Do you agree with the death penalty?

Yes, but keep it reserved for people who commit treason (Lee Rigby Killers, Terrorists that have left the country then returned, etc.) As these people aren't worth spending public money on to keep alive.

Executing people ends up being more expensive as several people have pointed out


Posted from TSR Mobile

that's torture. if an average member of humanity actually believes this then we're not far away from a dystopia. imagine yourself in his or her shoes. it would be hell. who knows what he or she has been through to get to that point. also, a sane family would not want to watch someone else being murdered.

I find it incredibly difficult to imagine you saw prisoners showing mobile phones in a documentary that's the ultimate contraband. I would agree that prisons need to be toughened up and some offenders should be given longer sentences.

Even if you've committed murder you're human thus you have human rights. Having people constantly suspended in limbo would be ridiculous and our international reputation would definitely suffer. Anybody who'd want to go and watch an execution is an incredibly sick person (not in a good way)


Posted from TSR Mobile

No but will prevent the criminal from killing in this 25 years period and maybe the rehabilitation will make them a better person as they would know what made commit this crime and find other solutions to fix it

Posted from TSR Mobile

Will a 25yr prison sentence bring back the victim?

the more accumulated emotional pain someone has the more likely they are to act violently towards another. violence comes in many forms. a violent thought is the start of a violent action and if left unchecked can lead to consequences.

those who 'have no morals' were most likely extensively abused as children or in adolescence. kids who grow up in a stable home environment with a lot of love and care will almost certainly not become murderers. furthermore, some societies have higher murder rates than others. this also indicates that environment plays a huge part in whether or not someone is 'evil'.

evil is an extremely unethical concept that negates empathy. when we call someone else evil, we fail to remember that we don't know this person's background or life experiences. we cannot know what someone else has gone through because we are not them. it's extremely easy to sit on the outside and label someone as evil without having all the information; our egos love to do that.

as a teen i experienced severe depression and anxiety and drugs pushed me to a point where i had a violent breakdown and threatened to kill people. i didn't physically assault anyone but i did shout a lot and smashed a window. if i'd been sent to prison i would've got a criminal record and my life would've been a lot more difficult than it is now. instead, i went to a psychiatric hospital where i received treatment and care.

all criminals are mentally ill. no criminals are evil. all criminals should be regarded as equals, no matter their crimes. prisons should be abolished and replaced with psychiatric hospitals (albeit more supportive ones than there currently are now). these people should be treated with the same level as respect as you or i receive. they should have all the care they require and all the resources they require. if they want to bake a cake, give them some cake mix. a psychologist should be on hand 24/7 for unconditional care and support, speaking calmly, kindly and rationally to whoever is in hospital.

they are our equals. i am your equal. humans need to get over ourselves before it's too late and ego destroys everything.

edit: i'll also add that crime is subjective. to one individual, killing an animal to eat it might be perfectly ok and to another it might be absolutely disgusting. it doesn't matter what the individual thinks: we have to look at the facts. for example:

does an animal want to die? no
is there a way around eating meat for most people? yes
what is that process? gradually transitioning to a vegetarian or vegan diet with absolute concern and consideration for one's nutritional requirements and therefore not pushing one's body too far
if it's not viable for someone to become vegetarian or vegan straight away/at all, what other options are there? humanely raised animals with the most painless death possible; campaigning for factory grown meat; campaigning for animal rights to mitigate negative consequences of one's impact; donating to highly cost effective animal rights charities http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org or doing research to educate ourselves and others

From an average donation of $1,000, Animal Equality would use about $380 towards investigations of the conditions of animals on farms and in other industries, paying for a tiny fraction of an investigation but reaching hundreds of thousands of people through media coverage. They would use about $200 to support grassroots outreach, funding two information stalls which would distribute about 650 pieces of literature each. They would use about $160 on social media and online outreach, and about $160 on bigger protests. Finally, they would spend about $60 on legal advocacy, mostly related to their investigations and protests, and about $40 on corporate outreach related to their investigations. Our rough estimate is that these combined activities would spare about 10,900 animals from life in industrial agriculture.

so yeah the point is that you and i aren't perfect. no human is. we've all done stuff we regret. so let's forgive ourselves first and foremost and assist and support everyone else unconditionally to realise our full potential as a species and change this world into the best place it can be

That's torture? Someone who murdered a number of INNOCENT people, or perhaps a family for no apparent reason and that's torture? If anyone (God forbid) murdered my family members, I'd like to see them sentenced to the death penalty, I would see no other sentence appropriate enough for such a crime

I will never be in his or her shoes because I'm not evil nor disturbed.

I'm sure they do, that's why the screens were invented so that the victims family can watch if they choose to.

like i said earlier, no one is evil and no one is innocent. we're all ****ed up in our own ways and to point fingers is to fail to recognise our own fallibility. i'm as bad as the worst criminal on Earth because i'm one and equal with them. we're all as bad as the worst of our world - but we're also all as good as our best. let's each individually become the best we can be and illuminate the darkness. if we can each and all be a candle, we can light the way for others until heaven is brought to Earth and our equality is realised. saying someone is evil and deserves to die is as bad as murdering someone because it comes from the very same place: ego. ego is the reason we're ****ing ourselves and ****ing the planet. let's rather FACE ourselves, forgive ourselves, and love all unconditionally. we're all ok. no one is innocent, but no one is evil either, and that leads to incredible acts of mercy and humility. i love you as myself, just as we all deep down love all as ourselves. so let's drop our egos and just forgive

I completely disagree with your points that all criminals are mentally ill.

Would your stance be different if the family of the victim are able to exercise a choice, pre-trial, as to whether or not the judge and/or jury may consider the death penalty, in the event of a guilty verdict?

If anyone (God forbid) murdered my family members, I'd like to see them sentenced to the death penalty, I would see no other sentence appropriate enough for such a crime

yes or no? and why

i think for the most serious rapists, murders and paedophiles and special crimes which are truly revolting, we should bring it back
but ONLY on the most serious cases such as the woman who flushed her new born baby down the toilet. The killer of Le-Rigby as examples

Everyone involved within the judicial process is involved emotionally. The only difference between a judge, a jury or the family is the degree to which they are.

Let's be clear about this, the family will not be passing judgement, they will not be deciding anything apart from allowing the judge and the jury to consider if the death penalty should be an option, before the case goes to trial.

Completely agree! Well said

And only brought back if we have 100% dna or other strong links. If this was even 98% then life sentence.

The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond reasonable doubt which, if translated into a percentage would be less than 98%. You can never be 100% certain of someone's guilt so you'd never be using the death penalty


Posted from TSR Mobile

but why should the tax payer pay for them to have very easy lives?

Of course you could - if the incident was caught on CCTV, if the rapist made the lady pregnant you could DNA test, there are plenty of ways to know for sure

No evidence can lead to 100% certainty. CCTV footage could be doctored or it could show someone very similar looking committing a crime; DNA tests are not 100% accurate; etc.