the death penalty

Byrnzie wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

No, being macho has nothing to do with it. It's someone realizing they fucked up and accepting their fate.

An eye for an eye, right?

Iran stones people to death and uses the Koran to justify it's barbarity.
America electrocutes people and uses the Bible to justify it's barbarity.

Both backwards countries who base their laws and beliefs on an antiquated, obsolete religion.

Edit: Not that all of America is backwards, just certain aspects, including the death penalty, and the crazy talking-in-tongues religious wackjobs, e.t.c.

lukin2006 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Now do you oppose capital punishment on human rights issues or some other issue?

I wouldn't say it's a matter of human rights so much as reason and morality. If a scoiety can claim to be based on reason and morality then the first thing it should do is abolish the death penalty. Killing someone in the name of justice makes the society no better than the murderer whose crime it claims to oppose.

Any society that has the death penalty is a barbaric society as far as I'm concerned.

Fair enough, fortunately we do not have capital punishment. We've had some high profile cases over the last 20 years of people who have been wrongly convicted.

Byrnzie wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

fry the fuckers, i couldn't care any less what happens to violent, rapist murderers.

That's strange, I thought America was supposed to be a Christian nation?

Doesn't sound much like a Christian nation to me. Sounds more like a people frothing at the mouth with vengeance and hatred.

I wonder if Jesus would support the death penalty?


Then again, Christinaity in America is a joke. Fat morons dancing around a Church to loud music, falling over and babbling in double speak. Muilti-miilionaire pastors frequenting whorehouses in their spare time, voting Republican and supporting the death penalty.

Christianity in America is more like a freak show than a religion.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Haven't read this thread yet (though I'm sure I can imagine the directions it's gone!), but rather than starting a new one, this seems like the place to post it. I just read this in today's Guardian. The article goes on to detail how the council also challenged the US on the Cuban embargo, Guantánamo & sectre detention centres, torture and the use of unmanned drones in supposedly "targetted" assassinations, but I've left those out since it's not the issue here. The whole article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... th-penalty


UN human rights council urges US to end death penalty
American delegate says capital punishment is subject of vigorous debate and applied for in only the most serious crimes Mark Tran guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 November 2010 12.45 GMT

The US today faced an international clamour to abolish the death penalty during a debate at the UN human rights council in Geneva.

The council is gradually reviewing the performance of all 192 UN member states. The US took its moment in the spotlight seriously, sending a high-level delegation of around 30 officials led by Esther Brimmer, the assistant secretary of state for international organisation affairs.

The delegation was given a mostly warm welcome by delegates of the 47-member council, but was forced to listen to repeated calls for the US to put an end to the death penalty.

More than 1,200 men and women have been put to death in the US since executions resumed in 1977 after a decade without them, according to Amnesty International.

Three jurisdictions – Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma – account for more than half the country's executions. Missouri has approximately 40 people on death row, but has not executed anyone since 2005.

At the end of 2009, 139 countries had abolished the death penalty. The US finds itself grouped with authoritarian countries such as China and Iran in still executing people.

Harold Hongju Koh, the state department's legal adviser, said capital punishment was a subject of vigorous debate and litigation in the US and was applied for in only the most serious crimes.

He pointed out that there were strict procedural safeguards, adding that, in recent years, the supreme court had narrowed the list of offences for which the death penalty could be applied.

But he insisted that capital punishment did not violate international law, telling the council: "International human rights law does not bar it per se."

cajunkiwi wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Haven't read this thread yet (though I'm sure I can imagine the directions it's gone!), but rather than starting a new one, this seems like the place to post it. I just read this in today's Guardian. The article goes on to detail how the council also challenged the US on the Cuban embargo, Guantánamo & sectre detention centres, torture and the use of unmanned drones in supposedly "targetted" assassinations, but I've left those out since it's not the issue here. The whole article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... th-penalty


UN human rights council urges US to end death penalty
American delegate says capital punishment is subject of vigorous debate and applied for in only the most serious crimes Mark Tran guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 November 2010 12.45 GMT

The US today faced an international clamour to abolish the death penalty during a debate at the UN human rights council in Geneva.

The council is gradually reviewing the performance of all 192 UN member states. The US took its moment in the spotlight seriously, sending a high-level delegation of around 30 officials led by Esther Brimmer, the assistant secretary of state for international organisation affairs.

The delegation was given a mostly warm welcome by delegates of the 47-member council, but was forced to listen to repeated calls for the US to put an end to the death penalty.

More than 1,200 men and women have been put to death in the US since executions resumed in 1977 after a decade without them, according to Amnesty International.

Three jurisdictions – Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma – account for more than half the country's executions. Missouri has approximately 40 people on death row, but has not executed anyone since 2005.

At the end of 2009, 139 countries had abolished the death penalty. The US finds itself grouped with authoritarian countries such as China and Iran in still executing people.

Harold Hongju Koh, the state department's legal adviser, said capital punishment was a subject of vigorous debate and litigation in the US and was applied for in only the most serious crimes.

He pointed out that there were strict procedural safeguards, adding that, in recent years, the supreme court had narrowed the list of offences for which the death penalty could be applied.

But he insisted that capital punishment did not violate international law, telling the council: "International human rights law does not bar it per se."

I was just wondering why any of this matters to most people on here ? why do people really give a rats ass who gets put to death especially if you have no idea who they are or what that have done to be executed innocent or not ? it is what it is deal with it....or better yet lets reinstate Violante Justus and start carrying guns again ..that would really cut down on some crimes ladies if you all started carrying a weapon and it was common knowledge I would bet rapes and muggings would fall right off the map ! and you could kill the nasty bastard trying to assault you..game over...NEXT !

Godfather.

I've got to disagree with you, Godfather... I hear that argument from people in the South all the time, that more guns = less crime. However, the stats don't really support that. Inner cities, and the South in general, have higher rates of gun-related crimes. Those are also the two areas with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (on both a micro and macro level). A lot of people are walking around inner cities, and the South, with guns - and more people are being shot there than anywhere else. When you talk about guns and crime, you forget about the egos involved - the people with guns don't care if you have one or not if they think they can pull the trigger first.