71 replies to this topic

[Alakhriveion]

With respect to keeping people alive, there's no particular justice in killing them, and they make for excellent case studies. The likes of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are absolutely fantastic examples: If the war on terror has made anything clear, it's that the US administration has no flipping clue how the minds of these men work. One line of reasoning justify the veracity of Bush's claims regarding a connection between the two, and the latter having WMDs, is the fact that both him and his experts were projecting their own biases, acting on what would seem to be obvious actions on the part of Saddam and Osama. Obvious because it's what they would do if situations were reversed. But why, knowing this is inherently flawed? Because they have an extremely limited library of counter-considerations. Each man's life story would make for volumes of case study material. With us now being warned by the likes of Rumsfeld of the ideological war on terror, the last thing we should be thinking about is cutting short the lives of our reference points.

The same applies to the likes of Charles Manson: In less heated battlefields they become central figures of psychology courses. These psychology students are then unleashed upon society better equipped to deal with such nutcases in the future. Holy cow, did we just come up with a proactive instead of a reactionary approach to treating the criminal mind? Or - get this - pursue the the notion that the criminal mind might actually be treatable through further study?

That's got nothing at all to do with what's just. Justice can be inconvinient. As for studying them to treat future criminals, well, there's a few issues. First, in the cases of bin Laden and Hussien, having a radical worldview isn't a disease. In the case of Manson, information from him could be used to treat two or three people ever, tops. Easier to cap 'em. For everyone else, the idea that you need to be sick to commit a crime is off in the first place.

Nah, that's just hippie garbage, I'd rather scare the weirdos straight with the threat of death! The threat of death works for me, and since I'm also obviously mentally unsound just like they are, surely it's the ideal solution to deter them as well! Besides, we all know that dangerous criminals are magical escape-artist voodoo doctors whose very continued existence slowly corrupts the prison system...

I don't think any punishment deters any crime. It isn't supposed to.

[Toan]

Is this the best you can do, Toan? Seriously. Attacking my grammar errors and typos?

Perhaps you'd like to actually contribute something instead of trying to knock the topic off the ledge?

I have. I've contributed a legitimate question concerning your views in this topic. By understanding you and your views, I can begin to formulate a more cohesive response to the thread. Since you yourself brought the topic up in the opening post of the thread, and it was later touched on by others, I think "knocking the topic off the ledge" isn't an issue here.

And I apologise for my quip about grammar, but really, it would help. Excuse my comments, I was just trying to have a bit of fun in here, but apparently fun is frowned upon, as it is every time I get a wild hair and decide to give Contro another chance. There's no need to be so defensive to the point that you are offensive towards me here, thabto. I've said nothing insulting nor have I verbally assaulted you, and I wanted a level, unbiased, calm discussion answering my question so we can move on with the thread, but then again, if I wanted that maybe I should've stayed out of Contro altogether.

[thabto81]

*sigh*

That post wasn't exactly contributing either, so maybe the subtle little attacks from either side of the argument could stop.

I respond to what I am given. He attacked me so I defended myself. If he had stated something of substance I would have retaliated with something of equal substance as well.

So you would have just let them be?

You seem to think that because I don't believe in killing that I'm willing to let people run all over me. Hitler could have been stopped during his rise to power by any number of people. It didn't happen because certain politicians were either too afraid or had too much self-interest invested in his schemes.

Thats why I said ethnocentrism, your arguments state that "As far as the westernized issue goes it has everything to do with this topic. Afterall, we do proclaim ourselves as leaders of the free world." See, direct connection of free world and "westernized"/

Perhaps you're confused then. I do not see this country as a leader of the free world just because it says so. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a government that says one thing and does another.

Ah, so now whos not reading the source material?
http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4491106.stm

First of all, I did not provide the article you have presented. You did. And you're going to blame me for not reading it? Second, your facts are skewed. If you had read past your own quotation to the paragraph right below it you'd see that the percentage you provide, 64% (which, by the way is down from 80% in 1994), falls to 50% when respondants are "offered the alternative of life imprisonment." You have the source. You can check it for yourself.

If you can't see the direct connection between cost of a bullet and cost of an execution...

Well, then I am totally lost. Unless, that is, you are suggesting an executioner could save money simply using a bullet than going through the entire legal process of our judicial system. And I still don't know where you got this from. Was it something I provided? Please, share.

I continue to be amazed that you have difficulty grasping basic logical errors.

Then, by God, please explain to the rest of the class exactly how racial discrimination in the work place equals racial discrimination in death penalty cases? They are both discriminatory but I'm sure even you would agree that the consequences are far from even.

Hispanics are "western" but if you haven't noticed, when you say "people in other countries" you mean "People in the European Union". The four most populous nations on earth all favor the use of the death penalty.

Thank you for assuming something I didn't say. On the one hand I did mean those in the European Union. However, I was also talking about Canada and Mexico and South Africa and Venezuela and New Zealand and Australia....

It also might interest you to know that three of the four countries you are referring to just gained their independence within the last century from oppressive rule. Can you honestly blame them for continuing to enforce an archaic law they've been accustomed to for so many years?

And you have a better way of determining their innocence? I'd like to see you turn 200 years of legal experts on their ear with your solution. My position is more correct "There is no better way to determined if anyone put on death row didn't do something to deserve it." Besides, don't your arguments of supposed "racial bias"
apply to prison sentences too? And arrests? Doesn't that mean we should get rid of all of them because a tiny minority might be wrong?

Yes, it means exactly that because apparently I don't believe in a justice system at all. Or accountability. How's that slide you've been playing on? A little slippery?

Now, whatever you may think I said, I didn't say. I didn't say I could fix the judicial system. I did say, though, that the death penalty does nothing to help, and will add, that it in fact might be hurting our proclaimed status as a country and the overall mindset of our society as a whole.

[Xeres]

Okay, I'm not sure if it needs to be said at this point, but as I'm not taking part in this argument... Mayhaps some people need to chill out.

This thread has gotten a little out of hand, with some inflammatory comments that don't have to be made. I know it really doesn't have to be said, but attack the argument, not the person.

So just keep it civil, and restrain the snark, if you can.

(I know it's hard for a moderator that's participating in a debate to moderate it without seeming biased. So that's why I wrote this. Not trying to steal all the modly-thunder, no worries.)

[Dryth]

That's got nothing at all to do with what's just. Justice can be inconvinient.

So can ethics, but I'm of a mind that it's worth the cost.

As for studying them to treat future criminals, well, there's a few issues. First, in the cases of bin Laden and Hussien, having a radical worldview isn't a disease.

It doesn't have to be a disease: Such radical views are a problem, and currently the US administration seems hell-bent on finding a solution. And here we have two of the foremost living experts in contemporary dictatorship and terrorism. Which is exactly the sort of deficit that the administration has acknowledged within itself!

In the case of Manson, information from him could be used to treat two or three people ever, tops.

The Family was dozens strong, their lives were ruined following the man, and even if we limit this specifically to people "treated" would all be candidates themselves. Over three dozen people were murdered. These people all had families.

Forgive me, but if keeping one man alive and studying his case in depth can prevent even one other such scenario, it seems like a pretty damn good trade. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Easier to cap 'em.

Easier to burn bridges...?

For everyone else, the idea that you need to be sick to commit a crime is off in the first place.

Criteria for capital punishment includes the belief that rehabilitation for the subject is impossible. The term "sick" applies.

I don't think any punishment deters any crime. It isn't supposed to.

Operant conditioning says otherwise. Also says we need to react quickly between the incident and initial punishment (which relates back to studying Charlie).

[thabto81]

I have. I've contributed a legitimate question concerning your views in this topic. By understanding you and your views, I can begin to formulate a more cohesive response to the thread. Since you yourself brought the topic up in the opening post of the thread, and it was later touched on by others, I think "knocking the topic off the ledge" isn't an issue here.

And I apologise for my quip about grammar, but really, it would help. Excuse my comments, I was just trying to have a bit of fun in here, but apparently fun is frowned upon, as it is every time I get a wild hair and decide to give Contro another chance. There's no need to be so defensive to the point that you are offensive towards me here, thabto. I've said nothing insulting nor have I verbally assaulted you, and I wanted a level, unbiased, calm discussion answering my question so we can move on with the thread, but then again, if I wanted that maybe I should've stayed out of Contro altogether.

My apologies then. I thought you were being serious. If I had any inclination that you were joking I would have been more lighthearted about your quip. Sorry.

As for your "animal rights" issue, I do believe that it is an important one and should be talked about - in another thread. As it has been stated before we do not hold an animals life to the same standards of a human. So if you would like to know my opinion about animal rights then by all means start up a new thread and I promise I will be one of the first to post in it.

[Goose]

I'm a Christian Pacifist, to make it brief. Not to bring religion into this. Last time this debate went religious it went downhill. Fast.

In Australia the death penalty has been gone since 1976, and the crime rate has gone down by far. When we made it illegal to own guns, the death rate went down as well. When you have violence in Australia, people are back to using good old knifes, and swords.

I'm preaching the message of forgivness, and of not dehumanising people. I"ve seen in the debate this time around people have been refuring to murderers as "them" or "people that deserve to die." thats dehumainzing them, make them less than people. You forget that everybody is a person, and everybody had a mother. Dont dehumanize people, even murderers are human. Even Americans are human, despite their lack of inteligence.

Thats enough for now, I think I"ve incited enough rage for the moment.

[Oberon Storm]

I submit that people like Tim McVeigh are indeed less than human.

[Goose]

What makes him less than human, because he killed people?

George Bush killed people, soldiers killed people in war, how is that any different?

[Alakhriveion]

George Bush killed people,

It isn't, war crimes are HIGH on the list of things people should be executed for.

soldiers killed people in war, how is that any different?

Soldiers are comrades too: They can't be held accountable for working in the death buisness any more than a factory worker is a partner in his oppressor's crimes. There is, of course, a limit: If you're doing a My Lai or a Holocaust or something, you really should have deserted a while ago, so yeah, you're accountable as well.

[Toan]

My apologies then. I thought you were being serious. If I had any inclination that you were joking I would have been more lighthearted about your quip. Sorry.

As for your "animal rights" issue, I do believe that it is an important one and should be talked about - in another thread. As it has been stated before we do not hold an animals life to the same standards of a human. So if you would like to know my opinion about animal rights then by all means start up a new thread and I promise I will be one of the first to post in it.

Apology accepted. I'll make that thread soon, but first I wanna get my head together to compose it... so it might be up sometime within, oh, I dunno, the next week or so.

[thabto81]

Soldiers are comrades too: They can't be held accountable for working in the death buisness any more than a factory worker is a partner in his oppressor's crimes. There is, of course, a limit: If you're doing a My Lai or a Holocaust or something, you really should have deserted a while ago, so yeah, you're accountable as well.

The nazi's fighting in the war and not participating in the holocaust were comrades, too, I'm sure.

[Oberon Storm]

What makes him less than human, because he killed people?

George Bush killed people, soldiers killed people in war, how is that any different?

There is a big difference. While Bush has a lot to answer for in Iraq, Afgahnistan was certainly justified. And soldiers just follow orders. I think they have a duty to refuse bad orders. If they don't then yes, they need to be held responsible.

[thabto81]

There is a big difference. While Bush has a lot to answer for in Iraq, Afgahnistan was certainly justified. And soldiers just follow orders. I think they have a duty to refuse bad orders. If they don't then yes, they need to be held responsible.

You're trying to justify an act that has no justification by passing the buck and giving certain people a "get out of jail free" card. I'd like to point out again that the Nazi's participating in the war, not the holocaust, were every bit as much soliders as their American counterparts. The only thing that differentiates the two is that one side "won" while the other "lost".

[Dai Grepher]

Killing a human being that killed a human being is not wrong when it is done through justice. Williams deserved to be executed and I am glad that the system worked this time.
The only reason that this is not a deterrent is because the court system has been hijacked, and murders know that they have many chances to be acquitted of a death penalty sentence through appeals. Even if convicted the process can be stalled, which is why there are so many on death row. I say we streamline death row by executing one inmate on the row every day.

[Alakhriveion]

The nazi's fighting in the war and not participating in the holocaust were comrades, too, I'm sure.

Well generally I see Naziism as the line: complete idealogical freedom on one side of it, dragged out of your house and shot in the face on the other. More reasonable people, however, would agree that however unfortunate their affliation with Germany at the time, they are as much victims of war as all other soldiers.

Killing a human being that killed a human being is not wrong when it is done through justice. Williams deserved to be executed and I am glad that the system worked this time.

No.
1. He's reformed.
2. He's redeemed.
3. He's made up for it.
4. What he does, unlike execution, actually does reduce crime.

The only reason that this is not a deterrent is because the court system has been hijacked, and murders know that they have many chances to be acquitted of a death penalty sentence through appeals. Even if convicted the process can be stalled, which is why there are so many on death row. I say we streamline death row by executing one inmate on the row every day.

Well, punishment doesn't deter crime, a lot of people are innocent and killing them without certainty of their guilt (which takes some time to establish) is a bad idea, and not everybody who kills people is going to do it again.

[Dai Grepher]

He was not reformed. He never accepted responsibility for his crimes and he never once showed remorse for what he did. He also ran gangs within the prison and I heard at least one report of where he had beaten a guard. The works that he had written and had published may have helped to prevent some from choosing to lead a life of crime, but do not ever say that anyone can make up for killing people in cold blood because it is not possible. Punishment does deter crime, but the court policies and leniency deters the deterrent. Sentencing an innocent person to anything is a bad thing, which is why we have juries and a court system to determine if the person is guilty or not. Williams was found guilty and he fought that for 25 years. He had 25 years for his innocence to be proven but it was not because he was guilty. He committed the crime and he was sentenced to death. It is only right that he was put to death. Not everyone that kills another will do it again but that does not change the fact that they killed someone and must be punished for it by forfeiture of their own life.

[Goose]

But what you all refuse to see is that Justice can work without the death Penalty. It has worked in so many other countries, like mine(Australia), Like Pom Land.

Eye for an Eye? Bull Crap, pretty soon we'll all be blind.

Killing a human being that killed a human being is not wrong when it is done through justice. Williams deserved to be executed and I am glad that the system worked this time.

Justice? Thats not justice, thats revenge, plain and simple revenge.

While Bush has a lot to answer for in Iraq, Afgahnistan was certainly justified

Why was Afganistan Justified?

They can't be held accountable for working in the death buisness any more than a factory worker is a partner in his oppressor's crimes.

If the factory worker knows whats going on, then sure, they can be held responsible. If they were peharps, making guns, it wouldn't be hard to figure out.

[Korhend]

Why was Afganistan Justified?

Because they attacked us. Seems pretty simple.

[SteveT]

You realize that those involved in destroying the World Trade Center weren't Afghani soldiers, right?

[Oberon Storm]

Their orders came from Afgahnistan.

You're trying to justify an act that has no justification by passing the buck and giving certain people a "get out of jail free" card. I'd like to point out again that the Nazi's participating in the war, not the holocaust, were every bit as much soliders as their American counterparts. The only thing that differentiates the two is that one side "won" while the other "lost".

What is this? Who said German soldiers that did not participate in the Holocaust should be put to death for following orders? I don't even know if the majority of them were even aware of what their government was doing.

[Alakhriveion]

He was not reformed. He never accepted responsibility for his crimes and he never once showed remorse for what he did. He also ran gangs within the prison and I heard at least one report of where he had beaten a guard.

Respectfully, BULLSHIT.

The works that he had written and had published may have helped to prevent some from choosing to lead a life of crime, but do not ever say that anyone can make up for killing people in cold blood because it is not possible.

NEVER possible? You're just crazy then.

Punishment does deter crime, but the court policies and leniency deters the deterrent. Sentencing an innocent person to anything is a bad thing, which is why we have juries and a court system to determine if the person is guilty or not.

And they've NEVER been wrong.

Williams was found guilty and he fought that for 25 years. He had 25 years for his innocence to be proven but it was not because he was guilty. He committed the crime and he was sentenced to death. It is only right that he was put to death. Not everyone that kills another will do it again but that does not change the fact that they killed someone and must be punished for it by forfeiture of their own life.

Yeesh, I hate to have to appeal to religion, but I guess this is just the fastest way...
John 8:7
Matthew 6:14-15
Matthew 18:21-22
Luke 6:37

If the factory worker knows whats going on, then sure, they can be held responsible. If they were peharps, making guns, it wouldn't be hard to figure out.

Not what I was talking about. You ain't thinking pink when you read what I say: the factory doesn't have to be doing anything worse than turning a profit to be evil.

[thabto81]

Killing a human being that killed a human being is not wrong when it is done through justice. Williams deserved to be executed and I am glad that the system worked this time.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Dai. What is considered right today could very well be considered wrong tomorrow. Plenty of people have killed in the name of Justice (the Ku Klux Klan comes to mind).

The only reason that this is not a deterrent is because the court system has been hijacked, and murders know that they have many chances to be acquitted of a death penalty sentence through appeals. Even if convicted the process can be stalled, which is why there are so many on death row. I say we streamline death row by executing one inmate on the row every day.

No, the reason it is not a deterrant is because a gangmember like Williams has more of a chance of dying on the streets than being put to death on death row. The way a lot of people see it, death row is the safest place for a murderer like Williams to be.

He was not reformed.

Just because you don't deem him reformed doesn't make him any less so.

Well generally I see Naziism as the line: complete idealogical freedom on one side of it, dragged out of your house and shot in the face on the other. More reasonable people, however, would agree that however unfortunate their affliation with Germany at the time, they are as much victims of war as all other soldiers.

That's just the thing, they thought they were free just like we do.

What is this? Who said German soldiers that did not participate in the Holocaust should be put to death for following orders? I don't even know if the majority of them were even aware of what their government was doing.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Edited by thabto81, 19 December 2005 - 09:26 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

That's just the thing, they thought they were free just like we do.

No, they were pretty clear on the "No freedom of speach thing," and even if they did see that as freedom, it has nothing at all to do with how war crimes are punished. Stay on topic, dammit.

[thabto81]

No, they were pretty clear on the "No freedom of speach thing," and even if they did see that as freedom, it has nothing at all to do with how war crimes are punished. Stay on topic, dammit.

You see Nazism as a line where killing another human being becomes wrong. For me, there is no line. Nobody kills with bad intentions in mind. Not even the Nazi's.

[Alakhriveion]

You see Nazism as a line where killing another human being becomes wrong. For me, there is no line. Nobody kills with bad intentions in mind. Not even the Nazi's.

No, I see Nazism as the line at which killing another human being becomes REQUIRED. As for the argument of "The Nazis thought they were right to kill people, too," yes, yes they did. I, however, actually AM right. If you can come up to an alternative to the death penalty whose justification includes no dogma of the sanctity of life and satisfies my justicelust, I'll listen.

[Goose]

A few arguments from an essay I wrote last year in the hope of convincing Alak, without hte use of the right to life argument, and doctrine.

1)
One of the arguments used in defence of the death penalty is the fact that people who have killed deserve death. Once you take the life of another, you deserve to die.

his penalty was put in practice for many years. But it does not mean it is right. In our society, we no longer allow people to remove the eye of the person that may have blinded somebody, and we do not make the bully who knocked out the tooth of a child in the schoolyard have his own tooth knocked out. We should no longer make the person who took away the life have his own taken from him.

2)

People think that the death penalty would deter criminals from committing such heinous crimes. They assume that the potential criminal will think twice about killing a person if it means that their life will also be taken from them. In many cases, these people are wrong. Most people who are going to commit a crime like murder do not think of the consequences, or if they do, they think they will be martyred for it. For example, take suicide bombers, they will gladly sacrifice their own lives for the killing of many other people.

3)

One of the main factors concerning the death penalty is the chance of the person being put on death row is actually innocent. There have been many cases where people have been proved innocent before actually been put to death, but many more after they have actually been killed. In America there have been many prisoners on death row who were awaiting execution that have been proven innocent and released -- largely due to DNA evidence. The number of people who have been released since the death penalty was reintroduced in America is rather alarming, 102 people were released between 1873 and 2002. This is too many people wrongly convicted This is wrong. One innocent person being killed is too many.

4)

People argue that it would cost less to kill a person than it would to put them in a nice comfy Gaol for life. That the money saved from keeping the people locked up could go to better causes, like hospitals and other useful things for the community. In America, recent reports indicate that it costs taxpayers an average of US$3.2 million dollars to execute just one prisoner after all appeals have been exhausted. That is five times the cost of keeping a person in prison for life. So when we look at the economic side of things, it would be cheaper to keep people in prison for life. That way we could afford to spend more on more important things like education.

------------

Alas, as it was so long ago, I can't find the sources for my claims. But dont think I didn't have sources, I had good sources. I got high marks for the essay, and the rather lengthy bibliography. Stupid deleting off the school computers upon graduation.

[Oberon Storm]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I'm not either. I think I got lost.

[thabto81]

No, I see Nazism as the line at which killing another human being becomes REQUIRED. As for the argument of "The Nazis thought they were right to kill people, too," yes, yes they did. I, however, actually AM right. If you can come up to an alternative to the death penalty whose justification includes no dogma of the sanctity of life and satisfies my justicelust, I'll listen.

It's one thing to claim being "right". It's another to actually be right. How do you tell if one is right? Facts. Supported by insurmountable evidence. You have neither.

As for coming up with an alternative to the death penalty, I have to say you make the requirements pretty steep. I do not put the death of a human being at the same level as you do and, given your justicelust (or as I see it, your lust for vengence), I doubt anything I state would satisfy your need to kill people for your own satisfaction. So why don't you stop trying to trick me into agreeing with you and actually present an argument worth debating in this topic? You're making me tired all over.

Edited by thabto81, 20 December 2005 - 12:32 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

It's one thing to claim being "right". It's another to actually be right. How do you tell if one is right? Facts. Supported by insurmountable evidence. You have neither.

Niether have you, so play nice.

As for coming up with an alternative to the death penalty, I have to say you make the requirements pretty steep. I do not put the death of a human being at the same level as you do and, given your justicelust (or as I see it, your lust for vengence), I doubt anything I state would satisfy your need to kill people for your own satisfaction.

It has nothing to do with vengance or my own satisfaction (OK, maybe a litttle bit my own satisfaction). Like I said before, I don't support eye-for-an-eye, everybody who kills anybody ever dies death penalties. I do believe, however, that there are some crimes which, being motivated niether by abnormal mental illness or neccesity that require some kind of punishment, and for the most severe of these, death is the only suitable one. Tookie Williams doesn't die, MOST murderers don't die, but Manson gets the chair and Eichmann gets hung.

Now, seeing as how Goose will actually discuss this instead of resorting to umbrage, I'll continue.

1)
One of the arguments used in defence of the death penalty is the fact that people who have killed deserve death. Once you take the life of another, you deserve to die.

his penalty was put in practice for many years. But it does not mean it is right. In our society, we no longer allow people to remove the eye of the person that may have blinded somebody, and we do not make the bully who knocked out the tooth of a child in the schoolyard have his own tooth knocked out. We should no longer make the person who took away the life have his own taken from him.

That makes sense, which is why I wouldn't kill all murderers, eye for an eye.

2)

People think that the death penalty would deter criminals from committing such heinous crimes. They assume that the potential criminal will think twice about killing a person if it means that their life will also be taken from them. In many cases, these people are wrong. Most people who are going to commit a crime like murder do not think of the consequences, or if they do, they think they will be martyred for it. For example, take suicide bombers, they will gladly sacrifice their own lives for the killing of many other people.

I don't believe punishing anyone deters anyone from crime, which is another reason I wouldn't execute murderers. There are very few Idi Amins, I doubt the execution of one would deter... no, there's really only been one guy like that in history. Wouldn't deter shit.

3)

One of the main factors concerning the death penalty is the chance of the person being put on death row is actually innocent. There have been many cases where people have been proved innocent before actually been put to death, but many more after they have actually been killed. In America there have been many prisoners on death row who were awaiting execution that have been proven innocent and released -- largely due to DNA evidence. The number of people who have been released since the death penalty was reintroduced in America is rather alarming, 102 people were released between 1873 and 2002. This is too many people wrongly convicted This is wrong. One innocent person being killed is too many.

That is true. Large enough numbers of people being executed that any mistake can be made means the sentance is being handed down too liberally.

4)

People argue that it would cost less to kill a person than it would to put them in a nice comfy Gaol for life. That the money saved from keeping the people locked up could go to better causes, like hospitals and other useful things for the community. In America, recent reports indicate that it costs taxpayers an average of US$3.2 million dollars to execute just one prisoner after all appeals have been exhausted. That is five times the cost of keeping a person in prison for life. So when we look at the economic side of things, it would be cheaper to keep people in prison for life. That way we could afford to spend more on more important things like education.

True... but I'm not a fan of prisons.

See, I don't support the death penalty as any nation uses it right now (except Israel, which doesn't have any death penalty but if someone REALLY needs to die, they'll deal with it). I support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes alongside the abolition of prisons and a whole bunch of other reasonable pinko things.