Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

I'm pro-death penalty. But not because it's a deterrent. It just seems like the right amount of justice in certain circumstances.There's no reason for people like Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer to live. They are quite literally monsters that should be put to death. What's the point of keeping them alive, in a jail cell?Some people need to fucking die, and I feel all states should have a system of putting them to death.- Oni

Right, like everyone in the military fighting in a war?- Oni

Well, should we not ever go to war because sometimes there are innocent civilian casualties?And if you say no, war is justified. Then I ask you, does it make more sense to you that a US soldier kill a foreign fighter who's probably been forced to fight, rather than to put John Wayne Gacy to death? You wouldn't be saying that if you were speaaking German right now? The "feeling that the right thing was done" is the very reason war is justifiable.The right thing needs to be done. It is the basis for war, and in cases where an individual has taken the life of the innocent.Does it make you feel better to lock someone up in a jail cell, forgotten forever, until they die and get thrown in an unmarked grave outside the jail in some field? How is that any better?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

What war should be and what war is are two different things. After 9/11 there were OTHER options. But we, with support of the entire world almost, opted for war against the INNOCENT nation of Afghanistan. How many INNOCENT lives have been lost there?And yet many on this site, and people who I speak to, support that invasion and war effort.So killing innocent lives in Afghansitan is more justified than putting to death Gacy, Dahmer or Bundy? That's a ridiculous position.Dropping bombs on Japan, which many here, and people I speak to, supported, killing 100,000's innocent lives is more justified than putting Gacy, Dahmer or Bundy to death?We're not trying to get rid of war, only making it better to reduce the amount of civilian casualties. And even then it is inevitable.Likewise we shouldn't be trying to get rid of capital punishment, but instead trying to better it to reduce the amount of innocent lives taken. Which is not many, and certainly NOTHING in comparison to the innocent lost during war conflict. Rotting away in a prison until you die is NOT in ANY way better or more humane. Have you seen what goes on inside a prison? It's horrifying. All life in prison does is make YOU feel better. But if you're going to foget about them anyway, what do you care if they're rotting in a cell or rotting underground?- Oni

No I am not. I'm simply pointing to the commonality between both. You've missed my point. I'm not asking is war justified. Of course it is. It's a part of human nature.You used the argument that the feeling of doing the right thing doesn't justify the potential innocent lives lost. I'm simply pointing to another instance where we do just that and everyone is ok with it. Except when a guard at the prison is killed, right? Or when they kill their cell mate, right? Or if they kill some doctor or therapist at the prison, right? Or if they manage to find a loophole in the system, get released and kill again, right?You ARE protecting future loss of life when you execute an unpredictable killer. Yes No. Because I didn't say it was better or worse. I'm not out for "just desserts." I'm for the removal of an unpredictable killer in society. I'm not "trying to get even."Like with Bin Laden. We weren't trying to get even. We just remove someone from the planet who caused great harm, and stop them from causing future harm.Does it make it better that Seal Team 6 did it, rather than a guy throwing a swith on a machine?In fact, people on death row actual got a trail. And mistakes are rare in the days of DNA evidence. Plus, no one is just put to death. Many, many years pass before such a thing is finally carried out. Many appeals. Many times cases are over turned. Very few people are actually executed. It's the most humane way of ending a persons life.I simply feel, if the case warrents it, such as John Gacy, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, or others like them who are the extreme of the extreme, terminating the lives of these killers is a good thing. There is no need to keep them around where they can possibly, somehow, hurt someone again.- Oni

Of course not. My comment was in relation to your blanket statement: "It's frustrating to see someone so determined to end another human life for absolutely no reason other than a vindictive streak" can be used to describe a soldier carring out an order to kill someone. The soldier, not the war. I'll stop you here already, because I was clearly addressing vimesey's argument that the feeling of doing the right thing doesn't justify the potential innocent lives lost. I'm simply pointing to another instance where we do just that and everyone is ok with it.I don't mean to drive this into a debate about war being justified. It is not my point nor my reason for the analogy.We can move on, I hope. Yes I see that you were selective in what you feel is an ok reason to invade, or "go to war" with an "enemy." But reality is not dictated by what you feel is the right way to do things.Many missions are carried out and have been carried out where there was a vindictive streak, such as Bin Laden. And the many hits that are carried out in silence.Maybe that's what we need, for executions to be carried out in silence away from the public eye? I guarantee no one whould give a shit after a while. Of course that's absurd. I'm not saying that at all. Are you reading the thread between myself and vimesey? How did you even get to that from what I said? I'm not even going to address that.Here's what I'm saying: some people need to be executed for the crime they commit. There is no reason for some extremely unpredictable killer/s to be kept alive. In some cases, murders have been able to kill behind prison walls too, so the point of protecting future lives can be made here as well. What's the point of keeping a Gacy or Bundy around? I just don't see what is gained.It is a justice, not, the only justice. Very few people are executed and the final order takes a while to be carried out. In cases where something like the Gacy or Bundy murders have accured, a fit punishment is death.Now, I don't think executions should be so public, in fact, probably not public at all. It should be carried out like a secret mission to assassinate some foreign drug boss. No one knows. No one's selective morality whistle goes off.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I think my typing style confussed the reader. Not because it's human nature, just that it is also human nature to be war like.Some war is justifed. War is also human nature.Better?- Oni

I have. Not many, if any, can be proven beyond doubt to have been wrongful executions. And nowadays with DNA evidence the risk of wrongful conviction is minimal, if it's even present at all.The future will also reduce even that most minimal of chances of being wrongfully convicted. Some people need to be put to death for what they've done, and some form of humane capital punishment should be in place.Remember, Dahmer was killed brutally by inmates. In cases of rape or child killing, the inmate's life is at risk of being brutally punished and/or murdered by other inmates. Deathrow ALSO is there to provides a safe place, away from those dangers, to the convicted and a humane death in the end.- Oni

Hey look they weren't wrongfully executed. I'm talking about cases, the very few, if any, where someone who was executed turned out to be innnocent. There are none you can point to where there is serious proof of that. Some are maybe's but certainly not with any real assurance. Is that reason to abolish the whole system of capital punishment? We're addressing wrongful executions not wrongful convictions.Show me cases of wrongful executions. Wrongful conviction will always happen. But wrongful executions don't. No matter what my reasons for feeling that way are, you'll add your spin on it and we won't agree but:A) Why not?
B) Because they can hurt others in prison. And have. Including guards, therapist, doctors, innocent people.
C) Justice for the victims
D) Burden on the state financially to house these monster Occasionally? Get the fuck out of here. Show me when that's happened. Specific cases.Also, as I pointed out with war, assassination missions, military attacks, etc... many innocent lives are lost then, but no one calls for an end to those things. They simply ask that we do a better job when carrying out those attacks. In other words, the innocent mean shit to people until it's time to make a righteous statement like the one's you're pumping out here. If you can justify war you are justifying the death penalty, you're just spliting hairs as to how you like you innocent killed.If Seal Team 6 carries out the hit and an innocent woman dies, oh well, cost of doing business. If a guy pulls a switch and maybe just maybe once in a blue moon an "innocent" person is executed, time to cry out for the abolishment of the death penalty?I can't imaging how that makes sense in your brain? But I'm curious to see how you'll try to reason with it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Was killing Bin Laden revenge or a deterrent? Then your beef is with the US military, not the prison system. Show me cases where innocent people were executed in prison. Many unpredictable killers have gone on to kill in prison, other inmates and civilian workers. In fact, placing these killers in population has gotten the killer killed, as I pointed out in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. So you can't protect other innocent people from the killer or even the killer from other inmates who will execute them anyway.- Oni

Just providing a links dosn't help. Be specific. I've already looked at the wiki page before I began this argument, so I know what you'll bring up and I know it won't be solid evidence. And I also know it won't be many case, and you''ll even produce one from the 1800's.So show me exactly where an INNOCENT person was executed.- Oni

I figured someone would try to play into my anti-authority beliefs, but I'm just here to debate the points not my personal opinions about authority. How sure are you about Bin Laden's guilt? How sure is anyone? He had no trail. But he was executed without fear of error, and many, many innocent lives have been lost in the process.That is offensive. That is truly horrifying.One person, if even that, executed who was innocent surely doesn't even come close to what is done to innocent lives in third world countries. Yet that few, if any, gets the attention of the self-righeous and their selective moral compass?Putting John Wayne Gacy to death is the right thing to do, and should not be suspended because maybe one innocent life maybe be lost. We clearly don't care about innocent lives in the grand scale.- Oni

Did he? Seems to me a trail should always take place regardless. Many INNOCENT lives have been forced to admit guilt only to find out the confession was bogus. How do you know for sure he was guilty? Just trying to show that there is an overall inconsistency. Relax with your herrings... Well he did confess to his guilt, multiple times. That was kind of an indicator. But ok, you're not in favor of killing Bin Laden. But are you in favor of military lead assassinations in general? Can you see any case where they would be beneficial? There is an overall inconsistency when it comes to one person being killed in cold blood and the concern that goes with it.For example, here in the US police officers carry guns. More officers, trying to protect the innocent, or themselves from what they thought was a danger, kill more innocent people than the death penalty even comes close to being accused of killing.Yet there is no cry for police officers to go unarmed, but merely a plea to them to be more careful. Well, then, when it comes to capital punishment we should be more careful. And usually that is the case.Either ALL forms of capital punishment (and the euphemism's used to describe it) are wrong, or none are wrong and simply need to be done more carefully. Because while there may be the occasional mistake, it is still a good thing to have in place. But if it is perfectly normal in military matters to assassinate someone who is deemed guilty of certain crimes, why is it not normal to execute someone who has also commited certain extremely violent crimes and been convicted of them?If your only reason is maybe an innocent person dies, then the former should concern you a lot more than the latter. Oh, you've misunderstood. I actually do care.- Oni

Well that depends on who is telling the story. You've stated the US supported story. If you talk to his supporters however, they would call it an execution. Hell just ask Michael Moore. He called it an execution too.In fact one of the definitions is simply: the infliction of capital punishment But whatever euphemism you want to use is fine, it all means the same shit. Some form of authority convicted you and sentenced you to death. And they carried it out. Well then I applaude you for at least staying consistent. Many who calim they don't support the death penalty DO however support military lead assassinations (executions) so long as their government told them it's the right thing to do.However, I don't agree. Well now here there seems to be an inconsistency.I believe both you and I have argued many times for the carelessness often shown by police officers, and the mistakes they have made, that has resulted in them taking many innocent lives that they felt were putting them in danger.Wouldn't you agree that more innocent lives have been taken by police officers who made a mistake then by state executions?In any case, to protect innocent lives better, shouldn't police officers NOT carry guns? And yet, you see it fit for a police officer to carry out capital punishment if they feel they are acting in self defense, knowing full well how many innocent lives have been lost due to that very thing.It is a selective moral compass, as is everyone's. You can see how utterly contradicting that is, right? In your quest to seem totally passive you allow murderers to roam free in society, killing as they please, to protect one innocent man from being falsely convicted? I think that's a bit naive.Relax, you don't need to hug every tree. Your self-righteous rants are beautiful, until we get to the fact that YOU yourself support an armed police force who make that very determination on the streets every day. And not very well mnd you.If need be, I can show you endless cases of police officers killing innocent people because they thought the person was holding a gun. Ooops, it was just his wallet.Yet you claim to support them but not capital punishment because innocent lives may be lost?Your position remains inconsistent.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yes, but do you trust the one's doing the trying? Que? No, not all. That is my argument against military lead assassinations where we get told someone is guilty and have to accept it as truth. You've misunderstood. I dont trust them, at all. I don't trust the government when they say someone is guilty or the say some is my enemy. I don't trust citizens in my country with guns being allowed to almost carry out the law as they see fit. I don't trust police officers carrying guns who are allowed to carry out capital punishment based on their judgement. All of these things have ONE thing in common, no trail. No evidence to be reviewed. It's either the judgement of the civilian, police officer, or the words of a government.The one thing I can get behind however, is capital punishment after a trail, appeals and years of review. It's at the very least the only one where there is even a trail. Either they have the power in some circumstances or they don't have the power at all. You seem to contridict yourself. How about the safety of others who come in contact with this criminal? Like his/her cellmate? Prison guards? Etc... We're talking about unpredictable, violent serial killers and violent murderers who will kill when given the chance. Many murderers have actually ended up on deathrow AFTER killing inside the jail.So there can be other victims. The situation with some violent offenders is NOT under control, as you put it. Some violent offenders need to be put to death because of this.And I'd argue that putting them in a cell 24 hours a day for the rest of thei lives is beyond inhumane. So if that's your other option, I'll stick with the death penalty. Right, but as you can see, someone as passive as Rahvin does support an armed police force shooting people on the street based on their judgement.Clear inconsistencies from those who don't support the death penalty, but do support armed police. It all means the same thing in the end. Some form of authority deemed fit to terminate someone's life. And in all cases, there is a risk of terminating the life of someone innocent. I understand your point here, but I have a greater concern than deathrow. I'm from the US, remember. It is where we are discussing the death penalty; at least, it is this countries policy that I am discussing. I'm much more worried about being shot by a cop, or armed citizen trying to "do what they feel is right," than me or one of my kids being wrongfully put on death row. Far, far more worried.In those cases, I'm to trust some officers judgement or visual perception, rather than trust a court system, appeals and endless processing.- Oni