The Death Penalty

[deep]

Please excuse me for jumping in.

Myself, along with most pro-choice people would not support someone having an abortion when they were eight months pregnant. Pro-choice people that do not have a problem with this are unreasonable and fall into the trap of ?all or nothing? thinking.


Taking RU486 the morning after having unprotected sex ,or if a condom breaks, is considered an abortion by some, if it disrupts a fertilized egg. Pro-life people who call this murder also fall into the trap of ?all or nothing? thinking I believe.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Please excuse me for jumping in.

Myself, along with most pro-choice people would not support someone having an abortion when they were eight months pregnant. Pro-choice people that do not have a problem with this are unreasonable and fall into the trap of ?all or nothing? thinking.


Taking RU486 the morning after having unprotected sex ,or if a condom breaks, is considered an abortion by some, if it disrupts a fertilized egg. Pro-life people who call this murder also fall into the trap of ?all or nothing? thinking I believe.

Exactly.

Angela

 

[anitram]

Please excuse me for jumping in.

Myself, along with most pro-choice people would not support someone having an abortion when they were eight months pregnant. Pro-choice people that do not have a problem with this are unreasonable and fall into the trap of ?all or nothing? thinking.


Taking RU486 the morning after having unprotected sex ,or if a condom breaks, is considered an abortion by some, if it disrupts a fertilized egg. Pro-life people who call this murder also fall into the trap of ?all or nothing? thinking I believe.

You summed it up perfectly. I have already discussed at length on this board why first trimester or early second trimester fetuses are not viable. This is an undeniable scientific fact. Now you can argue whether life has begun, but you cannot argue that this life can be supported and that is why many-prochoice people do not view early term abortions to be murder.

 

[80sU2isBest]

You summed it up perfectly. I have already discussed at length on this board why first trimester or early second trimester fetuses are not viable. This is an undeniable scientific fact. Now you can argue whether life has begun, but you cannot argue that this life can be supported and that is why many-prochoice people do not view early term abortions to be murder.

As far as pregnancy terms go, viable means "sufficiently developed to be able to live". Whether the fetus can live by itself or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether he/she is a living human being that should be protected by law, just as people who can live by themselves are. Think of all the people it would be legal to kill if we let "viability" be the deciding factor:

(1) A one month old baby cannot live without a human to take care of it
(2) Many physically and handicapped people cannot live without a human to take care of them
(3) Many elderly people can't live without a human to take care of them

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I have to; using "viability" as a pro-choice argument is a cop out. If it's a human life, it's a human life.

You said "undeniable fact" about a fetus not being a "viable" life. Well, mull over these undeniable facts and tell me that a fetus is not a human life:

http://www.cobbpregnancy.org/pregnancy1.html

 

[deep]

You say it's not possible. It sure is possible. I haven't had sex in 13 years. 13 years. .

I now understand your affection for the 80s.

 

[Anthony]

I must insist that a distinction is made between corporal punishment and 'child abuse' - the two are completely different.

As an advocate of corporal punishment, I do believe that the parents have a right to choose how to bring up their child, however, I of course do not endorse child abuse.

I can understand your argument, nbcrusader, why should people have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not and yet they should not have the right to choose on how to raise their kids, and I do partially agree with you. I whole-heartedly believe in parents having the right to bring up the child, but I also believe that 'some' will abuse such a right. This is also very true in the case of abortion (then again, I am anti-abortion), as in I believe that not ALL cases are wrong, it is subjective at the best of times.

Abortion is problematic, but since you've raised the issue of corporal punishment, it raises something that I would like to address - the suffering of the child. One of the many things that raises problems for me when it comes to abortion, is the question of the child. I have often asked myself, what is worse for the child; not existing at all or being raised by parents who never wanted him in the first place - essentially, being raised by bad parents? It effectively boils down to the same thing, the same end-result as one would get from child abusers - a tormented child - and this is the prime concern for me, and I believe it should be the prime concern for everybody. Forgive me, but I have always believed that when it comes to these matters (abortion, corporal punishment... or anything else that requires an innocent child to be included in the picture) it is the child, the LIFE that we as adults chose to implicate, that takes precedence. It is not a question of having the right to 'choose' anything, it is the right to do what is best for the child, not necessarily what is best for the mother, the father or whomever.

I am not saying that I agree with abortion - I do not - but I am willing to concede that both areas contain plenty of shades of grey, and are not as black and white as I would like to think. Yes some adults abuse their right to raise their children as they wish, but then again, there are some adults who do abuse their rights to have sex with whom they wish, and hence accidents happen. If modern society proves anything, is that too many mistakes do happen.

The continuous spread of STDs (AIDS still being the worst culprit), the seemingly increasing number of unwanted pregnancies in some countries, the increasing number of divorces etc. are all symptoms of a society that is clearly NOT responsible for its own 'right' to choose whatever. By all means, grant more freedoms to people, I am not a liberal for nothing, but you cannot have more freedoms without responsibility.

Being more central to the topic, freedom without responsibility is exactly what I see when I look at the Death penalty. Here we have something that I have never been able to reconcile with; how can we as a State ever think of ourselves as both responsible or indeed posses the right to take another's life? The truth is, we do not have either - we haven't earned it.

I don't see the Death Penalty as something completely negative, God knows I was very much for it until a few years ago, but I do think that it negates the whole idea of trying to create a more just society. It has been proven that it is not effective as a deterrent, and one must ask why.

We cannot have a society that is built upon fear, it must be built upon virtues. Society is also measured by its ability to be merciful, I believe. Or atleast, it should be.

Ant.

My position? Anti - Abortion.
Anti - Death Penalty.
Pro - Corporal Punishment.

(Subject to exceptions - always. )

 

[80sU2isBest]

I now understand your affection for the 80s.

I ahve to admit, that is FUNNY!

However, I will also add that it is by choice that I am not having sex.

 

[melon]

You say it's not possible. It sure is possible. I haven't had sex in 13 years. 13 years. But in this society, have we come to accept that people are animals, unable to control themselves ? I guess so. That's what we see on TV after all. That's what we hear on the radio. No one acts maturely anymore, no one takes responsibility.

First off, what I hate about this argument is that it assumes that everyone has the same hormonal responses. Quite honestly, there are some people who have absolutely no sex drive (the asexuals who probably created the priest celibacy rule in the Catholic Church) and those who have more or less. I think I'm tired of thinking that somehow we are so above the animal kingdom that we cannot embrace our animal instincts without feeling guilty. Of course, what was done 2000 years ago is you got married on the brink of puberty, since your life expectancy wasn't that high. Mary was probably 13 years old when she bore Jesus.

I find it hypocritical, almost, that, on one hand, we have moralists deriding the arrival of posthumanism, but, yet, constantly telling us to be different than what we really are. Religion is the inventor of posthumanism. Essentially, all religion has tried to do is suck every last bit of pleasure out of humanity, rankling us with guilt and burdens. "We're never good enough." So why didn't God make us like the robots we want to turn ourselves into if that was His "will" all along?

I agree that this certainly has gone too far in some respects. I guess I'm tired of the extremism on both ends.

Melon

 

[Anthony]

And yet, Melon, don't you think its a little bit 'neat' to lump it all under 'different hormonal responses'?

While I recognise that its too extreme to say that 'Society is immoral, everyone's a whore', I do believe it is equally extreme to say that 'oh its alright, its not that they have less self-control, its because they have different hormonal responses'. Neither do the reality of the situation justice, and that is that 'some' level of control and responsibility is needed at all times, at the very least.

I don't think its a question of how we think ourselves above the animal kingdom, the fact is we are above it in so many distinct ways, I do not think it is so far-fetched to say that we are more advanced than the common rabbit who likes to copulate incesantly (I don't actually know if this is scientific fact now, but its a recognisable example), and therefore have higher issues to consider. No, I don't seek to deny our 'animalistic' natures, and I don't believe that it is on too many people's agendas either, but I do seek to point out that we are so much more, and we not only capable of achieving so much more - we have.

While I will concede that Religion has a lot to answer for, I do not paint its history with a such an intensely dark shade as you seem to. Yes, Religion has been the architect of societies in history, and any architect of history will tell you that you can't have a society without some form of control. Essentially, religion has been (and for many people, still is) about control.

Whether its posthumanism or postmoderism, I do believe that we as a society are too 'indulgent' in many respects. The sexual framework of modern society is by far one of them. So, while I do not like this idea of condemning everyone for not being celibate, I do say that its not as simple as different hormonal responses. So what? We have different hormonal responses to everything in life, the element of self-control is still always required of us, and, at the risk of sounding like a total prude, rightly so.

Incidentally, I think the matter of celibacy is something to be commended, though it is not considered fashionable to do so in this day and age. I don't really care, say what you will about the role of celibacy within the Catholic church, I still believe it to be a noble one ideologically.

Ant.

 

[melon]

Neither do the reality of the situation justice, and that is that 'some' level of control and responsibility is needed at all times, at the very least.

This isn't in conflict with what I wrote, and I agree.

I don't think its a question of how we think ourselves above the animal kingdom, the fact is we are above it in so many distinct ways, I do not think it is so far-fetched to say that we are more advanced than the common rabbit who likes to copulate incesantly (I don't actually know if this is scientific fact now, but its a recognisable example), and therefore have higher issues to consider. No, I don't seek to deny our 'animalistic' natures, and I don't believe that it is on too many people's agendas either, but I do seek to point out that we are so much more, and we not only capable of achieving so much more - we have.

What bothers me is the judgmental nature of those who say "we are in control," as this is an argument constantly levelled at homosexuals. I'd like to see what the response would be to people if religion decreed that all sex and love was evil--much in the fashion of the Shakers. I would be curious as to how much "restraint" a lot of these people would have then.

While I will concede that Religion has a lot to answer for, I do not paint its history with a such an intensely dark shade as you seem to. Yes, Religion has been the architect of societies in history, and any architect of history will tell you that you can't have a society without some form of control. Essentially, religion has been (and for many people, still is) about control.

Religion, after all, was an extension of imperial Europe. How else could they have enslaved the serfs and their descendents for 1000 years with no mass revolt?

Whether its posthumanism or postmoderism, I do believe that we as a society are too 'indulgent' in many respects. The sexual framework of modern society is by far one of them. So, while I do not like this idea of condemning everyone for not being celibate, I do say that its not as simple as different hormonal responses. So what? We have different hormonal responses to everything in life, the element of self-control is still always required of us, and, at the risk of sounding like a total prude, rightly so.

Incidentally, I think the matter of celibacy is something to be commended, though it is not considered fashionable to do so in this day and age. I don't really care, say what you will about the role of celibacy within the Catholic church, I still believe it to be a noble one ideologically.

I would counter that this is a very romanticized view of the past. We are no more "indulgent" than our ancestors, but their skeletons just remained in the closet. It is worth mentioning that, in the 1930s, most of the "prominent" families in my hometown had "wife-swapping" parties. I would venture to say that my hometown wasn't the only swinging town.

As for Catholic celibacy, it would be admirable, if only those who maintained it were actually celibate. My favorite has to be the Renaissance pope who had a wife and about eight children (I think it was Alexander VI). And I don't understand why it is "noble," except for the fact that celibacy is traditionally an idealized virtue thanks to medieval Christianity. What does it matter if a saint is a virgin or not? Well, but we certainly do find out.

Anyway, this isn't a judgment of 80sU2isBest...far from it. I just dislike the implication of "supremacy" and "judgment" such pronouncements make. However, in the context of 80sU2isBest as an individual, I would agree that it is admirable.

Melon

 

[Anthony]

No, we are no more indulgent than our ancestors. If any, we are probably a lot LESS indulgent. However, we have different problems than our ancestors. We have the ability and ease to create abortions, an AIDS epidemic and other issues. We can't go around having orgies willy nilly because we have different concerns than the Romans did, for instance.

Regarding Catholic celibacy, I would tend to disagree. There are many priests who do indeed practice celibacy and believe in it. The nobility of it is the idea of sacrifice, that you are sacrificing something in your life as an ordinary man to be with God and do God's work, and I think that is something to be commended, rather than sneered at (not that you are, I'm just saying).

However, I do not wish to hijack the thread. Sorry - I just think the Catholic church does tend to take many beatings here, and I seem to want to defend it for some bizarre reason.

Ant.

 

[melon]

No, we are no more indulgent than our ancestors. If any, we are probably a lot LESS indulgent. However, we have different problems than our ancestors. We have the ability and ease to create abortions, an AIDS epidemic and other issues. We can't go around having orgies willy nilly because we have different concerns than the Romans did, for instance.

Regarding Catholic celibacy, I would tend to disagree. There are many priests who do indeed practice celibacy and believe in it. The nobility of it is the idea of sacrifice, that you are sacrificing something in your life as an ordinary man to be with God and do God's work, and I think that is something to be commended, rather than sneered at (not that you are, I'm just saying).

However, I do not wish to hijack the thread. Sorry - I just think the Catholic church does tend to take many beatings here, and I seem to want to defend it for some bizarre reason.

Ant.

I agree really with everything you've said. I just get kind of mad when it has to do with Catholic sexual tradition and gender roles, and I've probably studied too much of the morality that most Catholics don't know about (how many would know that it is still the Church's belief that a woman's best lot in life is as a married mother?) I just get mad at how out-of-touch it is, ridiculing people who don't live up to its incredibly narrow standards and its contempt for diversity. What a boring world this would be if everyone lived up to JP II's standards to the letter.

And, no, I don't want to hijack this thread either. For what it's worth, I admire Catholicism's consistent anti-abortion / anti-death penalty / anti-war stances. At least it isn't hypocritical like so many other Christian denominations, IMO.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Religion is the inventor of posthumanism. Essentially, all religion has tried to do is suck every last bit of pleasure out of humanity, rankling us with guilt and burdens. "We're never good enough." So why didn't God make us like the robots we want to turn ourselves into if that was His "will" all along?
Melon

Melon,
God created sex. If engaged in as he designed, and only as he designed, it is a beautiful thing. Otherwise it is a cheap substitute for a wonderful creation of God.

"We're never good enough" is exactly the point of the Gospel. God is perfect - no flaw or sin in him. The Word tells us that darkness and light cannot abide together. Therefore, because man is sinful, he was doomed to spend this life and the afterlife out of fellowship of God. But Christ bridged that gap between man and God. Christ's perfect sacrifice provided atoning for man's sin. It paid the price, so that anyone who would accept that free gift would be clean in God's eyes.

So, God doesn't "burden us with guilt". We do that ourselves, by committing sin. God is the one who does away with the guilt, by teh sacrifice of Christ.

 

[nbcrusader]

I have already discussed at length on this board why first trimester or early second trimester fetuses are not viable. This is an undeniable scientific fact. Now you can argue whether life has begun, but you cannot argue that this life can be supported and that is why many-prochoice people do not view early term abortions to be murder.

A couple of points.

1. As devils advocate only - why is viability the issue? A second trimester baby is fully dependent on the mother. A newborn infant is fully dependent on the mother (or father or surrogate for the parents).

2. If you feel first & second term abortions are not murder, then feel comfortable calling it abortion, as in pro-abortion. My original post points out that "choice" is not used in a principled fashion.

3. I would place RU486 in a separate category as it is used whether or not conception has occurred. Abortion only occurs once the life is discovered. I agree that protection of a potentially fertilized egg is extreme and beyond any degree of measure.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't know, nb, but I was wondering the same thing. To me, "Viability" makes no difference in the whole issue, for the exact reason you stated.

 

[Klaus]

if you compared death penalty with abortion i'd suggest to start to think about euthanasia and scientific researches at embryos.

-death penatly: strictly against it, because it dosn't have any advantage about imprisoning somebody (maybe it's cheaper, but money shouldn't be a reason for killing someone)

-abortion: i'm not sure about this one, i guess it definetly should be a choice if the life of the mother is in danger, maybe also if there will be psychological damage to her. If the kid is healthy and the mother won't take any damage i think adoption would be a much wiser choice.

- euthanasia: i guess everyone should have the right to end his life - also i think it's stupid, aren't we dead long enough anyway?

- science: good question, about the same tricky question like the abortion thing.. where does life begin?

Klaus

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

-abortion: i'm not sure about this one, i guess it definetly should be a choice if the life of the mother is in danger, maybe also if there will be psychological damage to her. If the kid is healthy and the mother won't take any damage i think adoption would be a much wiser choice.

I agree abortion should be an option if the mother's life would otherwise be endangered. That just makes logical sense, as if the mother wasn't able to have an abortion in that situation then both mother and child would die.

However, I get suspicious of the "psychological damage" argument, for the simple reason that in the UK, abortion is supposedly only permitted in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is "harm to the mental health of the mother" - 92% of all abortions in this country are carried out under that category. Basically, it translates into abortion on demand.

Finally, you said "if the kid is healthy" - does that mean you'd agree with abortion if the child had a significant disability? The reason I disagree with that is I think it's essentially saying to people who have a disability that it would be better if they'd never been born. (I'm not accusing you of saying that, of course, it's just my opinion.)

 

[Klaus]

FizzingWhizzbees:

to the harm of the mental health.. i said i didn't make up my mind finaly, it was just a rough draft of my mind.. nothing which should become law
So.. if it's a mental harm she shouldn't have to get her baby, but who could judge?
Is it in the UK like in germany where the women have to go to a kind of "aborton consulting service" (done by pastors) before they can go to the M.D.?

I was thinking about disabilities which would make it impossible for the kid to survive or dead unborn babies...

I know what i personally think about abortion, but i'm unsure what i think would be right everyone has to do.

Klaus

 

[nbcrusader]

However, I get suspicious of the "psychological damage" argument, for the simple reason that in the UK, abortion is supposedly only permitted in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is "harm to the mental health of the mother" - 92% of all abortions in this country are carried out under that category. Basically, it translates into abortion on demand.

Interesting. I'd compare the "psychological damage" of the pregnancy with the "psychological damage" after the abortion.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader:

we are humans, no machines so the psychological damage is a verry individualistic thing

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Is it in the UK like in germany where the women have to go to a kind of "aborton consulting service" (done by pastors) before they can go to the M.D.?

Sorry this reply is really late, I've not been online in a few days. But we don't have any kind of compulsory counselling like that in the UK. In fact very often women receive counselling about abortion from the very people who will then charge her money to have an abortion - I'm sure they're very impartial! Of course women are free to seek counselling from whoever they choose, and in theory they are supposed to receive counselling prior to making a decision about abortion, but there's no guarantee that she'll receive unbiased, or even very helpful information.

 

[Klaus]

After FizzingWhizzbees reminded me in another thread..
there also lots of ai - urgent actions against death penalty in the US.

If you want to try to save lifes go for example to this ai link or this one you can find lots of others at www.amnesty.org just imagine - maybe saving lifes with typing a letter!

FizzingWhizzbees:
I never liked the german system, but it seems not to be the worst one thanks for providing that informations

Klaus

 

[anitram]

I don't know, nb, but I was wondering the same thing. To me, "Viability" makes no difference in the whole issue, for the exact reason you stated.

I provided my professional scientific opinion of the situation. To be blunt, you don't have to understand it, it is the way it is, because I have come to the conclusion after much reading of the material. Just like I don't have to understand some of your opinions stemming from the Bible, you don't have to understand why the viability issue is relevant in my eyes, that's all. Different strokes for different folks, as you will. This is a topic where individual values or opinions do play a role, we're not discussing the factual validity of Einstein's special theory on length contraction.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I just typed an entire post in reply to this and then it got lost when I tried to send it. Anyway...my original question was this:

The argument about "viability" appears to state that abortion is justifiable because a fetus of say 20-weeks couldn't survive outside of the mother's body. It is entirely dependent on the mother for its survival and so abortion is justifiable.

However...isn't a one-week old child also entirely dependent on the mother (or another adult) for its survival? A newborn can't survive without care from its mother. And yet nobody would ever argue that it's okay to kill a newborn because it's dependent on the mother for survival. What about people with disabilities which mean they depend on other people to enable them to live? Is it okay to kill them because they're entirely dependent on other people?

The entire argument about "viability" essentially comes down to the fact that an unborn child is entirely dependent on the mother and so it's okay to kill it because it couldn't survive without its mother. But we don't ever use that argument with regard to other people (young children, people with disabilities, etc) who are entirely dependent on others for their suvival, so why is it okay to use the "viability" justification as an argument in favour of abortion?

Sorry if this question offends anyone, I'm just curious about how people justify this.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

And I also meant to ask...does "viability" make any difference to the question of whether an unborn child is really a "life" or really a "person" or not?

 

[Klaus]

And I also meant to ask...does "viability" make any difference to the question of whether an unborn child is really a "life" or really a "person" or not?

Of course there is no difference, but if the baby is just alive because of lots of machines and it's just suffering 24h/day - do you think it's a good idea to let it live as long as possible?

 

[greenbax]

Can any sane, moral person really be against the Death Penalty
when it comes to paedophile scum and child murderers. These sub-human Arseholes lose any human rights including the right to life when they commit these vile, wretched crimes. The only thing I have against the Death Penalty is that it's the easy way out for these bastards. They should suffer unimaginable pain and torture before Death takes them to the deepest reaches of hell.

There are too many do-gooding "Oh they killed someone but it does'nt matter" people out there.

IF SOMEONE HAS TAKEN THE LIFE OF ANOTHER, ESPECIALLY A CHILD AND IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THEY HAVE COMMITED THE MOST EVIL OF CRIMES.........THEN THEY SHOULD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should any decent law abiding citizen have to pay through their taxation to keep this sort of excrement alive in jail, with three meals a day, and what basically amounts to hotel accomodation, especially in England where I live. We are so soft on these parasites over here it's unbelievable. Do they suffer? Do they rot in the stench of their own decay? NO THEY F*****G
DON'T!! I'll tell you what happens shall I? They get let out of jail early, are given new identities to start a lovely new life and live happily ever after. What sort of f***ing punishment is that???

Those of you that have the death penalty should be grateful for it as it cleanses the purest forms of evil from our planet.

Recently in my country a bastard piece of shit KILLED HIS OWN TWO SONS just to (wait for it) get back at his wife for their recent separation. Now anyone who tells me that this f***ing insect has the right to live needs their pea-sized head testing to see if they have the communal brain cell lurking somewhere in the darkness.

I know that the ultimate jugement lays in God's hands but it is our DUTY as decent Human Beings to deliver these scum sucking, puss filled, bags of shit to him with as much voltage as possible

Any possibility of the death sentence in MY country gets my vote.

PEACE!

 

[pax]

Greenbax, I understand your passionate feelings on this subject, but we try to keep our language clean and objective here in FYM.

Thanks.

 

[melon]

Can any sane, moral person really be against the Death Penalty when it comes to paedophile scum and child murderers.

And what about fetuses with genetic abnormalities and other undesirable traits? I have a feeling that if a gay gene was found and could be identified in unborn children, we'd have a few holy rollers changing their minds on the whole "pro-life" thing...

I find the idea of judging who is fit to live and who isn't fit to live to be repugnant. What makes it okay for the state to decide who should live and who should die, while it is not okay for "scum" to decide who lives and who should die? If you are as religious as your "I know that the ultimate judgment lays in God's hands" line implies, then you should know that, by killing these people, we potentially take away their chance for repentance and salvation that they may have found spending 50 years in prison until their natural death.

However, I've never expected religion to be consistent. State-sponsored murder is an ages-old, time-honored tradition in different colors and fashions. However, murder by any other name is still the same...

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

There are too many do-gooding "Oh they killed someone but it does'nt matter" people out there.

No, try again. I'm against the death penalty and I'm of the opinion that "they killed someone, it DOES matter, they should spend the rest of their life in prison." People who murder should be imprisoned in order to both punish them and protect others from their crimes.

IF SOMEONE HAS TAKEN THE LIFE OF ANOTHER, ESPECIALLY A CHILD AND IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THEY HAVE COMMITED THE MOST EVIL OF CRIMES.........THEN THEY SHOULD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How are you going to know that beyond doubt? What about the numerous cases where an innocent person has been sentenced to death? Who decides what crimes are worthy of the death penalty?

Why should any decent law abiding citizen have to pay through their taxation to keep this sort of excrement alive in jail, with three meals a day, and what basically amounts to hotel accomodation, especially in England where I live.

It's more expensive to execute a person than to keep them in prison for life.

I'm from England too and I'm really curious about where your "hotel accomodation" evidence is from. Last time I checked British prisons were unbelievably over-crowded and have huge problems with drugs and violence.

I'll tell you what happens shall I? They get let out of jail early, are given new identities to start a lovely new life and live happily ever after. What sort of f***ing punishment is that???

You're referring to the two boys who murdered James Bulger and were released after serving eight years, right? You might want to note that they were children when they committed their crimes so were treated very differently to an adult committing a similar crime. You can debate the rights and wrongs of that all day, but don't pretend that's the treatment given to all murderers.

Those of you that have the death penalty should be grateful for it as it cleanses the purest forms of evil from our planet.

It also kills innocent people. As long as you have the death penalty, you will have innocent people being sentenced to death, simply because humans are imperfect and judges are wrong sometimes.

Recently in my country a bastard piece of shit KILLED HIS OWN TWO SONS just to (wait for it) get back at his wife for their recent separation. Now anyone who tells me that this f***ing insect has the right to live needs their pea-sized head testing to see if they have the communal brain cell lurking somewhere in the darkness.

I say this in the nicest way possible: your arguments are a lot stronger if you refrain from insulting those who disagree with you.

That said, I will tell that I don't believe the state has a right to kill that person.

I know that the ultimate jugement lays in God's hands but it is our DUTY as decent Human Beings to deliver these scum sucking, puss filled, bags of shit to him with as much voltage as possible

What is the purpose of the death penalty? To punish? Imprisoning a person for life punishes them. To protect society? Again - put them in prison for life and solve that problem. Vengeance? That's the only purpose of the death penalty - some kind of desire for revenge.

Please tell me where you get this idea that humans have some kind of duty to allow state-sponsored murder. You state that the ultimate judgement lies in God's hands, so how do you reconcile that with the belief that humans have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Ignore all the rest of my post if you like, but I am genuinely interested in how you reconcile your religious beliefs with support for the death penalty.

Any possibility of the death sentence in MY country gets my vote.

Right now the BNP are the only party to support the death penalty and I sincerely hope no decent, rational person would vote for them.

(For anyone who's not from the UK, the BNP are a far-right, racist party. They advocate an "all-white Britain" and believe the Holocaust never happened. Sadly they now hold 13 council seats across the UK.)