Would You Support Crucifiction As a Sentencing Option?

[Noomi]

Nope. For the simple reason that it is torture.

Inmates on America's Death Row endure years of mental torture, as they never know which day is their last.

I agree with this as well. It is one of the reasons why I am opposed to the death penalty.

 

[Dabs]

No....no fucking way.

 

[Dabs]

I really am not for the death penalty even.
Maybe in extreme cases, but I figure sitting in a cold ass small cell, for the rest of one's life....with crap food, no freedom....having to sit there and remember why you are there....knowing you will die in that place......is a great punishment~

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I do not support the death penalty... PERIOD.

 

[JWBooth]

Would scourging be part of the process?





/sarcasm

No, of course not.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm guessing most USBM Republicans would. When you scream out "let him die", does it really matter how? Besides people who applaud executions probably find it entertaining.

Republicans Cheer Texas Death Penalty at GOP Debate - YouTube

I don't recall ever screaming that out.
In fact I never said those words ever.
I'm willing to bet a few million republicans never said those words either.

We do know one person said it and maybe it was more then one.

Consider the source.. rdean's a fucking moron.

 

[Montrovant]

Noomi, the last time French courts sentenced a man to death by guillotine was in 1977. His name was Hamida Djandoubi.

I am truly shocked to hear that. I had no idea death by guillotine was so recent!

I've always thought that, as long as everything is properly functional and maintained, the guillotine seems like a fairly merciful form of execution, comparatively speaking. More gruesome for those watching, but likely more of a fast and painless death than other traditional execution methods such as hanging, electrocution or firing squad.

 

[Dabs]

Noomi, the last time French courts sentenced a man to death by guillotine was in 1977. His name was Hamida Djandoubi.

I am truly shocked to hear that. I had no idea death by guillotine was so recent!

I've always thought that, as long as everything is properly functional and maintained, the guillotine seems like a fairly merciful form of execution, comparatively speaking. More gruesome for those watching, but likely more of a fast and painless death than other traditional execution methods such as hanging, electrocution or firing squad.

Makes some sense here.......it would no doubt be pain-free for the person who is about to lose their head, it happens so fast.
But I wouldn't want to ever watch one.....I don't think.
Well...maybe I would......I don't mind blood and gore, it's the fact someone is losing their life tho....would surely make one grimace!

 

[Zander]

No.

Just hang 'em and get it over with.

 

[George Costanza]

On paper crucifiction is arguably one the most agonising way to die. You have nails driven through you wrists and ankles, and you're left at the mercy of gravity and carrion birds... that will converge on you while you're still alive.

Personally speaking, I'm generally against the death penalty, as I think spending the rest of your days in the confines of a Supermax is a fitting means of mental torture. But having said that, there are some crimes that demand the ultimate of restitutions, such as the rape of a minor or mass murder - such as unloading a gun in a packed classroom.

Would you support the idea of a convicted pedophile being lead from the courtroom to a place of execution where they're literally nailed to a cross and left to die?

If you disagree, could you live in a society/country that resurrected and used one of the Romans' most enduring legacies?

Actually, there is a much worse way to die. It is called skewering or impalement. They sharpen a long stick that is about two inches in diameter and maybe twenty feet long. They sink the butt of the stick five feet or so into the ground. They then take the victim, tie him to a rope and lower him onto the sharpened end of the stick so that the point of the stick enters his body somewhere around his genital organs. They then pull him downward, causing the stick to force its way up, into his intestinal area and further, into the mid-thoracic part of his body. Then they just leave him there to die. I understand it can take up to three days or so. How about that one?

Question: Are you a liberal or a conservative? The reason I ask - in almost 10 years of participation in Internet message boards such as this, I have never seen a liberal suggest something like this. It's always a conservative.

I wonder why that is?

We are a civilized country, last time I looked. There is an understandable and natural desire to punish someone who commits a particularly horrible crime, such as those you describe in your post here. But civilized societies do not give in to those types of desires.

 

[Nightson]

On paper crucifiction is arguably one the most agonising way to die. You have nails driven through you wrists and ankles, and you're left at the mercy of gravity and carrion birds... that will converge on you while you're still alive.

Personally speaking, I'm generally against the death penalty, as I think spending the rest of your days in the confines of a Supermax is a fitting means of mental torture. But having said that, there are some crimes that demand the ultimate of restitutions, such as the rape of a minor or mass murder - such as unloading a gun in a packed classroom.

Would you support the idea of a convicted pedophile being lead from the courtroom to a place of execution where they're literally nailed to a cross and left to die?

If you disagree, could you live in a society/country that resurrected and used one of the Romans' most enduring legacies?

If I commuted on the Appian Way, contemplated daily how to spend the aureus and denarius jingling round my pocket...then I suppose I'd have no say in the matter. Fast forward a couple milliennia and my answer is no. While I believe in the death penalty, the state is already legally empowered to torture us enough as it is. Save the vinegar for cooking!

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The Jews supported Jesus being crucified.

this occurred for the higher purpose of ending all sacrifice,
and breaking the cycle of retribution for all humanity.

emilynghiem,

That is not why the Jews had Jesus crucified.

They rejected Him and His message and they hated Him.

Sherri

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

On paper crucifiction is arguably one the most agonising way to die. You have nails driven through you wrists and ankles, and you're left at the mercy of gravity and carrion birds... that will converge on you while you're still alive.

Personally speaking, I'm generally against the death penalty, as I think spending the rest of your days in the confines of a Supermax is a fitting means of mental torture. But having said that, there are some crimes that demand the ultimate of restitutions, such as the rape of a minor or mass murder - such as unloading a gun in a packed classroom.

Would you support the idea of a convicted pedophile being lead from the courtroom to a place of execution where they're literally nailed to a cross and left to die?

If you disagree, could you live in a society/country that resurrected and used one of the Romans' most enduring legacies?

Actually, there is a much worse way to die. It is called skewering or impalement. They sharpen a long stick that is about two inches in diameter and maybe twenty feet long. They sink the butt of the stick five feet or so into the ground. They then take the victim, tie him to a rope and lower him onto the sharpened end of the stick so that the point of the stick enters his body somewhere around his genital organs. They then pull him downward, causing the stick to force its way up, into his intestinal area and further, into the mid-thoracic part of his body. Then they just leave him there to die. I understand it can take up to three days or so. How about that one?

Question: Are you a liberal or a conservative? The reason I ask - in almost 10 years of participation in Internet message boards such as this, I have never seen a liberal suggest something like this. It's always a conservative.

I wonder why that is?

We are a civilized country, last time I looked. There is an understandable and natural desire to punish someone who commits a particularly horrible crime, such as those you describe in your post here. But civilized societies do not give in to those types of desires.

George Costanza,

Capital punishment is uncivilized and barbaric, and the international community has largely rejected it.

The EU will not even allow a nation to become a member, which engages in capital punishment.

It is also against the teachings of Jesus Christ, He says love your enemy. There is no love in acts of killing. Christians who support this practice are in disobedience to the commands of Jesus Christ.

In light of barbaric practices the US has embraced, I really question this concept you throw out, that the US is a civilized country.

Sherri

 

[emilynghiem]

The Jews supported Jesus being crucified.

this occurred for the higher purpose of ending all sacrifice,
and breaking the cycle of retribution for all humanity.

emilynghiem,

That is not why the Jews had Jesus crucified.

They rejected Him and His message and they hated Him.

Sherri

Dear Sherri: You are talking about their conscious physical motives for that event in history. I am talking about the higher reasons and process that was and is going on.

I am saying that you can't compare the crucifixion of Jesus with executions or crucifixions of other people, because the spiritual process ore reason is not the same.

To people who just mean to punish and kill, yes, their political motives may be the same.
So I don't disagree with your point there.

But since there is a higher reason for Jesus crucifixion, it cannot be compared with others.
That is the distinction I am trying to make in addition.

 

[emilynghiem]

Question: Are you a liberal or a conservative? The reason I ask - in almost 10 years of participation in Internet message boards such as this, I have never seen a liberal suggest something like this. It's always a conservative.

I wonder why that is?

We are a civilized country, last time I looked. There is an understandable and natural desire to punish someone who commits a particularly horrible crime, such as those you describe in your post here. But civilized societies do not give in to those types of desires.

My guess as to why that is:

For liberals who analyze the causes and mitigating circumstances in applying justice, this depends on so many factors per case, especially if you believe in restorative justice which involves healing and restitution for the victim of the crime in order to restore equitable relations. So you cannot legislate one decison or rule that fits every case. The liberals I know lean toward erring on the side of leniency, rather than risk imposing added injustice.

For conservative types who seek to enforce the "rule of law" across the board equally, to deter people from committing crimes, regardless of circumstances, they are often more willing to make the sacrifice of collective punishment, forgive the killing of innocent civilians as collateral damage in war, and favor excessive punishment as opposed to not enough.

The conservatives I know would rather have a judge or police officer who oversteps bounds and is overly punitive, in order to deter crime by fear, rather than take the chance of being too liberal and encouraging more lax or criminal behavior.

I think the job of both groups is to balance each other. In areas where the conservative approach works better to deter people from rebelling against authority and social order,
that should be applied. Likewise in areas where the liberal approach promotes correction and rehab/recovery to PREVENT the criminal behavior from acting out, that should be applied appropriately. What should not happen is applying the more liberal restorative justice measures "by free choice" to people who abuse that lenience because they really need the strong armed approach to get serious and quit bullying or fighting society or authority; and not to apply the punitive type justice in cases where this has the opposite effect, and does not help but causes more harm by preventing meaningful restitution and correction for people who would have responded to the restorative justice approach!

We need both approaches, but they should applied to the right people and cases.
Some people NEED strong deterrence by being afraid to challenge strong armed govt.
Other people respond to social support to overcome issues so there is no need to punish.

As one friend put it, the conservative Republicans are like the "Daddy" party you run to when you want to be protected from a bully or thug; while the liberal Democrats are like the "Mommy" party you run to when you want to be comforted and taken care of.

Like parents they play complementary roles and should ideally work together as partners, where the purpose they each fulfill best have their place, and are never in conflict with the other by abusing them or applying them in the wrong situation where it can be disastrous!

 

[emilynghiem]

In light of barbaric practices the US has embraced, I really question this concept you throw out, that the US is a civilized country.

Sherri

The US is civilized in giving people and states freedom to make these decisions democratically.

Just because the choice of abortion or execution is legal on the books, doesn't mean you are required to have them. You can choose not to use them, and especially choose prevention so you don't ever have to use them, which is the ideal. We have the freedom to pursue and establish a society free of these things WITHOUT relying on govt to ban it for us.

We have the freedom to work on preventing rape, sexual abuse, murder, etc. so that the day we don't have abortions or executions, the reason will be that we changed things by free will to prevent the causes of why these things are happening. Not because the govt banned them, but because we chose to correct the root problems freely ourselves, by the free exercise of our personal beliefs, which our civil laws protect under the first and fourteenth amendment.

 

[whitehall]

Do want to amend the Constitution to justify your hatred of pedophiles? Go somewhere else. The Arab states might support it since they advocate stoning as a death penalty. The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and crucifiction certainly covers both cruel and unusual.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

In light of barbaric practices the US has embraced, I really question this concept you throw out, that the US is a civilized country.

Sherri

The US is civilized in giving people and states freedom to make these decisions democratically.

Just because the choice of abortion or execution is legal on the books, doesn't mean you are required to have them. You can choose not to use them, and especially choose prevention so you don't ever have to use them, which is the ideal. We have the freedom to pursue and establish a society free of these things WITHOUT relying on govt to ban it for us.

We have the freedom to work on preventing rape, sexual abuse, murder, etc. so that the day we don't have abortions or executions, the reason will be that we changed things by free will to prevent the causes of why these things are happening. Not because the govt banned them, but because we chose to correct the root problems freely ourselves, by the free exercise of our personal beliefs, which our civil laws protect under the first and fourteenth amendment.

emilynghiem,

I am really not seeing this connection between democracy and being civilized, under democracy the US has embraced such barbaric and uncivilized practices as slavery, capital punishment of children, segregation, using nuclear bombs against civilian cities in foreign lands, burning to death civilians in other lands with fire bombing and napalm and other weapons, using drones to kill civilians in foreign lands with.

Today, giving money to starving children's charities in Palestine can result in long prison sentences, 65 years to life, as we see with the recent case of the Holy Land Five. In the interests of so called national security, absolutely all rights of a person under the Constitution can be taken away by our government, and the Supreme Court could care less, they refuse to even hear the cases.

So much for your view of the US as a democratic and civilized nation and this so called link between democracy and being civilized!

Good luck with all of that!

Sherri

 

[Nightson]

One can fault the history of our nation without end. As an American Citizen I do not agree with all of the instances of oppression or bloodshed the leaders of my nation have either sanctioned, enacted or carried out. However, the most poignant evidence that America is a civilized nation is my ability to not only pick and choose the facets of her history in which I take pride, and those that I abhor, but to do so publicly without immediate government censure or persecution.

 

[Connery]

No more than I support any barbaric or tortuous form of punishment such as stoning someone to death...