jump to last post 1-42 of 42 discussions (193 posts)

The death penalty SHOULD be abolished

  1. KyleBear profile image59
    KyleBearposted 6 years ago

    I've been advocating against death penalty since the beginning of time. Here are reasons why I believe it should be abolished.

    Please do feel free to share your views here too. This thread is about communicating and exchanging views. I hope I don't get angry readers this time.

    1. Justice does not demand that the death penalty be legal

    While the convicted murderers may seem to deserve death, justice does not demand it. A life sentence can be equally agonizing, if not more so. Being locked in a single small room for years on end is certainly torturing enough. The death penalty also carries far too many negatives for any benefit gleamed from this contention to be significant.

    2. Execution does not save innocent lives

    The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 to assist prisoners who could be proven innocent through DNA testing.

    17 people on death row were saved by DNA testing, but it is easily likely that other innocent people could not be cleared due to a lack of DNA evidence. Some people are even unfairly framed into the death penalty by the police, so that no amount of scrutiny can spare them.

    There is, finally, the fact that convicts spend around a decade waiting on death row, giving them ample time to kill or escape if they are so inclined. The list of deaths even includes an instance in 1995 in which inmates on death row were able to kill fellow prisoners. Money would be better spent on security to prevent these deaths than the executions themselves.

    3. Capital punishment does not deter crime

    There are so many confounding variables in determining the effect of the death penalty on crime rates and using statistics can be extremely misleading. This happens to be the case for Japan as well. Japan has far fewer racial conflicts than most other countries, as about 98% of people in Japan are Japanese. Additionally, foreigners are much more likely to commit crimes in Japan than the Japanese, indicating that the low crime rate is more likely the result of the extremely strong Japanese culture than any government policy.

    As for the claim that the death penalty will successfully deter criminals from committing crimes, the threat to lock up the criminal in a room for life would seem like an equally valid and more believable threat, as the number of executions in America is rather low.

    4. The death penalty is extremely expensive to implement

    With the need for near-absolute certainty in sentencing a criminal to death, there are numerous court cases and appeals that must be defeated. With each case comes a ridiculous price. It costs taxpayers in California alone hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their executions running reliably, at a little over ten million dollars per head [4]. These trials also often fail to achieve the death penalty, so that the entire court session was a waste. What right does the government have to use so much of the taxpayer's money to kill people who would more easily be sentenced to life in maximum security?

    Because the death penalty costs taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars to potentially kill people who are probably, but possibly not, criminals who will almost definitely never have a chance to kill again, it should not be used in the United States.

    Also, as a devout Christian, I do not believe any human has the right to decide whether a person should live or die. Does anyone here share the same views as I do?

    1. Dennis AuBuchon profile image81
      Dennis AuBuchonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      your points are well taken.  I believe however that there are crimes that warrant death penalty.  Those individuals who are murdered have families and in many respects they do not feel they have had justice until the criminal who took their relative's lfe pays with their life. 

      To many of these individuals I feel for their pain they go through everyday when they know the person responsible for the murder is still alive and living on taxpayer dollars. 

      The point about innocent people being put in prison and sentence to death is a concerning point and with the technology of DNA testing it is hoped some of these individuals will be saved and some have been.
      The process of appealing sentences can also involve those sentenced to life in prison rather than death and as such the money is still costing the applicable government money.

      We have the right to a speedy and fair trial and when mistakes are made they need to be corrected when they are discovered not years later.  In principle I agree with some of your points but whether the death penalty really deters potential criminals is hard to obtain statistics on this aspect.

      Another point is the fact that once a criminal commits murder he/she has no deterrent to do it again.  Individuals can only be killed one time so if a criminal kills once he/she is likely to kill again.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is no basis for that belief and much evidence to contradict it. Forget the picture of your average murderer as being some slavering beast with an unsated blood lust, he's just as likely to be the guy next door who slips once and is overcome by remorse.

        Neither is DNA the be all and end all, it is just as capable of proving guilt were no guilt exists.

        1. TMMason profile image64
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Most death penalty cases today john, involve heinous aggravators, not just shooting your nieghbor.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Most, not all?

            1. TMMason profile image64
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              As far as I know, all do. But I figured for the sake of not arguing it, I would state most. That way I would not be asked to post all the laws in every state regarding Capital murder to prove it.

      2. jenlang profile image57
        jenlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree! Sometimes criminals whose countries don't have death penalties abuse this fact and even when they receive life sentence it a high probability that they may get to get out of the slammer  may it be with power or money or probably an escape rout. How more on countries that can't afford high facilities that ascertain that a criminal does not get out of jail in any way.

      3. Ken Barton profile image60
        Ken Bartonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The death penalty doesn't accomplish much and cost the people thousands of dollars.  Personally, I believe in hard labor like they had in the old days of the Salt mines.  Prison should not be just another vacation stop or even a regimented military type experience.  It should be hard and something every criminal would hate to experience more than life itself!  Chain gangs to clear the brush away from road sides, clearing out forest under growth, working in a mine digging coal or salt, whatever it takes.  Making license plates or preparing food for public schools just doesn't fit the hard labor experience.  Anyhow, that's my view this morning.

    2. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Kyle, here in TN it takes, on average, 25-30 years for the state to carry out a death sentence. Do you have figures on what the cost is for carrying out the injection process?

      In TN, the cost of housing, clothing, and feeding a death row inmate is $30,000 to $40,000 annually.

      1. preacherdon profile image71
        preacherdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure the same is true nationally, at least, how long it takes to execute someone. There are two people scheduled to executed here in AR next month. When I reviewed their profiles, they were both convicted in 1997, almost 25 years ago. This is why the death penalty is not likely a deterrent to crime; it takes so long to go throught the appeals process that the punishment is far removed from the crime.

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          One of Kyle's points above was the death penalty is extremely expensive to implement. To keep a prisoner locked up for 25-30 years at $30,000 to $40,000 per year, the cost is $750,000 to $1.2 million. It's just a guess but I would assume implementing the death sentence doesn't cost $750,000.

          My point is why should we as a society have to pay to keep these animals in cages when they clearly had no regard for their victims? In MHO, they don't deserve it.

          You're right, Preacher Don. I dare say that in some cases the families of some of the victims are gone before justice is served.

      2. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Don't forget the court and lawyers expenses for the numerous appeals. Our taxes pays for numerous services like public schools, libraries, subsidizing our postal service, medicare, public services and, oh yes, our justice and prison system.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image78
          Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I am pro death penalty, but in reality it's cheaper to give a convicted murderer a life without parole sentence than it is to sentence him/her to death.

          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Would this be the case if the appeal process was shortened? Judging from the figures in my comment above, I find it hard to understand why it would cost less to keep a person in jail without parole than it would be to execute them. Do you have any info on the cost of and execution by lethal injection?

            The cost of a rope would be minimal and you could use it multiple times, at least until it got stretched out too far.

    3. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am for the death penalty and I think executions should be televised.

      I don't want to pay for room and board, entertainment, conjugal visits, or appeals for years and years et al for the remainder of a convicted murderers life!

      I've written a hub on "executions" if you'd care to read it.

      http://hubpages.com/hub/qwark28

      Qwark

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What, even for an unsafe conviction!

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          John:

          Whatd'ya mean "unsafe?"

          Qwark

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed, and it is possible the fire was accidental."

            "Recent DNA tests raise serious doubts about the conviction of a man executed in Texas in 2000.  The tests revealed that a strand of hair found at the scene of a liquor-store shooting did not belong to Claude Jones, as was originally implied by the prosecution.  Instead, the hair belonged to the victim."

            "A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the state of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man."

            Get the idea?

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              John:

              Sure I get the idea!

              What do you meant: "safest?"

              When someone is found guilty of a capital crime and is sentenced to death, he/she has the ability to "appeal"
              all the way to the "supreme courts."

              During that time he may or may not be found guiltless and released. If not, then I want the convicted to be summarily executed in the same manner he murdered his victim!

              Simple as that...smile:

              Qwark

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                But Qwark, I give you just three examples of people who'd been executed and then proven to be innocent!


                Simple as that.

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  ...tough!

                  If the "system" was taken full advantage of and all attempts failed?...Gone! No ifs ands or buts."

                  If my son was convicted of a heinous capital crime, and his conviction included death, and he professed guiltlessness, I'd die to protect him. If the system won and I believed in my son, my life would end with his...no doubt about it. I'd die with a heart full of hate and rage!!!

                  Sometimes ya lose the good with the bad! That's the reality of life.

                  No person or system is perfect.

                  I'll stick with my feelings about the death penalty.

                  Qwark

                  1. preacherdon profile image71
                    preacherdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree. Sometimes, the innocent are killed with the guilty. This was true even in biblical times. This is why God said do not bear false witness against your neighbor but if you think this stopped them from doing so, you're delusional. African-Americans have been convicted of and exectued for crimes they did not commit simply because some white person said they did it. Yet, I still support the death penalty because I believe, if properly used, it would be a deterrent to crime and it would be cheaper than life imprisonment.

    4. lizzieBoo profile image65
      lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently people who are sentenced to death are more likely to repent their wrongs and die with a clear head than someone in prison for life who yearly grows more embittered and distanced from reality. I don't know.
      I think the reality of the death penalty is repulsive and even more so these days as the process becomes more clinical. Lethal injection, for example, means a person is strapped to a table and parallised from the inside out by a series of poisonous injections. The death may take 20 minutes. Such things degrade the justice system even more than hanging, for example.
      It is a difficult one though, because clearly something is not working and enormous amounts are being spent on over- full prisons.
      Bring back hard labor!! Or is that still done over there?

      1. preacherdon profile image71
        preacherdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, the ACLU won't allow it but I would support it. Let them clean the ditches or bust rocks or something other than sit in a cell with a library, a gym, cable television, three hots, and a cot. And they get paid for being in there!

    5. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I share your views!

    6. profile image66
      logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That decision is made every day in many ways.  We passed the death sentence on the Libyan army when NATO joined the fight.  We passed the death sentence on Al Queda, the Taliban, and other terrorists.
      Doctors decide every minute who lives and who dies.
      Politicians make choices that can kill people.
      Tobacco companies passed the death sentence on smokers.
      Innocent people die every day.  Witness those innocents that died in a rocket attack gone wrong.

      As far as costs go, the only reason it takes millions is because of lawyers trying to make the big bucks.
      The cost of incarceration is outrageous.  Most lifers have a better quality of life than millions of others on the outside.
      Most of the imprisoned have on redeeming value to society, so what is the point of extending their tenure here?

    7. recommend1 profile image64
      recommend1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Capital punishment does not deter crime - this is a patent crock of cra@p  and is hype phrase that has never been proven or even supported by evidence.

      America imprisons and executes more people per capita than any other country in the world.

      Christianity is hypocrisy incarnate, bleating about the life of some worthless thing that has killed people, children, while being largest political base in support of the cause of the murder of hundreds of people daily in religious inspired wars around the world.

      Your 'points' are pure fabrications and your views total hypocrisy.

      Having said that - I am also against the death penalty.

      1. preacherdon profile image71
        preacherdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You shouldn't lump all Christians into one mold. Most Christians do not support wars or the murder of hundreds of people daily. You're thinking, perhaps, of Muslims. Jesus never called for military action to further the Kingdom's agenda and those who thought He did were wrong. Do you like be lumped together with all other Chinese as a bunch of murdering Communists?

    8. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Avoiding angry readers? You're too funny Kyle. Didn't you know you cannot please everyone all of the time?
      Actually it does. The Survival of the Human Species is above individual rights. If you haven't learned that yet, then you've failed yourself, in the learning department. Specifically, understanding purpose of life.
      The argument you put forth is absurd. You attack the wrong thing, speaking about something completely different.

      You attack the sentence, but fail to understand the inability of the Judicial/Court System, which is more the problem. All you managed to do is point out the flaws in it. Nothing more. Your attempt at using sympathy of the innocent, to discredit the sentence is a feeble attempt at most.
      True enough, but again is caused by the Judicial/Court System to begin with.
      Yeah, so what. People are forever killing more people, including inmates. Where is the inmates right to protection against said "death-row" inmates or even gangs? You don't have an answer do you? Of course not. If those people on death row were actually executed, then you would prevent more deaths by those individuals. Wouldn't it? Of course it would, but you don't want that now do you?
      Really? In what country do you think MONEY of all things is going to solve the problem? In America, prisons are privatized? Or didn't you know that?
      You're too broad based in your statement. Which, shows that you want to inflame and/or ire people. Btw- you claimed that you didn't want to anger anyone, but this statement says otherwise. Sorry, just pointing out the obvious.

      And, on another point- Capital Punishment IS NOT about deterring crime, in the general sense you've stated. Capital Punishment is about handing out a sentence to those who do massive damage to the rest of society, as a whole, on an individual level, such as mass murderers and serial killers.
      Actually, you are told it is expensive and shown the methodology that is used to implement it. However, it doesn't mean that it is the most cost effective or even efficient enough to work properly. Thus, another solution must be derived. And, I wrote a hub on a new methodology that can be implemented, so as to drive DOWN costs and actually make a profit. No taxpayer revenue would ever be needed, so that argument is thrown out as well.
      I certainly hope YOU don't serve on any trial as a juror. You would be doing a disservice to your fellow citizens, who expect you to do the right thing for the right reasons, with regards to their protection.

      What a shame really.

    9. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I might have already responded to this earlier..., but I completely agree.  Great argument as well.

  2. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    oh yes, I'm with you all the way Kyle.

  3. TMMason profile image64
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    The death penalty lost its value to Society as a detterant when it was taken out of the public eye and hidden behind walls. There is no empirical value in a 5 minute news flash to state the felon is dead.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Funny, there's no record of public executions being few and far between!
      In fact, quite the reverse.

      1. TMMason profile image64
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There has not been a public execution in quite a while in America, John. I would venture a hundred years... but I am not certain.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And your point is . . .

          1. TMMason profile image64
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            My point is my original post, man. Do you need to argue with every last thing I say?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So you're implying that I said there had been public executions within the last hundred years?

              I suggest you reread my post, you'll find that I make no mention of time at all.

              I only have to argue with the crass and stupid things you say, the rest I let pass.

              1. TMMason profile image64
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol... whatever. If you want to follow me around like a puppy and attack everthing I say, have at it.lol You and Tex are two of a kind.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You're a bit difficult to avoid having, as you do, an opinion on anything and everything.

                  1. KyleBear profile image59
                    KyleBearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Please calm down. We're here to share and exchange views, not fight with each other. It's always healthy to try to get to know other peoples perspective smile

        2. profile image55
          33rdn8thposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          !00 years?  What about southern sherrifs lynching people IN PUBLIC in the 1960's?  That doesn't count?  I am against the death penalty for one steadfast reason, which is proven numerous times per day in these forums.  Americans are not the brightest nor most dilligent individuals on the planet, thus should not have the power or latitude to execute someone for a crime.  The death penalty, in my opinion, becomes fatally flawed the day that 1 innocent person is executed.

    2. KyleBear profile image59
      KyleBearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly. If people really wanted the death penalty to be more effective as a deterrent, the media should widely publicize it.

  4. optimus grimlock profile image53
    optimus grimlockposted 6 years ago

    but 1st casey anthony has to sit on our special chair named old sparky smile

    1. TMMason profile image64
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Florida does injections these days, I believe. And that won't happen till after the re-trial. And I'll tell you, them folks in front of that court every morning are an embarassment.

  5. profile image0
    klarawieckposted 6 years ago

    They impose a threat even behind bars. We shouldn't spend all this money in keeping these criminals alive. If the costs for death penalty is higher than the costs for life in prison, then they need to do something about it.
    I'm sorry. Most of these killers and rapists don't deserve ANY mercy.
    Which makes me think of something... some Native American tribes were considered brutal for making human sacrifice to their Gods. Their offering? The enemy! That's right! Let those heads roll down the pyramids! We don't need to give a support system to a pedophiles.

    1. profile image55
      33rdn8thposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What happens to the wrongly accused?  Viable question, correct?  Rape also isn't a capital offense in any state. 

      Now for the costs of imprisonment, you are right it is quite substantial, for no return on investment.  Which is why we should go back to a rehabilitation model for prisons.  Atleast folks will get some sort of professional certification, or skills that would lead them to become a better citizen.  Right now we are giving 3 meals and free healthcare to a black hole.

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Of course, there needs to be enough evidence to sentence someone to death. That goes without saying. And about it being a no return on investment... I'd say our safety is our return on investment. They should nuke them all or force them into slavery for the rest of their lives. They need to make it up to society, not the other way around.
        Am I the only one who thinks it's wrong to pay for the housing, healthcare, and meals of the excrement of society? First thing they need to do is stop them from breeding, seriously! These people come from abusive families and they abuse others likewise, their children will continue the chain. Get them fixed, turn them into castrati and let them sing Handel's arias.

    2. KyleBear profile image59
      KyleBearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do you believe in second chances? What if they were from abusive backgrounds? Not everyone has the privileges we do you know. Locking them up is already punishment by itself.
      Anyways, off to write my second hub wink

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You can give a second chance to a thief, but a serial killer? Get real! Those people have gone to the point of no return. And watching the difference between the costs of life-sentence and death penalty... it's only 10,000 more to get rid of them for good. I say it's worth it considering that you've done the world a favor by getting rid of another predator.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But serial killers are rare, even in the US. You don't build a whole legal system on rare events.

          Do you really think it right that a young man who kills in a bar room brawl should be treated as a serial killer, even though he may be full of remorse for what he has done?~

          1. profile image0
            klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hence the word "serial" John, you don't become a serial killer by killing one person while  you were drunk. If he's killed more than one person, then there is proof that this is more than just a one-time incident. It's going to happen again.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              But still very rare.

  6. cooldad profile image61
    cooldadposted 6 years ago

    I also feel that the death penalty should be abolished.  I watched a show a while back about serial killer John Wayne Gacy.  It discussed how psychologists were breaking ground with him and learning much about why he did what he did.  Then he was executed and they were obviously unable to study him any more.
    Just think how much could have been learned by keeping him alive.

    Being incarcerated in a cell for the rest of your life is punishment enough and worse than being killed.  In my opinion, the death penalty is useless in almost all respects. 

    Good forum and good discussion here

    1. TLMinut profile image61
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It doesn't have to be punishment and the fact of the death penalty being or not being a deterrent is a side issue. Capital punishment removes that dangerous individual from society forever. That's the point.

      Just like making amends for a crime (financial for example) is to help society. It's about the general population and the victims, not the criminal.

  7. Debbie Ungerer profile image56
    Debbie Ungererposted 6 years ago

    Their are times I think the death penalty is the only way to go.Like the guy whom killed his mother-in-law then took both his young children and stabbed them in the car wile strapped In what do you think those babies last thoughts were They see him kill their grandma can you fathom their fear and terror
    He did not think twice to give them death to take away the most important people in his wife's life.I would have pushed the plunger on that scum

    1. profile image59
      susanrichardsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well yes but you know what its letting them off way to easy. I think that having them rot in a jail cell is way more punishing then to kill them. What is that but one second live one second not. Its not really punishment to them it would be more damning to make them sit in a jail cell and think about this for the rest of there life let it eat at them and what ever happens in the jail to them is an added bonus.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Easy? roll
        So you want to put them in a jail cell, where (a) possibility of escape can happen and (b) the rest of society is punished for their crime by paying for their clothing, food and health care.
        The above statement makes no sense. Clarify?
        Oh, so you take away their rights to be protected from those in prison and burden the rest of society with housing them is alright?

        1. profile image59
          susanrichardsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          YES DEATH IS EASY FOR THEM. They dont have to live with or think about it. If you are on board for the death penetality for $$$ reasons then you need to take a look at yourself in the mirror and think on what it is about you that thinks that people should die for the crimes cuz you dont want to shed out taxes witch you pay anyhow. what kinda punishment is that to them i mean yes they may not want to die but it really isnt doing anything to the criminal except well maybe saying an eye for an eye. I think it would do more damage to a person to spend the rest of there life locked in an 8x8 cell and think about it. EXCAPE well our prisions are paid enough money to keep them updated and have enough staff working to prevent that. But yes lets kill everyone so we dont have to have prisions and guards and so you dont have to pay taxes. My god personally i think an 8x8 cell and all they have to do is think about what they did and why there in there will punish them way more then death will.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            There isn't anything easy about a person sitting in a jail cell awaiting their own execution.
            Excuse YOU?

            Me looking in a mirror has nothing to do with a person being executed for their atrocity on society. Secondly, if this is your argument for "I don't want my tax dollars used for executions", then you apparently lack too much knowledge and understanding what is in the best interest of society.
            You're argument above fails. Want to know why? Because, apparently you don't understand that society and even humanity IS NOT civilized. The only thing you are doing here, with this post is claiming the "political" stance that society and humanity is in fact civilized. I'm sorry you bought into that BS. Open your eyes and look around.
            I have thought about and it doesn't outweigh their crime. Putting them in a prison cell, does absolutely nothing.
            Gullible? That's the only word I can use to describe the above statement.
            Now the above is one of the dumbest statements. The death penalty/capital punishment doesn't work in that manner. So, your statement is ridiculous.
            What a joke. They have NO remorse for what they did. And, you think these pathetic individuals are going to "THINK" about what they did? All you are doing is giving them a chance to figure out a way to escape, while they sit in prison. And, not to mention, I said it before, it punishes every other person for their crime. That's simply unfair.

            1. profile image59
              susanrichardsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              see here you go again your worried more about ur tax dollars then actually reading and thinking about what is being said. Let me explaine it one more time but first a question.

              1. How many people have you heard of excaping?

              2. How do you know that sticking them in prision will not make them think about there crime and how do you know if at anypoint in there prision term they dont feel remorse.

              Second off i am not political and i dont even bother to watch elections for reasons of my own i believe they spout a bunch of bullshit. And i dont bother to watch or listen to the bullshit to try to sway my opinion when in fact i have one. Obviously yours is to punish everyone by death how fair is that.

              Third Then death penalty isnt a punishment its an eye for an eye but that being said my opinion on this matter is this im not looking at it in the prospective of tax $$$$$ or your lame brain issue where you think everyone will escape I am looking at it this way punishing them by killing them dont make the victums family feel better nor does it make the crime inpact to said family any less to live and deal with. I personally feel that its them getting off way to easy and well thats because i know what goes on in a prision i also know there are different types of prisions ones where they keep them locked down 23 outta 24 hours a day for those bad criminals. They would have much more punishment if they had to sit in an 8x8 cell and watch the walls and think about what they did and what they have lost (see these criminals have familys to and to hurt your own family in this manner would make anyone think). See when your stuck in a box so to speak what whould you do would you just be so happy go lucky or would you have nothing to do but think. Personally i get the feeling that you dont care about the crime you would rather pay for every criminal to die by your statement at the end witch is wrong. I think that capital punishment the death penalty is wrong and its use is not really punishing the criminal its to easy.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Your entire post has no argument.

                http://hubpages.com/hub/Death-Penalty-C … man-Rights

                Go learn something would you.

                1. profile image59
                  susanrichardsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  the link you posted is By Cagsil witch is you and i dont agree with you and my post had argument you must be to dumb to understand what people are saying or your to stuck on ur own mindset to get that there are some who dont want to follow your gospel i will not go to your page and learn what you have to teach me because you have nothing to teach me. i will on the other hand stick with my feelings and beliefs that killing someone for there crime is letting them off way to easy but you dont seem to get it or understand what is being said and obviously you are to stuck on people excaping and your tax dollars to understand well here is the last reply to you the death penelty is wrong on so many levels and i for one believe that its not punishing anyone by killing them. so i will put up an example here in this post say a mother kills her husband who was beating her and she left not only to be found again and her thinking the only way to stay alive is to go back with the said man for the cycle to start over but know she knows she cant leave for fear he will find her and kill her himself. so one night he starts beating her and she finally defends herself and kills him (as her only way to be safe and free of this) are you proclaiming that she should be found guilty and exicuted because you believe in capital punishment. I am sorry you will never change my mind and to me its as if the criminal is getting off way to easy. Like i watched on tv with a real mother whos daughter was killed killing the person who did it dont bring back her daughter. She also said that she thought it be better that he spent every waking moment thinking about her daughter and what he had done but he cant due to being exicuted. People will punish themselves in prision along with the crap that goes on in there the fights and so on. Look i have been to a prision and i have seen the crap from afar but killing those who commit crimes is only taking a life its not really punishing the criminal.

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Your argument has failed, regardless whether or not, you lack the intelligence to understand it. lol

                  2. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No you rather stunt yourself. You rather come on to this forum an insult people, who you don't even know.
                    Grow up. Learn how to use sentence structure. Until you learn how to, talking to you is meaningless, because you don't use grammar properly, nor do you use punctuation properly. Trying to understand your run amok sentence isn't the easiest thing to do.
                    I get that you're not too up on understanding of human rights and/or the law, so let's just say this- self defense has always been a justified reason for killing, provided that her life was in immediate danger. And, to answer your question- NO! It should be applied properly and had YOU read my hub you would understand that.
                    Easy? They are DEAD! Do you not understand the term DEAD?

  8. thisisoli profile image54
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    I think the death sentence should remain for some of teh most evil people.

    While I think it is important that the evidence should be rock solid before the sentence is carried out, there are a few people in the Human population who can never be restored to society, and keeping them alive in a cell benefits nobody.

  9. OutWest profile image59
    OutWestposted 6 years ago

    It's wrong to kill...period.  And that includes the death penalty. And is usually carried out on the poor people of society who can't afford a good lawyer anyway.  Plus we all know there have been innocent people convicted.  Funny how a violent society wants to solve violence with violence.

  10. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 6 years ago

    The death penalty seems to work against our justice system, not for it. It's expensive and not very effective as a deterrent.

    Consider - juries are more reluctant to convict in death penalty cases, putting a greater burden on the prosecution to prove their case. Also, countries with no death penalty are hesitant to extradite suspects who may face execution in the U.S.

    The number of criminals actually executed when compared with the number condemned to death is quite small. There isn't a "justice is done" factor if the execution never happens. Usually, the victim's family waits 10 or 15 years for an event that won't ever come to pass.

    Then there's the impossibility of correcting a mistake when a  wrongly convicted person is executed.

    The only possible justification for capital punishment would in cases of a person in prison, serving life w/o parole, who commits another murder. In that case, the danger to staff and inmates cannot be eliminated as long as the psychopath is alive to strike again with impunity. In such a case, the death penalty may be the only deterrent available.

    On the whole, the death penalty is a costly distraction and is ineffective as a crime deterrent. Usually, it doesn't even provide revenge, if that's the goal.

  11. brimancandy profile image81
    brimancandyposted 6 years ago

    I think the death penalty is a joke. People piss and wine and moan about it, but in reality the death penalty is rarely carried out. Look at Charles Manson, the only reason he was not put to death, is because the police still think they can get information out of him. And, the sole purpose of the death penalty is just that, threaten death to get information. And, prisoners on death row have all kinds of council, which is just a disguise to get more information, as police often assume that people on death row may have committed a lot of unsolved crimes, whether that person was involved or not. But, their actions may lead the capture of a like-minded criminal.

    The problem is the true criminals view of prison. If you ask a lot of people who have been in prison, they claim that they would rather be there, then on the streets. They get 3 meals a day, a shower, a place to sleep, a place to work out, and, in some prisons, a chance to get an education, and in some ways protection from people who may be out to get them. In short there is no fear involved for them in going to prison. And, that doesn't include the prison underground, where they can have access to things from the outside, like drugs, and the ability to carry out crimes through others from inside prison.

    The main thing that most people talk about prisoners fearing is being raped or stabbed by another inmate. A lot of that is Hollywood exaggeration of prisons. It does happen, but not as often as we are lead to believe. Most of the men I know who have been in prison, say it never happened to them, and rarely happened at all. It was mostly just fights, but nothing serious or anything for anyone to fear. They are watched every minute of every day, and getting involved in those things just means you will spend more time there as punishment of those things.

    Now if you go to other countries, going to prison means you will actually be treated like a criminal. Some countries even beat their prisoners on a regular basis, and some don't even wait for that, they cut off body parts and break legs so the criminal can't ever commit a crime again, and being put to death is done quickly with no debate. So, those countries have very low crime rates. As most people fear the law, and are obedient, but, don't see themselves as being that way, because it's just their way of life, and they never get in trouble.

    The difference is, people in those countries know their place, but in the United States, it's all a waiting game, and one step away from getting caught. But, like I said, for most criminals in the United States, prison is just time to kill until they get out to commit crimes again, as some have been in and out of jail repeatedly. They could care less, and are probably most likely to be just as brutal to people in prison as out.

    Another problem is lumping all prisoners together. The poor guy who got arrested for stealing food because he was hungry, put in the cell with the guy that killed someone. Because they throw so many people in jail, there is not enough room for them all. The punishment should fit the crime. I forgot to add unless you are rich, they have a special prison for you. It's called house arrest.

  12. Shadesbreath profile image86
    Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago

    They were making all these arguments back in ancient Athens. Nothing has changed since then.

    Main points against
    1. Hope: People commit crimes in the same optimistic way young people to sign up for the military. Sure, there's risk, but nobody ever thinks THEY will be the one who "gets it." Crime is the same. That is why deterrence doesn't work.

    2. Biology/Neurology: Some people are wired wrong and do crimes because they are out of biological/neurological balance (as has been mentioned).

    3. Error: Innocent people can be killed because human justice is inherently subject to error, by accident and by intent.

    4. Passion: Violent crimes are often committed out of passion. For a "deterrent" to function, the deterred needs to be in a rational state in which he/she can reason through cause/effect relationships and choose the most desirable outcome. Deeds done out of passion are, by definition, not done based on reason. (Drugs and illness can induce or increase passion as well).

    5. Religion: People from various religions can make assorted supernaturally-justified arguments why it is wrong.

    Main arguments for
    1. No Repeat Crime: Culprit can't re-offend if dead.

    2. Cost: Cheaper than imprisonment (if done quickly without all the pomp and ceremony we have in America).

    3. Deterrence: It will deter others ( "Even if only ONE person refrains, it was worth it.")

    4. Population control (Some will argue for eugenic reasons too, which I include as part of this one.)

    5. Religion: People from various religions can make assorted supernaturally-justified arguments for why it is right.

  13. profile image0
    klarawieckposted 6 years ago

    I don't know, but giving them life imprisonment so that the guy is 80 by the time they figure out he's innocent? Might as well have killed him.
    Error is error, no matter what. People have died due to being misdiagnosed. Some mistakes are bigger than others, but that's just the way it is. As human beings, we rely on each other's abilities to do our jobs correctly. When someone can't, errors happen. Every day you put your trust on others. Driving your car down the street requires trust, but that doesn't mean that at one point you could find a reckless driver who misses the red light and crashes your car.

    1. Shadesbreath profile image86
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The problem with this debate is that it always comes down to conflicting ideals, neither of which is wrong.

      What's good for society?
      What's good for the individual?

      So, for fun, I'll play Devil's Advocate regarding your statement, since you are clearly arguing for what is good for society.

      The obvious (and eternal) counter to your argument is this: Would you be so cavalier if it was you being executed by mistake? Maybe one of your kids? Would you just sit there in your idealistic calm and take it, saying "Oh well, errors happen. It's all for the greater good?"

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, but that's why there has to be enough evidence to prove that the person is in fact guilty of the crimes. If it's unclear, then it can't be done.

  14. Diane Inside profile image82
    Diane Insideposted 6 years ago

    To tell the truth I'm glad there is a death penalty.  Because if there wasn't and my family member was murdered, then I would hope and pray for them to be found not guilty and released so I could do the job myself.

    So really the death penalty is a good thing, for the murderer it saves them from my inevitable torture and slow aganizing death I'd have planned for them, and it keeps me out of jail!

    1. KyleBear profile image59
      KyleBearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's not a very nice thought.

  15. Diane Inside profile image82
    Diane Insideposted 6 years ago

    It might not be a nice thought but its a fact. If people thought that justice was not being served , there would be a  whole lot more vigilante justice doled out.

    Sorry but murderers, deserve to be murdered. End of story. In my book they have no rights, once they show they do not consider the rights of their victims.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And you think you are better than a murderer because . . .

  16. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    The arguments presented by the OP are great. But they are ultimately only of a utilitarian perspective; they only address a sort of "cost effectiveness".

    This is unnecessary.

    The death penalty should be done away with for one reason only.

    Only individuals can act, and murdering is immoral.

    The "government" can't be allowed to kill simply because the the government doesn't have powers that the citizenry also does not.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

  17. jandee profile image46
    jandeeposted 6 years ago

    Hello Kyle,
                  I think that if just one person is executed and later found to be innocent that surely should make state execution untenable.   At this moment I am watching the film of the state murder of Derek bentley who was hanged in london in 1952/3 he was an accomplice to a youth of 16 or so who supposedly shot at a policeman,the bullet ricoched from a wall to the policeman who died.
    Too many innocents are 'scapegoats' also !
    best from jandee

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Jandee:

      I hear ya, but there is no perfect system. There will never be.

      The human being is a dispensible commodity. That, fact, will never change.

      One is used, another pops up to be used.

      There will always be the slave and the slavemaster.

      Things don't change, only appearances do.

      There will always be systems to punish and the innocent will inadvertantly be involved.

      In lesser forms of life, those that cannot adapt, perish.

      If a society is to succeed, all its constituents must function synergistically. Nature weeds out the unadaptable, those that drain the system and cause imbalance.

      That system has worked for about 4 billion yrs. Why shouldn't we work with it?

      Along the route to species survival, some of the good are lost with the bad, but Mother Natures plan is for survival of the fittest and most adaptive.

      Her system can be compared to a self perpetuating system, once balance is attained it is programmed to insure that Mother Gaia remains a happy productive and nurturing living entity.

      If that balance is lost, her response would be to evolve whatever is needed to regain that balance...and so it has been since Mother Earth was created.

      I say destroy those who will not adapt. Do not coddle them and place undue stress on those who are dedicated to the success of the human species...and move on.

      Qwark

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      As I recall the case pivoted around words. The policeman was trying to talk the kid into giving him the gun and Bentley said "give it to him"
      The defence argued that he had meant, literally, give him the gun. The prosecution argued that he had really meant something else entirely - shoot him.

      Bentley was eventually pardoned, posthumously!

    3. KyleBear profile image59
      KyleBearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes I agree. Many sad cases where people didn't deserve to die appears countless times in our history.

  18. jandee profile image46
    jandeeposted 6 years ago

    Hello John,
                 you are correct. I am in a state of amazement ! As I was typing in a response about execution on the forum,which I am a stranger to, my Husband said to me' watch this '! It was the Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig  real life movie-I am now feeling sad as I was a teenager and witnessed all of this.  I remember that we -the public -all expected a reprieve for Derek and were gutted at the result.
    jandee

  19. jandee profile image46
    jandeeposted 6 years ago

    I am utterly appalled at the 'woman' writer who actually said-cannot believe it!' Nuke them 'a disgrace !
    jandee

    1. profile image0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That would be me. And yes... I know I'm damaged, but I feel absolutely no pity for cold blooded murderers. When I see the pain they cause I just can't help it.

  20. Diane Inside profile image82
    Diane Insideposted 6 years ago

    What about those cases that they are definately guilty, they admit their guilt even.

    Like serial killers who get off on killing and even getting caught.

    Ted Bundy
    Jeffrey Dohmer

    Thats a couple off the top of my head. 

    So they should not have been expected to give up their life for the lives of so many they took. 

    Well, to bad they kill, have no sense of moralality, no sense of humanity, they are animals nothing more.

  21. IntimatEvolution profile image80
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    I think it is wrong for someone to use a portion of MY hard earned dollars to kill.  I am against the death penalty, because I do not believe two wrongs make a right.

    1. Diane Inside profile image82
      Diane Insideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      if its about cost, that can be easily fixed,  a bullet doesn't cost that much.

      it's the legal system that causes the cost, not the execution itself.

      and your right two wrongs don't make a right.  But its not about making things right. Its about making them pay for their crime. Let the punishment fit the crime.  And its about eliminating the possiblility that that person would ever be able to kill another INNOCENT victim.

    2. thisisoli profile image54
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Spending over a million dollars keeping someone in jail or releasing someone who will kill again does not make a right either.

      Besides two wrongs often does make a right.

  22. IntimatEvolution profile image80
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    I still do not one penny of my money being used to kill someone, in which we find ourselves in the position of being a judge...  as if we were that person's morale maker.

    What right do we have to purposefully murder someone?  Since when has life become meaningless?  When a society kills someone in the sense of punishment, they devalue life.

    1. Diane Inside profile image82
      Diane Insideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And a Murderer did not devalue life.  I hear all this talk about the Murderers rights.  What about the rights of the victims.  What about the rights that that person the Murderer did not consider.

      Yes unfortunately civil liberties and basic human freedom does come with a price.  A price our military pays everyday so you can sleep at night. And police officers pay everyday so you can move about in peace.

      Life is only meaningless to the Murderers.  Life is precious.  Murderers do not see it that way. 

      Sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree here.

      If your little girl was murdered by some man who gets off on molesting and raping little girls then killing her, your precious daughter would you be able to say let him live so easily.  If so...... well nevermind. Just think about that.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're acting as if you are the Judge and maker of humanity.  Who gave you that title?  Since when is it okay for you to take my money, to pay for your moratorium? 

        Your argument here, is stating just that.  You don't have a right to use my money.  You don't have a right to murder.  You don't have a right to dictate the value of life.  ALL life is precious.

        Yes we disagree, thing is I understand why we disagree.  This isn't an argument for the victims.  This isn't a debate about who is sleeping better at night than who, or whether or not a murderer values life.  Or wait, thinks it's precious....

        I come from a Death Penalty state.  It costs my state 10x the amount to kill someone, than it does to feed and clothe them for a lifetime.  Now do try to understand.  I'm all for saving money- especially mine!  I thought that since living in America, I had the right to do that.  Now, just because you want someone dead for killing somebody, I've got to help foot that bill?  That's criminal in itself.

        1. thisisoli profile image54
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Try saying all life is precious to the families of those bereved by a mass murderer who slayed their loved ones for the enjoyment of it.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's such a wastes of money!!

      ... kind of like enforcing the Constitution.....

  23. tony0724 profile image60
    tony0724posted 6 years ago

    I don't think we use the death penalty near enough. This 25 years of appeals stuff has to go !

    1. Diane Inside profile image82
      Diane Insideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree especially when there are actually killers who confess to premeditated murder. A confession should warrant immediate execution.

      Bam! just saved us thousands of dollars. And a murderer can never murder again its a win - win solution.

  24. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    We have had several serial/mass killers in the UK recently. Several of them killed themselves before they could get to trail, another notorious killer has been on hunger strike for many years, he wants the right to die.

    Seems to me that if these people see death as preferable to a life in prison, those screaming out for the death penalty are in collusion with mass murderers and therefore no better than them.

  25. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    The last consideration in any form of justice must be cost.
    When we decide on the most cost effective punishment then truly we are lost.

    Would you really see it as justice if we decided that a 20 year sentence was just but the death penalty was cheaper?

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not at all John.

      But a 20 yr sentence is not given for a capital crime deserving the death penalty.

      For instance, lets take the death of the little 8 yr old girl who was kidnapped from her bedroom by a next door neighbor, imprisoned in his house, raped and then her LIVE body stuffed into a black garbage bag with her teddy bear and buried in the back yard where she suffocated and died.

      I want that human "beast" to suffer in the same manner that sweet, innocent child did! BURY HIM LIVE IN A BLACK GARBAGE BAG IN HIS BACKYARD!

      Of course there'd be screams that that would be "cruel and inhuman" treatment and the cretin religionists would gather outside his jail cell with lit candles praying and chanting to this god thing for sympathy. Sympathy which he never considered for his scared to death "baby" victim!

      If that kind of execution could happen, I'd want to be chosen as his executioner! Give me a shovel and watch me send the psychotic bastard to his maker.

      Hey! I read in the bible that this biblical god thing ordered the murder of alot of 'lil children! Even the unborn!

      See!... that SOB and this god thing would have alot in common.

      They'd git along fine!

      Qwark

  26. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    So you'd give him the easy option out would you?
    Or do you think life in solitary confinement a cushy option?

    But really well off the point that I was making.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      John:
      Not at all!

      I don't want to waste tax payers dollars keeping this waste of human life alive.

      Keeping him alive would be "cruel and unhuman' punishment when you consider that that money could be better spent feeding starving children right here in the USA!

      And, I believe in "vengeance!" I believe in "tit for tat!"

      I'm an imperfect human animal that loves precious life and detests anything, anyone who would jeopardize any innocent persons "right" to enjoy it (life) for as long as possible!

      Qwark

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Back to the point I was trying to make. You can't put a price on justice, and you can't base justice on a worst case scenario.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          John...really?

          I'm of the notion that one gets the amount of justice one can afford.

          The "Juice" is a good example.

          Justice is not "blind," it is expensive!

          Qwark

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But then that's not justice is it?

            No system where one guilty man can walk free and another not, because one can afford a better defence than the other is not justice.

            1. KyleBear profile image59
              KyleBearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              How many rich men do you see get executed?

        2. thisisoli profile image54
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Just because you shouldn't base al justice on the worst case scenario doesn't mean justice should not be prepared for the worst case scenario.

          The worst case scenario happens every day somewhere.

  27. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    I can only speak for myself, but the death penalty is not about revenge, or justice or even deterrent (although there is little doubt that it will deter a few from like actions).

    It is about protection from those that think and act far outside societies norm.

    Consider these cases:

    The case near me recently where a group of men caught another, dragged him behind a car until bleeding and mutilated then tied him to a barbed wire fence to die.  Because he was gay.

    The case listed above by Qwark of the child rapist and murderer.

    The case of a convenience store robber that, after getting the money that he wanted and on the way out of the store, turns and kills the storekeeper simply to feel the power that he has to take a life.

    Another case near me (in trial now) where a man is accused of torturing and eventually murdering a young boy in the name of punishment.  Taking place over a long period of time, it is obvious that the accused (IF guilty!) enjoyed the power he had over that little boy and had no regard for the child's welfare or life.

    The case of a group leader and mastermind where the group murders those that are of a different religion.

    In all these cases the mindset is one of total disregard of human life, and that mindset is not permitted in our society.  To lock the murderers up and then give them access to our legal and psychological systems almost guarantees that those systems will be gamed to the point that some are released to kill once more. 

    This type of person will not change; they will retain that mindset for life.  They cannot be rehabilitated and they will never be a "safe" member of society.  They must be removed from society and the safest method is the death penalty.

    Interesting to me is the last case listed above; the US recently sent marines to kill that group leader and the country cheered when it happened.  So did much of the world.  Is that really so different than the death penalty being applied to others that kill because they do not value life?

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wild:
      Call me whatever name ya'd like when I express this feeling.

      There is that "primitive" inclination in my very "genes," that cries out "vengeance" when a barbaric psychopath snatches precious life away from a deserving human being!

      I know that killing the worthless SOB is not a deterrent. It just satisfies the "beast" in me!

      We humans are not above being beasts! We have evolved as predatory beasts. Our history is rife with chronic genocide!

      I try my best to be social and civilized and live according to my belief that one should live and let live...but there are exceptions to my rule and that exception coincides with the prime law of Mother Nature: Adapt or Die!

      The "barbaric, murderous sociopath" cannot adapt and must die!

      Damn! did one cuppa coffee do that to me...whew...lol

      Qwark

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know, Qwark.  I couldn't bury a dog alive that bit my child and surely couldn't do it to a human that was begging for mercy.

        I could pull a trigger, though, giving a quick and easy death to the animal you listed above and it wouldn't bother me one bit.  No difference at all to shooting a rabid dog.

        Other than that one point (and although I would try to talk you out of such action for your own benefit I wouldn't lift a finger to stop it either) I agree with what you say.  There are beasts on two legs out there that must not be allowed to walk our streets.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wild:

          you wrote:

          "I don't know, Qwark.  I couldn't bury a dog alive that bit my child and surely couldn't do it to a human that was begging for mercy."

          Nor could I or would I!...but, if the dog KILLED my child, I would wreak terrible vengeance upon that dog knowing full well that doing that would not bring my child back...but it would "partially" ease my loss by "knowing" that that murderous mutt would never do that to another child!

          The human begging for mercy? What did he do? If he killed my child and begged for mercy he'd find NONE as I ended his murderous life with vengeance in my mind!

          I stand on my primitive genetic inclination as a mean predatory killing machine (We've proved that over the history of our species) that vengeful killing is a human characteristic!

          That facet of our genetic evolution has not yet been sublimated by a more social and civil attitude toward one another.

          I am concerned for the future human species. The future of my progeny and yours. WE must learn to adapt ...OR..create an environment we can control thus controlling our evolution and becoming a more viable species.

          But at the moment we exist as base predators!

          Qwark

  28. Sahastri profile image58
    Sahastriposted 6 years ago

    I wouldn't accept it.

    The crime will get increased if there is no death penalty for the one who does mistakes. 

    The sinners will go around and explore there sin everywhere in the world.


    "DEATH PENALTY IS MUST AND SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED MORE WIDER.!"

  29. trooper22 profile image59
    trooper22posted 6 years ago

    I have seen this argument before on these pages, and I agree that the death penalty should not be about deterrent, revenge, or even justice.  My view and advocacy for the death penalty is a bit more basic and I’ll explain in what way.  But first, I would like to show why I think the death penalty should not be thought of in the terms presented in most of the arguments in favor of the death penalty.

    1. The death penalty as a deterrent:  History makes it very clear that the death penalty in those countries that still use it is of little use in ceasing violent crime.  In modern and sub-modern society’s murder, rape, and serial crimes still exist at (in most cases) even higher frequencies than in countries that no longer have the death penalty.

    2. The Death Penalty as vengeance.  Eye for an Eye just does not work.  I don’t care how you slice it.  Eye for an Eye only leads to escalation until everyone concerned is either dead, or blind.

    3. The Death penalty as justice and closure.  Killing a perpetrator of a crime will never bring back a loved one.  Killing the criminal still leaves the result of the crime and will only add to the tragedy of the circumstance.

        Why I think the death penalty makes sense is simple.  We live on a grossly over-populated planet.  In order for us to co-exist with relative tranquility is to have structure and at least a semblance of order.  When an individual steps out of this order and places themselves above the populace, they lose touch with the reality that creates justice, peace, and community.  In short, said individual renders themselves useless and a burden on those that work to maintain their lives and their society.     
         Extending said burden by incarcerating such sick individuals makes no sense what so ever.  Killing violent criminals may not solve the national dept, it will not deter violent crime, nor will it give closure to the families of victims.  But it will relive society of footing the bill that will allow these creatures a long life of three hots and a cot.  A life in a cage is no life perhaps, but it is a life that costs money to maintain.     
        When the proof is indisputable, put them down.  These types of criminals are beyond re-habilitation and have no right to live on our good graces.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      TY trooper:

      ...and human population will reach about 9.5 billion in another generation and a half.

      Knowing that, we must also know that human trial and tribulation will follow suit.

      I can't think of a species, other than we humans, that protects its weak and or malfomed.

      Nature handles those efficiently, with no compunction and the species thrive.

      Thus a necessary balance of nature continues on, guaranteeing viability in all species.


      We humans have divorced ourselves from the "natural."


      The anomaly "consciousness" has created a characteristic we have named "curiosity."

      Being "curious" creatures (in all respects) we challenge everything. WE try to understand and control all, to our benefit.

      But in so doing, we have an evolved social tendencies to protect our kind.

      But our genes  have a powerful predatory facet that has been programmed by millions of yrs to destroy anything which jeopardizes our way of life...including others of our species.

      Even the ancient trog would protect it's own...but would destroy one of its own group that caused the violent death of a tribe member.

      In all life, survival of the species is the master goal.

      I'm with you that "These types of criminals are beyond re-habilitation and have no right to live on our good graces."

      I say Amen to that!

      Qwark

      1. KyleBear profile image59
        KyleBearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, that basically leads to one simple question.
        What are the boundaries of "beyond re-rehabilitation" and can anyone be a judge to that other than God?

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Kyle:

          That question has no meaning for me.

          You mention this "god thing." What does, whatever it is, have to do with anything we're chatting about?

          Define this "god thing" to me in other than "baseless opinion" and I'll re-consider your question.

          Qwark

          1. KyleBear profile image59
            KyleBearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Generally I do not bother replying to people who are atheists, so are you one? I find the way you replied quite offensive and it would sure be a waste of my time explaining to you if you are indeed one.
            So before wasting anymore of my time, I'd like an answer.

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Kyle:
              I'm an "ignostic." (that is not an agnostic)
              Qwark

              1. profile image0
                Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                In other words, you have that fence post planted firmly in the middle of your butt or, for all intents and purposes, you're a weak atheist.

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Long:
                  Atheist?
                  Where are ya coming from?
                  There's no such thing as an atheist!
                  An atheist denies the existence of god/s.
                  What the hell is this "god thing" other than a figment of someones imagination?
                  There doesn't seem to be a "god thing" to deny.
                  I challenge ya to define this "god thing" in any form but baseless opinion.
                  Pls accept my challenge and PROVE me wrong.
                  If ya can, I'll even convert to a monotheistic belief.
                  I'm waiting.  smile:
                  Qwark

                  1. profile image0
                    Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "There's no such thing as an atheist!"

                    I hope peterxdunn sees this comment. I don't like the guy but at least you don't have wonder what the guy is.

                    Could it be you're just hedging your bet in the fear there is a God?

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Good grief! How narrow minded! Should I stop responding to theists?

            3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What about secularists?

  30. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    Poor Kyle is so offended by my question, he is speechless!
    Bigotry will do that to ya...lol
    Qwark

  31. profile image0
    Valemanposted 6 years ago

    I don't believe any country which claims to be civilised can still maintain the death penalty.  There are some crimes, for which the criminal should never be allowed their freedom again, but to take away someone's life makes the state no better than the offender.  Killing a fellow human being is murder, whether done by the individual or the government.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Valeman:

      The day has yet to be realized that we humans become a "civilized" lot.

      We have not been "civil" to each other or to nature since our appearance!

      Now you'll say that we have to begin somewhere.

      It won't happen in our lifetime.

      A day doesn't pass that man is not involved in the murder of
      his fellow man!

      It is a "FACT" that we humans spend 24 hours a day researching and inventing more efficient ways to commit genocide.

      To remove the unadaptable by killing them is just doing Mother Natures work!

      Killing the dangerous, unadaptable is not Murder.

      Murder is the illegal killing of another human being.

      Mother Nature would say, that if one cannot adapt, her law of: survival of the species, would require the death of that one.

      If we humans want to survive as a species we must destroy anyone who is dangerous and in anyway jeopardizes natures master goal of survival of the species.

      A murderous psychotic should not become a further drag on a society by depriving the adaptable from anything that is necessary for the benefit of the healthy and functional.

      WE could feed, clothe and nurture the lives of many of the needy with the billions spent on billeting and feeding a dangerous, unrehabilitateable, murderous psychopath!

      Not to destroy them would be pure foolishsness!

      Qwark

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Politicians, smelly people, people who aren't good looking, people who just can not adapt to modern life.

        Wow, bring on the master race.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          John:
          As expected you seem to be illiterate and can't read with understanding.
          That was one of the most inane replies I've ever received from a responser...ludicrous! lol
          Qwark

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I responded to what you wrote, not what you thought you wrote.

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              John:

              Really?

              I wrote:

              "WE could feed, clothe and nurture the lives of many of the needy with the billions spent on billeting and feeding a dangerous, unrehabilitateable, murderous psychopath!

              Not to destroy them would be pure foolishsness!"

              Your reading ability leaves much to be desired!

              May I ask if you graduated grade school?

              If you did, you seem to be just another example of America's failing education system.

              Qwark

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You actually wrote;-

                "Mother Nature would say, that if one cannot adapt, her law of: survival of the species, would require the death of that one.

                If we humans want to survive as a species we must destroy anyone who is dangerous and in anyway jeopardizes natures master goal of survival of the species."

                Would you like to reconsider your opinion?

                Did you graduate grade school?

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  John...
                  That's a good example of taking something out of context and making it fit your preconceived notion of the intent of the comment.
                  I stand by everyword of my comment regarding destroying the anadaptabale, murderous, psychotic animal of any species.
                  WE just happen to be "chatting" about the convicted, dangerous human psychopath.
                  My intent and verbiage used, explain very clearly, "crystal clear" the meaning of my reply.
                  Qwark  smile:

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually,we were chatting about the death penalty.
                    It may have been crystal clear to you but as I said, I responded to what you wrote, not what you thought you wrote.

              2. profile image0
                Valemanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, there isn't such a thing called "grade school" in England.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  But I'm quite happy to be an example of America's failing education system smile

                  Just not the UKs failing education system.

                2. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Valeman:
                  lol I think ya'd oughta go on back and re-work your reading skills..smile:
                  ...a "vegan" eh?
                  Why would I be concerned about that? It's your choice.
                  Qwark

                  1. profile image0
                    Valemanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually qwark, I wasn't replying to you, but to Longhunter's argument that murderers are animals and are therefore fit to be killed.  It is the assumption that animals are only fit to be killed, because we as human beings have a so-called God-given right to use animals as we wish, that I was questioning.  Yes, I would agree that killers are animals, but then so are we all.  Biologically there is very little difference between humans and other animals.

                    You mention my reading skills quark.  What of your writing skills? Or is "oughta" a word now?

      2. profile image0
        Valemanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I do fear any suggestion that the "unadaptable" should be killed.  How many types of people would you extend the description of "unadaptable" to?  I seem to remember Hitler having similar ideas concerning the disabled.  He believed them to be of little purpose and were therefore expendable.  When humans begin thinking along these lines, I fear where it will all end.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          VAleman:
          My goodness!
          Another shallow reply!
          I said dangerous, psychopathic, murderer!
          Why don't you all take time to read, mull it over for intent and then respond instead of just replying emotionally?
          tsk tsk......
          Qwark

      3. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Qwark, we may not agree on the existence of God but we do agree on the death penalty. I see no reason for our tax money to go to the upkeep of people who, IMHO, are nothing more than animals.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          TY Long...a couple of thumbs up!  smile:
          Qwark

        2. profile image0
          Valemanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That you consider them animals, is no argument for the killing of a human being.  As a vegetarian, I don't believe humans have the right to take away the life of any animal either.

          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Let me clarify, Valeman, my comments were directed at those who have committed murder. I also believe a person who rapes a child should be held accountable in the same manner. These people are nothing more than animals and I'm of the opinion they can't be rehabilitated. Some don't deserve the opportunity to try.

            I, myself, love a great steak and baked potato. I also don't have a problem with hunting for what meat goes on my table. I've done so many times and will do so again. Hunting and the death penalty. They both save money.

            NOTE: No potatoes were harmed in the writing of this post.

  32. recommend1 profile image64
    recommend1posted 6 years ago

    I believe that the value of a person is grossly over-rated and distorts the thinking about any death penalty.  I have been staunchly in opposition to any death penalty most of my too long life, but have come to change my mind about the arguments. 

    BUT I do not advocate any death penalty, there is not one government or legal system that I am aware of that I would trust to operate such a system.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      recommend:

      You don't, but you are but one.

      All "systems" conceived by we humans are faulty.

      It's a damned good thing that the destroying of those who would murder innocents in my presence, is not left  up to me! They'd never get to the booking desk!

      I'd be Mother Natures "cleaner!"

      I am a humanist and pragmatic realist who wants the human species to survive.

      There are a few ways that can be done:

      1. reduce the human populace to a level it can be effectively/efficiently controlled by a 1 world gov't dedicated to human survival.

      2. Assist Mother Nature by destroying the dangerously unadaptive, who have proved beyond a doubt to a society, that they place all they come into contact with, in great jeopardy of loss of life!

      3. Genetically engineer humans whose predatory inclination has been replaced with great civility and powerful social needs to survive.

      First we have to survive the next 50 yrs.  hmm:

      Qwark

      1. recommend1 profile image64
        recommend1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You say in one line that "all human systems are faulty"  and in another you call for a single world government. 

        I cannot imagine how you would come to think that having one world authority would not lead to slavery on a massive scale.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          recommend:

          I said, a 1 world gov't dedicated to the survival of the species.

          That 1 world gov't would also be an imperfect system.

          At this point in the evolution of the human animal, it is so fragmented by such a variety of fiction and fact, that "it" can never come together in concert to insure "its" viability.

          Slavery has. historically, proved to be unworkable. It would not be considered by the 1 world gov't I'd have in mind.

          Science would dominate and deadly primitive concepts such as the existence of supernatural entities would not be allowed.

          Eugenics would be encouraged, researched and utilized to produce the kind of human I mentioned.

          ...on and on and on..........

          Qwark

  33. profile image0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    In Canada here we do not have one, it's a shame, death row houses 13% innocent, I am not prepared to let the remaining percentage walk or sit or whatever.  Suppose it's quite different when your faced with the tragedy that is deserving of a perpetrators death.


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5175000_f248.jpg

    1. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's why here in the States, a condemned criminal is automatically given appeals and assigned lawyers to be sure there's no instance of putting an innocent person to death. They are also provided free DNA testing (if applicable) if that can clear them.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Even though the United States is one of the few countries left in the world that has the death penalty.

        1. profile image0
          kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          a legal death penalty so the execution is nice and civil

      2. profile image0
        kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        still 13% innocent die - fact

        and appeals can take up to 12 years on death row

        1. Paul Wingert profile image78
          Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          At least 12 years. That's why it's cheaper to give a person life without parole than to execute them in this country. There are many instances where  condemned people were freed (by DNA evidence) who were sitting on death row for 15 + years. As afr as a clean execution, the main method is lethal injection in most states except two (as I know of). Washington State gives the condemn the choice of hanging or lethal injection and Utah gives the choice of lethal injection or firing squad. In both states, if the condemned doesn't make a choice, lethal injection is used)

          1. profile image0
            kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            roll

            1. bbnix profile image56
              bbnixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "no instance of putting an innocent person to death"...

              That doesn't make sense...perfection is impossible...soo....given that..a innocent person most definitely is and will be put to death...not to mention the shear cruelty of "taking a human life" ...period.. for whatever reason..it's blood thirsty...lowest common denominator crap....we as a society, a so called modern culture here in the states...that's the best we can do...?

              1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, there are quite a few oddities here in the US. The death penalty makes it on the top 10.

                1. platinumOwl4 profile image37
                  platinumOwl4posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I am trying to remember the name of that book were the people believe an eye for an eye.

                  1. bbnix profile image56
                    bbnixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    It also talks about love and judgement..

  34. My Stories profile image60
    My Storiesposted 6 years ago

    I don't see what's the point when they are on death row for 15-20 years. What's the point?  Our death row system is strange. You are sentenced to death, but yet you get to live for many years before they decide to put you to death.  I also think that there has to be strong evidence, such as DNA because an innocent person can die.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Welcome to Hubpages and it's forums. And, you do have a point.
      The point is to manipulate the Economic system through privatization of crime imprisonment.
      This is also a part and parcel, a problem that stems from the Judicial/Court System and it's problems, which are great in number. The appeals process takes too long.
      And, in today's world, that doesn't guarantee, an innocent person wouldn't be convicted. Technology and medical science, continue to make strives forward, in understanding and manipulation of our biological make up, so we can ensure the human species continues on.

      Since innocent people can be convicted of crime they didn't commit, doesn't diminish the usage or implementation of Capital Punishment and/or Death Penalty.

      To properly apply the sentence, it should only be used on major criminals, like serial killers and mass murderers. These types of people MUST be weeded out and there is no rhyme or reason that can be made, that which would allow their criminal acts, to cause additional harm to all of society, which is brought on by housing said people. Taxpayer revenue shouldn't be used, to either house or execute. There is no need for taxpayer revenue to be used at all.

  35. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    I'm against the death penalty. Even one wrongful execution is one too many.

    It has been proven that it cost more to execute a person than have them spend the rest of their lives in jail.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey UW, fix the court system. tongue

      On top of that, it doesn't have to cost more to execute them than to house them for the rest of their life. tongue

  36. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    All you guys...

    Are ya'll aware of a sumthin' called "institutionalization?"

    The human psyche adapts over long periods of experience and repitition.

    Recidivism amongst ex cons who have spent many yrs behind bars become "institutionalized" and would rather remain in prison than be released into a society they no longer understand and which frightens them. They are released and commit another crime to return to the life they know and have become accustomed to...in prison!

    The condemned murderer is a sociopath who doesn't sit and think about his crime every mmoment of his incarceration.

    He, by law, must be fed nutritious food, be treated humanely, must have a comfortable place to sleep and must be provided recreation. He can order books, paper and writing tools, he can watch tv, order movies and has commissary privileges. Plus he has the right to appeal all the way to the Supreme courts.

    Nope sorry, I don't agree that being locked up would be worse than death if death was caused in the same manner the perp took his victims life. Equal fear, equal pain, equal suffering and finally death!

    Now you christian fundies read this! Your biblical god thing would love ya even more if ya took and "eye for an eye!"

    If ya don't know this, ya aughta read yer "king james" and get enlightened!...OK?  smile:

    QWark

  37. TLMinut profile image61
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    People bring up the fact that too many innocent people are convicted and executed - it might be better to die than suffer wrongly in jail all those years with real criminals.

    But still, what percentage of innocent people are dying because we DIDN'T kill off the predators?

  38. callonresources profile image69
    callonresourcesposted 6 years ago

    Death penalty is adeterent and should take place only for people who murder others not like for acts of espionage or when used as an oppresive tool to confront political opposition as it happens in places in the Middle East such as in Syria, Libya, China, North Korea and many others.

    Why should a person be allowed to live when he has robbed others of living??? The death penalty should never be abolished..

  39. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    The death penalty has never worked as a deterrent...

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey UW, do you know why? I do.

      Answer: It has NEVER been implemented and/or properly used.

  40. TLMinut profile image61
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    It's not a deterrent because the crimes that deserve it are perpetrated by beings that have no, or very little, humanity in them.
    The point should be that execution is removing the poison from our society.

  41. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    Murder defined:

    " The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

    Murderers don't "ALWAYS" get caught.

    The "sociopath" doesn't consider the penalty of death if caught. Sooo...the death penalty is not a deterrent.

    Others who plan and commit murder, may think that they will outsmart the system (it's been done before) and not get caught. Sooo...the death penalty may not be a deterrent to them.

    Then there are those who commit murder knowing full well that the "system" is flawed and they will be taken good care of for maybe 20-30 yrs before the sentence is carried out.

    There may be a chance that the system will find in their favor and rescind the death sentence to life in prison where they will be fed well, get medical care, a nice soft cushy bed, air conditioning, entertainment and maybe just maybe....conjugal visits! eh?... I can kill this no good SOB and the system'll take special care of me for yrs...maybe the rest of my life!

    No deterrent there!

    Don't abololish the death penalty, it MAY just rid society of a deadly misfit!

    Qwark

  42. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    Preservation of life is universal and I think that those who are into heinous crimes are mentally deranged. They could be put in a place where they can be cured and not to be killed.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Pretty:
      There has not yet been found a way to rehabilitate a murderous sociopath.
      Why keep 'em around?
      Qwark

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image62
        prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        do you think problem is solved then if you just kill them, there will be replacements..

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Pretty:
          That's true in all species.
          But nature is thoughtless and definite in its penalty for being unadaptable. The penalty is death.
          Man is the only animal that contradicts the natural laws of survival.
          Knowing that others will replace the ones we destroy is the natural way of things. There will always be mistakes. That is a basic process of evolution.
          The adaptable will survive, the opposite will  perish!
          Qwark

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image62
            prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think that humans are more social and well animals too, but not in the same way as humans. We are more sophisticated, we don't just kill and replace each other. We have human laws and we as humans are capable of compassion.

            besides that, we value life that we keep on discovering and exploring things through Science just so we can preserve and elongate our life expectancy

            The nature has limits, but we can extend our lives if we want through choices we make

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Pretty:

              Just because we have evolved the anomaly "consciousness," does not overpower our genetically programmed "need" to kill.

              We've been doing it for millions of yrs and continue on today.

              Billions of yrs before man appeared, life on this planet was flourishing because survival demanded "balance."

              We humans function in contrast to all that is necessary for life to continue on earth.

              We are so unique a species, that we have gained the ability to end most extant life! No other species of life has attained that potential!

              There are 3 things man must do if he desires to survive as a species...not one of those 3 things is possible.

              1. Follow the time proven, natural laws for survival.

              2. Function in concert to guarantee the viability of the species.

              3. Change and control the environment thus controlling our evolution.

              It is much to late to accomplish any of those 3 necessities.

              We humans have set the stage for catastrophe. There is no possibility of turning back, that I can visualize.


              Qwark

 
working