[farmer boy]

im not on about randomly going around giving the death penalty to anyone that is thought to be guilty . so if a man/woman gose on a killing spree and kills at random and is witnesed by hundreds of people (so there is no doubt it was them) they should get death in my eyes

peace out farmer boy

[Hir]

farmer boy, on 14 March 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

im not on about randomly going around giving the death penalty to anyone that is thought to be guilty . so if a man/woman gose on a killing spree and kills at random and is witnesed by hundreds of people (so there is no doubt it was them) they should get death in my eyes

peace out farmer boy

So, what, we do to people who have killed what we find most abhorrent, and we kill them. Where is the sense in that?

[CoolBananas]

What about the guy recently in Sweden, should he not be executed?

[mr chang]

Hir, on 14 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

farmer boy, on 14 March 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

im not on about randomly going around giving the death penalty to anyone that is thought to be guilty . so if a man/woman gose on a killing spree and kills at random and is witnesed by hundreds of people (so there is no doubt it was them) they should get death in my eyes

peace out farmer boy

So, what, we do to people who have killed what we find most abhorrent, and we kill them. Where is the sense in that?

Where is the sense in keeping these people alive?I have spent just over 7 years of my life in jail and believe me there is no helping some people ,true evil does exist .

[Cured]

mr chang, on 14 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Hir, on 14 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

farmer boy, on 14 March 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

im not on about randomly going around giving the death penalty to anyone that is thought to be guilty . so if a man/woman gose on a killing spree and kills at random and is witnesed by hundreds of people (so there is no doubt it was them) they should get death in my eyes

peace out farmer boy

So, what, we do to people who have killed what we find most abhorrent, and we kill them. Where is the sense in that?

Where is the sense in keeping these people alive?I have spent just over 7 years of my life in jail and believe me there is no helping some people ,true evil does exist .

descending the rest of society to the same immoral and evil depths is no more of a solution imo.

@ cool bananas, it was Norway and I think that case sparked the last death penalty discussion iirc. And no I don't think he should be executed.


The life of David gale is a brilliant film about the death penalty based on a true story about how a completely innocent man who campaigned against the death penalty and sacrificed himself to show the system is wrong.

This post has been edited by Cursed: 14 March 2012 - 01:02 PM

[farmer boy]

Hir, on 14 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

farmer boy, on 14 March 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

im not on about randomly going around giving the death penalty to anyone that is thought to be guilty . so if a man/woman gose on a killing spree and kills at random and is witnesed by hundreds of people (so there is no doubt it was them) they should get death in my eyes

peace out farmer boy

So, what, we do to people who have killed what we find most abhorrent, and we kill them. Where is the sense in that?

yes,it was there choice to kill in the first place

peace out farmer boy

[dodgee5]

Im with FB on this one folks, i understand the miscarriage of justice arguement, and of course i certainly wouldnt want the death of an innocent person on my conscience....

But what about case's like fred and rose west? I mean there is'nt much room for manuvere there is there? They raped, tortured and killed children for kicks. The evidence against them is overwhelming i mean does anybody seriously think they might(of been) innocent? really?

And what is societies justification for locking them up for life? what does it achieve? does it compensate there victims in some way? or perhaps you hope to rehabilitate them??? Or is it merely to keep others safe?

If other people/childrens safety is the overall concern surely the answer is for them to simply cease to exist...?

Just my tuppence

ATB Dodgee

[CoolBananas]

Cursed, on 14 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

mr chang, on 14 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Hir, on 14 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

farmer boy, on 14 March 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

im not on about randomly going around giving the death penalty to anyone that is thought to be guilty . so if a man/woman gose on a killing spree and kills at random and is witnesed by hundreds of people (so there is no doubt it was them) they should get death in my eyes

peace out farmer boy

So, what, we do to people who have killed what we find most abhorrent, and we kill them. Where is the sense in that?

Where is the sense in keeping these people alive?I have spent just over 7 years of my life in jail and believe me there is no helping some people ,true evil does exist .

descending the rest of society to the same immoral and evil depths is no more of a solution imo.

@ cool bananas, it was Norway and I think that case sparked the last death penalty discussion iirc. And no I don't think he should be executed.


The life of David gale is a brilliant film about the death penalty based on a true story about how a completely innocent man who campaigned against the death penalty and sacrificed himself to show the system is wrong.

Sorry yes Norway!.

Not sure whether i agree with it or not, i really dont know where i stand, but i do believe that if there was ever a case for it then this should be a good place to start.

He caught red-handed so to speak, there is no issue of guilty party as only he was involved.

Can i ask why you believe he should not be executed?

I do feel that the problem is not wether he should or should not be killed, but what people take form the fact that he is killed or not. e.g if he is not executed then this will pass the message to the masses that punishment will never fit the crime, and i dont think that is right.

[Hir]

farmer boy, on 14 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Hir, on 14 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

farmer boy, on 14 March 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

im not on about randomly going around giving the death penalty to anyone that is thought to be guilty . so if a man/woman gose on a killing spree and kills at random and is witnesed by hundreds of people (so there is no doubt it was them) they should get death in my eyes

peace out farmer boy

So, what, we do to people who have killed what we find most abhorrent, and we kill them. Where is the sense in that?

yes,it was there choice to kill in the first place

peace out farmer boy

Soldiers choose to kill, is the word of a politician that it is okay to kill on behalf of the state sufficient justification?

[bazzad9]

im against it

the cost of keeping prisoners locked up for life is the price you pay for a civilized society

if thats what we want thats how much it costs

just to add ,trying children as adults is about as far from justice as i can imagine

we are going to class this child as an adult

sorry went off topic a bit

[distracted]

In the UK the state allows for the killing of people that pose a threat to life, be that by Police officers or military, that in it's own right is contentious and questionable at times, but once an individual is in custody, it can't be argued that they pose a threat to life unless the regime under which they are kept fails. With the removal of threat, what justification for killing is there beyond revenge? the perpetrator certainly won't learn any lessons from being exterminated and the argument that it is the ultimate deterrent hasn't worked in the US..... cast aside those arguments, what do we have left? Savings tax payers money? not that it is any basis for a justification but I doubt there is any saving between a bloody handed lifer with no chance of appeal and a death rower fighting the courts decision for several years to try and stay alive, along with the support of those who believe that it is morally wrong to take another's life if it can be avoided

[lovemaryj71]

Its such a moral dilemna on the one hand I believe the truely evil should die for there awful crimes! Killers of children and mass murders i think most would agree have negated their right to live!! BUT (big but) its just plain wrong to kill another person in this way in the eyes of decent society and that wins the debate for me its just wrong!

Peaceout lmj

[dingo bingo]

I could possibly be persuaded to agree with capital punishment, only for the very worst killers that are remembered for generations - although how many of them are there? The main argument seems to be that we shouldn't pay to keep them alive, however we can easily afford it and like has been said - that is the price we pay for a civilised society. Killing of any kind (perhaps exlcuding defense) has no part in what I perceive a 'civilised' society to be, we are much better than that and to quote my nursery teacher, "two wrongs don't make a right".

Also, my biggest fear would be the potential for the boundaries to change. If we accept it for the very worst offenders, there will inevitably be pressure (most likely a tabloid's emotive and subjective campaign) for an offender on the borderline of death penalty to be charged with it. Given time, where will that threshold end up?

I think it's an obvious decision to forever outlaw capital punishment!

[redtilidie]

Ship em all off to an inhabitable island and let them fucking rot....But then again,Australia has ended up being a great place to live

[Tony Montana]

There are certain people incarcerated that deserve to die for what they have done, terrible, terrible crimes that send a shock wave of sorrow and unhappiness through generations of families.