Death row teen goes nuts. what does this vid do for you?

I don't see the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as "making an immediate difference to the fortunes of the country". Our government was all to keen to send hundreds of soldiers needlessly to their deaths, while hundreds of murderers sat comfy in their prison cells playing their X-boxes. If every murderer was executed so all our soldiers would not have come home in body bags then it'd have been fine by me. Our government endorsed the needless death of one group of innocents while those who've lowered themselves to the moral standards of swine are still living. Pray, how can anyone see this as logically right?

No it isn't. Roads and infrastructure are endorsed fully by the state, and allow for accidental death. If death was really a hindrance to government behaviour then they wouldn't do so. It is preventable by many means. The numbers can certainly be reduced by reduced speed limits, making it the case that cars are more heavily taxed etc. This should bring the numbers down substantially from 3,000. This is 3,000 innocents. How about all the innocent foeutus' that are aborted every day - endorsed by the state? And you're moaning about a select few murderers who've added to the tally? LOL.

It is absolutely barbaric. Surely, all it does is add to the pain and misery caused? That man must have a mother and father too.

Revenge laws in the 21st century? Couldn't we leave it in the dark ages?

You are definitely missing the point. People die on the roads - the roads are NOT there specifically to kill people. You suggest that the person you are responding to is not angry about road safety and abortions even though you have no idea what their views are on the matter.

**** the death penalty. It doesn't matter if he's a murderer or a rapist. Taking human life is wrong. Full stop.

I don't think revenge can be taken against an entity which has reduced itself to a negative. Once the murderer has committed their action they reduce themselves to the level of the swine and cattle we slaughter on a regular basis, and are no more fitting of the right to life as the chair I'm sitting on. This isn't a case of revenge. Revenge would be overstepping the moral balance. For example, if the punishment didn't equate to the action but went beyond that, such as the killing of a murderer's entire family, or cutting someone's hand off for stealing.



To the first point: Why? What can a "fixed" criminal offer society that a child coming of age can't? If there was a murderer put to death for the life of every otherwise-aborted foetus the world would be a better place.

To the second point: I'm not an expert, so I don't know what the exact punishment for arson should be reciprocally. That would be the judge's job. The simple fact is that reciprocated punishment for arson can take place while the prisoner is still alive, considering they themselves haven't taken the life of an innocent. Same with rape. A prison sentence can be utilised as a translation for action. For murderers and terrorists, this is not the case.

No one here is arguing that the wars are right. Stay on topic. It has nothing to do with it. By definition a man or woman incarcerated and convicted of whatever is defenceless - and yet the decision is made to take their life. You must see the moral implications.

People dying makes you feel better about your life?

What an upstanding citizen you are.

at first i thought you meant he killed a bird.. yano the ones that go koo koo??

im watching it now.. gosh its a lot of drama.

the whole thing is just sad

ok watched it all now, so i assume the man is dead now cos the video was posted 2 years ago?

What does the invasion of Iraq have to do with the use of the death penalty?

Regardless of the direct or indirect nature of things, the fact is that roads are responsible for the deaths of more - innocent - people than an implemented system of capital punishment would. This is not my point. I'm not trying to balance them together. I'm not assuming the person I was responding to is not opposed to this. It is just irrational to say that the government having a role in death is wrong, when essentially every government policy has resulted in death, in one way or another. It's simply that a policy where death is actually justified isn't in place. Which is ridiculous.

I wondered why the urban dictionary had this - until people like you started posting with little advanced thought or any consideration of the social impact on abolishing the death penalty.

I see the moral implications of taking someone's life when they, as an individual, have been responsible for taking an innocent's life, thus reducing themselves to the level of cattle,

Nah, I think he is still alive. People are on Death Row for years.

It is not the government being involved in death - it is the fact that it is needless death. Death where by nothing is gained. Accidents - believe it or not - are not in my opinion the governments fault unless they implement laws like 'you must NOT wear a seatbelt while driving' or 'drive with your doors open'

I wondered why the urban dictionary had this - until people like you started posting with little advanced thought or any consideration of the social impact on abolishing the death penalty. You need to get a grip on reality and think before believing such ridiculous statements.