Just wondering. We were having a debate about it during class on Friday.

I don't. I think that if someone commits a crime that bad, they should rot in prison for it- killing them is letting them off the hook, in a sense.

I agree with the rotting in prison bit. Death is too good for these people, they deserve to suffer horribly for the rest of their lives. The people victim of the crime are suffering, and so should the person who committed it.

Originally posted by kittycat
I agree with the rotting in prison bit. Death is too good for these people, they deserve to suffer horribly for the rest of their lives. The people victim of the crime are suffering, and so should the person who committed it.

Totally what i would say if you hadnt beaten me to it :P

Once someone is dead any suffering or guilt they would feel for what they had done would be over...death is too good for them!

Isn't the death penalty decently painless? What's the point? All they're going to do is make their loved ones hurt. At least when their in prison you can usually visit them.

You are all right. They should make them suffer as much as their victim suffered. It's only fair for them to feel how their victim felt.

I'm with the rot in jail thing but there are a few things: it comes out of my pocket and have you seen some of the prisons lately?? They have more tv channels that I do!

So i guess i don't really know.

If prison were a punishment instead of a haven (as it likely is for most of it's inhabitants) than I should go with that. But as prisons are quite nice now-a-days (as rosey said) than it is more a reward for those who are poor or homeless. Yet the death penalty is also painless and the people might not even fear it that much. So I'm at an impass. :-\

I think nobody has the right to decide about the time of death of another person, even if that person is a convicted killer.
BUT... if you put them in prison, sometimes they get out. Either because their sentence is done, or, in Holland, because of errors and a lousy judgement system.
So as much as I'm against it, I would prefer to have a death penalty system here, instead of the lousy system we have at the moment. At least society would be a safer place.
We don't have 'life' here, the maximum is about 20 years, and they never have to serve the maximum sentence, so you can kill someone and only do 12 years in prison, at the MOST.
So from a Dutch point of view, the death penalty does not look so bad :(

I had a debate like this last year too... I was on the 'yes' side but only because someone else chose for me because I have no idea which to choose...

....
...
...
I forgot what my statement was ^_^;;;

I'm all about the rotting in prison.

I think..that they are killing a person for killing a person..Kind of slow..I DO believe that the person who commited the crime should have life in jail, and not be able to get out on bail. Now..Was it pawlenty who wanted the death penalty in all of the US states? :mad:

well i agree with the death penalty for some cases like serial muder, murder, manslotter, homicide, and so on... But for theft and stuff like that they should rot in prison

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
well i agree with the death penalty for some cases like serial muder, murder, manslotter, homicide, and so on... But for theft and stuff like that they should rot in prison
erm... aren't murder, manslaughter and homocide basically the same thing?
There are cases of manslaughter where I don't think the death penalty or even a lifetime in jail is called for. If, for example, a parent kills the person that has abused their child, I think that parent should receive a medal for making the world a safer place... hmmm, that kind of contradicts what I said before...
In Holland, child abusers don't usually go to prison for longer than a couple of months. Then they get out, and they do it again because they can't control themselves.
I have seen too many victims of our legal system. So if a Dutch parent kills because of that, I think it's the better option.
But if they could give child abusers a life sentence here, I would be all for that.

the death penalty is insane. if you look at almost EVERY person on death row, they are either mentally ill or they did something while they were on drugs or drunk.

almost always the people who have a mental problem weren't on medication when they commited the crime. in court if you need medication you have to be on it to be competent and since the person wasn't on medication when then commited the crime they weren't responsible for they're actions.

the people who commited crimes while are drugs are just a product of the poor neighborhoods that need to be rebuilt, and the degenerate culture.

there is such a small percentage of people who actually commited the crimes maliciously without being under the influence of something.

I could see your point on being mentally ill. But not drugs, alcohol, or any other such substance. They make the choice to take those substances, they too must pay the consequences for their actions. Otherwise, who set's the limit on what 'makes' you do something. Anywho just my two cents.

I agree 100% with your point of view, Arcy.
Since I never forced anyone to use drugs or alcohol, I should not be the victim of other people using it either.
If someone drinks himself into a stupor and then goes on the road and kills someone, HE is responsible. He drank, he drove, he should never get his driver's license back and go to jail for a looooong time.
As for mental illnesses, that's more difficult.
If someone can function fully WITH medication, and then decides to stop taking his medicine, I think he is as much responsible for the results as the drunk driver in the first example.
If a mental illness cannot be contained by medication, and the patient is a danger to society because of his illness, I don't think he should go to prison, but I do think he should be locked up in a mental ward.

the people who commited crimes while are drugs are just a product of the poor neighborhoods that need to be rebuilt, and the degenerate culture.

Even in a poor neighbourhood, people have a CHOICE.
They are not forced to use drugs. So if they choose to do so, and while under the influence of one substance or another, they commit a crime, they should pay for what they did.

I do agree with the point that poor neighbourhoods should be rebuilt, but they are still responsible for what they do!

Also, it is NOT just poor people that use drugs, though the percentage is higher. A lot of rich people use drugs or alcohol too.

It's actually more of the rich people that do drugs, it seems, because they can afford it.

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
well i agree with the death penalty for some cases like serial muder, murder, manslotter, homicide, and so on... But for theft and stuff like that they should rot in prison

But the death penalty is only used in the most extreme cases. We're talking the stuff like murder... stuff like... the sniper in the US a while ago. You don't get the death penalty for theft :/

I'm pretty much with everyone else: it's too kind to a murderer to be put to death. And what sort of an insult is it to the victims' families? It's almost as if they'll be living the life sentence in prison - both a family member and that murderer would have died.

Right now over here, it's the Holly and Jessica murder trial. IF the man in court is found guilty of the murders of the girls, what kind of system would it be to give him an easy way out? To me, it's just wrong to give a murderer a life sentence.

Originally posted by bubblegummy
To me, it's just wrong to give a murderer a life sentence.
But what does he learn from dying? If someone commits a crime bad enough to deserve the death penalty, what makes the executioner any better than the murderer himself? Who on earth has the permission to take another person's life?

Originally posted by lefty2217
But what does he learn from dying? If someone commits a crime bad enough to deserve the death penalty, what makes the executioner any better than the murderer himself? Who on earth has the permission to take another person's life?
That is also the reason why I am against the death penalty.
However, if you live in a country where sentences are so ridiculously low, even something as extreme as capital punishment will start to look good. :(

Originally posted by Arc Angel
If prison were a punishment instead of a haven (as it likely is for most of it's inhabitants) than I should go with that. But as prisons are quite nice now-a-days (as rosey said) than it is more a reward for those who are poor or homeless. Yet the death penalty is also painless and the people might not even fear it that much. So I'm at an impass. :-\

I agree 100%. Why should our tax money go to keep them alive?? Most of them get out anyways and do things over again.

A life sentence for theft? Now that, too me, is going a bit too far. It's like throwing someone in prison for taking a cookie from your kid. But hey, it was YOUR cookie, after all. Weren't your cookie holding rights being violated?

Oh, and as far as I know, manslaughter=accidental killing. Like if someone was driving, and someone else jumped in front of their car, the person braked hard but the other person still died. You definitely shouldn't get the death penalty for something like that. It's just wrong.

yeah, That would be stupid..I don't agree with the death penalty..The people who are now on death row should be serving a lifetime sentence in jail, then at least, when they do die, eventually, of old age, or whatever, they would at least have done their time and suffered for what they done, instead of just getting thrown in the gas chamber..you know? I mean, it's like the death penalty is the easy-way-out for the gov't and the criminal...How many states are there left w/out death penalty? 13?

if manslaughter is accidental killing, then what does "involuntary manslaughter" mean? I remember seeing that in the paper recently when someone accidentally killed someone else or something- so wouldn't that just be manslaughter? I really don't know what the difference is between all those different things, because there are all different kinds of each of those things, too...

Manslaughter is when you kill someone and it's not premeditated. Involuntary manslaughter is the car thing. When someone is killed by something you have done but it wasn't premeditated.

Originally posted by bethygirl
I agree 100%. Why should our tax money go to keep them alive?? Most of them get out anyways and do things over again.

LOL my mum used to say exactly the same thing.
I don't agree though, if that is the reason to be in favour of capital punishment, I would rather pay taxes to keep them alive than have our judges have blood on their hands.

I know from things that have happened in U.K, that i personally do not support the death penalty, because its a quick end to someones life and it is also impossible to correct if you have sentenced the wrong person.

I think that the best thing to do for serious crimes should be what Israeli Intelligence (Mosad) done to the NAZI's who they caught after the war, left them in solitary confinement for the rest of their life, with no ouside contact and no one allowed to speak to them, even the doctor couldnt speak to them, only examine. That would drive a person insane, and if you have got the wrong person then at least you can redeem them while they are still alive.

By killing them you are also making the executioner live with what he has done, what happens if he kills an innocent man...

Originally posted by buster_uk
I think that the best thing to do for serious crimes should be what Israeli Intelligence (Mosad) done to the NAZI's who they caught after the war, left them in solitary confinement for the rest of their life, with no ouside contact and no one allowed to speak to them, even the doctor couldnt speak to them, only examine. That would drive a person insane, and if you have got the wrong person then at least you can redeem them while they are still alive
If you drive someone insane that way, and you later find out this person is innocent, the damage may well be irrepairable.
I think that type of punishment is very cruel, though I know some criminals have done things just as cruel... it remains a tough issue...

I agree to the death penalty in some instances. For serial killers, murderers, etc. I'm not entirely sure of my stance on it...*goes off to ponder*

Originally posted by Marianne
LOL my mum used to say exactly the same thing.
I don't agree though, if that is the reason to be in favour of capital punishment, I would rather pay taxes to keep them alive than have our judges have blood on their hands.

You obviously don't have New York state taxes :P

I believe in the death penalty.

Originally posted by bethygirl
You obviously don't have New York state taxes :P
We pay a lot of taxes here, Bethy, next time we chat, let's compare tax rates hehe. I cannot believe you guys pay more than we do.
I know you have a point, not wanting to pay taxes to keep criminals in prison, it's just that I have a lot of problems with one person judging over the time of death of another person. I would hate to be a judge in a system like that.

In the late 50's, a time where the cold war was at it's peak, a couple of people were convicted of spying on the government in America, and sentenced to die.
Only a few years ago, one of the witnesses confessed that they were innocent, but he had been too scared for his own life to say it then, or say it sooner. There are more examples like it, innocent people do die on death row, even though the vast majority is, of course, guilty.
It's just one of the reasons why I'm against the concept of capital punishment.

Originally posted by Arc Angel
I could see your point on being mentally ill. But not drugs, alcohol, or any other such substance. They make the choice to take those substances, they too must pay the consequences for their actions. Otherwise, who set's the limit on what 'makes' you do something. Anywho just my two cents.

yea i agree with you somewhat on the drugs/alcohol thing, although what I'm saying is wouldn't it be better to stop the thing from occuring then to just focus on the things that have already happened.(of course they do need to be dealt with)

i just think that instead of the death penalty we need to start back up the economy with infrastructure and development projects and start rebuilding the citys and towns with heavy drug usage. most people take drugs to escape their problems or just to feel good, if we gave them something real to live for then they wouldn't waste their life on drugs.

Believe me, there will always be drugs. Even with the best of life and the best of prospects, some people will experiment and some become addicted. There's only so much you can do about that.

yea of course there will be, but half of my friends are former drug addicts, heroin and everything, now you would NEVER know. they are some of the smartest people around. i've walked into the ghetto(anywhere, actually) and you talk to people about ideas and they become really happy, truly happy.

lots of rich people do drugs to but its the same problem with poor people, they don't have anything real to live life for so they get high.

if people knew they were living for a purpose then drugs wouldn't be as exciting.

basically what im saying is that the death penalty won't fix anything. what will is development of the neighborhoods and huge infrastructure projects.

I agree with you one one thing: the death penalty does not fix anything.

As for your experience working with drug addicts... if you can actually make people give up drugs by talking to them, you have a brilliant career ahead of you, I'm interested to hear what tactics you use!

I agree with the rotting in prison bit. Death is too good for these people, they deserve to suffer horribly for the rest of their lives. The people victim of the crime are suffering, and so should the person who committed it.

1 out of 7 people are innocent on Death row. What about those people?

From: My sociology Textbook, and what I learned in Sociology class.

1 out of 7 people are innocent on Death row. What about those people?
True, VERY true.
Here's a link to a story I saw a documentary on last week:
http://www.santegidio.org/pdm/news/16_01_01.htm

Do you know how these two INNOCENT men got out? Because the actual killer had found God and decided to come forward and tell the truth. How often does that happen, for killers to suddenly feel their conscience itch?!

I watch crimenight a lot, and it happens only too often that innocent people go to jail. This was the one that was fresh in my memory, but there have been PLENTY of other cases that are heart breaking.

Yeah I'm 100% against the death penalty. Though it's wrong for someone to take another person's life, I think they should sit in prison for the rest of their life and think of what they did everyday. And no one is perfect. As cruel as killing is, people's hearts can change. Also sometimes people who receive the death penalty are later found to be innocent. And...I don't see how we can justify killing, by actually killing (using the death penalty). Well that's just me. Thought I'd share :).

I believe in the death penalty, but I do think both prisoners and executionees alike get off too easy.

I believe in the death penalty, but I do think both prisoners and executionees alike get off too easy.Wow, this is an old thread...
But now that you brought it up, what about the innocent people on death row, do they get off too easily too?

I don’t agree because they kill the person that has killed someone else, but what sort of example is that? They are basically saying its ok to kill

Nope i dont believe in it. Nobody has the right to kill anybody, and for those who do, they have to live with it. I get the idea about taking ones life, so theirs should be taken to, but that makes the you just as bad as the killer. Its immoral to kill, full stop in my eyes. :)

I don't know... it all depends if I was getting life in prison and I was old.. but if i'm young get the death penalty.. i wouldnt get it!!!

I'm with the rot in jail thing but there are a few things: it comes out of my pocket and have you seen some of the prisons lately?? They have more tv channels that I do!

So i guess i don't really know.

I sorta agree with what the first few people said... They should stay in prision and live with it... However, they shouldn't get certain things. I'm not saying we should treat them like animals, but there's no reason for all the luxury (too lazy to spell check) items. They should only get enough to get by. However, I don't agree with them being telemarketers (once again, too lazy); that just doesn't make sense... It's just a bit strange to say, "You killed someone, and that's wrong... So we're killing you!" The main reason I don't believe in the death penalty is because some people are innocent -- it happens. If I didn't kill someone, I wouldn't want them to figure that out after the legal injection.

For some things, I'd say put them in solitary confinement, which is psychologically crueler.

In the past, they would either hang the prisoner, or cut their head off. Now, the ways of killing the inmate aren't so nasty, so I suppose it would loose its sting a bit.

No I don't agree with it.

i agree with owlie, solitary confinement seems like a semi-adequate punishment. but for the people who said that the criminals should sit in prison and feel guilty about what they've done... i doubt very many of them do feel guilt. because, if they had been that upset over what they had done, how come they weren't very guilty before they were caught? and would they still have apologized [if they did] if the police hadn't caught them?

also, there are people that go to prison and are very rich so they order satellite TV and fast food & etc., so for them, prison is just somewhere they have to stay and do chores, but don't really have any serious responsibilities [like paying bills, etc.]..

nonetheless, i'm against the death penalty. or maybe i'm for it. i dunno, both sides are equally arguable :D

A lot of them don't feel guilty, because they have an antisocial personality disorder. Typically, these people lack what we call 'conscience'.
The ones that do experience true feelings of guilt are the only ones that could function properly in society.

...hey! i'm anti social!

Antisocial personality disorder

Noun 1. antisocial personality disorder - a personality disorder characterized by amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts without guilt feelings (`psychopathic personality' was once widely used but was superseded by `sociopathic personality' to indicate the social aspects of the disorder, but now `antisocial personality disorder' is the preferred term)

an·ti·so·cial ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-sshl, nt-)
adj.
Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores: gangs engaging in vandalism and other antisocial behavior.
Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.

While the meaning of antisocial is different from the other, it's similar. I think it's too widely used as feeling unsocial. I use it myself in that context.

capable of violent acts without guilt feelings i doubt you're like that, ayosu.. er i hope.. :lol:

Wow I'm very surprised that people do not like the death penalty because they want the person who commited the crime to "rot in jail" and such. Do you know what jail is supposed to do? I believe jail is a time and place for a person to rehabilitate and get better, more so than a place where they should suffer and be punished.

As for the death penalty, I oppose it because of two main reasons:
1) Death penalty is setting a bad example, as it is killing a person who probably killed. Think about that.
2) There have been cases where people have been killed by the death penalty law and then people found out later on that that person actually didn't commit the crime and whatnot.

From Where I Stand,
-=MaStA ViC
Please read the rules- advertising is not allowed
-Moderator

I agree with the death penalty. If someone kills someone else, they should die for it. An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Unless of course, something is wrong with them mentally. Then they should spend a long time in jail.

I agree with the death penalty. If someone kills someone else, they should die for it. An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Unless of course, something is wrong with them mentally. Then they should spend a long time in jail. how 'bout a mental institution? :rolleyes:

I agree with the death penalty. If someone kills someone else, they should die for it. An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Unless of course, something is wrong with them mentally. Then they should spend a long time in jail.
And to the ones we kill and later found out they weren't guilty of the crime we should just apologise and say "sorry mate, I meant to take someone else's eye and tooth, beg your pardon" ...

And to the ones we kill and later found out they weren't guilty of the crime we should just apologise and say "sorry mate, I meant to take someone else's eye and tooth, beg your pardon" ... good one :D yes its a sad deal, no one should have the right over someone else's life [especially in the instances when they can't be 100% certain that person is the perpetrator]. i don't think the government should be an exception.

An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind - Gandhi (i think)

there are times when I think "Why are we spending our tax dollars to keep these people around?!"

there are times when I think "Why are we spending our tax dollars to keep these people around?!"
hehe, my mum used to say that. You do have a point, but then again... they are still human beings, you know...

in a way tho, both sides can argue...

YES- to act as a deterrent to future crimes and things...
NO- ethnically..it's an act of cruelty and people should always be thought that they would have another chance of changing in their life...

... to act as a deterrent to future crimes and things...But it doesn't, does it? We haven't had the death penalty for over 130 years, does that mean that the number of serious crimes, the ones that in the States carry the death penalty, is higher here?
No, that is not the case.
Most criminals aren't very bright and most criminals assume they won't get caught, so the punishment does not act as a deterrent.

I do like the fact that society is a little bit safer for every violent criminal that is locked up though, so it's not that punishment of any kind does not help society.

ok ok, when you guys get to my age the all about rotting in prison will dissappear. You are paying taxes for these people to literally life the life of a rich man. they arent rotting at all. also if you murder someone, you get a maximum of 25 years. THATS IT!!! now isnt that sad? do you know some people get away with murder wihtout even going to jail even though they have been tried andfound guilty? Maybe if we enforced the death penalty it will encourage people to e a little more straight minded and stop murderers all together. also i like to use the bible a a reference sometimes even though i am an athiast. i do beleive it says in there somewhere an eye for an eye, and ear for an ear... etc etc. if you go back in time you will find that our Canadian constitution (soryr if yoru not canadian, but i beleive the USA is also pretty close to the same way) is based on the christian bible. The death penalty woudl lower our taxes and actually make those people pay. also last time i checked, there is more than one way to give a death penalty and the electric chair is definently not painless.

I'm for it, in some instances, but think about it this way?

How many times does your average criminal on death row appeal? Then: how many of them need a state-provided attorney? Then: what's the pay for a state attorney? How much do you have to pay everyone else involved in an appeals process? Finally, how many people do you have on death row?

Adds up, doesn't it? So, where are we getting the money for this? Us.

also if you murder someone, you get a maximum of 25 years. THATS IT!!! really? i thought it was a minimum of 25 years.. :confusion [i may be wrong though, of course]

really? i thought it was a minimum of 25 years.. :confusion [i may be wrong though, of course]

I think you're right...

As for the money thing, they shouldn't be given all of the "good" things they have. If they have three meals a day and a place to sleep, okay. There's no need for the pleasure of having simple items people outside of prision can't afford.

This is a rather touchy issue, I don't know if I agree or not - both sides make a good argument. I guess I would go for the 'rotting in jail' - if they made a seperate section for them and take away the unnecessary things such as TV, telephone, and etc. >w<;

I am sort of stuck in the middle on this one

Reasons I agree with it:

Well, I think some of these people have done horrible crimes and they deserve to die. The prison cells are not all that bad now a days. I mean... of the guy acts well they will loosen up on him and let him start jobs (ya know... I know it is not fun stuff... but like... serving chilli for the other criminals :P stuff like that) and things that get him out of the jail cell. It wouldn't be as good as real life... but it would not be like they are rotting in jail... and who knows? after so many years in there they might let them go... and they could continue there acts of terrible work. Like there was this story of this girl... a man attacked a girl... in horible ways that I am not going to talk of. Ripped off her cloths... cut off one of her arms... and left her on the rocks to die (many of you will remember this) luckily the girl lived. And he just got send to jail... a few years later he was released... and he did the same thing to another girl.

Reasons Why I am Against It.
Well i am going to keep this simple... like many of you said... these people have done terrible things... so they need to suffer in a prison.. that is really the only reason I would be against it.

i'm against it, and i'm not in favour of how nice jails are now.

technically it seems fair, but i don't like how there are a lot of 'amenities' in jail not many people have, such as colour television (not a necessity), computers (well, i guess they should have them lol), and technically if you try hard, you can get a university degree in jail...

so, if i can't afford it, i'll do some bad but not 'murder' bad crime and get myself a degree. lol. (just joking here...) (but then people are of course hesitant of hiring you... lol.

Yes, the prison system should be reformed-for the 'worse'

but you know, some people die in prison b/c of violence between inmates. there was this guy that was accused of *having relations with* an underage teenager [against her will] and then beating her up. so then every day in jail ppl would beat him up [even criminals cant stand cruelty towards young'ns].. anyway, one day people.. er.. *had relations with* him without his consent and then they killed him!! and it turns out he didn't really do it! doesn't that SUCK? :sad: the girl was actually over 18 [so it wasn't illegal] and he didn't even beat her up. her and her family tricked him into doing that with her so that they could sue the hotel where it occured for lack of good security and then get a lot of money. she was beat up by her COUSIN. she got beat up on purpose so that her story would seem more realistic!! isn't that HORRIBLE? so that guy was murdered in prison and he didn't even do it :crying:

anyway, as you can see, i don't think prisons should be reformed "for the worse".. there are just changes that need to be made.

i think it should be like inmates are left in complete solitude. of course they can read books, paint, practice religion, etc. but they can't watch TV and stuff. of course they are fed enough, have bathrooms in their cells, and have beds to sleep on. but they should not be given any comforts that people outside prison get. because it's just not fair. i think they should be separated from each other because.. even though they're criminals.. there's always the chance that a mistake has been made and then what if the other inmates beat them up and stuff and they didn't do anything?

PS, they evil girl got charged for his murder. they didn't say she murdered him, but something along those lines, since it was her fault. so i thought that was good. stupid girl. :(

I don't agree.....just because you've done something bad.....doesn't mean you should die! Cuz what if they were sorry for what they did.....(after they did it!)???

Well, if murdering someone, and then saying sorry, I don't think thats very fair. I think there should be a period of time, in which to investigate each case throughly. There will be some that will bwe wrongfully accused I'm sure, but it would help with killing inocent people.

I also think, though, that if someone killed someone, then had a death penalty, wouldn't that be going as low as they did? And it's a quick fix if someone was guilty. I would want them to rot in jail, to pay for what they did. [or at least help].

I think they should just stay in jail really long.

If a murderer murdered someone.....and was givin' the death penalty....isn't that exactly the same thing!
Murderer:Kills person
Death Penalty person:Kills murderer!!!!

nope. what if that person could have changed in the future? what if they could have changed the world... but were killed? maybe they needed to do their crime, or they wouldn't have been able to complete their karma?? :P

The bible says, a life for a life...

The bible says, a life for a life...

Does it? I thought the bible was all about love and forgivness! It cant have those exact words in it, that must just be how some people interpret something it says?

Does it? I thought the bible was all about love and forgivness! It cant have those exact words in it, that must just be how some people interpret something it says?
The bible contradicts itself here and there. The old testament is all about revenge, wars, an eye for an eye etc, but the new testament is when Jesus comes along and he preached love and forgiveness, and not a life for a life or anything like that.
Do bear in mind that most ancient societies had something like the eye for an eye rule. They didn't have rehabilitation programs or jailhouses in those days, so there had to be some type of law.
I guess more vindictive people prefer to go by the old testament more.

The bible does not contradict itself. You will not find one contradiction in the bible. If you think something is a contradiction, you are probably just reading it wrong. And the life for a life thing is not a wrong interpretation. I believe 100 percent in the death penalty, and I think that if it was used more often, we would have less crime.

I think that if it was used more often, we would have less crime.

yes, there is generally less crime in smaller populations... :P

what is that supposed to mean? If someone killed your sister(supposing you had one), wouldn't you want them to die for what they did?

no, I would want that person in prison for the rest of his life.

I don't believe that the taking of one life justifies taking another.

I'm just curious as to why people feel the death penalty is right or necessary. so it would take criminals off the streets. so would putting them in prison for the rest of their lives. and if they're in prison, they may be able to turn around. what if after 30 years in prison someone has changed? maybe after that length of time and having already committed a serious crime they wouldn't be able to function completely outside the prison fence, but surely they could be a somewhat productive member of society in some capacity. the death penalty eliminates that possibility- if someone commits a crime (or maybe even if they didn't- what if someone was incorrectly found guilty? our justice system is not perfect), that's it, they are not given the opportunity to change (maybe not everyone would- but isn't having 1 person back being a good member of society better than none?).

don't get me wrong, I know that they way the prison system is now, many people even if they are found guilty of a serious crime, can have a field day in prison- many probably would live better in there than outside- but my saying that they should rot in jail means just that- the prison system should also be changed so that the punishment is actually a punishment.

Yea, I guess so. If the punishment was punishment, maybe it would be O.K., but since its not.....well, I don't think a person should have a second chance after they have killed someone. They took the person they killed's chance away, why should they have a chance?

which is better, having 1 person lose that chance, or 2?

someone that commits murder shouldn't just be immediately told "ok, you committed murder last week, but here, try again. don't mess up this time"- they should be punished, and given the chance to be rehabilitated, then and only then, if there's a very good chance they will not commit that type of crime again they should be given the chance to be back in society, perhaps with a community service requirement or something.

Man, you pose a hard question!!!!
In someways, you may be right, but I can't help still feeling that the death penalty is right. Do you think Hitler, if he hadn't commited suicide, should have been put in prison? How about Mussulini? How about all the other men who killed thousands of people? Should they have had a chance? How about Sadaam Hussein(sp?) should he be allowed to live? What about Osama Bin Ladin?

Man, you pose a hard question!!!!
In someways, you may be right, but I can't help still feeling that the death penalty is right. Do you think Hitler, if he hadn't commited suicide, should have been put in prison? How about Mussulini? How about all the other men who killed thousands of people? Should they have had a chance? How about Sadaam Hussein(sp?) should he be allowed to live? What about Osama Bin Ladin?
Now you are not saying 'a life for a life', you are saying 'a life for a thousand lives?'
I personally think quantity matters, I don't neccessarily agree with death penalty at any rate, but I do feel that someone who killed more people should receive more punishment.


The bible does not contradict itself. You will not find one contradiction in the bible. If you think something is a contradiction, you are probably just reading it wrong.

I was explaining to Starlet actually. She did not grow up with the bible like I did, so I was trying to clear that up for her, but since you got all defensive...

Contradiction 1: The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Contradiction 2: Can god be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

Contradiction 3: this is the topic Starlet was asking about actually:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)


I could go on and on with a list of contradictions, but what's the point? A book that had so many authors and was written in 2 languages, and over such a long period of time is bound to show some irregularity here and there. Society changed a lot between the first and the last chapter, and the bible reflects that.
To say 'the bible does not contradict itself' is very naive.


And the life for a life thing is not a wrong interpretation. I dunno about that. I think Jesus would have said something differently. But hey, you're the expert...

I'm not saying I am an expert, thought I have been going to church since I was 3 years old, I am now 16. And you can't take one verse against another, you have to take whole chapters together.

I'm not saying I am an expert, thought I have been going to church since I was 3 years old, I am now 16. And you can't take one verse against another, you have to take whole chapters together.
Aaaaaaah, that clears it up completely... just kidding. It would be very strange if the bible did not contradict itself here and there, for reasons I already stated.

I was explaining to Starlet actually. She did not grow up with the bible like I did, so I was trying to clear that up for her, but since you got all defensive...



I know what you meant and it did explain it to me, thank you :)

To donnamarie...but where does a life for a life end?

Say bob kills sue because she cheated on him, sue's dad...david kills Bob because its an eye for an eye and he killed his daughter...that makes bobs mum angry and she wants her revenge too so she kills David, davids best friend kills bobs mum in revenge...etc etc It has to end somewhere right?

i think certain criminals can be rehabilitated.. they may show no regret right after doing it, but i think that after years in prison [and therapy], they will begin to understand the gravity of what they did and that they can never under any circumstances commit a crime of that sort again.. but for others, they are mentally perterbed, so they need to be put away in an institution for the criminally insane. also, the punishment must fit the crime. i think there are certain instances where the death penalty seems appropriate. but i agree with starlet, it's stupid to keep killing the killers, because if everyone lives their life that way, a chain reaction of murders will occur and then the world will be empty and dead. literally :lol:

Depends at how i look at it, sometimes im for it, and sometimes against it!

Marianne,

It is not strange, it is called divine inspiration from God.
And the chain reaction thing...it is the governments job to punish people, not the dead persons family/friends. When they kill, that makes them as guilty as the other person.

Marianne,

It is not strange, it is called divine inspiration from God.yeah, whatever.


And the chain reaction thing...it is the governments job to punish peoplewhere does the bible state that, explicitely?

I can't tell you exactly where it staes that, but I can ask my Dad.

Marianne,

It is not strange, it is called divine inspiration from God.
And the chain reaction thing...it is the governments job to punish people, not the dead persons family/friends. When they kill, that makes them as guilty as the other person.

So why is the government exempt from that guilt? Its still taking a life....and i thought it was a christian belief that only god got to choose who lives and dies?

It's called justice. Yes, and God chooses that murderers die.

Here are some verses from the bible that say a person that kills gets put to death.

MURDER Wilful murder was distinguished from accidental homicide, and was invariably visited with capital punishment (Numbers 35:16, 18, 21, 31; Leviticus 24:17). This law in its principle is founded on the fact of man's having been made in the likeness of God (Genesis 9:5-6; John 8:44; 1 John 3:12, 15). The Mosiac law prohibited any compensation for murder or the reprieve of the murderer (Exodus 21:12, 14; Deut. 19:11, 13; 2 Samuel 17:25; 2 Samuel 20:10). Two witnesses were required in any capital case (Numbers 35:19-30; Deut. 17:6-12). If the murderer could not be discovered, the city nearest the scene of the murder was required to make expiation for the crime committed (Deut. 21:1-9). These offences also were to be punished with death, (1) striking a parent; (2) cursing a parent; (3) kidnapping (Exodus 21:15-17; Deut. 27:16).


MURDER Intentional taking of human life. Human life is given great value in the Bible. Persons are created in the image of God; and persons are called to obey, serve, and glorify God. Human life is viewed as a sacred trust. It is because of this that taking human life is viewed as a serious crime in the Bible.
The prohibition against murder is found in the Ten Commandments, the heart of Hebrew law (Exodus 20:13; Deut. 5:17). Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another. Deliberately taking the life of a human being ursurps the authority that belongs to God. The prohibition against murder is a hedge to protect human dignity.
The Old Testament (Genesis 9:6) prescribed that a murderer should be prepared to forfeit his own life. In Numbers 35:16-31, careful attention is given to determining whether a killing is to be classified as murder.
Jesus removed the concept of murder from a physical act to the intention of one’s heart (Matthew 5:21-22). According to Jesus, murder really begins when one loses respect for another human being. Spitting in the face of another, looking with contempt upon another, or unleashing one’s anger are signs that a murderous spirit is present. Jesus forces us to move to the spirit behind the prohibition of murder. We are compelled to do all that we can do to protect the life of our neighbor and help it flourish. The writer of 1 John pushed Jesus’ teaching to its ultimate: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15).


Exodus 21:12
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.


Numbers 35:16
And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

I thought you can't just take verses here and there, you have to take whole chapters together.

Guess I was misinformed.

You were trying to contradict things. It's pretty obvious what it is talking about when it says he who kills is put to death.

You were trying to contradict things. It's pretty obvious what it is talking about when it says he who kills is put to death.
I was trying to contradict things?
I thought it was pretty obvious what was being said in those verses actually. But hey, what do I know.

....and i thought it was a christian belief that only god got to choose who lives and dies?
The Christian belief is actualy very diverse, Starlet. There is not such thing as 'the Christian belief'.
Because the bible was written so long ago, and some of it's content can be explained in so many different ways, there are a lot of different kinds of Christianity.
Some Christians are all about love and peace and forgiveness, others are very vindictive. Just like non-believers actually, very divers.

I was brought up to believe that only God decides on when you live or die, although my mum did have a problem with her tax money keeping murdurers alive in prison hehe.

I am not trying to make anyone look stupid. All I am doing is stating the truth. You have to look at verses in the whole context of what it is talking about before you say it is a contradiction. I have taken several classes on this subject. This does not make me an expert, but it does mean I know what I am talking about

I am not trying to make anyone look stupid. All I am doing is stating the truthYour 'truth' might not be the universal truth though. It is your belief/opinion, and I respect that you have one, but my 'truth' might be different from yours.
I may view the bible differently, for example

I have taken several classes on this subject. This does not make me an expert, but it does mean I know what I am talking about
I have taken lots of classes on the subject too. Many years ago and most of them not voluntary, but still...
You have your opinion, I have mine. If you will respect that other people, like me, feel different from you, I will respect your opinion.

What I have a problem with is not that your beliefs differ from mine, but phrases like "this is the truth". Whether you are a Christian or an atheist or a muslem, I think you ought to respect that other people feel differently.

I do respect the fact that other people have different views, and believe their view is correct. I know that the bible says that if a person kills, they should be put to death. I know that if I killed someone(which I never will, unless it's self defense) I would expect/hope for the death penalty. All I want is justice, and I know that our prison system today is not giving it to people.
Yes, you should expect that other people feel differently, but as a saved christian, to let people just believe what I believe is false, and then letting them die, knowing that by my belief they are going to ^^^^, I would face God in heaven, with their blood on my hands, just the same as if I killed them. I want to give people the truth, and since what I believe I think is the truth, I have to share it with other people. I know some people will never accept what I think, and I can't force them, but I know that if some people would just open their heart and listen with open ears, they would understand.

The 'I know better and I have to save you' attitude is precisely the reason why I left the church years ago. At that time, I still believed in God, but I got so sick of the arrogance that ruled in our church.

You don't have to save my soul, okay? Thank you very much.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I will pray for you.

This is why i always wind up confused when it comes to religious debates...because people say 'The bible says xx' they dont say 'well i interpret the bible to mean....' So when i hear something that doesnt sound right (meaning i thought something different) and i ask...'but thats your interpretation right' and they insist that 'No, thats the facts people who say otherwise are just wrong' I never know if i should take them seriously or put it down to them not being able to accept what they have is opinions rather than facts...very confusing all this stuff lol

Donnamarie...hope you dont get too offended by this but you seem to be able to debate without getting angry and ive always wanted to ask...are you aware that you are the type of person a lot of people consider a 'bad' christian...annoying, trying to convert people and show them the errors of their ways etc etc...and does that bother you? Or do you just not see/understand why its the kind of attitude you have that puts a lot of people OFF religion and makes fellow christians groan because it gives them a bad reputation?

Threads like this always make me appreciate people like Avie and Apples and Angela (all the a's lol) though :)<3

I am not one of those people who say this is wha it means, and it can't mean anything else. I try to keep an open mind about things like that.

I'm sorry if I act like that, but if I were to sit back and do nothing, I would feel terrible.

I have another question though. You basically say that you believe people like us go to h.ell after we die, and that's why you are trying to convert us.

I dunno really. My parents, like I mentioned before, were very very religious, and tried to bring us up accordingly. But they always taught us never to say (or even think) that someone is going to ^^^^, because they believed that that would be the passing judgement that the bible so explicitely tells you not to do.

So no matter what someone had done, we were never to say: 'he'll burn in ^^^^', because - how is it said in English - 'do not judge others so that you will not be judged' - something like that. (English is not my first language, and I never read the bible in English).
My mum always said that God is very forgiving, and he might just forgive people, and it was just never for us to assume what kind of judgement God would pass over them.

You, apparently, were brought up differently - I guess it's one of the many things in the bible that are open to interpretation.

So my question is: what do you feel the judgement thing is all about, if it's not about where people go after this life?

I never said you were going to ----, I believe that if you are not saved, you are, but I do not know that. If I thought you were not saved, and didn't do something about it, I would have your blood on my hands when I got to heaven. If I don't think someone is saved, I have to do something about it. The judgement thing, I believe is talking about if I accused you of doing something, that you didn't do, I would be judged for it when I go to heaven.

You seem awfully sure that you'll go to heaven. It must be nice to be that sure. I was taught never to just assume that either.

Yes, I am sure, I am 100 percent sure.

I am speechless... so... you don't sin I guess?

life imprisonment...

Yes, I sin.

then how do you know all your sins will be forgiven, and you will never do something that won't be forgiven?

because the bible says God will forgive all our transgressions and iniquitys. And there is only one unforgivable sin, turning your back totally on God.

So someone like Marc Dutroux can go to heaven, as long as he believes in God... Dunno if I would like to share my hereafter with people like him.

So someone like Marc Dutroux can go to heaven, as long as he believes in God... Dunno if I would like to share my hereafter with people like him.

Sorry, I don't know who he is. But if he is saved, yes, he will go to heaven.

Sorry, I don't know who he is. But if he is saved, yes, he will go to heaven.
Then I'd rather not.

Are you saved? I'm supposing you don't believe in the eternal security of the beliver. Do you?

Me? I was raised in a very religious family.
Nowadays I very much doubt that God exists. I'm not saying he/she doesn't exist, but I wouldn't claim that he/she does either.
However, if he/she does exist, I think either he/she does not have much power over us, or he/she doesn't care all that much.
Of course, that's only judging from the things I've seen in this life, none of us is truly objective.

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe in the eternal security of the believer?(do you know what that it?) Growing up in a christian family doesn't make you saved.

basically I think it could be all fairytales, the whole lot of it, the existance of a supreme being, the afterlife, everything.
But I don't claim to be sure of anything.
And the 'being saved' thing - I tend to think that's a fairytale too.

See, I once knew someone who had been a very devoted Christian all her life. She was the most unselfish person I have ever met in my entire life.
Not just a faithful church-goer, but she basically lived with God every day of her life, showing everyone love and forgiveness. She would literally turn the other cheek if someone hurt her.

On her deathbed, at 9 a.m. on the day she died, she was trying to raise her hands to the heavens. She could no longer eat or drink even a drop of water, she could no longer see, but she could still say a few things, and her words were: "Father, father, please come and take me in". She was tired of the pain and the suffering, and it was time for her to go.
She repeated her prayer dozens of times, with every slow struggled breath came the same words. Knowing her, I think it was the only time she ever asked for something just for her in her entire life.

It took another ten hours for her to finally die.

If God loved people all that much, especially the ones that love him, couldn't he have come sooner?

I hold it very possible that there was no God to hear her prayer.

I can understand why you feel that way. I have asked God for many things, that I think are important. I have asked God "why" so many times. When I get to heaven, I'll now why. God always knows best. He had a reason for that person not dying sooner. Who knows why? Who knows why he lets his children suffer, his plan is always right. I will continue to pray for you, and hope you will one day find the truth.

it might be that I have already found the truth, though that truth differs widely from yours.

There can only be one truth. If christianity is false, it is the most widely spread, most proof, most historic lie in the world. I don't know about you, but I'd rather think there was a God, and that he was watching over me, then the alternative.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather think there was a God, and that he was watching over me, then the alternative.
Ah, here is something we actually agree upon.
I do too.

I think my life was a little easier when I believed in God.
I differed from you in the fact that I never took anything for granted, I would never have said "I'll got to heaven" or "that person will go to ^^^^".
I also held it possible that people were mistaken about a lot of things, and that the Jewish or the Muslims might be closer to the truth than the Christians (and therefore I never attempted to 'save' anyone, for I felt that it would be very arrogant to assume my religion was the only one that actually got it right).
But it was nice to think that there was some justice after this life, I think religion does add some quality to a life (it does nothing for World peace - but that's a different matter)

However, that I would like to believe something does not mean I do believe it. It's not a switch people can pull. My brain tells me the existance of a God is unlikely. My brain also understands why people need to believe in a God.
I do not feel any divine presence in my life, and the things I have seen in my life would more point to there not being a God, or to a God that does not care all that much.

Having faith is a feeling, it's not rational. I don't expect you to understand this, no offence, but so far, I have only met one Christian that does understand - a relative of mine who was a non-Christian when she was younger.

Well, I can't change your opinion. I will pray for you.

I don't agree with the death penalty. We don't have it in scotland, and i hope that they don't bring i back. As lots of you have said, I think that people should feel guilty and rot in prison (sounds a bit hars, but hehe) :lol:

Chris

Now we got wayyyyyyyyy off track here (thanx, Chris, for reminding us), but now I understand even less of why you would be in favour of the death penalty.
If you feel so strongly about people being saved, wouldn't you want them to have the rest of their lives to think about what they have done and turn to God for forgiveness?

Because I belive what the bible says, and try to live by it.

Now we got wayyyyyyyyy off track here (thanx, Chris, for reminding us)

lol. your welcome. I wasn't even trying to!! :lol:

Chris

When the Old Testament was written, there were no prisons.
So the only way to keep a murdurer from killing again, was to kill him.
Now, we are more civilised (or we would like to think we are), and we have found an alternative.
Why would we still live by the laws that were written in a time where there was no proper alternative?

And as for an eye for an eye... what about turning the other cheek?

I have to agree with Marianne. There was no other option than to kill them. Now we are able to imprison people, we should make use of this rather than keeping to old methods.

Chris

How do you know there was no prisons? How do we know today that a murderer isn't going to do the same thing when he gets out? I am done discussing this, we arn't getting anywhere.

I have to agree with Marianne. There was no other option than to kill them. Now we are able to imprison people, we should make use of this rather than keeping to old methods.

Chris
Oh, I'm not neccessarily against the death penalty. I am against it because I respect life and all, but when someone has done something so terrible - Europeans will probably be familiar with the name of Marc Dutroux - it makes me think that the death penalty is not so bad after all.

How do you know there was no prisons? How do we know today that a murderer isn't going to do the same thing when he gets out? I am done discussing this, we arn't getting anywhere.
I assume there were no prisons because the Jewish people were first slaves and later nomads. I'm sure some civilisations had prisons, and I'm sure the Jewish did at some point, but I think at the time that law was written, there was no alternative.

As for a murdurer doing the same thing when he gets out, I agree 100% on you there. I think they should never be let out. If the only options are the death penalty, or a temporary imprisonment, I would favour the death penalty. If the option 'life' is also available, I would prefer that I guess.

You are done discussing this? Just when I was starting to have fun! :(

and then i suppose there is the fact that the prisons do not always keep prisoners in jail - for instance a few weeks ago, in scotland a boy who had murdered a 17 year old escaped from prison and has been on the run since then.
If the death penalty had been put in place then he wouldn't be out in the open.

However, the above considered i still feel strongly against the death penalty.
Chris

Maybe if prisoners were kept in prison te rest of their life, without any of the comforts of home, sitting it a cell, with nothing, maybe then it would be ok. I don't have to be done discussing, I might keep going, depends on what gets said.

So does that mean, under certain circumstances (such as life sentences for murdurers, without the possibility of parole, and no luxery in prison), you would be willing to settle for other punishment than capital punishment?

It would ultimatly depend on the crime. If a person shot someone one time, killing them instantly, yes, but if a person was tortured, then killed, No. A friend I talked to yesterday said his opinion was that a murdered should die the same way he killed the person he killed. That is not my opinion.

...but if a person was tortured, then killed...
That would be what Marc Dutroux did. Killed 4 teenage girls that way, and his crimes don't even end there... Two girls survived the ordeal 8 years ago. They are now 20 and had to give evidence in court last week.

As much as I respect life, put that man in front of me, give me a gun, and I might suddenly believe in Capital Punishment with all my heart.

I think it would be wrong to kill him, but it would be such a relief to know he was dead.

Yes, it would be a relief, that's why I belive i nthe death sentence. You hear of people who commited one Murder in the 2nd degree getting life in prison with no paroll, and then there are the ones who commit 5 murders, and get 50 years to life with parole.

wow, what a heated discussion!

We read this article on psychopaths in English, I'll see if I can get it.

But there are some people that you can't reform, show no remorse, and they try to get out of it by pretending they're insane. Kill them, I say. *goes off to stand in the corner facing the wall for putting it so bluntly.*

i tihnk capital punishment is crazy! i don't think that's the way to go. if everything in this word was an eye for an eye then no wars would stop... lol. (that probably made no sense..) and wouldn't the executioners get the death penalty too? (lol, that one too...) neways. yea. not all for it.

I vehemently disagree with it. I don't believe you can teach society and our kids that something is wrong by repeating the act. ie. killing people is wrong, so we're going to kill you.

It's completely inhumane and ridiculous to think it is still happening in a country like the USA in this new millennium.

yea its deffinately right because if they kill someone they should be killled too!

I believe in the death penalty.. if someone has the mental capability of killing someone else and goes through with it then they should be punished like they deserve !!

Hot! I have a discussion on the deat penalty next week! What a GOOD time for this to come up! YES!

xoxo

it actually came up 4 months ago. but whatever. :P

i tried to read through all the posts, but i couldn't do it! sorry if i repeat anything anyone else said.

sometimes i am for the death penalty, other times i am against it. it is all relative to the type of crime, i feel. even if it is painless, death is still the end, and it's frightening. it doesn't make it any less scary simply because it's painless. there are those truly heinous crimes for which rotting in a cell is not justice.

someone mentioned the mentally retarded much earlier in the thread... my viewpoint is this: only two countries in the world execute people with mental retardation - the United States and Kyrgystan. wrong? very.

I totally disagree with the death penalty. Sure, criminals need to be punished, but I do not think that killing them is the answer.

This may sound kind of cruel, but I think that they should be made to live with the fact that they are criminals, and stay in prison.

Chris

i agree with you that sometimes the best answer is just to let them live with what they've done. but sometimes they show no remorse for their actions while they live it up in their prison/day-spa. okay, that is a bit of an exaggeration, but they get a lot of luxuries that most other's have to live without - cable, three meals a day, gym, and a lot of times they get their college educations paid for. i can't go to school, i don't belong to a gym, and i don't get to eat three meals a day.

my only other argument against the death penalty is that once the sentence is carried out, if the convicted is post-humously found innocent, there is no bringing that person back. we punish murderers by telling them that no one has the right to kill another, and then turn around and kill them, sometimes incorrectly.

otherwise, like i said, for truly heinous crimes, i can see the death penalty being used justifiably.

I tend to agree when they killed more than one person. The movie Dead Man Walking was still sad though.

I think that rapists, murders, and abusers (well, depending on how bad they abused the person/animal) should get the death penalty.
I also think that people who murder or abuse (Except for HUMANE euthanization, or if they're in a lab, or something like that) animals should be put in jail because there have been a lot of studies that show that people who abuse animals are a lot more likely to abuse people.

i dont think any human should have the right to decide who lives and who dies!

and i think you shouldn't bring up old threads :)


Love,
Mirna