| W E L C O M E G U E S T S Welcome to 6 Star Wrestling. We are a small community of dedicated wrestling fans. Our forum members range from new to the product to 20+ years of viewer knowledge of the product. We discuss WWE, TNA, ROH, WCW, and various other wrestling companies. Regardless if you have just watched your first wrestling show or if you have been following wrestling your entire life, I guarantee that you'll find someone to have an in-depth and enjoyable conversation with. We also have discussions that are not related to wrestling. We discuss movies, music, news, play games, and do all sorts of fun and interesting things. So even if you are not a wrestling fan, we can guarantee you'll find something to keep your interest while you are here. Feel free to follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook with the links below! Please enjoy, The 6 Star Community Register your free account today! http://6starwrestling.net http://twitter.com/6StarWrestling http://facebook.com/6StarWrestling |
| The Death Penalty; Do you support it? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 24 2006, 06:32 AM (482 Views) | |
| Cybrus | Jan 24 2006, 06:32 AM Post #1 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
Do you support the death penalty? Should it still be an accept form of punishment for severe crimes or is it an outdated concept that should no longer be practiced? I'm torn on the subject, personally. I don't have a problem with the concept of the death penalty. If someone is guilty of a severe crime such a murder, raping a woman, raping a child, etc and there is absolutely no doubt that the person is guilty, then I have absolutely no problem with that person being executed. However, if there is even a chance that the person is innocent or especially if the person actually is innocent, then I don't think death should be a possibility. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 24 2006, 08:19 AM Post #2 |
|
I, too, am torn - but for different reasons. Part of me, the more....positive side of me believes that the death penalty shouldn't be used for two reasons - one, if we kill the convict, then it's still murder even if it's given a proverbial thumbs up by the government. And two, we're letting them off easy. Instead of living the rest of their lives in a dangerous place where physical harm is always around the corner and with little to no freedoms, were taking them away from suffering with a short and painless death. The other part of me supports it for reasons like that they don't deserve life and that I don't even want them to be living. And that they don't deserve the free food and living space that most of the top countries prisons give them. It's the uglier side of me that supports it. I used to support it without question, but I recently started to question it. And while I generally dislike the human race, I began to feel that my reasons for supporting it and those that actually enforce it are, in a way, no better than the criminal. |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 24 2006, 08:44 AM Post #3 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I agree with that, yet at the same time I disagree. The tax paying citizens of society have to pay the bill to support these incarcerated inmates. If the person that did the severe crime is guilty without question then save the expense, I say. Also, prison life isn't always bad. It is at the maximum security prisons, but most prisons are basically vacation homes for inmates. I know someone incarcerated and he says that being in jail is actually easier than being out of jail. He has basically all the same freedoms without any of the responsibilities of supporting himself.
|
![]() |
|
| Nubochanozep | Jan 24 2006, 11:55 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
Oh, I can't be bothered to type another essay on why there shouldn't be a death penalty option. Instead I'll just copy and paste various arguments I made on a roller-coaster website. I'm sure that if you got past the fact that americans wouldn't understand the context that the comments were made in, then you'd find it interesting... I've always believed that the death penalty is a barbaric practise, and always has been (despite threats to pople that I dislike that I would kill them tongue.gif), and I'm thankful that we live in a country where this has been outlawed. However, I'm still in a state of disgust with the lack of compassion, and the lack of caring that the Australian population, and our media have shown in regards to the man named Tuong Van Nguyen who is set to be killed in Singapore within a months time. The Australian media has shown an enormous amount of idiocy in relation to the way this event has been portrayed in their media sources. Whereas someone like Schapelle Corby was given front page treatment when her trial was annouced (a relatively useless story), this man's conviction was ignored by the media, and was only noticed by them when the man's mother decided to make a point about it and notify them of her distressing situation. The media then decides to run small newspaper articles, and the news largely ignores the situation. The reason for this treatment? He's asian, he's not a good looking presentable woman, and he's not marketable. This nation's media is largely disgusting. The Australian government is also doing a less then stellar job in relation to this. I understand full well that the man did the job knowing the consequences, and I know that Singapore has the right to create their own laws for whatever they deem nessecary. But the Prime Minister and Foriegn Minister have done no more then write a letter portraying our disinterest with the penalty that the man will suffer from, and that is all. The Prime Minister sees it as a good idea to visit Australian troops who join a job, and know that they could be killed any moment because they're in a place of danger? Well why is it so far out of the PM's reach to visit Singapore with Alexander Downer and make a plea for clemency regarding this man's life. Why is it so hard for them to visit the man in question and offer him their support, and to offer him a bit of heart with the huge event that is probably going to take place? Why is it that they can let an Australian man's life go to waste, when it is their job to serve their nations citizens best interests and well-being? The Prime Minister should remember that he is not representing Australia, he is representing the Australian people, and Nguyen is an Australian citizen and is deserving of better treatment. Also, why is it that we continue to give the Australian Federal Police our satisfaction with the job that they're doing, when effectively, they're aiding other countries in killing fellow Australians. The AFP tipped off Indonesian authorities, Vietnamese authorities and from what I understand Singaporian authorities as to the activites of Australians overseas, knowing full well that execution may be the result of their actions. How is it that we can continue to give our thanks to these officials who are meant to protect and serve Austrtalians (no matter the situation), but are actually sealing certain Australian citizens fate by tipping off authorities from barbaric and backward thinking countries. The "Bali Nine" as the media jumped onto calling them will all face little option then to be executed, and yet, if the AFP didn't tip off Indonesian authorities, then 9 more Australian lives could be spared. And why are we doing this for these countries? They offer nothing to us, they won't have the oppotunity to help us if we need their assistance. Hell, we gave Indonesia every damn dollar of our aid for their Tsunami "crisis", and yet they still refuse to offer clemency to Austrtalians who break idiotic laws in their country. What is helping Indonesia going to do? Their terrorist still kill us, they still imprison us, and they still generally despise Australia. The AFP, and our government should simply abandon all relations with Indonesia, and focus on repairing and gaining ties with other countries, other pacific islands that could better benefit from our tourist dollars then the hole that is called Indonesia. Yes, so add 5 things to my already long hate list. Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, the current Australian goverment (although it was already there) and most of all, the Australian Federal Polic. If I ever see an AFP member walking the street, talking to someone, being in the same vicinity as me, I'll chuck a Bret "Hitman" Hart and launch a giant spitwad right into their face to register my disgust with the job they're doing. All AFP members should ber ashamed of themselves, for shame! ______________ Now that post was mostly an attack on what the media was doing a few weeks ago, and the AFP, who I still consider to be a bunch of thoughtless bastards. Firstly, ignoring if you're guilty or not, the whole idea of state sponsored killing is despicable at best. As I mentioned in the exceprt above, the job of a government is to protect and serve it's citizens. All of it's citizens. And whilst locking a criminal up protects the public, the prisoner and the interests of the citizens of that country, putting someone to death goes against the one fundamental human right, the right to life. And whilst you could argue that the prisoner shouldn't have done the crime in the first place, what exactly does the death penalty acheive? Australian studies in the 60's and 70's revlealed that the death penalty is a no better deterrent to crime then life imprisonment. Deterrent. Is that all they kill another person for? To make an example out of them? The right to life is a sacred right, and to kill someone only to serve a greater interest on the government's behalf goes against the very role of a government! As said before, the role of a government is to protect and serve it's citizens. How are we protecting them? By killing them for doing things wrong. And how do some countries prove that doing these things is wrong? By killing them! As the famous guy who skips my mind at this time said, "How does the government prove that killing is wrong? By killing them?" The argument of not killing an innocent person has come up in recent times. And surely it is as relevant now as it was then. It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a large possibility of someone being subject to state sponsored killing on false grounds. Why just yesterday the govenor of Virginia spared the life of the prisoner about to be subjected to state sponsored killing because of lack of evidence. Surely if someone can be that close to the 'event horizon' without proper evidence, it can be shown that it is not safe to subject anyone to state sponsored killing, because anyone could be innocent. Now the late, great, Nguyen Van Tuong was found with all that Heroin on his body, he was guilty, oh dear. He could have killed 26,000 young people with all that heroin. Dear me. Who takes heroin in the first place? Idiots who have no idea of the consequences of their own actions. If you're dumb enough to take heroin, LSD, speed, cocaine or any other hard drug in the first place, why the hell are we sticking up for them. Can't deal with life, then commit suicide! I don't give a crap about drug takers, they're a bunch of no hoping idiots anyway. All drugs should be legalised, no extra people would end up taking the drugs, only the same morons would. Imagine this, heroin has been legalised. Would you take it knowing the consequences still exist? Of course not! And with the amount of education that goes on in schools about the subject, it would be the same imbeciles that take it anyway. The same morons who pick on others, start smoking at the age of 13 would be the ones to take it. Would it be that much of a loss to lose these people? No. What I do have a problem with though is the idea that governments "punish" people, and their families for doing something wrong. Surely these people can be re-educated on the matters of what they did wrong. We can train a monkey to do a roundhouse kick, we can travel to the moon and back but we can't face the idea that rehabilitation is a much better alternative then simply getting rid of the problem all together. Plus, it's cheaper to rehabilitate then to execute. I find the whole idea of state sponsored killing to be morbid and disturbing, and anyone who finds pleasure in the death of someone who is at the mercy of the state doesn't deserve to live in the first place. Once again, I recite the quote: "How does the government prove that killing is wrong? By killing them?" actually, I belive the real quote was. "How do we discourage people from killing others? By killing them." Doesn't really make sense does it? Life in prison is still very bad. If you killed anyone in Australia, you'd face to possibility of going to Goulburn jail (although it's usually reserved for unruly convicts and extreme [non-insane] criminals). If not, you'd go to a different type of jail depending on the severity of the crime. But for killing a thousand people, chances are you'd be shipped off to Goulburn, although I'm not sure if it's a federal prison. In Goulburn you spend 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, in your own cell which probably measures somewhere around 3m x 5m. Everything is concrete, including the bed (although you get a small matress), the desk and the chair are also made of concrete. I think you get a small black and white TV. The walls are sound-proofed, you're under constant surveillance via CCTV & you're denied any human contact except for seeing a guard maybe once a day. Doesn't sound terribly inviting does it? Martin Bryant has proven mental illnesses, and really, anyone who commits such a heinous act must have a mental illness. How can you use capital punishment against someone who really won't understand what, and why something is happening to them that is meant to be a punishment (not a deterent). By my quick calculations, I reckon there is about 12 million tax payers in this country. $50,000 divided by 12,000,000 comes to a grand total of about 0.004166666666... dollars that each tax payer has to fork out to keep these criminals locked up for the rest of their life. State sponsored muder (aka Capital punishment), yeah, it would be cheaper but our law doesn't allow it and realistically it will never be re-enacted in this country so there is no point in arguing that it should be. Well, if you would prefer it, they could release all of the prisoners in Australia, that would work out better. And anyway, the use of capital punishment in Australia would only get rid of a maximum (I'd guess) of about 20 prisoner's a year, if that. There would be extra expenses involved in an execution even if it was done in the cheapest way. For instance extra security, an executioner, provisions for the media to cover each event and such. Not only would there be expenses involved in the actual execution, but I'd say that there would probably be a lot more expensive court appeals involved in such cases, and I dunno how defense lawyers work, but if they're hired by the government (I dunno if they are or not) then that's another expense involved in it. So with all those expenses, plus ongoing protests and the referendum to bring back capital punishment (I doubt it would be brought back without one), is it really worth it to be rid of such a small amount of prisoners per year? So, hypothetically, if a severely retarded person that doesn't understand what murder is, picked up a gun and shot someone with it, would you say they are deserving of murder themselves...uh, I mean an execution? You also say that if you do the crime, you do the time (or whatever the punishment is). Is that the same with heroin users? I mean, they know the consequences of taking drugs, why are they deserving of our support? Saddam Hussein is an interesting case. Yes, he did order a couple of hundred (approximately) people to be killed. But so has George W Bush when he decided to invade Iraq and kill ~30,000 innocent civilians plus an undisclosed number of enemy forces and terrorists. What sets Saddam Hussein apart from the crowd though is that he took a country and assumed total power. He then took this borderline 3rd world country and turned it into a liveable country with stable and succesful political, social & economic sectors, much like Adolf Hitler did. Saddam Hussein however killed a maximum of probably 200 civilians during his 30 years of power. Adolf Hitler killed over a million. George W Bush and his buddies have killed ~30,000. The people of Iraq, in an economic, social & political (for most) stand point were better off under Saddam Hussein's rule then they are now in this time of "coalition of the willing" forced democracy. Innocent people are dying everyday due to violence that this coalition has inspired in Iraq. America is suffering a noticeable depression because of the amount of money that has been spent on the war. Much like America, I'm going to take a guess here, that Iraq now has a huge foreign debt (something which Saddam Hussein was surely getting rid of) due to the costs in rebuilding Iraq and training new forces and such. If Saddam Hussein was to be allowed to run his country without interference from American's starting in 2001, then I guarantee that for the absolute majority of Iraqi's, life would be a lot better. No-one deserves the death-penalty for the events that have transpired in Iraq except the leaders of the coalition of the willing. Yes, that's right, Mr. Anti-capital punishment Nebuchanezzar believes in killing political leaders for events that transpired during wars due to their immense scope. Saddam Hussein is sure as hell not deserving of an execution, but by golly George W, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and dare I say it John Howard certainly are. Woops, is that terrorism now under the new anti-terrorism legislation? Probably. Woop, I did some research (albeit on wikipedia) and found the true number. Probably about 150,000-200,000. That's a lot of people. The other facts I listed though are still true. However, they really serve no excuse to what he did. I'm not going to support the death penalty for him, but ...hmmmm, this is an extraordinary case, I...If I were in charge of Iraq's court system, I think life in prison would be pretty bad. Perhaps in a Saudi Arabian prison? Saudi Arabia & North Korea have notorius histories regarding human rights abuse. Has anyone even considered them? Yes, but nothing will be done about them. Anyway this isn't a debate about war. I'll just leave it at the fact that if Saddam Hussein is, dealt the harshest punishment, I wouldn't really make a whole lot of noise...probably. ------- Now, if you read through this dis-jointed ideas (I just copied and pasted all the crap I wrote, so it's not in any real order in some places. You can tell where there's a divide if you read it). |
![]() |
|
| jackymatic | Jan 27 2006, 04:13 AM Post #5 |
![]()
He died for your sins
|
i for one want the death penalty why? easy many ppl think that putting a person in jail in life will solve all the problems and the world will be much better and i for one would like to know how that would happen if we keep putting ppl in jail then they will have faster bail opportunities and get out of jail and continue doing crime and of course the crime rate will go through the ROOF! so we have the death penalty for one simple reason TO PUT FEAR IN THE MINDS OF CRIMINALS SO THEY DONT DO CRIME ! some ppl think this is wrong but i for one this is an ingenious rule that our country has and no killing ppl isnt wrong because how do you think the family feels if their father or mother or other member getting killed or raped? shoot,...... if my mom or dad was murdered i'd want justice to the full extent of the law which is the death penalty |
![]() |
|
| Nubochanozep | Jan 27 2006, 11:58 AM Post #6 |
![]()
|
It's extremely rare for someone to be given the death penalty as a result of an unaggravated murder on one person. If they simply shot your mum/dad they'd be in for less then life. As for using the death penalty as a deterrent, in the years where the death penalty wasn't used in the US (in the 70's), there was no significant rise in crime, in fact, the effect wasn't noticable. It's the same in every country. Take Australia for instance, when hanging was outlawed, the crime didn't skyrocket, it didn't even fluctuate. And using Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia as examples. They use capital punishment as a deterrent for smuggling drugs, yet it remains as popular as ever in the aforementioned countries. Indonesia goes as far to put posters of the faces of people sentenced to death in their airport (with the eyes covered up) to deter people from smuggling drugs and yet it still doesn't make a difference. Nope, capital punishment as a deterrent is almost as stupid as your argument against abortion. As for the idea in general, in today's society, you'd think that most educated people (I'm not sure you fit into this category Jacky) would understand that the prime focus of being put in jail should be to rehablitate (in all but the most serious crimes). Of course some time should be spent as punishment, but a lot of the time should be spent educating the people on why it's wrong, giving them a high school education and a university degree (that they have to work for of course) so that they can work toward getting respectable jobs once they're out of prison. Out of all the US states that have death as a legal form of punishment, Texas has the highest rate of executions yet out of all the people executed , uneducated black people form the group who gets executed the most. This is true throughout all the southern states that have the highest rates of execution. Do you know why this is? It's because they are poor and uneducated. They have harder lives and get bogged down in crime for whatever reason, and hence they commit crimes and get sentenced to death. Do you know why New England has an extremely low incidence of crime (per centage) compared to these southern states, it's because New England is the wealthiest large region in the US, and also the most educated. Because of this capital punishment is used sparingly. I think the statistic is one in every 30 years or something. Now come on Jackymatic! I know you can create an argument that convinces me rather then just making me twitch in rage. Do it! |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 27 2006, 12:40 PM Post #7 |
|
So killing full grown adults isn't wrong, but killing fetuses who aren't even truly human yet is? |
![]() |
|
| Nubochanozep | Jan 27 2006, 02:03 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
Just the same as President Bush. Pro-life before they're born, anti-life once they're born. |
![]() |
|
| jackymatic | Jan 27 2006, 11:52 PM Post #9 |
![]()
He died for your sins
|
read the rest of the sentence retard actually read the whole fucking post ok? |
![]() |
|
| jackymatic | Jan 27 2006, 11:56 PM Post #10 |
![]()
He died for your sins
|
wont skyrocket??? hahahahha
are you out of your mind???? wow well if you've ever been to tijuana (in the us) then you would see that crime would skyrocket! why would i say this? simple because in tijuana there are no rules you can do whatever you would want without being caught and since theres soo much chaos there image how it would be in the us or around the world so your wrong but we will never know |
![]() |
|
| Nubochanozep | Jan 28 2006, 05:14 AM Post #11 |
![]()
|
You just keep digging the whole deeper moron. I'm not going to bother posting a lot of information, statistics or personal opinions to you anymore, because I just don't think you're considering what I present to you. I gave you almost rock hard evidence on why capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent and you make an idiotic statement about Tijuana. And just so you know, Tijuana is in Mexico, not the US, fool. I know more about US geography and such then you'll ever know, and you live inside the US. |
![]() |
|
| Kraul | Jan 28 2006, 01:58 PM Post #12 |
|
You still said that it's not wrong to kill people while saying in the thread about abortion that it's "inhumane" to kill the unborn - the barely human. You can't deny it. |
![]() |
|
| lawman | Jan 28 2006, 11:09 PM Post #13 |
|
Sometimes the "guilty" aint really guilty three words "the guilford four" |
![]() |
|
| Nubochanozep | Jan 29 2006, 12:44 AM Post #14 |
![]()
|
It's true sir, and hey, welcome to 6SW, I hope to see many great posts from you in the future. |
![]() |
|
| jackymatic | Jan 30 2006, 05:51 AM Post #15 |
![]()
He died for your sins
|
pendejo.... |
![]() |
|
| Cybrus | Jan 30 2006, 05:58 AM Post #16 |
|
STAY HYPED!!!
|
I have absolutely no problem with people having a heated argument surrounded any subject matter. But since things are starting to progress towards insulting each other personally (and in Spanish to boot!), then I'll remind everyone involved that personal attacks, one word replies, and other flame/spam type content is only permitted within The Thunderdome. So if anyone wishes to continue personally attacking each other, then please do so within The Thunderdome and keep everything in this thread on topic (and above one fucking word!). Otherwise, I'll have to flex my admin muscles, which is something I honestly do not wish to do. |
![]() |
|
| jackymatic | Jan 30 2006, 05:59 AM Post #17 |
![]()
He died for your sins
|
ok |
![]() |
|
| Nubochanozep | Jan 30 2006, 06:02 AM Post #18 |
![]()
|
U vernietig, denkt dat de tank van drinker van moutain van rol koe bevrijd verdiende. Look! I can speak a foreign language too! (not really), now make some sense before I have to come over there and start laying down the Smackdown! EDIT: Post was made before I saw Cybrus's post. |
![]() |
|
| jackymatic | Jan 30 2006, 06:04 AM Post #19 |
![]()
He died for your sins
|
lol ok well im not mexican im romanian so my native language is romanian , then english , then spanish (though i dont know much) spanish is close to romanian because they are both latin languages |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Thunderdome · Next Topic » |






and i for one would like to know how that would happen

7:07 PM Jul 11