Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons, in theory it could be fine, but in reality death penalty cases are more expensive for the government to carry out. It's a waste of time and money for the courts. So for that reason and that reason isn't going to change, I'd like to just abolish the death penalty. The death penalty can be used in military jurisdictions.
If some maniac kills 10 people, they deserve the death penalty. Under more unique instances where there isn't enough evidence of a crime, then I am against it. Overall, I think the severity of the crime needs to be heavily examined and critiqued for a large amount of time before someone is put on death row.
As for guns, I am 100% 2nd amendment. If someone's darting at me with a knife, and I have a gun and a phone to call the police (which would take possibly up to an hour for them to arrive), which would help me better?
Holstering your weapon and disarming the person with the knife would serve you better. You may not fully understand what taking a life is like, even in self defense, and what it can do to you psychologically. Not to mention spiritually and emotionally. Once done, it can't be undone. It will follow you in one way or another for the rest of your life.
I'm generally a pacifist, unless someone is trying to kill someone else and non-violent methods cannot be used to stop them, or if it's for hunting animals for sustenance.
For violent criminals, I think rehab is preferable, if not then banishment, if not that then jail. For nonviolent criminals, community service and/or fines. Maybe it's because I'm young and naive, but I think there's goodness in everyone's hearts.
As for guns, I'm against them unless they're for hunting (sorry!). I know many people don't feel safe without guns, but our gun crime per capita is higher than in other developed countries. Australia got rid of guns and they have almost no gun crime. I don't mean to offend gun owners, I just think getting rid of guns would do good in the long-run. The fewer weapons in the world, the better IMO.
I'm pro-gun, but anti-death penalty. I think death is too easy an out. Not enough suffering...murderers and violent criminals should be given a life sentence with extremely harsh living conditions (no television, recreation, weight rooms, tasty food, or other luxuries), at hard labor.
The are two major groups among anti-death penalty people: those who simply consider it cruel, and are agaist it without condition; and those who are agaist it only because of the possibility of innocent person being wrongly convicted and executed--this group are pro in theory and anti in practice. I wonder which group is larger.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,521,355 times
Reputation: 3107
Pro-gun, but also pro more restrictions and higher standards for obtaining guns/ammo. Purchasing/owning a gun should be like getting/maintaining a drivers license. Anti-death penalty. We kill WAYYY too many people who turned out to be innocent for me to EVER support the death penalty. It is so surprising to me that many conservatives seem to be so anti-government, but when it comes to the government choosing if you live or die (and they often kill innocent people), they are A-OK with it. Until there is a perfect record for killing people who actually committed the crime, I see no logical reason for me to support the death penalty.
The are two major groups among anti-death penalty people: those who simply consider it cruel, and are agaist it without condition; and those who are agaist it only because of the possibility of innocent person being wrongly convicted and executed--this group are pro in theory and anti in practice. I wonder which group is larger.
I could be in the second group, but I describe it from the other side of the same coin. Let's take two cases that are pretty well known: The colorado theater shooter, and OJ. The first, there is NO room for doubt that this scumbag killed those people. Since the evidence is so overwhelming, he should not still be wasting our oxygen. Now in the case of OJ, it's not so clear cut. I believe the vast majority think he was guilty. But, as we can see, there was some doubt, so in a case like that, I believe a more just sentence is life without parole.
I don't care about mental state..what sort of sane person murders people? Answer..no one who is sane murders people. I don't care about race, financial status, education, or any of the other "mitigations" that are used to muddy the waters. If you kill, and there is no doubt you did it, you should pay the ultimate price, and do so very quickly. I think that strikes a balance between the two issues, and keeps the state from making a mistake with an innocent person, and falls within the intent of the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
