The answer to your question is above.

Interesting argument. I wasn't taking it personally - jut wanted to be clear where i stand.

I agree with the likes of Ted Bundy - however if what you are saying is so clearly cut and dried, why is execution no longer practised (except in some god fearing states)?

I'd be interested to know what you think about my comment about execution not being a "civilised" response to individual crimes.

Also I agree with you Blair and Bush are war mongers. In the face of the largest public demostration in recent times, Blair still felt able to ignore this and go to war. Very very sad.

Don’t take it personally I wasn’t singling you out. The war point was more aimed at the fact the Blair got re-elected even though he is a war monger.

 

 I can assure you any research in to Psychopaths and some Sociopaths will show they are inherently evil. Ted Bundy for instance had an idyllic child hood brought up by two loving parents, he was popular at school and when he started killing, raping and eating women he was in a long term and happy relationship. He went on to kill and rape 104 women over fives year without showing any kind of remorse.

 

P.S so far in history the loophole has been that God clears the executioner.

Firstly, I never said anything about war being ok or tame! War is a terrible thing.

Also I am not sure that anyone is inherently bad of evil. I agree that some people (a very small minority) are beyond rehabilitation. What to do with them, is indeed a difficult question. But surely an eye for an eye doesn't solve the problem? Who clears the executioner of "murder"?

What about a Psychopath?

 

Education cannot change something that is inherent in a person.

 

Why, when a politician pass laws allowing the executing of a few people whom has committed a terrible crime provoke so much anger but going to war which will mean the deaths of thousand (many innocent) has a much tamer affect.

Public executions have been utilised in the past as a means of discouragement from wrongdoing for members of the public and to encourage them to be law abiding (in addition to the obvious function of punishment of the offender) . I think that fear and bloodshed is not the correct way to encourage humans to be civil to one another. Rather I would prefer to see education for the public and rehabilitation for the offender as a means of crime reduction. - And yes, I know that economically this is unrealistic - but that doesn't make cheaper alternatives correct.

Furthermore, who is the judge of right and wrong? Who determines who lives and who dies? Who has the responsibility of executing?  All of these things to me smack of a backwards step rather than a shift towards what is a truely civilised society. (and i don't mean civil in terms of mere politeness)

I think it is unimportant how evil the person is, by killing someone we are no better. An eye for an eye is unimaginative way of looking at the world. Unfortunately I am using the human invention of right and wrong which does not really exist. They are only simplification to help understand are environment. So really we are just another pair of ignorant humans believing that are simplified way of looking at the universe is right.

 

P.S the stock and the veg I am a big fan of.

what is your stand

 

How about putting people into stocks and throwing rotten vegetable at them. It doesn't kill and is a fun day out for all the family:)

I am agains public exacutions.

They are examples of arguments for and against. I don’t need to proof them there not my arguments. Why don’t you give an opinion and stop dancing around the issue.  

I don't think it is an easy question to answer. So I wanted more data, and in your replay there are a lot of assumptions but no proof of it. Will it really scare people or just up the price?

In Singapore there is a death penalty for drugs trafficking. But still they come.

I understood that in the states where the death penalty is in use the criminals are more extreme because if they kill 1 police officer they can also kill 2 or more, for they can only kill you once.

It is merely a question not necessarily an opinion. Executions can be a good way to dispose of people that commit terrible crimes and will continue to if allowed. Making them public will set an example for others. A counter argument could be that we are a civilised species and as such this action should sicken and discussed us. Another argument could be that it is bad for say Saddam Hussein to broadcast executions but fine for the Americans to broadcast his execution to world wide audience.  

To be honest I thought I would get more of an argument than “you freekin weirdo”. I guess it’s ironic that comment came from an American who lives in one of the few remaining countries that execute minors.

 

What do u want to achieve with that.

You're a freekin' weirdo.