Capital punishment
Negrophobe
Regular
As a fascist I believe in strict authority in the interests of the state and nation in regards to the economy and morale. I believe in actual, sacred, inspired authority. A government which puts its citizens first, above all others.
Capital punishment should be in use against serious criminality. While it may be seen as harsh, the death penalty has been used since the beginning of time as the only suitable punishment for crimes such as murder and treason. I would like to add child molestation to the list of offences too, along with robbery. Most offenders, in fact, do or will repeat their crimes, often, many times over. There is a lot of empirical evidence to support this notion; very easily obtainable with a quick google search, with varying sources arriving at the same conclusion, prison isn't always and most often isn't a deterrent to committing crime; but whilst not on the subject of murder, the following I'm about to post shows, the point still stands that prison isn't a good deterrent:
Now, some opponents will argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime either and is pointless; while others say that sentencing criminals to death reflects badly on society; that it is uncivilized or primitive. In regards to the former, no penalty will deter people from committing crime if it is never or is only infrequently used. The knowledge that capital offenses would always receive the death penalty helped to instill internal restraints in people, from childhood on. The to be offender would be reminded to stop before things could go too far; even in fits of rage. The inner restraint no longer exists, even in the most civilized of people. The latter "issues" is one of concern, expressed, by the typical leftist/liberal. How do "humane societies" explain to the families of those secondary and tertiary victims that freeing the criminal was the humane thing to do? Especially alady knowing that they are more likely to reoffend. Leftists always feel the pain of criminals but not the pain of their victims or their families.
Ernest van den Haag pointed out in the Harvard Law Review (1986), a fine defence of the death penalty, that most of the people with opposing viewpoints towards capital punishment say they would favor abolition even if it could be shown conclusively that the punishment is the best deterrent to murder. I will just add that it is typical and hypocritical, over in America, black murderers have received the death penalty less often than white murderers convicted of the same crimes; the same goes for women, so much more so, getting leeway and lesser sentences for the same crimes as males do.
Even if we are to entertain the effeminate liberal argument, which was popularized by liberal Justice William J. Brennan. The death penalty is not degrading to the offender, and philosophers Kant's and Hegel's ideas are in harmony with mine, in that a just execution, far from degrading the convicted murderer, actually affirms and dignifies his humanity by granting him, at least in this act, responsibility for his own behavior. It shouldn't surprise you when you see that females and non-whites favour the death penalty much less than what white males do; since women (of all races) and non-whites (particularly blacks) are the most irresponsible humans, using the term "humans" loosely, on the face of the earth.
Crime without punishment is allowing chaos and irresponsibility, and laws without just and appropriate penalties for violators are pious pronouncements.
Not only is it a just punishment and a deterrent, it is economically advantageous, especially if we are to go with public hanging; as oppossed to keeping them in prison where they're more likely to die of old age than of the lethal injection, which is most commonly used. Very few serious offenders are put to death for their crimes out of all of them which are locked up; money wasted.
As with rape, we now have DNA evidence to overwhelmingly prove quickly whether some frigid cunt is/was lying (which is VERY OFTEN THE CASE and males are now rightfully being released), just as we do for crimes such as robbery and murder. With the advancements in DNA technology and if a competent and thorough investigation team is put into place, and the current filth scrapped and used as target practice for the new police, we can have more justice rather than law alone.
What do you guys think about capital punishment. Yes or no?
Capital punishment should be in use against serious criminality. While it may be seen as harsh, the death penalty has been used since the beginning of time as the only suitable punishment for crimes such as murder and treason. I would like to add child molestation to the list of offences too, along with robbery. Most offenders, in fact, do or will repeat their crimes, often, many times over. There is a lot of empirical evidence to support this notion; very easily obtainable with a quick google search, with varying sources arriving at the same conclusion, prison isn't always and most often isn't a deterrent to committing crime; but whilst not on the subject of murder, the following I'm about to post shows, the point still stands that prison isn't a good deterrent:
- Secrets of a SuperthiefHave you ever been to prison before for burglary?
A. Sixty-four percent said that they had been imprisoned before for burglary or other
crime. The other 36 percent stated that this was their first experience of incarceration.
However, many of them had been on probation.
Have you learned from prison life how to commit more and different
kinds of crime?
A. Ninety-five percent stated that they have learned many more kinds of crime while
being in prison.
Would you agree that a good name for prison would be the College of
Better Crime Education?
A. The same results were obtained on this question, with 95 percent agreeing that prisons
are schools for taking vacations and learning more methods of crime. One day I
overheard another inmate ticking off various ways of blowing up vehicles in ninety
seconds. The inmates who heard him are now mentally equipped to blow up any vehicle
on the streets. Whether they will retain this information by the time they are released is
another question.
Prisons are places where inmates can get together and tell stories of all kinds— including
tales of the crimes they've pulled off—and teach others new and improved methods. They
explain how they were caught, and the next guy learns from the other's mistakes, so he
won't make the same one, when he gets out. They exchange mistakes, improving their
ways so that they build up false courage, thinking they're much better than when they
came in. And they can't wait to get out to practice their new methods. I've been asked by
literally hundreds of inmates about my methods and ways to do this and that: how I shut
off alarms, etc. Needless to say, they have learned nothing from me, except that it was a
waste of time to ask.
Now that you've been to prison, when you get out would further prison
time deter you from doing more burglaries?
A. OK... place your bets. Do you think prison is a deterrent or not? Let me give you a few
hints. While in prison there was a guy whose locker was broken into seven times. He lost
over ninety-five dollars and one watch, plus various other things. Need more hints? One
day in the laundry, one of the laundry inmates who had access to sheets stole them and
sold extra ones for fifty cents apiece to other inmates. For what? Who knows? Probably
for smoking. They smoked everything else around there. Seventy percent admitted to me
that they were going to continue burglaries and other crimes, when they get out. And you
know what the general attitude was about it all? They knew their mistakes now and they
were not going to make them again. They've improved their systems and techniques. The
other 30 percent said that they were pretty sure that they weren't going to do any more
burglaries.
Now, some opponents will argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime either and is pointless; while others say that sentencing criminals to death reflects badly on society; that it is uncivilized or primitive. In regards to the former, no penalty will deter people from committing crime if it is never or is only infrequently used. The knowledge that capital offenses would always receive the death penalty helped to instill internal restraints in people, from childhood on. The to be offender would be reminded to stop before things could go too far; even in fits of rage. The inner restraint no longer exists, even in the most civilized of people. The latter "issues" is one of concern, expressed, by the typical leftist/liberal. How do "humane societies" explain to the families of those secondary and tertiary victims that freeing the criminal was the humane thing to do? Especially alady knowing that they are more likely to reoffend. Leftists always feel the pain of criminals but not the pain of their victims or their families.
Ernest van den Haag pointed out in the Harvard Law Review (1986), a fine defence of the death penalty, that most of the people with opposing viewpoints towards capital punishment say they would favor abolition even if it could be shown conclusively that the punishment is the best deterrent to murder. I will just add that it is typical and hypocritical, over in America, black murderers have received the death penalty less often than white murderers convicted of the same crimes; the same goes for women, so much more so, getting leeway and lesser sentences for the same crimes as males do.
Even if we are to entertain the effeminate liberal argument, which was popularized by liberal Justice William J. Brennan. The death penalty is not degrading to the offender, and philosophers Kant's and Hegel's ideas are in harmony with mine, in that a just execution, far from degrading the convicted murderer, actually affirms and dignifies his humanity by granting him, at least in this act, responsibility for his own behavior. It shouldn't surprise you when you see that females and non-whites favour the death penalty much less than what white males do; since women (of all races) and non-whites (particularly blacks) are the most irresponsible humans, using the term "humans" loosely, on the face of the earth.
Crime without punishment is allowing chaos and irresponsibility, and laws without just and appropriate penalties for violators are pious pronouncements.
Not only is it a just punishment and a deterrent, it is economically advantageous, especially if we are to go with public hanging; as oppossed to keeping them in prison where they're more likely to die of old age than of the lethal injection, which is most commonly used. Very few serious offenders are put to death for their crimes out of all of them which are locked up; money wasted.
As with rape, we now have DNA evidence to overwhelmingly prove quickly whether some frigid cunt is/was lying (which is VERY OFTEN THE CASE and males are now rightfully being released), just as we do for crimes such as robbery and murder. With the advancements in DNA technology and if a competent and thorough investigation team is put into place, and the current filth scrapped and used as target practice for the new police, we can have more justice rather than law alone.
What do you guys think about capital punishment. Yes or no?
Comments
Use them to test biological weapons and the effect of chemical weapons. To me this seems like the most logical thing to do instead of just killing them. Kind of like Japans unit 731.If it sounds immoral to some my answer is that they shouldn't have done the crime. For the ones who are just executed their organs should be harvested and given to hospitals like they do in China.
The one major problem with capital punishment in the US is the appeals process. It increases the penal costs of each convicted inmate exponentially. We live in a time where forensic data can easily prove or disprove guilt. To allow a proven murderer to continue to appeal a conviction or sentence for upwards of 30 years is simply asinine. Give 1-2 appeals, and call it a day. This would clear out the prisons (at least death row), and still be cheaper than a life sentence.
Those that suggest rehabilitation as an alternative allow themselves to live in a sheltered world where everything gets better. Violent people do not turn into god-loving, knitting pussies just because a correctional facility nurtures them instead of treating them like the scum they are. As negrophobe and many other studies have found, most criminals have a high probability of repeating offenses. Why let them out?
Those that say capital punishment is inhumane have never had someone close to them be murdered. It's just that simple.
see:
But, please. If you've got an example of someone having been convicted and executed in the past 10-15 years that was innocent, please share. I'm all ears.
HM the Queen - Committed six acts of treason signing EU treaties that abolish the nation. She is the only monarch to have broken her Coronation oath. Failed as the ultimate check and balance, failed to insist on a national ballot for the abolition of the nation.
Ted Heath - One act of treason. Lied his Eureopean Communities Act 1972 would not abolish British sovereignty, and started the entire illegal EU process.
Tony Blair - Three acts of treason, three EU treaties, enthusiastic implementer of EU laws disguised as British laws, eg ID cards; enforcer of crippling EU regulations.
John Major - Treason with the Maastricht treaty and other actions.
Margaret Thatcher (WORST PRIME MINISTER, EVER) - Treason with the Single European Act. Now regrets signing it.
David Cameron, Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Michael Hesletine, Geoffrey Howe, Chris Patten, Francis Maude and many many more.
Treason is an unforgivable crime.