out?
I have a feeling you were being sarcastic woodpecker, but I will treat your post with seriousness reguardless.

To get back on topic: Does anyone have anything to say about this idea which is bad? Its hard to have a debate if everyone agrees.... although that does (in my own opinion) mean that we have some good level headed blokes here.

Missionary
09-25-2007, 07:37
will isnt much fun anymore, aparently hes changed quite abit :( cant remember who said about it, maybe have been totte.

TheSecondComing
09-25-2007, 08:16
Acetriad, is the man that kills the other for his crimes any better than the man that committed the crime....

Killing is bad full stop. Oh yes and i tihnk the saying goes "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"

ranger2112
09-25-2007, 14:32
the system and the world have become too soft. political correctness, anti-death penalty, gun control, and the Spice Girls have made this a weak azz world.

WoodPecker
09-25-2007, 19:51
maybe retards with guns which is what america has in abundance is what makes this world ****ty

Acetriad
09-25-2007, 20:03
If you spank your 2 year old for hitting your newborn are you any better than the 2 year old?

Hoebawt
09-25-2007, 20:14
Ofcourse u are as long as u dont beat on the 2 year old

ranger2112
09-25-2007, 20:15
exactly Hoe

Satan666
09-26-2007, 16:26
The Fact of the matter is there are two extremes. The person who lets their Kids do whatever they want and the people who beat their kids. I see both of these as bad as the other. Some kids today just never had discipline so they are bad mouth kids that do what they want. Their parents are to blame because they never let them know that what the kids are doing is wrong.

WoodPecker
09-26-2007, 20:06
how does idiots with guns get to this?

Satan666
09-26-2007, 21:13
well there was another topic started at the same time, and somehow we got into the topic of beating your children not too long ago.

WoodPecker
09-26-2007, 21:23
oh well beating kids is bad unless done by other kids for the entertainment of adults

Acetriad
09-27-2007, 04:11
My comment was more meant as a come-back to the second comming's comment rather than to start a new debate.. He asked


Acetriad, is the man that kills the other for his crimes any better than the man that committed the crime....

Killing is bad full stop. Oh yes and i tihnk the saying goes "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"


Which made me respond with the 2year old/ toddler remark.
Basically, it comes down to the issue of: If a person can't be responsible for their own behaivor, someone else has to.

If you can understand that robbing from other people is wrong. Killing other people is wrong. Rapeing other people is wrong. Abusing other people is wrong.
How can you not understand that people who CAN'T understand this need to be made to understand, harshy enough that they will understand it?

ooga booga
09-27-2007, 10:50
if you don't understand that killing an innocent person is wrong, then you should die. Hence, the death penalty. Thank you and goodnight. (yes I said it, and it's not even 10am yet...)

ranger2112
09-27-2007, 11:04
if you don't understand that killing an innocent person is wrong, then you should die. Hence, the death penalty. Thank you and goodnight. (yes I said it, and it's not even 10am yet...)


u got rep for that one!! :)

Missionary
09-27-2007, 17:15
The Fact of the matter is there are two extremes. The person who lets their Kids do whatever they want and the people who beat their kids. I see both of these as bad as the other. Some kids today just never had discipline so they are bad mouth kids that do what they want. Their parents are to blame because they never let them know that what the kids are doing is wrong.

wrong, the government is to blame (or at least in the UK). government made new laws saying you cant hit your kid, at least not to leave a mark. now adays you hit your kid they go to school and say your beating them and social services are around your house within a few days.

same with the death penalty. less and less people are being put to death now because government and the people are getting softer and thinking its wrong.

ranger2112
09-27-2007, 17:19
wow Vinnie, that was good.

Satan666
09-27-2007, 18:30
well like i said, you can not let that happen. When i was in High School last year, i saw alot of freshmen born in a different time where you couldn't discipline your children the same way. Some of these kids have no respect for their elders or to the people who just want to make their lives better. These kids if they never grow out of this will ruin this country even more than it is right now.

Acetriad
09-28-2007, 03:37
Basically, the two things are on and the same. Children are out of control because their parents aren't allowed to discipline them when the mess up, so the children do whatever they please. Crime is out of control because when adults mess up, people aren't allowed to discipline them, so they do whatever they please. Anyone who doesn't see a direct correlarry here, along with some very bad news for the nation in the upcomming years, please tell me why not?

30 years ago, most states had the death penalty, the crime rate was lower.
30 years ago, you could blister your kids behind, there were no mass school killings.
30 years ago, you could shoot someone who was trying to kill or rob you, Without getting hit with a lawsuit, and/or going to prison for the rest of your life.
30 years ago, no one would have thought of sueing because they ate a battery because it didn't say "do not eat" on it.
I can agree that we have to make some exceptions for those less fortunate than us, but the way things are now the government treats every citisen (incorrect spelling) like a moron. You ate a battery, your a moron, therefore its the battery companie's(or societie's) fault.
You rob someone, your a moron and its societie's fault.
Your kid won't behave in school, its either your fault (Social Services!) or the kid needs to be pumped full of Ridelin
The point is, its always someone else's fault. Its never the fault of the person who messed up. THAT is where this country has gone wrong.
If you murder someone, well unless it was self defense, its murder. If you rape someone, (and I'm talking a REAL rape, not a "I got plastered and went home with some guy and had sex and the next day decided it was a mistake") then you have to take responsiblility for your actions. If society, the government, and the average citicen would FORCE people to take responsiblility for their actions, there would be alot less crime. And YES! that does mean there would be a death penalty for certain actions.

Hamlet
09-28-2007, 06:09
Anyone who doesn't see a direct correlarry here, along with some very bad news for the nation in the upcomming years, please tell me why not?

What about: No evidence prove the existence of children being out of control, when parents aren't allowed to use physical violence against them?

Crime (Violence, rape, robberi, theft, drug violations etc.) per 1.000 Inh./1995-2005 (DK)
15-17 years: 26,25,25,25,24,27,26,24,25,28 and 29
18-20 years: 31,30,30,29,28,29,31,29,32,31 and 32
>20 years: 9,9,8,8,8,7,7,7,7,7 and 7

Source: The Danish Ministry of Justice

1997 marked with bold: Denmark make it a criminal act for parents to use violence against their kids; no boom in crime - only in the welfare of children, incl. those innocent kids born and raised by psycho parents. Kids are tiny humans - and human rights also apply to those odd creatures.

PS: US crime rates aren't out of control compared to the past, e.g. Violent crimes measured per 100k inhabitants have dropped -13.3% from 1997 to 2006; Murder dropped -6.4% etc. etc. (Source: FBI's most recent stat).

Missionary
09-30-2007, 13:12
you 2 killed the thread by going into way to much detail haha

Hamlet
09-30-2007, 17:42
you 2 killed the thread by going into way to much detail haha

Forgive me - an occupational brain damage leads me to post quantitative data regularly :crying: Even my love letters goes like that: "Dear Cathrine. I'm 95% confident that I fanzy you, but I need a bigger sample of you to make it statistical significant. Blah-blah-bla."

Missionary
10-01-2007, 04:37
haha, very amusing lol. my send you an e-rep message :)

Mwahahahaha
10-19-2007, 20:30
For laws to work, they need to have the respect of the population. If not, they're just oppressive. Killing people for even minor offenses like stealing may sound like a fast and easy solution to get rid of scum, but can you honestly say that you've never done anything wrong in your life? When you've been drinking with your friends, have you never taken a bottle of beer that didn't belong to you? What if your brother or best friend were caught taking something insignificant that didn't belong to him, would you support him being put to death for that? And if I wanted someone dead, it would be the easiest thing to set him up by a stolen object found in his room.

My belief is that such laws would lessen people's personal morals, and instead having people believing you could do whatever you want, as long as you didn't break any of the rules set down by the government. People would start navigating the laws looking for loopholes to make extra gains. Laws wouldn't be able to cover every aspect that someone would consider wrong and immoral, and if they did, they would become so restrictive, that they would hamper any attempt of entrepeneurship and innovation, and you would end up with a society where growth and development were as good as non-existant. A good deal of people who's managed to get really rich, people who are catalysts towards growth and the betterment of society as a whole has got the place they are today by operating on the edge of what's legal. If death was threath hanging over people trying to make a better live for themselves their motivation would be squashed, and we'd be stuck with a nation of "government workers" acting as robots, trying to cover their own *** with every move, and resisting change. Change is a necessity for growth.

We'd be stuck with a nation of people living in fear. Something that would be a great violation of one of the most important principles our society is built on. Freedom.