|| Replies ||

User	Toxic_Rayne | 2006-03-01 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I think if they are guilty of murder they should die. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..it even says it in the Bible, yes I do read little excerpts of the Bible, but it’s mostly to bash it in the songs I write, lol.

User	sinjen | 2006-03-01 |
Subject	untitled
Message	i say fry em, or give them the needle or what ever, if the crime is severe enough to warrent it. how many people are killed by previously convicted felons of violent crimes? how many children are molested my registared sexual preditors? we need to take a good hard look at the whole corrections system. what good does it do to sentance someone to life and let them out in 5 years because there is no room? and wouldnt it be a greater deturrent to know youd be dead, not put in jail, where half these guys are more comfortable anyway, not to mention the ones who rule in the prizon system. i say if we exicuted the ones that truly need to be, thered be more room to keep the ones who do get sentanced to prizon for the full term, not a tenth of it, and it might make a few people think about actually commiting a crime if they knew theyd have to do the full time, no early release. as for the moral standpoint, did the killer have more of a right to live then there victims? or do they have more of a right then there next victim? in my opinion, they no longer have the same rights when they take another life and it is not in self defence. thats why they go to jail in the first place, because the law has decided they do not deserve the same rights, why should the right to live when theve taken one be any different? please bear in mind however, i am thinking of specific cases when writing this, cases where the killer truly deserves to be exicuted.

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-02-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Lost: First of all, we really haven’t killed anyone. We are damaging property for now. I agree that violence may not be the best solution to this issue, but really, no one should insult another persons religon no matter what they think about it

User	Chell | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I agree with your statements Buzz, but I know I’d be more upset knowing that my hard earned tax dollars when to providing legal representation for the appeals process of someone who killed a member of my family. (Not to meantion the food, clothing, entertainment, and education of that sriminal.) That would seem like adding insult to injury. Instead, I suggest making the person responsible for the death, responsible for providing for the family that was torn apart. And if it’s a rival family issue, once they’re in jail they can no longer harm that family. Make them pay- for the rest of their natural lives.

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Chell: First of all, nothing any one can do can replace the life of a fellow family member. Secondly, if the murderer is from a rival family, won’t he be planning to kill all of them.

User	Chell | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It seems that jail has become a way of life for some. They are guaranteed a roof over their heads, three meals a day, a work out facility, cable T.V., books to read, and a college education. Even the ones on death row have amenities. WHY? I don’t have a guaranteed roof, or tv, college. I have to WORK if I want those things. Maybe it would be smarter to commit a crime and not have to worry about working anymore... hmmmmmm. But the death penalty isn’t a good idea in my opinion. It’s government sanctioned murder. And it makes me laugh when Christians support it. Jesus said to love your enemies. Not murder them. And he died for everyone’s sins- not just the sinners that go to church.

User	Magnolia Steele | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	That would be lovely...make the criminal your personal slave. And garnish all his wages. Make him wear chains and sleep outside like a dog. Yeah...that sounds real good to me. Maggie

User	Chell | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I think, instead of killing someone, make them work to pay back the families they have damaged. Make them work and give their pay to the family, or families they have ruined. And make them work for their keep. Make the rest of their life a working hell. Death is too easy a punishment for some of these shitheads. And it obviously isn’t a deterant to crime.

User	Chell | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	So, you’re saying that murder is acceptable if it’s your job? Aren’t hired hitmen just doing what they are paid to do - their "jobs"? Why is it ok to end a life simply because a government says it’s acceptable?

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The person who kills the murderer is just doing his job, he shouldn’t be killed

User	Chell | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	So you are saying it’s ok to commit murder if the person you are killing is a murderer? Then who murders the murderer’s murderer, and so on...? It’s a good thing that we still adhere to an eye for an eye, like it says in the old testament, instead of following the christian belief of "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Just a thought.

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-02-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	But the murderer deserves to be killed if he/she has killed someone on purpose. Its our job to take the life of someone elses if they have done the same. Anyway, if some one has committed such a well thought crime, then I’m sure that he/she is capable of escaping from the most well-fortified jail cells.

User	insphered soul | 2006-02-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	but that brings up the old question: who are we to kill another person? are we really serving justice or just cold blooded murder just like the person that had killed?

User	abuzzbuzz92 | 2006-02-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It depends on their crime. If they have taken the life of someone innocent then of course they deserve to die.

User	Seele | 2006-02-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It depends on the person up for the death punishment. If it were someone who had serious phycological problems and if he/she didn’t die they’d go to a mental hospital, the kindest option would be to kill them.

User	Magnolia Steele | 2006-02-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I concur with that. And their are way to many faceless communities that are rapmort with crime, because we do not foster the first part of your post. Maggie

User	ghostknight | 2006-02-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	oops, you’re right about revenge, mag. it is natural, acting on it isn’t. the solution? heh heh, i say gene manipulation to get rid of the factors that create crimes. the death penalty would be unnecessary. though it sounds a bit... creepy...

User	Magnolia Steele | 2006-02-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Since we know that death is not the anwser to amend for wrong done to us...what is? Maggie

User	Magnolia Steele | 2006-02-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Revenge is natural, but you do not have to act upon the desire to return the pain caused to you. it would never end the payback if people kept killing those they feel did them wrong. It would spill over into generations. The bloodshed would never end. Maggie

User	ghostknight | 2006-02-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	revenge doesn’t change anything, and it’s far from natural. it’s a purely selfish desire with no benefit to anything in nature. killing the man who killed your family won’t bring them back. the fact that we murder people who commit horrible crimes should be pointing out that something is wrong with our society on a much deeper level. the death penalty is merely the child of an even more ineffective parent.