There would be. Enormous amount goes into killing someone my friend. Besides which, if we did bring back Capital Punishment, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be the jab, not the rope. Bringing it back would be a challenge enough that would upset quiet a lot of people. I don't think we would choose an archaic method of execution.

A lot of that can be said for Capital Punishment as well though. And it may not turn back the time but if the prisoner does feel remorse, he will have claimed some of his humanity back which at the least can't be a bad thing.

Plus, while I am not religious, we are also forgetting a huge sector of this debate - that being the whole 'playing god' argument which would upset people too.

Why should we care if he suffers? Did he care when he killed those people? All those people who had lives ahead of them - snuffed out for ever. Why should his quality of life bother us? Maybe he was evil, deluded or inadequate - who knows or cares. He was obviously deemed to be mentally compentent enough to be held accountable for his crimes - and therefore deserved the punishment. As a rule - I am actually against capital punishment - but I do believe there are exceptions - and mass murder is one of them - when proven, beyond doubt, that the person committed the crime.

Not about blood lust - but about principle and deterrent.

Your giving another boring argument quiet a lot of people give. This has nothing to do with me caring about his suffering and that's not what my argument is based around. I never said that. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me as to where I did.

Quiet a lot of prisoners suffer far, far more in prison. That's why things like suicide watch exists.

I have little to no knowledge of the costs of hanging; but surely beyond paying for the services of the hangman and maintenance of facilities, there is nothing else to pay for? It's hardly archaic, it was still in use in Britain in the 1950s. While I agree with you in cases of a crime of passion, or a crime that isn't as serious as murder where the murderer/criminal will undoubtedly feel remorse; but I'm talking about deranged lunatics such as the Washington Sniper, people who didn't know their victims and therefore aren't nearly as likely to experience remorse.

The 'playing god' thing comes down to personal beliefs though, anybody who objects to it isn't going to change their mind.

Just to reiterate, I'm only applying the capital punishment thing to deranged nutters like the Washington Sniper; I don't think capital punishment is a better alternative to jail, just for people like that, it seems like a waste to try and rehabilitate them.

The amount of red tape and legal documents, regardless of method, is huge. Simply staging an execution is very costly. And I really don't think we would be hanging people if it were brought back. It would be lethal injection all the way. These days it sort of has the 'cleaner' if you like of all the images of execution.

I think I agree with you on one thing, and that is that there really is no method or help available for such a sick individual, but like you use that as the basis of your opinion, I say if nothing is going to help him anyway, just throw him in a cell. I don't really think killing more people really helps improve things, even in extreme cases.

Here's a nice suggestion : Why not take it out of the hand's of the government and leave it up to unanimous vote by the victim[s] family[s]? That sounds far more logical to me and even though I still don't think you should have to see another person killed to feel 'avenged' in some way it seems to make a great deal more sense.

You did say we can't throw them like rats into black holes and forget they existed - why not? That does suggest some sympathy. Besides jail these days is hardly that.

I am a strong believer in accountability - too many excuses made for people's behaviour. For a crime like that - a lifetime in reasonably comfortable conditions isn't punishment enough - in my book - no doubt many agree.

Well first of all I was not even talking about jail when I made that comment, I was talking about Capital Punishment. I am not going to start arguing with someone who cannot understand what I am saying.

In either case it's a shame you missed out on the sentence I conveniently put right before what you called me up on :

Fair enough - I read it wrong - but maybe your arguments don't inspire the level of concentration needed to read some of your posts.

My argument is just an opinion. An opinion that I am not for Capital Punishment. There can be no comment upon the value of it either way from another party because it is just that - my opinion. Zee understands and seems to be putting across his points very well.

Funny that they did inspire you to counter argue right up until now :rolleyes:.

Funny how you can continue to argue with someone so stupid they can't understand what you are saying!

Maybe I wouldn't have bothered - if I had been aware that you were such a superior intellect - not obvious from your posts. Get over yourself!

Wait a minuet here, this has nothing to do with intellect, like I already explained, it has to do with viewpoint. Viewpoint has nothing to do with superior intellect, and it has everything to do with opinion.

What exactly would you like me to 'get over'? I manage to debate just fine with everybody else. You just have egg all over your face. You are the one that's ceased to give any rational arguments about the subject matter, in favor of needless bell enderey towards me just because I pointed something out to you [that I don't have compassion] that was obvious to anybody from the start, and your method of response was to say that my arguments do not inspire concentration.

That's your problem, not mine. Might I suggest learning the difference between fact based intellect and ethic based moral stances which differ from person to person before you throw yourself like a child on train tracks into such harrowing subject matter in the future.

There you go again - can't help yourself can you! Whether you "debate just fine with everybody else" is debateable in itself. You have a way of making your OPINIONS sound like fact - when they are not. You are certainly very quick to put down the opinions of others. It certainly isn't me getting on their high horse and throwing a tantrum - in response to criticism.

You know what? You are so right.

On second thoughts, no.

Yes it is. I was debating with everybody just fine until you came along and started acting the maggot. You were the one who originally made this silly comment :


You are also the only person to ever tell me I make my opinions sound like fact. I just voice my opinions. Same as Prole has done. Same as LeatherTrumpet has done. Same as Niamh has done. Same as Zee has done. Same as everybody has done, really. The only difference is all these people took the time to properly read my posts before jumping into the fray suggesting I had sympathy for mass murderers.

I just voice mine! If you insult others - expect it back! I am sure I could go back and pick out bits of things you have said from various posts to make them fit my argument - but obviously more important to you than me. Maybe some people are just diplomatic with what they say - to avoid arguments - as your retorts are very over-bearing in nature. I think we better call it quits now - before we both say something we might regret - not going to get banned for you.

I remember this on the news back in 2002.

As for the execution...well I'm not happy but I'm not angered by it, so...oh well.

True and if half the people had any experience of loved ones who have experienced psychosis they might not be celebrating this mans death. He was clearly far removed from the reality most of us share. "There but for the grace of god go I"...(You'd think a Christian would feel the same way haha guess not!

I'm against Execution, We don't have the right to judge if someone lives or dies and doing so just makes us as bad as the perpetrator. A life of inprisonment can be much more of a punishment then Execution.

Saying that there are times what push my beliefs but generally I think that sometimes living can be a harsher punishment then death.

No, you did not 'just voice yours'. You voiced an uneducated opinion that I had sympathy for mass murderers, which I quiet rightly pulled you up on, and having realised your mistake you admitted that but followed it up with a completely needless jab. Even if what you were saying about me was true you really should be ... I don't know ... setting better standards?

I never insulted you, and I don't insult people in arguments unless I am insulted first or unless the person is quiet clearly a troll. I did call Prole silly, a trivial quip more than an insult, for making a comparison I thought was a bit exaggerated, but that was cleared up ages ago.

Again, everything your saying to me your the only person to ever say it which makes me think you just have a chip on your shoulder considering how this was all your own doing with that daft little post about my posts not deserving concentration. Remember, you made that post, not me.

I can't get over how hilarious this is. You have a very, very manipulative way of passing a comment on someone and then when they attempt to retort, lambast them for ever attempting to retort while putting yourself on some forum pedestal.

You made the comment, I called you up on it, and now your changing your own arguments and ignoring mine to try and play role reversal. As for the inevitable wondering as to why I am keeping this up, please don't speak for the both of us by saying 'we should quit' just because it makes life easier for you. If you want to quit you are more than welcome to, but I feel I have to defend myself against such common stupidity. Do what you want, and I will be more than happy to accommodate it in a manner suitable to your bizarre system of posting.

I originally asked the question - what did you suggest we did with these killers - and above is your response. Not very productive - only provacative and accusing. Stop trying to imply - I started this. I wasn't saying it was the only thing that could be done - only stating that I believed (my opinion) it was the best way of dealing with such people - that as a tax-payer I could understand that tax-payers in the States would not want to fund his keep for the rest of his life.

You asked what could be done, I responded, because I believe prison is better. Not great, but certainly better. And something that can be improved, more importantly. There is still no insult contained within that post. At least by most rational people's standards who don't take the forum as diplomatically miserable as you seem to. There is a whole gulf of difference between that and ''maybe your arguments don't inspire the level of concentration needed to read some of your posts'' which you posted because, let's face it, you simply misread my original argument. Which was a nice, fine, dandy productive argument.

And then came all the stuff about my opinion being fact and blah-de-blah. Hardly the pinnacle of productive posting and hardly factual, as I more than pointed out to you.

[There is a whole gulf of difference between that and ''maybe your arguments don't inspire the level of concentration needed to read some of your posts'' which you posted because, let's face it, you simply misread my original argument. Which was a nice, fine, dandy productive argument.

And then came all the stuff about my opinion being fact and blah-de-blah. Hardly the pinnacle of productive posting and hardly factual, as I more than pointed out to you.[/QUOTE]

The concentration comment was in response to your comment (which I took as an insult, understandably) that you weren't going to argue with someone who didn't understand what you were saying. Definite implication - I was too thick to understand - so although I admitted that I misread it - I also pointed out that there may have been faults on both sides - that the way you put things sometimes was open to misinterrpretation. Was a bit sarky about the way I said - just as you often are in response to my comments.

Yeah. The implication being that you did not understand what I was saying. Which you didn't. Simple. With reference to that post, the post you originally called me up on, there was absolutely no doubt as to what I said, so don't play that card. I put the sentence saying I was not sympathizing/playing apologist RIGHT BEFORE the part which you quoted. Which I also pointed out to you ages ago.

Christ almighty.

I have no sympathy for this kind of thing and he is better gone, cost of an injection is about $50, cost of keeping him alive goes into the thousands.

Each candidate has to, by law, appeal his case in the scenario of lethal injection at least once at the supreme court, which costs millions.

Are you sure millions isn't an over exaggeration? Keeping him alive until he dies would cost a lot too.

(Just realised the stupidity in the last sentence but you get what I mean)