California has the death penalty, however there is rarely a time that we actually use it. Texas has the death penalty, and they use it BIG time. Hell, they even put in an express lane for heinous crimes where there are three credible eyewitnesses. Life sentences usually don't last the life time of the inmate because their lawyers get them an appeal, or they are released on good behavior (they once released a mass murderer who supposedly been rehabilitated. boy were they wrong.) My question is: what's your take on the death penalty and why?

You so quoted off of Ron White. XD I love that guy. annyways.

Yeah, I think the death penalty is bot a pro and con. I say Con because if they were innocent then they will be dead by the time they are proven. Pro is just because im an evil bastard and anyone who has killed another person should die. God didn't put them on this planet to kill an innocent. They should burn in hell for all i care.

Im sorry if this offends yall. I just get really mad on subjects about murderers,

I actually fully agree with Sheikahn Boy, there.

If the death penalty were used at least a little more, we would have MUCH less crowded prisons, lowering taxes which we pay to keep the mofo's alive. It would also give a degree of fear within people who are planning a murder, unless they're a psycho. I fully agree with Shiekahn_boy about the problem with innocense, which is why you would need plenty of witnesses and a helluva jury. The problem with a jury is the fact that these people don't give a shit about what happens, so they may just say in their minds "He's hot, he's innocent" or "He has a tatoo, he's a murderer!". That's the biggest problem with the death sentence, people with and without bias.

edited for spelling

I'm a sadomasochist, and even I find the death penalty harsh. I believe all crimes should be payed for equally. You steal 200 dollars? Give 200 dollars to the person you stole it from. You molest little boys? Lock you in a jail cell with "Bubba" for a day or two. You kill someone? You die.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

An eye for an eye can also make the whole world blind, POT.

Otherwise, it all depends on who's running the circus and who gets to make the decisions on the death pentalty bit. Who dies, who lives, whether it's removed or inforced. I don't make those decisions, so it really doesn't concern me, more so when I don't pay taxes for all those death row convicts sitting on their arses getting a free college education before they're offed. :D

Fuuny thing about blind men, they have a hard time killing people. =P

POT? O.o;;

Though, honestly, that's just my opinion. As long as I never wind up there, I couldn't honestly care less.

I don't care for the people that say "It's just cruel. No one deserves death." Well then you should've told the sadistic nutjob who killed god knows how many people. It's not cruel. It's painless. I think it's a good idea, as long as the people who get it deserve it.

Feeding people who don't deserve to live for the rest of their lives is too expensive. Cap the @#$%ers and bury them behind the courthouse.

Fans of sinking to their level, I see.

I think there are indeed some people who deserve to die for their crimes. I don't think it's the government's job to decide that, though. If killing is a crime, why do we sanction it in any case? What buisness does our government have playing God? It reminds me of little children on a school playground. "He threw dirt into MY eyes, so I did the SAME back to HIM!" Who's right? Neither is.

And then what really pisses me off is the Christian right who is all gung-ho for bloodlust.

Matthew 5:39.

Hey, if you're all going to whine about gay rights based on some little verse in Leviticus, shouldn't you be taking this equally seriously? Mmm?

Funny that you cite christian gospel, considering a good chunk of people AREN'T christian. Several aren't even religious.

Let's think this through rationally, as opposed to hiding behind the catch-all of "God says not to."

Let's say a man kills a little girl. In a state with a death penalty, this is an obivious time to try and use it. However, many people cite that it's cruel, or immoral, or whatnot. They suggest alternatives.

Let me slip into this tangent before the main course; I'm of the mind that a punishment HAS to be cruel and unusual to have enough shock to work. However, there's such a thing as TOO cruel or unusual. Putting a grown man in what is essentially "time-out" for 20 years doesn't do much aside put him elsewhere long enough to ensure he'll never adapt to a real society. That's a rather cruel thing to do, and doesn't fix the problem. Killing him is cleaner; no chance of recurrences, and you don't prevent him from adapting to a real society by shoving him away in a completely different one for 20 years, hoping some miracle makes him a good person upon release. Inflicting pain (Not permenant damage, mind you, just pain) is also cleaner, in cases where killing isn't called for. Likely more effective, or at least I think so (Whe you were little, what were you more afraid of? Spankings, or being sent to your room?)

Now, lets look at this differently. Let's assume that, dispite the fact that I've seen very little implementation of "rehabilitation" in the system of locking undesirables away, that someone actually tries to use therapy or something on the murderer. Yannow, to fix him. How do we judge that he's 'fixed'? When he realizes he is guilty of a hideous crime (removal of denial or false justifaction), that it was wrong (Imposing the state morality upon him). If this is accomplished, he'll probably judge himself to be a horrible, miserable excuse for a human being. He's probably right, and it's hard to argue that he's not, aside from saying "but you're FIXED now!" (and seriously, how much would you want to hear THAT? 'Twould make him feel crappier, methinks). Now that he's been 'fixed,' he has to deal with massive amounts of guilt for the rest of his life (If he doesn't, he's not fixed, and the rehabilitation was a failure. Might as well have killed him, instead). Good odds are he'll either devote his life to trying to redeem himself, or he'll kill himself.

Gee, likely that he'll commit suicide. That's a good chance of condemning him the longer, nattier way, but it's labeled as humanitarian rehabilitation. I condemn him the shorter, less painful way way, and don't sugar-coat it. Who's more cruel?

Keep in mind that last scenario doesn't happen now because the "rehabilitation" part is generally ignored compared to the "Keep them locked away off the streets" part.

My idea is that we kill murderers. Not by gas or injection though. Death by surgery. We put him to sleep, and remove all his organs for transplant into good, non-murderer people. Cremate the brain, bury it. Good odds are that the organs save many more than the person killed. Now his death can't be called "revenge" by even the most ignorant of anti-penalty folk. It's a just and fit form of execution with a purpose that can save lives.

And unlike the crappy "time-out" system, where they dump the murderer with other murderers and hope that he somehow comes out a fit, civilized human, we have a GARUENTEE they won't do it again.

I dont like the Death penatly.
i think its not a good idea because sometimes they send a Inacent man to his
Death. i think if someone is found Gultly of Murder give him a life sentiance.
if you thean find ivadence that the guy was inacent thean let him out.
I relly dont know why the U.S.A have the Death Penatly.
at least they dont have Public Exacutions like we Did in the UK till
1868.

Creepy, if you're thinking that deeply, I suggest you watch A Clockwork Orange. It pretty much plays out like what you've said, only in a graphically pleasing way, methinks.

And to add to your statement: It would be less cruel to jus' off the people deemed "not fit for society" instead of letting them rot in a place that'll teach social inadequecy, but as long as you have people that say it's inhuman and spare the convicted, there's gonna be jails and a method going un-used rather than a quick resolve.
Then again, everyone seems convinced that things are running smoothly. =P

I Love that movie..*Drool*
Well, I'm still sticking with tghe idea of killing murderers and sparing people who aren't murderers.
Think of it this way.
Let's say Creepy here, were to commit..THOUSANDS of crimes, but never actually harm anyone, but the court deems that the amount of crimes is worthy of a death sentence. Is that fair, when a man who kills ONCE gets 25 years in the slammer and is let back onto the street?

That's actually a very good idea. We always seem to be lacking in spare organs for people and all that, so I'd be in favor of it.

As you can probably tell, I'm all for the death penalty myself. Why should our tax dollars go to paying for a the life of a criminal in prison who raped some girl and killed her? ( Just an example right there. ) I'm sorry, the government pisses enough of the money they tax me for right down the toilet everyday, if I can avert that and see my cash go to the GOOD of the people instead of supporting low-lifes, Hell, I'll do the job myself if they let me.

People like that don't even deserve the right to live anyways. I say they forfeit their rights the instant they pull crap like murder or rape, or anything else that qualifies for the Death Penalty... I have NO sympathy for people like that.

I wasn't answering to anyone here in particular; only to religious fundmentalists and the Christian right who support the death penalty. I wasn't making a point to anyone who doesn't make a hypocrite out of themselves through their beliefs.

Anyways, you didn't answer my question. How can we punish someone for killing by killing? Aren't we making hypocrites of ourselves then, by sinking to their level?

For your organ donor idea: certainly the best execution idea I've ever heard of, though I'm not sure how great I'd feel receiving Timothy McVeigh's kidney. Still, it's better than frying a guy and burying his corpse.

But do the ends justify the means?