That's because theirs too much litigation and too much concern over the rights of scumbags who don't give a damn about anyones rights or anyones life. They get way more consideration then they deserve. Again, if i had my way, they would cease to cost the country ANY money.

And i think the punishment should fit the crime. Particuarly in the case of repeat offenders. It is not fair to the victim, nor their friends, family or loved ones that the scumbag still draws air when he snatched it from someone else. Said scumbag took from their victim EVERYTHING they owned and cherished, and everything the would ever own, see, or experience. Why.. WHY should that scumbag continue to have all those things when he or she unjustly denied them to others? No sir, the punishment should fit the crime.

In that case, I am glad its not your way.



An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
- Mahatma Gandhi

The world is not rainbows and unicorns, nor can you rehabilitate serial killers. It's best to put them down and be done with it.

I agree. I'm just concerned with the governments ability to only prosecute the guilty. You can't take back the DP once it's carried out.

Which is why I keep saying, "repeat offenders" and "serial killer".

I think it's entirely possible for someone to be falsely accused and convicted once, but not multiple times.

For example, here's two character's that should not be alive and kicking:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...okingphoto.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mirez_2007.jpg

You think they got falsely accused. I don't!

So when people think eye for an eye is the wrong approach they believe in unicorns? :hmm2:

I was insinuating that your an idealist, a wisher, or a dreamer. An outlook which I do not share. I prefer to realize the world for how it is, and deal with it.

How many "scumbags" have been released recently from death row in your country after litigation proved they were the wrong people?

Sounds like you want a mad dictatorship with lynch mobs with no justice.
Not a very pleasant picture of your views that you are painting is it.
In fact it does look like your whole arguement is based on emotion rather than anything resembling reason.

Mh, people who know me tend to say Im a pessimist and realist. Refreshing to hear something different for a change.

Maybe I just let those biblical-old-school-laws behind me and realized that this is helping no one in a modern society? And that murdering a murderer would make me the same?

I don't see why this makes me a dreamer, or wisher. What do I dream or wish for? Just because I believe killing, no matter whom, is wrong?

I don't say one shall try to rehab those cracks, but just because this is not possible, we must not kill them. Lock them up, make sure they won't threaten society anymore and that's good enough (for me).

Clearly we don't know much about each other then, because anyone who knows me, would tell you I'm not a fan of things biblical (or more specifically evangelism ). :haha:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :salute:

I was reminding that eye for an eye has its origin in the bible - and this book is quite outdated.

I agree to disagree though.

Manson is an interesting case. He got a death sentence. Then California repealed their death penalty. Then California reinstated their Death Penalty. It was decided that Manson's original sentence couldn't be reinstated because that would be the same as upping it for someone who was convicted when death wasn't an option. So he sits there, and every so often he comes up for parole review, and is always turned down. He's probably happy about that, considering how long he would survive on the outside.

My friend Rocky was once having a discussion on the death penalty. He was supporting it and the other person said that the DP isn't really a deterrent, which is arguably true. Rocky's answer to that was "Really? How many women has Ted Bundy killed recently?"

But if it was a deterrent then Bundy wouldn't have killed, if Bundys execution was a deterrent then he would have been the last serial killer.

How many women would Bundy have killed recently if he was locked up for life on conviction?

Bundy escaped from jail. Twice. And killed again while he was free.

Also I wasn't telling the story to support the death penalty. My opinion on that changes fairly regularly. I was just telling a story about an old friend.

On the other hand I laughed when during the 1988 presidential debates Michael Dukakis, a strong anti-death-penalty candidate, was asked if he would still be against it if his own wife was raped and murdered. Poor Dukakis looked like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights, then finally gave a solemn stock answer that sounded like he was reading from a script. I laughed because I instantly knew what I would have said: "Yes, I would still be against the death penalty because I wouldn't want to fry for what I did to the *#&@^) when I caught up with him!"

Seriously. If a man's wife and child were murdered, I doubt their are few in that position who would not be burning with a desire to kill the bastard who did it.