So you want a politician who just panders to what ever he thinks will give him power
and popularity instead of sticking to his principles and beliefs?

Does that kind of machiavellianism represent you well?

A representative owes his people not only his industry but his judgement and he betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion - Edmund Burke

That's why.

Do you sopprort the death penalty
 

Dunno if this has been posted or not, but thier is a thread about the death penality, and this has got my intersist to see how many of yall sopport it or dissoport it.

So you're of the "Mommy Government knows best for her little chillen" camp, eh?

Yes, I think it is a way to keep people from killing more people ...

That fear sits somewhere in every person sub-consciously or consciously.

If the fear was removed they could all sit around laughing about what they did to
someone while playing cards and readin the newspaper in prisons.

You take a life ... you should lose your life.

Depedning on the circumstance of course.

A politician represents the people. At 90% public opinion for and he votes against then he is voicing his personal opinion on the matter and is not representing the people.

I say yes!

I also believe if it is used, they should really use it. Don't let these people sit on death row for years waiting.

I say as soon as the court find you guilty, take them and set them in the chair and give them the JUICE!

No I want a politician who does what the people who elected him want him to do. He's hired to do a job and if he wants to keep it he'd better keep his customers happy.

But you didn't answer my question so i'll ask it again: How does your theory stack up when the thing that the politician believes in is something racist or otherwise completely unpalatable? According to you that is something to be admired right?

Personally i'm opposed to the DP.

First, it's too final and no court ever created by man is infallable.

Second, death lets the bastards off too easy. Put them in a cell without their cable TV or anything besides the most basic of amentities for the rest of their worthless lives. Now that's a just punishment.

I used to be for it but now I think it punishes more by keeping him in a 6X10 cell for 23 hours a day for the rest of his life. Thats a lot of time in a very small place to dwell on the reason he's in there.

If you kill a person intentionally & it can be proved without a doubt then yes, the killer has ended a persons life so that person has lost rights to live.:nope: However the person should be put to death as humanely as possable, it is not our right to inflict pain!:-?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

As someone from Illinois, having seen the mess my state was in with this issue before the Governor emptied death row, I honestly do not believe that the Death Penalty can be applied fairly. That is before the other deep arguments of morality and cruelty.

even the smallest of crimes should result in death penalty... :arrgh!: death penalty will make people think twice before commiting a crime.. always remember you WILL get the electric chair :arrgh!::rotfl:


seriously yes i support it.. too bad canada doesnt have it:cry:

Yes, it has been discussed before. But still...

Yes, I support it. But still...

For proven serial killers like Ted Bundy, I have no compunctions at all. For the one-time murderer? Well, If the evidence is absolute...but then, is it ever? I think removing them from society is enough; but then there is always a parole, even if the verdict stipulates there not be.

For me it's too easy to argue both sides.

No, killing them is setting them free from their guilt. Let them rot in Jail for 50yrs. Go back to the days where they actually did break rocks all day and were fed crap food, prisons today are a holiday to most crims.