[QUOTE=Mr. America;32771606]You need to read the thread, I said it's not a right..
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
Grievously mistreated as in murdered, not those since those aren't the point of the thread if you had read what we've been talking about at all....
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
People claim that they are "rights" and they're still abused. Calling them privileges is just being realistic as opposed to idealistic.[/QUOTE]
No, you don't understand. The things that are called rights now, they simply can't be privileges. By definition. A privilege is something given to you that gives you or a group an advantage over another.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32770405]That would have achieved nothing, just another dead body and less opportunity for reconciliation which has been proven to be more effective for everyone in the long run.
Do you have any evidence that a system like that is better?
Here's some more that supports mine.
[url=http://privateweb.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/academic/journals/utahlawreview/2003_1/07Poulson.pdf]Source.[/url]
Then how can you possibly claim that all murderers feel irreconcilable guilt? Clearly you've never felt it, and there is plenty of evidence of murderers being able to move on with their lives regardless of what they have done, so it's not based on personal experience or fact, then what is this opinion based on?
[url=http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/4/1/63.short]Source.[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure executing Hitler after his first murder would have saved over 6 million lives, killing Stalin would have saved well over 14 million Russian lives, and I don't know the exact figures of Napoleonic wars but I'd assume at least over 2...
Your study about the 32% reduction in recidivism is fine and dandy, but you're forgetting that I'm proposing a [B]100% reduction in recidivism among murderers[/B]. So you take your pick, 32% and patting them on the shoulder saying its ok or 100% and putting a bullet through their head.
My opinion is based on speculation, as I'm sure yours is unless you are about to confess you have murdered someone.. Therefore, my speculation holds as much weight in terms of fact as yours does.
Perhaps the better system here would be to have an option for surviving family members to choose whether or not they want the criminal to be executed or jailed for life, that way they don't have to feel guilt if they don't like murder and can feel happy they "saved a precious life"... However, if there are no family members left, seeing as the murderer likely killed them all or just lucked out and they didn't have any more family; then they should be put to death as they chose to have themselves put to death by their actions.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32771688]No, you don't understand. The things that are called rights now, they simply can't be privileges. By definition. A privilege is something given to you that gives you or a group an advantage over another.[/QUOTE]
You don't understand the fact that I'm arguing its NOT a right. So I'm not saying you should take a right from someone because those things are not rights. Don't say you can't take away the right to life when I'm saying life is a privilege not a right. Also, life is a privilege because by having it you are at an advantage to dead people, it was also given to you by your parents. So, life qualifies as a right.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32771741]I'm pretty sure executing Hitler after his first murder would have saved over 6 million lives, killing Stalin would have saved well over 14 million Russian lives, and I don't know the exact figures of Napoleonic wars but I'd assume at least over 2...[/quote]
Godwin, Godwin, Godwin.
Also none of those three actually murdered anyone, they just ordered the deaths of people they didn't like. Sound familiar?
Perhaps we should kill you now to save the lives of criminals your ideas will kill in the future.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32771741]Your study about the 32% reduction in recidivism is fine and dandy, but you're forgetting that I'm proposing a [B]100% reduction in recidivism among murderers[/B]. So you take your pick, 32% and patting them on the shoulder saying its ok or 100% and putting a bullet through their head.[/quote]
Yea because there is no recidivism in the United States because of the death penalty right?
Or are you assuming a 'perfect' system that would never work in practice again?
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32771741]My opinion is based on speculation, as I'm sure yours is unless you are about to confess you have murdered someone.. Therefore, my speculation holds as much weight in terms of fact as yours does.[/quote]
Opinion based on speculation based on opinion based on speculation......
My opinion is based on evidence.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32771741]Perhaps the better system here would be to have an option for surviving family members to choose whether or not they want the criminal to be executed or jailed for life, that way they don't have to feel guilt if they don't like murder and can feel happy they "saved a precious life"... However, if there are no family members left, seeing as the murderer likely killed them all or just lucked out and they didn't have any more family; then they should be put to death as they chose to have themselves put to death by their actions.[/QUOTE]
So to prevent them from feeling responsibility for the offenders death (and therefore guilt) you put them in full control of whether they live or die?
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]Retribution is justice. I want justice for a voice that can't be heard.
I don't care how barbaric it is, it is simply the RIGHT thing to do, to punish those who intentionally put others though an equal or greater amount of suffering.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
Read the thread before you comment, you moron.[/QUOTE]
if its barbaric, it's not "right" unless you consider blood shed good, in which case, you should reasonably be on the killers side.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32772068]if its barbaric, it's not "right" unless you consider blood shed good, in which case, you should reasonably be on the killers side.[/QUOTE]
I consider bloodshed of the unjust, just.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32771879]Godwin, Godwin, Godwin.
Also none of those three actually murdered anyone, they just ordered the deaths of people they didn't like. Sound familiar?
Perhaps we should kill you now to save the lives of criminals your ideas will kill in the future.
Yea because there is no recidivism in the United States because of the death penalty right?
Or are you assuming a 'perfect' system that would never work in practice again?
Opinion based on speculation based on opinion based on speculation......
My opinion is based on evidence.
So to prevent them from feeling responsibility for the offenders death (and therefore guilt) you put them in full control of whether they live or die?[/QUOTE]
They were directly responsible and I would not doubt that they had all murdered at least one person in their time, to think that would just be naive.. If that was a pathetic attempt to say that I want murderers dead just because I don't like them and I am therefore equivalent to Stalin is just stupid.. It is not a true comparison at all. Yes, killing me for putting murderers to death makes perfect sense... because the whole point here is that murderers kill innocent people without provocation and I am advocating killing guilty people who have murdered an innocent.. totally the same thing..
Recidivism, assuming you mean the dictionary definition of a repeat crime ([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recidivism[/url]) can have a 100% reduction rate by executing murderers. I will explain AGAIN.. I am not saying that the death penalty will stop murders by other people but it is impossible for any recidivism to occur if the murderer is executed. Please understand somewhere in your brain I am not saying the death penalty stops people from committing murder the first time, but it makes damn sure the second time can never happen.
Your opinion is not based on any more evidence than mine when talking about the fact that people would feel guilty of murder because I have no personal experience with murder and neither do you. You have stories that some people get over it, operative word being SOME. Not everyone gets over it, so your opinion can be based on evidence but does not make it true or right.
I said put the living family members of the victim in charge of whether or not the criminal is jailed for life or executed. Yes, that would completely alleviate them from any guilt of that criminal's death as they (the victim's family, if they were left alive) can choose to not enforce the death penalty. I personally would enforce it, but if it makes you people happy since you would not support it then you would have the option to not put them to death so you can feel better you saved some life that is so precious to you.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32771173]People do have a right for food, healthcare and education. [B]It's in the law, and you can derive rights from laws.[/B][/QUOTE]
A positive right is no more than a use of a service though because without government, such a right does not exist. This is in clear contrast with a negative right where without government, the right still exists. Is this notion over your head? I'm asking this because you're not offering a retort, and you should reread what the bold part until you figure what what's wrong with it.
Facepunch: home of some of the worst dialectic on the internet.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32771688]No, you don't understand. The things that are called rights now, they simply can't be privileges. By definition. A privilege is something given to you that gives you or a group an advantage over another.[/QUOTE]
Are you playing dumb or honestly this stupid?
He's not trying to redefine what a right is. He's saying what if Human Rights were removed and replaced with Human Privileges. Human Rights are still defined by a governing body, you do realize this right? Anything that is called a right now could easily, by some governmental happening, be seen as a privileged in the eyes of society and therefore be taken away from you.
Another thing, the law reserves the [i]right[/i] to strip your of [i]your rights[/i].
Which brings me to the somewhat blunt comment I made earlier: what is the point of this thread? There's been countless posts concerning trivial details instead of actual argument and its extremely annoying to read.
[QUOTE=Slight;32772535]Facepunch: home of some of the worst dialectic on the internet.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
Are you playing dumb or honestly this stupid?
He's not trying to redefine what a right is. He's saying what if Human Rights were removed and replaced with Human Privileges.[/QUOTE]
I've been trying to explain that same point this whole thread... its just about useless..
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32772584]I've been trying to explain that same point this whole thread... its just about useless..[/QUOTE]
That's why ratings need to come back. So people can read dumb posts, realize that their dumb, and not make the same mistake.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32771173]
People do have a right for food, healthcare and education. It's in the law, and you can derive rights from laws.[/QUOTE]
People have a right to food? Haha, you are truly blessed sir.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32772174]
Recidivism, assuming you mean the dictionary definition of a repeat crime ([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recidivism[/url]) can have a 100% reduction rate by executing murderers. I will explain AGAIN.. I am not saying that the death penalty will stop murders by other people but it is impossible for any recidivism to occur if the murderer is executed. Please understand somewhere in your brain I am not saying the death penalty stops people from committing murder the first time, but it makes damn sure the second time can never happen.[/quote]
Life imprisonment achieves the exact goal with no risks of executing innocents, with no unnecessary force, a chance a rehabilitation and all for a much lower cost.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32772174]Your opinion is not based on any more evidence than mine when talking about the fact that people would feel guilty of murder because I have no personal experience with murder and neither do you. You have stories that some people get over it, operative word being SOME. Not everyone gets over it, so your opinion can be based on evidence but does not make it true or right.[/quote]
I proved an example of two [url=http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/4/1/63.short]case studies[/url] that prove it is possible for offenders to overcome guilt. You are arguing to execute people because it is impossible for them to overcome their guilt which I have proven and you have admitted is not true.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32772174]I said put the living family members of the victim in charge of whether or not the criminal is jailed for life or executed. Yes, that would completely alleviate them from any guilt of that criminal's death as they (the victim's family, if they were left alive) can choose to not enforce the death penalty. I personally would enforce it, but if it makes you people happy since you would not support it then you would have the option to not put them to death so you can feel better you saved some life that is so precious to you.[/QUOTE]
If you let them make the choice you put the full burden of a mans life in their hands. Can you really not see the problem with that?
Mr. America and BestBuyInBRICK, you've both been insisting this whole thread that this is a hypothetical situation without taking into account certain realities (like how the government is not that efficient at using the death penalty). Except then you've both made your arguments by relying on realities (or perceived realities) of life imprisonment due to mass murder:
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769176]Your argument is ludicrous to compare an unemployed person to a murderer. They don't contribute positively in an economic sense, but they're not running around splitting people open for fun...
Why does everyone want them in prison forever? How is that a better option in any way? They possibly murder again in prison, they could break out, they live a semi-decent life better than people in 3rd world countries.. How is this a "fair" punishment for the havoc they had wreaked? That's a bleeding heart argument that it doesn't matter what people do let them live. Next thing you know you'll be saying people who rob banks shouldn't be put in jail because they didn't hurt someone they just took some money and threatened people's lives that's no biggie.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769244]If your mom or a loved one was on a packed public transport bus, and I blew it up to make a bad point about something, would you want me to sit in a prison?
Well considering you're obviously set on being Mr. Ethical, yes, you would. You wouldn't want any harm to come to me, because I was already removed from society.
Do you think everyone who died is going to agree with you on that? They [highlight]WON'T[/highlight]. These people who completely disregard and destroy human life simply do not deserve to be treated with the same level of respect as normal people.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769136]Oh, so they get to continue living, while the 50 innocent people that they executed don't?
What about the families that he tore apart? You think they're going to get much relief from the fact that this guy is nice and cozy in a prison cell for the rest of his life?
[/QUOTE]
Is this a philosophical debate of human rights, or isn't it? You guys can't have it both ways.
he's basically made his premise so vague and mercurial that he's able to disregard any criticism of it
I'd just like to throw this out there: as long as it is cheaper and more time efficient to imprison people for life, then the death penalty will always be at odds end.
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.Tpen_7LZdBk]Just read this short article[/url] if you want to know more.
You can argue the moral question to the ends of the earth, but the real deciding factor is money and time.
[QUOTE=Slight;32772747]I'd just like to throw this out there: as long as it is cheaper and more time efficient to imprison people for life, then the death penalty will always be at odds end.
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.Tpen_7LZdBk]Just read this short article[/url] if you want to know more.
You can argue the moral question to the ends of the earth, but the real deciding factor is money and time.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's the thing. Even if we all come to the conclusion that's it's morally permissible or even correct to kill people for killing people, it won't matter, because other factors (like, oh, reality) come into play. It matters that the state kills innocent people, it matters that it's more costly to kill someone than to imprison them for life, etc.
For example, Mr. America said:
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769236]Hence why I said just shoot them in the back of the head for $1 and be done with it. We're not discussing our system though, just the right and wrong of what should happen not how to implement it or how it is implemented in our governments... as stated multiple times..[/QUOTE]
But he's arguing that the actual cost of killing someone is cheap, whilst ignoring the argument that you can't just kill an accused person without evidence and so on, which costs money, otherwise you would be killing a shittonne of innocent people (which goes against his philosophical view). That very statement is stunningly hypocritical.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32772688]Life imprisonment achieves the exact goal with no risks of executing innocents, with no unnecessary force, a chance a rehabilitation and all for a much lower cost.
I proved an example of two [url=http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/4/1/63.short]case studies[/url] that prove it is possible for offenders to overcome guilt. You are arguing to execute people because it is impossible for them to overcome their guilt which I have proven and you have admitted is not true.
If you let them make the choice you put the full burden of a mans life in their hands. Can you really not see the problem with that?[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHAHA wait... so here we go again. I'm talking about a situation where we knew for a fact who did it, so you are again talking about something different. You also think there's no unnecessary force in prisons? and you think that you can imprison a guilty man for life and rehabilitate him for a much lower cost than a $1 bullet? Shit we need you to run our economy.. I don't know how you'd do it..
I didn't say it was impossible to overcome guilt I said that they likely would not be able to and again fine and dandy but who gives a damn if they are able to cope with the fact that THEY killed someone, they don't have any privilege to life anymore and don't deserve to be able to cope with that. I also am not saying I am execution them because they can't get over their guilt, I'm saying to do it because they killed someone. I said they would likely want to have had themselves killed once rehabilitated and looking back at what they had done...
Your argument was that you were scared the people wouldn't want a man to have been executed just because he killed their family member so I said let them choose then life in prison/execution and now you're complaining that they would feel burdened by making the choice? I'm pretty sure that anyone would not feel burdened and would make either choice rather quickly based off whatever they believed in. You would say life in prison, be happy and go along. I'd say kill him and go along dealing with my dead family member, but at least know the SOB was put down and wasn't allowed to see another ray of sun.
Your arguments, or lack thereof, going off topic, and thinking you are proving an entire point through two examples without conceding to any shred of legitimacy to what I have said (which you know there is unless you're a complete twat) really just makes me think my countless repeating my points is not going to help you understand what I am saying at all..
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32772707]Mr. America and BestBuyInBRICK, you've both been insisting this whole thread that this is a hypothetical situation without taking into account certain realities (like how the government is not that efficient at using the death penalty). Except then you've both made your arguments by relying on realities (or perceived realities) of life imprisonment due to mass murder:
Is this a philosophical debate of human rights, or isn't it? You guys can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE]
It began hypothetical but people needed examples or injected them to understand the theoretical arguments to show reasoning behind them on either side.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32772831]Well, that's the thing. Even if we all come to the conclusion that's it's morally permissible or even correct to kill people for killing people, it won't matter, because other factors (like, oh, reality) come into play. It matters that the state kills innocent people, it matters that it's more costly to kill someone than to imprison them for life, etc.
[/quote]
You know, I did underplay the significance of moral standing when regarding government issues. After all, most states still support the death penalty because of the roughly two-thirds of Americans who still favor it. I think my statement will become more true in the future if anything as politicians and the media convince the populace that the death penalty is becoming a burden.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32772831]
For example, Mr. America said:
But he's arguing that the actual cost of killing someone is cheap, whilst ignoring the argument that you can't just kill an accused person without evidence and so on, which costs money, otherwise you would be killing a shittonne of innocent people (which goes against his philosophical view). That very statement is stunningly hypocritical.[/QUOTE]
Yeah some people neglect the lengthy legal proceedings that frequently happen when concerning the death penalty.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32772831]But he's arguing that the actual cost of killing someone is cheap, whilst ignoring the argument that you can't just kill an accused person without evidence and so on, which costs money, otherwise you would be killing a shittonne of innocent people (which goes against his philosophical view). That very statement is stunningly hypocritical.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you saying he was arguing that there are other costs associated with putting someone to death? That I understand, but I'm not talking about legal processions and convictions etc. I'm talking about a hypothetical where you knew exactly who the person was, there is no trial just the question of should he be put to death or not. I'm not accounting for any factors other than they murdered someone and deserve to be put to death. I only mentioned the cost of a bullet because someone mentioned life imprisonment was cheaper, but if you just spent the same amount of time to convict someone for execution as we do for life imprisonment and did the execution a minute after the trial you'd come out ahead monetarily on the execution.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32772891]HAHAHAHAHA wait... so here we go again. I'm talking about a situation where we knew for a fact who did it, so you are again talking about something different. You also think there's no unnecessary force in prisons? and you think that you can imprison a guilty man for life and rehabilitate him for a much lower cost than a $1 bullet? Shit we need you to run our economy.. I don't know how you'd do it..[/QUOTE]
jesus christ you're terrible at this
there's no such thing as a system where it takes a "$1 bullet" to kill someone, not even the most authoritarian
in real life, in our society, it costs [B]much[/B] less to keep someone imprisoned for life than to execute them
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32773018]jesus christ you're terrible at this
there's no such thing as a system where it takes a "$1 bullet" to kill someone, not even the most authoritarian
in real life, in our society, it costs [B]much[/B] less to keep someone imprisoned for life than to execute them[/QUOTE]
I'm terrible at this? Have you not noticed I've been arguing about the ethics of the execution not the implementation because I realize there are problems and costs associated with it? And actually if you do executions on a mass scale for the murderers I'm pretty sure you could get the price down to the $1 especially considering wholesale costs, dedicated facilities, and a low employment cost.
The only reason it costs much less to keep someone imprisoned in our society is because there is so much lobbying to not kill them and etc. and sometimes the case is not perfectly clear as to who the murderer is so there needs to be lengthy investigations etc. However, we're talking about a situation where we know exactly who it was. Please read the whole damn thread..
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32773075]I'm terrible at this? Have you not noticed I've been arguing about the ethics of the execution not the implementation because I realize there are problems and costs associated with it? And actually if you do executions on a mass scale for the murderers I'm pretty sure you could get the price down to the $1 especially considering wholesale costs, dedicated facilities, and a low employment cost.
The only reason it costs much less to keep someone imprisoned in our society is because there is so much lobbying to not kill them and etc. and sometimes the case is not perfectly clear as to who the murderer is so there needs to be lengthy investigations etc. However, we're talking about a situation where we know exactly who it was. Please read the whole damn thread..[/QUOTE]
wow did you really just mention mass executions immediately after trying to tell me you're arguing ethics
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32772891]
Your arguments, or lack thereof, going off topic, and thinking you are proving an entire point through two examples without conceding to any shred of legitimacy to what I have said (which you know there is unless you're a complete twat) really just makes me think my countless repeating my points is not going to help you understand what I am saying at all..[/QUOTE]
Really? Your argument is starting to look like this: I'm right, and if you don't know I'm right, then you're too stupid to have this conversation.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32773176]wow did you really just mention mass executions immediately after trying to tell me you're arguing ethics[/QUOTE]
Wow do you really think I mean mass executions of innocent people? I mean something setup for mass execution of murderers since you were complaining that you couldn't execute for $1, which I'm pretty sure you could on a certain scale.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32772891]
It began hypothetical but people needed examples or injected them to understand the theoretical arguments to show reasoning behind them on either side.[/QUOTE]
Not good enough. You weren't just providing examples, you were justifying your argument by appealing to certain facets of reality, which you had previously and went on to dismiss when your opponents did so.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32773186]Really? Your argument is starting to look like this: I'm right, and if you don't know I'm right, then you're too stupid to have this conversation.[/QUOTE]
No, my argument is that several of you have posted something thinking you were arguing with me but instead been off topic, not made sense, or not been reasonable to concede that I had any point; which I have done earlier in the thread.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32772996]I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you saying he was arguing that there are other costs associated with putting someone to death? That I understand, but I'm not talking about legal processions and convictions etc. I'm talking about a hypothetical where you knew exactly who the person was, there is no trial just the question of should he be put to death or not. I'm not accounting for any factors other than they murdered someone and deserve to be put to death. I only mentioned the cost of a bullet because someone mentioned life imprisonment was cheaper, but if you just spent the same amount of time to convict someone for execution as we do for life imprisonment and did the execution a minute after the trial you'd come out ahead monetarily on the execution.[/QUOTE]
The two of you making a lot of your arguments based on details beyond the notion of murdering someone because they murdered someone. Like the idea that families will suffer because the murderer isn't killed, the perceived comfort they will have in prison, the cost of killing someone, etc.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32773209]No, my argument is that several of you have posted something thinking you were arguing with me but instead been off topic, not made sense, or not been reasonable to concede that I had any point; which I have done earlier in the thread.[/QUOTE]
You didn't need to attack flyschy ad hominem.
And you said right there. Basically you think anyone who disagrees with you entirely is a 'twat'.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32773200]Not good enough. You weren't just providing examples, you were justifying your argument by appealing to certain facets of reality, which you had previously and went on to dismiss when your opponents did so.[/QUOTE]
Here's a taste of half of the arguments against me... "who says you're allowed to decide my argument isn't good enough". I was providing examples and using them to justify my opinion after the subject was irreversibly thrown out of a purely hypothetical situation described by the OP that numerous people seem to have completely glossed over by just jumping to page 6 and responding.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32773211]
You didn't need to attack flyschy ad hominem.
And you said right there. Basically you think anyone who disagrees with you entirely is a 'twat'.[/QUOTE]
No, I think to not concede to any point despite the logic behind it would make you a twat. I attacked him because I am tired of people giving irrelevant arguments after I've tried to put it back on track with the original topic. I do not think he's a twat for having a different opinion at all. I only said he would be a twat to think that I had absolutely no shred of logic behind my arguments.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32773197]Wow do you really think I mean mass executions of innocent people? I mean something setup for mass execution of murderers since you were complaining that you couldn't execute for $1, which I'm pretty sure you could on a certain scale.[/QUOTE]
do you consider the mass executions of anybody to be ethical
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32773282]do you consider the mass executions of anybody to be ethical[/QUOTE]
Of innocents? No, not at all. Of people that are convicted murderers with no doubt of their guilt? Yes, if you were trying to make it more affordable to execute them; what does it matter if they are executed in mass or individually. (Assuming you were to agree with my opinion that murderers of innocents should be executed).
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32773318]Of innocents? No, not at all. Of people that are convicted murderers with no doubt of their guilt? Yes, if you were trying to make it more affordable to execute them; what does it matter if they are executed in mass or individually. (Assuming you were to agree with my opinion that murderers of innocents should be executed).[/QUOTE]
or try to help those people
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
