Experts Call For End To Death Penalty In Thailand

[webfact]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Experts call for end to death penalty in Thailand

PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- Thailand is falling behind its neighbours when it comes to abolition of the death penalty, activists and experts said at a seminar yesterday.

The event, organised by the Union for Civil Liberty with support from the European Union, the French Embassy and others, brought together participants from across Southeast Asia to Thammasat University in Bangkok. There was talk of progress made in the region and a call for Thailand to speed up the abolition of the death penalty.

"We sincerely urge Thailand to take the lead" in abolishing the death penalty in the region, said Debbie Stothard, deputy secretary-general of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). Two countries in the region, the Philippines and Cambodia, no longer have the death penalty, she said.

In Southeast Asia, Thailand's death-row population is second to that of Malaysia, where about 900 prisoners are awaiting execution.

In Thailand, the number of inmates on death row is around 600 - about half of them drug-trafficking convicts, according to Amnesty International Thailand.

Singapore was named by Amnesty International in 2004 as the country with the highest per-capita ratio of death-row prisoners, but their numbers have since been markedly reduced with far fewer executions in recent years, said Mabasamy Ravi, a lawyer and death-penalty opponent from Singapore.

In Vietnam, which like Thailand still retains the death penalty, the right to life is increasingly viewed as important by Vietnamese authorities, said academic Ngo Ming Huong.

Thailand last executed two inmates in 2009, said Pol Colonel Aeknarat Sawettanand, director-general of the Department of Rights and Liberty Protection. He reported that department will engage in two phases of work in order to gain more knowledge from abroad and in Thailand and enable the public to better understand and be sensitised to the fact that death penalty doesn't help reduce severe crimes.

Aeknarat said many Thais are still in the mindset of revenge and retribution, which poses a hurdle in trying to convince them that it is against human rights standards to retain the death penalty. Back in the 1960s, said Aeknarat, prime minister Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat used Penal Code Article 17 to summarily execute arson suspects. Many Thais thought it was swift justice.

"I think times have changed," said Aeknarat. Besides growing opposition to the death penalty by some Thais and acceptance that death penalty is against human rights by the Justice Ministry, the Royal Thai Police have also increasingly recognised that forced disappearances and torture under interrogation are no longer acceptable, said Aeknarat.

However, the director-general admitted that Thai society is "addicted to violence" as reflected in the popularity of gruesome photos splashed on newspapers' front pages. "The mass media breed revenge and retribution," he said, adding that what Thailand needs is rehabilitation of people who commit crimes so they can become productive citizens.

Ultimately, it's up to Parliament to end the death penalty, Aeknarat said.

-- The Nation 2012-12-13

[cup-O-coffee]

It is not even worth discussing this issue with regards to a kingdom where corruption can create trumped up charges and make a sheep with fleece as white as snow as if it were a coal black ram... or a ram that is coal black the same as a sheep with fleece as white as snow.

The discussion of the death penalty should be for confirmed killers, and without regards to which borders this confirmed killer is being detained. Using Thailand as a stage to discuss this makes this impossible, and therefore as meaningless as tits on a wild boar.

900 on death row? I wonder.

Regarding the death penalty: give the peace freaks a gun and put a gun in the hand of the confirmed killer and let's see who shoots first.

Edited December 13, 2012 by cup-O-coffee

[FarangTalk]

Not surprising the issue of the death penalty is being raised now, given the case procedures against Abhisit and Suthep.

[DocN]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

[Pimay1]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

[DocN]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Sure, no problem!

I think it wrong, because -as a much wiser man than me once said- "An eye for an eye, will leave everybody blind"!

Also: if you wrongly accuse and sentence someone (and that happens once in a while) to death...

If you sentence him to a life in prison and it turned out to be wrong, it is bad enough, but at least you didn't kill him!

Apart from that: I think, taking the life of any human is just not right! And even if that person did something awfully terrible- 2 wrongs doesn't make a right!

And to put someone to death, so that another person is feeling better (eg gets his/her revenge) doesn't make it better either.

I think, there are many good reasons against the death- penalty, but I am still to hear one good reason for it!

[noitom]

The survey posted raises more credibility questions than clarifies any questions.

[JetsetBkk]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

So your mum gets mugged by a bloke in the street.

She tries to hold on to her handbag and he says: "Let go or I'll shoot you!"

She doesn't let go and he shoots her dead.

How do you feel?

[abq2020]

There should be no option of the death penalty being rendered by a justice (term used very loosely) system as it presently exists in Thailand. Besides, is it not the case that the prisons here in Thailand are cruel and unusual punishment enough?

[DocN]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

So your mum gets mugged by a bloke in the street.

She tries to hold on to her handbag and he says: "Let go or I'll shoot you!"

She doesn't let go and he shoots her dead.

How do you feel?

I REALLY have been hoping for a question like that to come on!

So you think, that my PERSONAL feelings, that I have in a very SPECIFIC situation, should alter my opinion about a LAW or a HUMAN RIGHTS question?

It is a decission, that should be made on logic, analytic thinking and not because I might have a very, very bad day!

And if I EVER get into a situation like that and should find myself screaming for murder, I hope that someone like me hits me in the face really hard, so I come back to my senses!

Sorry buddy- but it is an idiotic question that holds no water!

You could make ANY law, with these questions!

Are you against the so-called "rice scheme" in Thailand?

Yeah?

But what would be, if your parents were rice- farmers and really poor and would have to sell your kidney to survive, or your little sister into prostitution?

And what would be, if the moon would be made of cheese and you had to make a pig fly, to get there?

[Skywalker69]

Not surprising the issue of the death penalty is being raised now, given the case procedures against Abhisit and Suthep.

Blablablabla, you are just to much, your Holyness.

[hawker9000]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Sure, no problem!

I think it wrong, because -as a much wiser man than me once said- "An eye for an eye, will leave everybody blind"!

Also: if you wrongly accuse and sentence someone (and that happens once in a while) to death...

If you sentence him to a life in prison and it turned out to be wrong, it is bad enough, but at least you didn't kill him!

Apart from that: I think, taking the life of any human is just not right! And even if that person did something awfully terrible- 2 wrongs doesn't make a right!

And to put someone to death, so that another person is feeling better (eg gets his/her revenge) doesn't make it better either.

I think, there are many good reasons against the death- penalty, but I am still to hear one good reason for it!

No, but it ENSURES the killer doesn't kill again. Drug traffickers ARE part of a huge world apparatus that kills and enslaves and should therefore receive the same treatment. You don't hear any good reasons because you're a circular thinker. No reason for it that you hear CAN be a good reason, so no reason you hear IS a good reason.

[JetsetBkk]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

So your mum gets mugged by a bloke in the street.

She tries to hold on to her handbag and he says: "Let go or I'll shoot you!"

She doesn't let go and he shoots her dead.

How do you feel?

I REALLY have been hoping for a question like that to come on!

So you think, that my PERSONAL feelings, that I have in a very SPECIFIC situation, should alter my opinion about a LAW or a HUMAN RIGHTS question?

It is a decission, that should be made on logic, analytic thinking and not because I might have a very, very bad day!

And if I EVER get into a situation like that and should find myself screaming for murder, I hope that someone like me hits me in the face really hard, so I come back to my senses!

Sorry buddy- but it is an idiotic question that holds no water!

You could make ANY law, with these questions!

Are you against the so-called "rice scheme" in Thailand?

Yeah?

But what would be, if your parents were rice- farmers and really poor and would have to sell your kidney to survive, or your little sister into prostitution?

And what would be, if the moon would be made of cheese and you had to make a pig fly, to get there?

"I REALLY have been hoping for a question like that to come on!"

I'm glad I could oblige.

[DocN]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

So your mum gets mugged by a bloke in the street.

She tries to hold on to her handbag and he says: "Let go or I'll shoot you!"

She doesn't let go and he shoots her dead.

How do you feel?

I REALLY have been hoping for a question like that to come on!

So you think, that my PERSONAL feelings, that I have in a very SPECIFIC situation, should alter my opinion about a LAW or a HUMAN RIGHTS question?

It is a decission, that should be made on logic, analytic thinking and not because I might have a very, very bad day!

And if I EVER get into a situation like that and should find myself screaming for murder, I hope that someone like me hits me in the face really hard, so I come back to my senses!

Sorry buddy- but it is an idiotic question that holds no water!

You could make ANY law, with these questions!

Are you against the so-called "rice scheme" in Thailand?

Yeah?

But what would be, if your parents were rice- farmers and really poor and would have to sell your kidney to survive, or your little sister into prostitution?

And what would be, if the moon would be made of cheese and you had to make a pig fly, to get there?

"I REALLY have been hoping for a question like that to come on!"

I'm glad I could oblige.

Cool!

So what do you say to that?

[Fozfromoz]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Too right. If they want to abolish it, i could recommend the right time. Straight after the last insurgent freedom fighter murdering terrorist in the South has been dealt with.

[DocN]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Sure, no problem!

I think it wrong, because -as a much wiser man than me once said- "An eye for an eye, will leave everybody blind"!

Also: if you wrongly accuse and sentence someone (and that happens once in a while) to death...

If you sentence him to a life in prison and it turned out to be wrong, it is bad enough, but at least you didn't kill him!

Apart from that: I think, taking the life of any human is just not right! And even if that person did something awfully terrible- 2 wrongs doesn't make a right!

And to put someone to death, so that another person is feeling better (eg gets his/her revenge) doesn't make it better either.

I think, there are many good reasons against the death- penalty, but I am still to hear one good reason for it!

No, but it ENSURES the killer doesn't kill again. Drug traffickers ARE part of a huge world apparatus that kills and enslaves and should therefore receive the same treatment. You don't hear any good reasons because you're a circular thinker. No reason for it that you hear CAN be a good reason, so no reason you hear IS a good reason.

Yeah, may very well be!

Unless, a) you lock away the killer for life ( which should pretty much keep him from killing anyone) or b ) you put someone on death- row, who MAY BE innocent.

I choose to believe there is no good reason to kill someone, no matter what he had done!

People say, the "threat" of a death- penalty has stopped killers from killing. I highly doubt it, as much as the prohibition has stopped people from getting drunk.

People say, the "scum" shouldn't be kept alive in prison on tax- payers expense. Tax- payers pay for a giant heap of BS, but to keep one person in jail alive, suddenly ruins the nation?

And I still come back to my central argument: people have been put on death- row and even have been killed...and whooops...a few years later, stuff comes up (falsified evidence, hidden evidence, false accusations, shaky testimonies, DNA-testing became available), that proves, that a convicted murder, rapist or whatever was wrongly accused, imprisoned or put to death...and what do say then? "Oooops...my bad! Sorry! ...ahm...please move on, there is nothing to see here!"???

[theslime]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Too right. If they want to abolish it, i could recommend the right time. Straight after the last insurgent freedom fighter murdering terrorist in the South has been dealt with.

That aint gunna happen so what is plan B?

[cup-O-coffee]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Sure, no problem!

I think it wrong, because -as a much wiser man than me once said- "An eye for an eye, will leave everybody blind"!

Also: if you wrongly accuse and sentence someone (and that happens once in a while) to death...

If you sentence him to a life in prison and it turned out to be wrong, it is bad enough, but at least you didn't kill him!

Apart from that: I think, taking the life of any human is just not right! And even if that person did something awfully terrible- 2 wrongs doesn't make a right!

And to put someone to death, so that another person is feeling better (eg gets his/her revenge) doesn't make it better either.

I think, there are many good reasons against the death- penalty, but I am still to hear one good reason for it!

DocN, thank you for your opinion. I understand now that you do no think that killers should be put to death.

You did not complete the thesis though, and I would like you to elaborate on the following:

Not putting someone to death means doing something with them. What would you propose doing to someone who is a murderer of the lowest. most base type? I am describing an animal in human form who has no remorse or regrets over their deeds, and has no consideration for human life.

Hence...

A. What do you propose doing to them?

B. Who is going to pay for it, because it ain't free?

A. What do you propose doing to them?

I am convinced that those who are against the death penalty are cowards that are out of touch with reality until those cowards come face to face with that reality. Cowards do not want to deal with reality, and would rather have it swept under the rug and for someone else to deal with it at their cost and out of pocket money.

There are two options here: Putting these animals in a place where suffering is drawn out, or putting them in a nice cozy place where idiots think theycan be reformed.

The first option is sick, and makes those against the death penalty more cruel than those who simply want to end the animal's life so decent humans can get on without being collared by keeping unwanted, unproductive animals in a zoo that no one ever visits.

The latter option is also sick, because it is basically a form of funding do-gooders who wish to waste their time helping sick animals get to a point where they are turned back into society in the slim hopes that they do not relapse; ALL at no loss to the do-gooders who waste their time and get paid doing it.

B. Who is going to pay for it, because it ain't free?

So, either of the options above will accrue debt, and that debt is going to be thrown on the back of the public that was terrorized by these debased animals. So, in essense the victims are still paying for the animals to exist, and this adds up as we increase the population of your zoo that contains unwanted animals that are of no use and are non-productive.

My Conclusion:

People who are against ending the existence of animals of the lowest order are either sadisticly cruel to the debased animals because they want the animal to suffer, or they are sadistically cruel to the victims because they expect the victims to fund the existence of these debased creatures.

Incidentally, I think your friend who said, "An eye for an eye, will leave everybody blind", is unrealistic in his or her approach to reality and has never been in a life or death situation.

[Fozfromoz]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Too right. If they want to abolish it, i could recommend the right time. Straight after the last insurgent freedom fighter murdering terrorist in the South has been dealt with.

That aint gunna happen so what is plan B?

Good question.

[DocN]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Sure, no problem!

I think it wrong, because -as a much wiser man than me once said- "An eye for an eye, will leave everybody blind"!

Also: if you wrongly accuse and sentence someone (and that happens once in a while) to death...

If you sentence him to a life in prison and it turned out to be wrong, it is bad enough, but at least you didn't kill him!

Apart from that: I think, taking the life of any human is just not right! And even if that person did something awfully terrible- 2 wrongs doesn't make a right!

And to put someone to death, so that another person is feeling better (eg gets his/her revenge) doesn't make it better either.

I think, there are many good reasons against the death- penalty, but I am still to hear one good reason for it!

DocN, thank you for your opinion. I understand now that you do no think that killers should be put to death.

You did not complete the thesis though, and I would like you to elaborate on the following:

Not putting someone to death means doing something with them. What would you propose doing to someone who is a murderer of the lowest. most base type? I am describing an animal in human form who has no remorse or regrets over their deeds, and has no consideration for human life.

Hence...

A. What do you propose doing to them?

B. Who is going to pay for it, because it ain't free?

A. What do you propose doing to them?

I am convinced that those who are against the death penalty are cowards that are out of touch with reality until those cowards come face to face with that reality. Cowards do not want to deal with reality, and would rather have it swept under the rug and for someone else to deal with it at their cost and out of pocket money.

There are two options here: Putting these animals in a place where suffering is drawn out, or putting them in a nice cozy place where idiots think theycan be reformed.

The first option is sick, and makes those against the death penalty more cruel than those who simply want to end the animal's life so decent humans can get on without being collared by keeping unwanted, unproductive animals in a zoo that no one ever visits.

The latter option is also sick, because it is basically a form of funding do-gooders who wish to waste their time helping sick animals get to a point where they are turned back into society in the slim hopes that they do not relapse; ALL at no loss to the do-gooders who waste their time and get paid doing it.

B. Who is going to pay for it, because it ain't free?

So, either of the options above will accrue debt, and that debt is going to be thrown on the back of the public that was terrorized by these debased animals. So, in essense the victims are still paying for the animals to exist, and this adds up as we increase the population of your zoo that contains unwanted animals that are of no use and are non-productive.

My Conclusion:

People who are against ending the existence of animals of the lowest order are either sadisticly cruel to the debased animals because they want the animal to suffer, or they are sadistically cruel to the victims because they expect the victims to fund the existence of these debased creatures.

Incidentally, I think your friend who said, "An eye for an eye, will leave everybody blind", is unrealistic in his or her approach to reality and has never been in a life or death situation.

Oh, wow...

So let me state the following.

a) a human is never an animal, no matter how cruel the things are, they do!

Never! No Hitler, no Stalin! Humans, not animals! So you may put animals out of their misery, but we are still talking about humans, no matter in- humane their deeds are.

They may be psychopaths or sociopaths, but they are -by definition- no animals.

You are treading on thin ice here, if you are comparing them with animals, because it would be up to you, to define, what makes a human human.

b ) "I am convinced that those who are against the death penalty are cowards..."Okay, so I am a coward? Or am I? I am putting up with the reality, that there are some crazy f@#% out there, that we have to deal with. Dealing with a problem in terms of acknowledging it, analyzing it and trying to solve it, is not cowardly, but responsible! Dragging someone into the open and putting a gun to his head, that is basically NOT doing all of that, but getting the problem out of the way as fast and "easy" as possible.

c) Locking them up costs money. Yes. But as I said elsewhere: we are paying for so much sick [email protected] suddenly keeping a person alive in a prison, is ruining us? Locking them up, offers many more chances. 1) they are "out of the way", according to their crime anywhere between 20 years or...let's see...FOREVER! 2) maybe there ARE chances to "turn them", who knows? and 3) they are NOT DEAD, when the off-chance arrives, you might have to take back your verdict on them!

d) It is almost funny, that you attack "my friend". His name is Dr. Martin Luther King, and to say, he has never been in a "life or death situation" is kind of an understatement, given that he was shot, by a racial- fanatic, a guy who's ideology was very much borderline on the question, if blacks are humans!

See: what I am saying here is, that on the death- penalty, you have to come to a conclusion, where you can say "I can rule out, by 100%, that no innocent being EVER is out to death, may it be by false accusation or the twisting of facts or not enough evidence.

Because IMHO 1 innocently accused and sentenced human being is 1 too many.And no matter how hard you try, you can NEVER guarantee that. So - yes- keep the "lowest animal" alive, in order NEVER to risk an innocent life.

If that makes me a coward, I am guilty as charged!

[15Peter20]

No executions in Myanmar since the 80's ....

[Fozfromoz]

No executions in Myanmar since the 80's ....

It does say reported. I also question how Laos is listed as a defacto abolitionist but still shoots people. Shouldn't that be a retentionist?

[lungmi]

Give brain a chance, guys. Study a little bit this link.

http://www.deathpena...james-s-liebman

Edited December 13, 2012 by lungmi

[kimamey]

Death penalty is WRONG!

Period!

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us your opinion?

I think it is wrong in the drug cases here in Thailand or other countries but it is right for other henious crimes.

Sure, no problem!

I think it wrong, because -as a much wiser man than me once said- "An eye for an eye, will leave everybody blind"!

Also: if you wrongly accuse and sentence someone (and that happens once in a while) to death...

If you sentence him to a life in prison and it turned out to be wrong, it is bad enough, but at least you didn't kill him!

Apart from that: I think, taking the life of any human is just not right! And even if that person did something awfully terrible- 2 wrongs doesn't make a right!

And to put someone to death, so that another person is feeling better (eg gets his/her revenge) doesn't make it better either.

I think, there are many good reasons against the death- penalty, but I am still to hear one good reason for it!

No, but it ENSURES the killer doesn't kill again. Drug traffickers ARE part of a huge world apparatus that kills and enslaves and should therefore receive the same treatment. You don't hear any good reasons because you're a circular thinker. No reason for it that you hear CAN be a good reason, so no reason you hear IS a good reason.

If you execute someone for speeding it ensures they won't do it again but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Whilst they are in prison they won't reoffend either and many that are convicted of extremely serious crimes are never allowed out.

if the crime affects you personally then it's only natural that you may want revenge which may include death which is why those personally involved don't get to choose the sentance in most countries. The death penalty or any severe penalty for that matter doesn't seem to stop reoffending.

I would have thought that killing someone was against Budhist principles but then again that religion seems to me to be widely abused here anyway.

[lungmi]

http://www.tdcj.stat...t/dr_facts.html

Thaksin made his PhD there. Application programmer for Thailand in a developed way.

He didn'd create a death row, he gave orders to make it quickly. A philanthropist.

Edited December 13, 2012 by lungmi

[cup-O-coffee]

Oh, wow...

So let me state the following.

a) a human is never an animal, no matter how cruel the things are, they do!

Never! No Hitler, no Stalin! Humans, not animals! So you may put animals out of their misery, but we are still talking about humans, no matter in- humane their deeds are.

They may be psychopaths or sociopaths, but they are -by definition- no animals.

You are treading on thin ice here, if you are comparing them with animals, because it would be up to you, to define, what makes a human human.

b ) "I am convinced that those who are against the death penalty are cowards..."Okay, so I am a coward? Or am I? I am putting up with the reality, that there are some crazy f@#% out there, that we have to deal with. Dealing with a problem in terms of acknowledging it, analyzing it and trying to solve it, is not cowardly, but responsible! Dragging someone into the open and putting a gun to his head, that is basically NOT doing all of that, but getting the problem out of the way as fast and "easy" as possible.

c) Locking them up costs money. Yes. But as I said elsewhere: we are paying for so much sick [email protected] suddenly keeping a person alive in a prison, is ruining us? Locking them up, offers many more chances. 1) they are "out of the way", according to their crime anywhere between 20 years or...let's see...FOREVER! 2) maybe there ARE chances to "turn them", who knows? and 3) they are NOT DEAD, when the off-chance arrives, you might have to take back your verdict on them!

d) It is almost funny, that you attack "my friend". His name is Dr. Martin Luther King, and to say, he has never been in a "life or death situation" is kind of an understatement, given that he was shot, by a racial- fanatic, a guy who's ideology was very much borderline on the question, if blacks are humans!

See: what I am saying here is, that on the death- penalty, you have to come to a conclusion, where you can say "I can rule out, by 100%, that no innocent being EVER is out to death, may it be by false accusation or the twisting of facts or not enough evidence.

Because IMHO 1 innocently accused and sentenced human being is 1 too many.And no matter how hard you try, you can NEVER guarantee that. So - yes- keep the "lowest animal" alive, in order NEVER to risk an innocent life.

If that makes me a coward, I am guilty as charged!

Well, it's all easy to say, isn't it? I guess we agree to disagree. You remind me of the guy in "Saving Private Ryan"; at the end of the movie. His lack of conscience allowed two good men to die for no reason. He stood there pissing himself while he watched one soldier get bayonetted through the chest. The next one was his captain getting shot by the same man. There is no honor in your life; but you make like you are honorable with empty words; but that doesn't amount to much when the bullets are flying, does it, because where would we expect to find you; standing in front of us, behind us or with us?

Edited December 13, 2012 by cup-O-coffee

[DocN]

Oh, wow...

So let me state the following.

a) a human is never an animal, no matter how cruel the things are, they do!

Never! No Hitler, no Stalin! Humans, not animals! So you may put animals out of their misery, but we are still talking about humans, no matter in- humane their deeds are.

They may be psychopaths or sociopaths, but they are -by definition- no animals.

You are treading on thin ice here, if you are comparing them with animals, because it would be up to you, to define, what makes a human human.

b ) "I am convinced that those who are against the death penalty are cowards..."Okay, so I am a coward? Or am I? I am putting up with the reality, that there are some crazy f@#% out there, that we have to deal with. Dealing with a problem in terms of acknowledging it, analyzing it and trying to solve it, is not cowardly, but responsible! Dragging someone into the open and putting a gun to his head, that is basically NOT doing all of that, but getting the problem out of the way as fast and "easy" as possible.

c) Locking them up costs money. Yes. But as I said elsewhere: we are paying for so much sick [email protected] suddenly keeping a person alive in a prison, is ruining us? Locking them up, offers many more chances. 1) they are "out of the way", according to their crime anywhere between 20 years or...let's see...FOREVER! 2) maybe there ARE chances to "turn them", who knows? and 3) they are NOT DEAD, when the off-chance arrives, you might have to take back your verdict on them!

d) It is almost funny, that you attack "my friend". His name is Dr. Martin Luther King, and to say, he has never been in a "life or death situation" is kind of an understatement, given that he was shot, by a racial- fanatic, a guy who's ideology was very much borderline on the question, if blacks are humans!

See: what I am saying here is, that on the death- penalty, you have to come to a conclusion, where you can say "I can rule out, by 100%, that no innocent being EVER is out to death, may it be by false accusation or the twisting of facts or not enough evidence.

Because IMHO 1 innocently accused and sentenced human being is 1 too many.And no matter how hard you try, you can NEVER guarantee that. So - yes- keep the "lowest animal" alive, in order NEVER to risk an innocent life.

If that makes me a coward, I am guilty as charged!

Well, it's all easy to say, isn't it? I guess we agree to disagree. You remind me of the guy in "Saving Private Ryan"; at the end of the movie. His lack of conscience allowed two good men to die for no reason. He stood there pissing himself while he watched one soldier get bayonetted through the chest. The next one was his captain getting shot by the same man. There is no honor in your life; but you make like you are honorable with empty words; but that doesn't amount to much when the bullets are flying, does it, because where would we expect to find you; standing in front of us, behind us or with us?

Excuse me?

So I pressume, you will be executing all these "animals" in person, yes?!

I don't need to stand anywhere, not with you, behind you or in front of you.

The question is, what kind of values you attach to "being human".

I don't know, how anyone could sleep, if they gas, shoot, grill or poison a person and find out, that they got the wrong guy!?

I guess, it is fine with them, because "hey...everybody can make mistakes!"...and THAT is easy to say!

So now it is your turn: what do you do, to prevent "collateral damage"?

And what do you do, when you got the wrong guy?

What do you tell the mother, the wife, the kids of a man you wrongly excecuted?

Or are you telling me, you are willing to take that risk, just to get your "animal" put out of misery?

By the way: your "war analogy" doesn't work, because you are comparing apples and oranges!

Edited December 13, 2012 by DocN

[lungmi]

Ok. guys, you want to fight at a low level.

Capital penality creates murders. Well known fact by international criminologists.

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

I don't know, how anyone could sleep, if they gas, shoot, grill or poison a person and find out, that they got the wrong guy!?

I guess, it is fine with them, because "hey...everybody can make mistakes!"...and THAT is easy to say!

So now it is your turn: what do you do, to prevent "collateral damage"?

And what do you do, when you got the wrong guy?

What do you tell the mother, the wife, the kids of a man you wrongly excecuted?

Or are you telling me, you are willing to take that risk, just to get your "animal" put out of misery?

By the way: your "war analogy" doesn't work, because you are comparing apples and oranges!

"I don't know, how anyone could sleep, if they gas, shoot, grill or poison a person and find out, that they got the wrong guy!"

I believe the death penalty should be given when there is irrefutable evidence that murder was committed by the accused.

Forget the "But we got the wrong guy!" rubbish.

"Irrefutable" means just that - impossible to deny or disprove.

[DocN]

<snip>

I don't know, how anyone could sleep, if they gas, shoot, grill or poison a person and find out, that they got the wrong guy!?

I guess, it is fine with them, because "hey...everybody can make mistakes!"...and THAT is easy to say!

So now it is your turn: what do you do, to prevent "collateral damage"?

And what do you do, when you got the wrong guy?

What do you tell the mother, the wife, the kids of a man you wrongly excecuted?

Or are you telling me, you are willing to take that risk, just to get your "animal" put out of misery?

By the way: your "war analogy" doesn't work, because you are comparing apples and oranges!

"I don't know, how anyone could sleep, if they gas, shoot, grill or poison a person and find out, that they got the wrong guy!"

I believe the death penalty should be given when there is irrefutable evidence that murder was committed by the accused.

Forget the "But we got the wrong guy!" rubbish.

"Irrefutable" means just that - impossible to deny or disprove.

What do you think, how many guys were convicted for several crimes, because someone thought, they had "irrefutable evidence"?

It happens everyday!

"Luckily" not exclusively with death= penalties!

A few hundred years ago, there was "irrefutable evidence" that the earth was flat and that the sun circled around it!

It's easy: put no one on death row- no need for "irrefutable" evidence.