We had an interesting discussion in my government class about capital punishment, so I was hoping to get the ball rolling here too. What do you all think?

Capital punishment is a great idea. It sets an amazing precedent and acts as a deterant. In fact, when the U.S. used to do public hangings, crime was down 60%, or something to that extent.

This was covered here recently. But for what it is worth, I shall have my pennyworth.

I too believe in Capital Punishment. If it is proven beyond doubt that somebody has taken another's life, there is no question in my mind that that person has forfeited their life. There are some extenuating circumstances that I believe should be considered; justifiable defence, provocation and certain crimes of passion.

Why should somebody who has robbed another of any amount of years be allowed to continue to exist?

My preferred method to execute such, would be firing squad. Quick with little chance of error. A single blank round issued to allow the members of the squad the chance to believe they fired it.

Ah yes, I too agree. We have Mr. Pickton - a disgusting, vile human who brags of slaughtering 49 woman and who has just been convicted here killing the first 6. (And yup, undoubtedly it will cost wee taxpayers millions more to try him for another group of 6 woman, and another group after that and on and on.

A loathsome man who, in my opinion, does not deserve to sit in our jail - warm and well fed and breathing the same air as his victims families and friends. Yuck, yuck.

And I can hardly believe I'm saying this but while the firing squad seems the most 'merciful' day to kill somone. somehow I can't help but feel for this particular man it's far too kind. Sigh.

So while, in general, it's a scary thought that people should die for murder (they are so, so many cases where they were proved innocent later), there are some cases where surely they should die. A rabid animal is 'put down' and some humans are far, far wose.

I actually have an idea for the prison system, which would help the U.S. economy recover.

1. We cut wasteful government spending in the prisons- take away the libraries, mediacenters, exercise areas, education centers, toilets, food, etc.

2. We set a limit of production for the prisoners to produce in manufactured goods.

3. If a prisoner does not meet those standards, they are shot.

4. Every 3 months the standads rise, thus maximizing productivity.

5. Every sixth month the lowest producer is shot, to ensure maximazation of effort and production maximazation.

6. We can than sell these produces for a lower price.

* Prisoners only receive 8 hours of sleep a night no more, only one hour to be plit into six 10 minute breaks. And 20 minute meal times which can only be used if earned. And food is only received if earned. Thus making a total of 14 hour production.

Wow i would'nt like to be a prisoner in your country

If one took the exercise areas out, would not doing this increase the level of ill-health - and then cost more in medical care? Taking away toilets ... hmmm, toilet or not toilet, people are going to have to 'go to the toilet' somewhere, surely? And 'no food' seems a tad hard too. Come to think of it, the smell from fecal matter plus starvation would make getting shot a better option. Ugh.

I'm sure you were only kidding but, on the other hand, I too don't quite understand why it's so wrong for prisoners to do work - with the proceeds going towards their support. Wonder if it was only an old wive's tale but didn't they used to make licence plates for cars, etc.

In England they sewed postbags.

I wasn't kidding, but they can work out during their 10 minute breaks, and the can urinate and release fecal matter in holes.

Wow! Serious about them being shot if they can't work? Even those convicted of 'petty crime'? Eep!

Sounds almost like slavery to me without the specialized breeding and bullwhips !! I do agree day camp prisons don't serve much purpose.

But here's your man Sheriff Joe Arpaio,almost.


Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

But what if it was your dad, your brother or your uncle or friend that was arrested - wrongly - and served a year or so in prison until their release. And if they got the flu and couldn't work, or broke their legs - would you want them shot? Surely not, zikla215.

The 'Toughest Sheriff' is certainly a 'law unto himself' - and while it does seem a tad harsh, if we can believe what is said, apparently few want to be in his jurisdiction when committing a crime.

This is always tough for me as I can understand both sides. Its obviously necessary in certain cases I just don't know how to determine the standards. Though, I will say that, that bastard that was the adult in the tandem that did the Sniper shootings in DC, they should put him in a field, take the top 10 shooters in the world, and shoot different parts of his body. Then, when it seems like he has lost too much blood, get him a transfusion, save his life, just to start the process again. He is the only person I think I've ever wanted to see die in my entire life, well, along with Jerry Falwell(I love it when he said Sept 11th happened because of Gays, jackass)

To return to the original subject (hint, hint, nudge, nudge), the question seems to break down into several topics:

1. Is Capital Punishment morally justified?
2. Is it efficacious in preventing major crime?
3. Is the criminal justice system always correct in its capital convictions.

It seems to me that if one is "for" capital punishment, one must be able to answer yes to each of these, and if the answer is no to any one of the three, then one must be against it (at least as it is currently practiced).
Z

Well obviously if a person can't work they would be exempt, like such circumstances as a severe mental retardation or a physical disability.