Do you support the Death penalty?

[Robert]

Interesting that all those in favour have picked me up on my right to kill comment but none of you has addressed the far more obvious problem of proof.

The USA is already supposed to have a system of checks and balances to ensure no innocent person is murdered in retaliation for another murder.
Yet, everyome knows this is not foolproof.

Tell me, how many innocents murdered is acceptable?
A rough percentage will suffice.

@Wayne:
As for God saying so - interesting that you'll quote the old testament but not the new.
Where does big J ever advocate killing people convicted of murder.

There's so much more to this topic too but I'd like to know how you address the proof issue before we move onto things like whether it would only apply to murderers - a whole new can of worms. ;-)

 

[Robert]

Interesting that all those in favour have picked me up on my right to kill comment but none of you has addressed the far more obvious problem of proof.

The USA is already supposed to have a system of checks and balances to ensure no innocent person is murdered in retaliation for another murder.
Yet, everyome knows this is not foolproof.

Tell me, how many innocents murdered is acceptable?
A rough percentage will suffice.

@Wayne:
As for God saying so - interesting that you'll quote the old testament but not the new.
Where does big J ever advocate killing people convicted of murder.

There's so much more to this topic too but I'd like to know how you address the proof issue before we move onto things like whether it would only apply to murderers - a whole new can of worms. ;-)

 

[Robert]

Interesting that all those in favour have picked me up on my right to kill comment but none of you has addressed the far more obvious problem of proof.

The USA is already supposed to have a system of checks and balances to ensure no innocent person is murdered in retaliation for another murder.
Yet, everyome knows this is not foolproof.

Tell me, how many innocents murdered is acceptable?
A rough percentage will suffice.

@Wayne:
As for God saying so - interesting that you'll quote the old testament but not the new.
Where does big J ever advocate killing people convicted of murder.

There's so much more to this topic too but I'd like to know how you address the proof issue before we move onto things like whether it would only apply to murderers - a whole new can of worms. ;-)

 

[Robert]

Interesting that all those in favour have picked me up on my right to kill comment but none of you has addressed the far more obvious problem of proof.

The USA is already supposed to have a system of checks and balances to ensure no innocent person is murdered in retaliation for another murder.
Yet, everyome knows this is not foolproof.

Tell me, how many innocents murdered is acceptable?
A rough percentage will suffice.

@Wayne:
As for God saying so - interesting that you'll quote the old testament but not the new.
Where does big J ever advocate killing people convicted of murder.

There's so much more to this topic too but I'd like to know how you address the proof issue before we move onto things like whether it would only apply to murderers - a whole new can of worms. ;-)

 

[Robert]

Interesting that all those in favour have picked me up on my right to kill comment but none of you has addressed the far more obvious problem of proof.

The USA is already supposed to have a system of checks and balances to ensure no innocent person is murdered in retaliation for another murder.
Yet, everyome knows this is not foolproof.

Tell me, how many innocents murdered is acceptable?
A rough percentage will suffice.

@Wayne:
As for God saying so - interesting that you'll quote the old testament but not the new.
Where does big J ever advocate killing people convicted of murder.

There's so much more to this topic too but I'd like to know how you address the proof issue before we move onto things like whether it would only apply to murderers - a whole new can of worms. ;-)

 

[Robert]

Interesting that all those in favour have picked me up on my right to kill comment but none of you has addressed the far more obvious problem of proof.

The USA is already supposed to have a system of checks and balances to ensure no innocent person is murdered in retaliation for another murder.
Yet, everyome knows this is not foolproof.

Tell me, how many innocents murdered is acceptable?
A rough percentage will suffice.

@Wayne:
As for God saying so - interesting that you'll quote the old testament but not the new.
Where does big J ever advocate killing people convicted of murder.

There's so much more to this topic too but I'd like to know how you address the proof issue before we move onto things like whether it would only apply to murderers - a whole new can of worms. ;-)

 

[Robert]

Think Willy Horton a hundred times over.

On the other side of the coin, some should never be put to death. There are those, specifically thinking of Charles Manson, that would become martyrs and the origins of even larger cults if they were executed.

And where do you draw the line on 'cult status'?
How many nutjob followers do you need to have in order to avoid the death penalty?

The death penalty is primitive, barbaric and impossible to administer properly.
Every time someone is released on a last minute appeal, it proves how hopelessly flawed your system is.

But hey, that's good ole democracy in action. You guys want the death penalty, your welcome to it.
Not in my country thanks. I don't want the risk of being killed for someone elses crime, which is exactly what you accept if you accept the death penalty.

 

[Robert]

Think Willy Horton a hundred times over.

On the other side of the coin, some should never be put to death. There are those, specifically thinking of Charles Manson, that would become martyrs and the origins of even larger cults if they were executed.

And where do you draw the line on 'cult status'?
How many nutjob followers do you need to have in order to avoid the death penalty?

The death penalty is primitive, barbaric and impossible to administer properly.
Every time someone is released on a last minute appeal, it proves how hopelessly flawed your system is.

But hey, that's good ole democracy in action. You guys want the death penalty, your welcome to it.
Not in my country thanks. I don't want the risk of being killed for someone elses crime, which is exactly what you accept if you accept the death penalty.

 

[Robert]

Think Willy Horton a hundred times over.

On the other side of the coin, some should never be put to death. There are those, specifically thinking of Charles Manson, that would become martyrs and the origins of even larger cults if they were executed.

And where do you draw the line on 'cult status'?
How many nutjob followers do you need to have in order to avoid the death penalty?

The death penalty is primitive, barbaric and impossible to administer properly.
Every time someone is released on a last minute appeal, it proves how hopelessly flawed your system is.

But hey, that's good ole democracy in action. You guys want the death penalty, your welcome to it.
Not in my country thanks. I don't want the risk of being killed for someone elses crime, which is exactly what you accept if you accept the death penalty.

 

[Robert]

Think Willy Horton a hundred times over.

On the other side of the coin, some should never be put to death. There are those, specifically thinking of Charles Manson, that would become martyrs and the origins of even larger cults if they were executed.

And where do you draw the line on 'cult status'?
How many nutjob followers do you need to have in order to avoid the death penalty?

The death penalty is primitive, barbaric and impossible to administer properly.
Every time someone is released on a last minute appeal, it proves how hopelessly flawed your system is.

But hey, that's good ole democracy in action. You guys want the death penalty, your welcome to it.
Not in my country thanks. I don't want the risk of being killed for someone elses crime, which is exactly what you accept if you accept the death penalty.

 

[Robert]

Think Willy Horton a hundred times over.

On the other side of the coin, some should never be put to death. There are those, specifically thinking of Charles Manson, that would become martyrs and the origins of even larger cults if they were executed.

And where do you draw the line on 'cult status'?
How many nutjob followers do you need to have in order to avoid the death penalty?

The death penalty is primitive, barbaric and impossible to administer properly.
Every time someone is released on a last minute appeal, it proves how hopelessly flawed your system is.

But hey, that's good ole democracy in action. You guys want the death penalty, your welcome to it.
Not in my country thanks. I don't want the risk of being killed for someone elses crime, which is exactly what you accept if you accept the death penalty.

 

[Robert]

Think Willy Horton a hundred times over.

On the other side of the coin, some should never be put to death. There are those, specifically thinking of Charles Manson, that would become martyrs and the origins of even larger cults if they were executed.

And where do you draw the line on 'cult status'?
How many nutjob followers do you need to have in order to avoid the death penalty?

The death penalty is primitive, barbaric and impossible to administer properly.
Every time someone is released on a last minute appeal, it proves how hopelessly flawed your system is.

But hey, that's good ole democracy in action. You guys want the death penalty, your welcome to it.
Not in my country thanks. I don't want the risk of being killed for someone elses crime, which is exactly what you accept if you accept the death penalty.

 

[minator]

Growing up in a country where death was a way of life, I'm not opposed to the idea of a death penalty.

However if there was one I think it should be for very specific offences and held to a considerably higher standard of evidence than "beyond resonable doubt". Perhaps a second trial should be held to determine if this standard is met.

I think it should only apply to pre-meditated murder of one or more people, it should *not* apply to the mentally unstable or crimes of passion.

A lot of murders are by people who have just blown a fuse so to speak, but there are others who know exactly what they are doing and that's a different story.

 

[minator]

Growing up in a country where death was a way of life, I'm not opposed to the idea of a death penalty.

However if there was one I think it should be for very specific offences and held to a considerably higher standard of evidence than "beyond resonable doubt". Perhaps a second trial should be held to determine if this standard is met.

I think it should only apply to pre-meditated murder of one or more people, it should *not* apply to the mentally unstable or crimes of passion.

A lot of murders are by people who have just blown a fuse so to speak, but there are others who know exactly what they are doing and that's a different story.

 

[minator]

Growing up in a country where death was a way of life, I'm not opposed to the idea of a death penalty.

However if there was one I think it should be for very specific offences and held to a considerably higher standard of evidence than "beyond resonable doubt". Perhaps a second trial should be held to determine if this standard is met.

I think it should only apply to pre-meditated murder of one or more people, it should *not* apply to the mentally unstable or crimes of passion.

A lot of murders are by people who have just blown a fuse so to speak, but there are others who know exactly what they are doing and that's a different story.

 

[minator]

Growing up in a country where death was a way of life, I'm not opposed to the idea of a death penalty.

However if there was one I think it should be for very specific offences and held to a considerably higher standard of evidence than "beyond resonable doubt". Perhaps a second trial should be held to determine if this standard is met.

I think it should only apply to pre-meditated murder of one or more people, it should *not* apply to the mentally unstable or crimes of passion.

A lot of murders are by people who have just blown a fuse so to speak, but there are others who know exactly what they are doing and that's a different story.

 

[minator]

Growing up in a country where death was a way of life, I'm not opposed to the idea of a death penalty.

However if there was one I think it should be for very specific offences and held to a considerably higher standard of evidence than "beyond resonable doubt". Perhaps a second trial should be held to determine if this standard is met.

I think it should only apply to pre-meditated murder of one or more people, it should *not* apply to the mentally unstable or crimes of passion.

A lot of murders are by people who have just blown a fuse so to speak, but there are others who know exactly what they are doing and that's a different story.

 

[minator]

Growing up in a country where death was a way of life, I'm not opposed to the idea of a death penalty.

However if there was one I think it should be for very specific offences and held to a considerably higher standard of evidence than "beyond resonable doubt". Perhaps a second trial should be held to determine if this standard is met.

I think it should only apply to pre-meditated murder of one or more people, it should *not* apply to the mentally unstable or crimes of passion.

A lot of murders are by people who have just blown a fuse so to speak, but there are others who know exactly what they are doing and that's a different story.

 

[Robert]

A lot of murders are by people who have just blown a fuse so to speak, but there are others who know exactly what they are doing and that's a different story.

<us and them>
And who knows which is which, and who is who?
</us and them>

More specifically, where do you set the bar separating them?

 

[Robert]

A lot of murders are by people who have just blown a fuse so to speak, but there are others who know exactly what they are doing and that's a different story.

<us and them>
And who knows which is which, and who is who?
</us and them>

More specifically, where do you set the bar separating them?