What punishment should she get?

[Masklinn]

Well, showing death as a spectale can affect people thaz true but maybe not in the way you'd like.

Borvik is right there. Will that prevent anything ? Hell no. Will that make a mass murderer think twice before killing ? No because it's a mass murderer and he is somehow brain-diseased.

Most of the times when someone murders someone else, I don't think the consequences of the act come right in mind. They come after.

Death sentence has never been and will never be a preventive way.

And those who apply them or are all for it are somewhere (just my opinion) murderers too.

A life is a life. And when someone takes one away on purpose, he always have a good reason in his mind.

There must be another way.

Oh and btw, don't be wrong, an execution nowadays cost a hell lot of money. We are not in the middle age where an axe, a hole and 5 gold piece to the executionner was enough.

And it's never swift and quick. Usually take few years of procedure.

Now if you really want to go back to the middle age...

[Masklinn]

Can someone please explain to me why it is okay to deny someone freedom of movement (note, this IS on the UN Human Rights list) yet it is not okay to deny them the right to life???

Life is so much more than movement...

[Aragorn The Wise]

Originally posted by Donut: A woman in England was found guilty of murdering her two children. In 1996 she smothered her 11 week old baby and in 1998 she killed her 8 week old baby. The court heard that the chances of a second cot death in the family was 73 million to 1. She got life but that probably only means 14 years.

two words - death penatly

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: *Throws hands in air in disgust* Can someone please explain to me why it is okay to deny someone freedom of movement (note, this IS on the UN Human Rights list) yet it is not okay to deny them the right to life??? I just don't get it. If their right to life is *that* sacred, in my mind it only means their punishment should INCREASE to repay society for the life they took. Sure are a lot of namby-pambys here for a forum where most everyone has whacked Noober at least once.

Well, because once you kill them there is no going back if later evidence shows they are innocent. Death is a rather permanent solution.

[Yorick]

Pardon me for intruding on a wonderful argument, but did anyone notice that Donut stated the woman was innocent? Found innocent? The point is now moot. Those who suggested she should be killed should be ashamed. You'd have killed an innocent woman who lost her two children. What a terrible tragedy that she even lost 3 years of her life. Three years is a lot of time.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: *Throws hands in air in disgust* Can someone please explain to me why it is okay to deny someone freedom of movement (note, this IS on the UN Human Rights list) yet it is not okay to deny them the right to life??? I just don't get it. If their right to life is *that* sacred, in my mind it only means their punishment should INCREASE to repay society for the life they took. Sure are a lot of namby-pambys here for a forum where most everyone has whacked Noober at least once.

As has been stated you can reinstate freedom of movement. You cannot reinstate life. One allows for possible error, the other doesn't. THere is always room for error Timber.

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick,

You and I have had this discussion before, and if you'll recall I agree that the death penalty does not work in practice for this very reason - which is why I do not support it at this point and why we agree 100%.

And there is not always room for error. Example: Dahmer.

But, what's not moot is the death penalty in theory. I was speaking of the theoretical points of crime and punishment in the situation where the criminal is 100% known to be guilty. If you'd like to state a few thoughts on that, I'd love to hear them.

Didn't anyone like the Noober joke??

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Didn't anyone like the Noober joke??

Well, I personally think it was a bit misplaced... There's a huge difference between real life and a computergame, as you yourself should realize as well. Besides, I've honestly never killed neither Noober nor Neeber.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Yorick: Pardon me for intruding on a wonderful argument, but did anyone notice that Donut stated the woman was innocent? Found innocent? The point is now moot. Those who suggested she should be killed should be ashamed. You'd have killed an innocent woman who lost her two children. What a terrible tragedy that she even lost 3 years of her life. Three years is a lot of time.

Thank you Yorick!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Didn't anyone like the Noober joke??

Well, I personally think it was a bit misplaced... There's a huge difference between real life and a computergame, as you yourself should realize as well. Besides, I've honestly never killed neither Noober nor Neeber. [/QUOTE]Fair enouch.

But, there's this quote from a really bad movie called "The Talented Mr. Ripley" that the character played by the dreamy Gwyneth Paltrow says:

Why is it that when men play, they always play at war?