All crime should be punished by death.

That's absurd I disagree with you completely don't you ever wonder WHY people commit crimes? Everyones got a story and reasons why they do things. There are of course some crimes that are inexcusable but there are some other crimes people commit to feed their families, sometimes perfectly good people become criminals out of survival.

Originally posted by mandroids
Let me state my case: Crime is blight upon our planet and a gross embarrassment to the innocent and blameless. All crime should be met with capital punishment.

The human misery and financial cost of crime is enormous and never in question.

Criminals always know when they are doing something illegal. We all know right from wrong.

Rich liberals will say ‘what about the wrongly convicted?’ and some will say ‘all crimes? Even shoplifting?’

Yes.

A few legal mistakes would be the acceptable cost for a virtually crime free planet.

We are now evolved enough as a species that something must be done about crime. Just knowing that even the smallest of crimes could result in the ultimate cost, would bring down crime in dramatic terms.

The benefits would be fantastic.

No more ‘no go’ areas.
Less murder.
More conscientious behaviour to fellow man.
No more organized crime.
Greater respect for law and justice.
Happier citizens.


All intelligent and law-abiding citizens will agree with me.

edit on 15-2-2012 by mandroids because: (no reason given)

we should make a petition for what you're saying. and everyone who signs it we can take somewhere and shoot

To take your idea to the ultimate extreme.

Since only the living commit crime and its likely that nearly everybody will infringe some law at some point in their lives, you may as well cut out the middle man and just go straight to killing everybody.

As usual 2000ad comic got there first.

en.wikipedia.org...

yeah let's kill everyone whose made a mistake. Right, simple solutions to complex problems rarely work. How about capital punishment for everyone who starts idiotic threads.

reply to post by mandroids


Hey, I'm with you Bro! Unless ATS one liner's are punishable by death. Let's kill'em all.

My big question is what makes the OP think that he's somehow above everyone else? Are you seriously trying to tell me he is sinless in any form? Who is allowed to decide what is considered a crime and what isn't? the OP?
What makes him think that he would be immune to such a law? Some of the worst crimes against humanity were perpetrated with the best of intentions.This is ridiculous.Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.The current system is flawed but it is a thousand time better than the idea of killing anyone who does soemthing wrong.Everyone makes mistakes , small or big and we have punishments for those mistakes based on the gravity of the crime.Epic fail of an idea.

reply to post by mandroids

All intelligent and law-abiding citizens will agree with me.

Ergo, one is neither intelligent nor law-abiding if he or she disagrees with you.

Marvelous.

OP, you're ideas are way off base.

Here's some better ones:

www.alphapub.com...

I made an account just to tell you how #ing stupid you are.

Next time you run a stop sign, hopefully the officer will strap you into the nearest guillotine.

Originally posted by mandroids
Let me state my case: Crime is blight upon our planet and a gross embarrassment to the innocent and blameless. All crime should be met with capital punishment.

The human misery and financial cost of crime is enormous and never in question.

Criminals always know when they are doing something illegal. We all know right from wrong.

Rich liberals will say ‘what about the wrongly convicted?’ and some will say ‘all crimes? Even shoplifting?’

Yes.

A few legal mistakes would be the acceptable cost for a virtually crime free planet.

We are now evolved enough as a species that something must be done about crime. Just knowing that even the smallest of crimes could result in the ultimate cost, would bring down crime in dramatic terms.

The benefits would be fantastic.

No more ‘no go’ areas.
Less murder.
More conscientious behaviour to fellow man.
No more organized crime.
Greater respect for law and justice.
Happier citizens.


All intelligent and law-abiding citizens will agree with me.

edit on 15-2-2012 by mandroids because: (no reason given)

Then if I could come up with a good enough frame I could easily get somebody killed. Awesome, and you would be my first target.
Know what else you get?? Shootouts that result in the death's of criminals and police for minor things such as running a red light or shoplifting or drug possession.

You sir are a fail.... mostly at life.

"Let he who is without fault cast the first stone" Jesus Christ
Nobody is perfect Mate.

ummm.....so who here is a saint and hasn't committed a crime before?

(and I am talking even J-walking here)

I think OP might have inhaled something before writing this (oppps, OP just committed a crime - bye bye)

reply to post by mandroids


Make every crime a death penalty case and, since the penalty cannot be made worse if someone were killed, then EVERY crime would be coupled with the additional ugliness of a murder -- the penalty cannot be worse and the elimination of witnesses might enable the culprit to get off scot free.

They're coming for me for an overdue library book - I'll shoot my way out!

They sent a cop to complain about my noisy party - he'll never leave alive!

A traffic cop stops me for speeding - the mayor will attend his funeral!

You really want a world like that?

I think that if the death penalty were applied to anyone who wasted bandwidth on something so absurd as a thread suggesting that every crime, no matter how small, be punishable by death, then at least ATS would be a better place. I mean really. There are two scenarios here.

1) Troll. Period.
2) This person is actually serious and is a perfect example of how some people actually think the state can solve all the world's problems by threatening citizens with violence as punishment for actions it deems unlawful. We can not use violence, but the state can and will (to protect us of course). Double standard much? Do as I say but not as I do?

Whether it's 1 or 2, this thread is still a great example to illustrate how certain people are so out of touch with reality that they think the state is here to actually protect and look after us like an all powerful mommy or daddy or god. These are the types of people who voted for Obama because they actually bought into the nonsensical notion that the government can and will provide us with some sort of hope and change (a change from the then current status which was a product of previous administrations making the exact same sort of promises).

reply to post by mandroids


As Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye blinds the world."

Originally posted by mandroids
Let me state my case: Crime is blight upon our planet and a gross embarrassment to the innocent and blameless. All crime should be met with capital punishment.

The human misery and financial cost of crime is enormous and never in question

Since near future laws will make it illegal to voice your own opinion you sir are in violation ina ore crime and you need go put hour head on a cupping bloc, right not, I,ll provide the blade


Well, since figure laws make it illeagle to voice your own opinion your ne t on the list, put your head in the gll

Criminals always know when they are doing something illegal. We all know right from wrong.

Rich liberals will say ‘what about the wrongly convicted?’ and some will say ‘all crimes? Even shoplifting?’

Yes.

A few legal mistakes would be the acceptable cost for a virtually crime free planet.

We are now evolved enough as a species that something must be done about crime. Just knowing that even the smallest of crimes could result in the ultimate cost, would bring down crime in dramatic terms.

The benefits would be fantastic.

No more ‘no go’ areas.
Less murder.
More conscientious behaviour to fellow man.
No more organized crime.
Greater respect for law and justice.
Happier citizens.


All intelligent and law-abiding citizens will agree with me.

edit on 15-2-2012 by mandroids because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by mandroids
Let me state my case: Crime is blight upon our planet and a gross embarrassment to the innocent and blameless. All crime should be met with capital punishment.

The human misery and financial cost of crime is enormous and never in question.

Criminals always know when they are doing something illegal. We all know right from wrong.

Rich liberals will say ‘what about the wrongly convicted?’ and some will say ‘all crimes? Even shoplifting?’

Yes.

A few legal mistakes would be the acceptable cost for a virtually crime free planet.

We are now evolved enough as a species that something must be done about crime. Just knowing that even the smallest of crimes could result in the ultimate cost, would bring down crime in dramatic terms.

The benefits would be fantastic.

No more ‘no go’ areas.
Less murder.
More conscientious behaviour to fellow man.
No more organized crime.
Greater respect for law and justice.
Happier citizens.


All intelligent and law-abiding citizens will agree with me.

edit on 15-2-2012 by mandroids because: (no reason given)

HA HA HA ... your as dead as my brother! I remember when his 15-17 year old daughters got caught partying... He wanted all of the drug dealers taken out back and shot without a trial ... I told him he would be easy to get rid of. I would just plant a bag in his truck and "bang" he wouldn't be a problem.

This is nuts and just stupid ... even Eugene fell to his own sword!

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that people who commit "evil" are genetically inclined towards it. That is to say people whose personality is perceived as evil is actually part of their genetic make up and therefore could be as unavoidable as those who are dyslexic. This idea is still in study mode, yet if this were the case, would it be right to kill people whose intentions were not necessarily their own (that is to say outside their own personal choices). Would you kill, for example an autistic child who didn't realise it was "wrong" to steal?

Imagine if what made someone bad or good was down to chemicals and your DNA , what responsibilty would lie with the perpetrator?

reply to post by mandroids


Uhm..
Wow..
That was ignorant.

You all do realize that the Op is not really defending his thread very much here, haven't you? His replies so far have not had a lot of argument.

Suffice to say that the OP made this thread, simply to have a thread that would garner a lot of replies (and you do have to admit, the outrageous title of the thread and first post are succeeding to do just that), right?

To the OP: we humans have been killing people for their crimes for literally THOUSANDS of years. In ages past, executions were also carried out publicly (in some cases it was the general public that actually carried out the executions).
We have come up with some the worse ways to be executed (being Hung, Drawn, and Quartered for treason quickly comes to mind......), that you would think that people would do exactly what you proposed would happen: people stop committing those crimes.

But it never has. People have been committing crimes that are punishable by death for thousands of years. Being executed (even in the most painful and horrific manner) has never been a determent.

We used to hang people for stealing horses. We don't normally execute someone for stealing a car nowadays, but I can tell you right now: even if we did.......people would still be stealing cars. It didn't stop them from stealing horses, that's for sure.

Even trying to keep guns away from private citizens have not stopped violent crimes. Instead of shooting someone, you can just stab them to death......

You mentioned, in one of your very few replies, that people need to consider the victims.
All righty then...let's look at that:
Joe Criminal crosses the street in the dead at night, on a deserted road (as has already been mentioned). Exactly WHO was the victim of this crime? You can look at even more laws in which when broken actually have no victim either. So your argument there = FAIL

And since history is pretty much shown as that at NO time putting people to death has actually stopped those crimes from happening anymore, your suggestion also = FAIL

The only thing your idea does is create a world full of people scared to death to even breath, for fear of being arrested. Society would come to a screeching halt. Infrastructure would fail (who would want to risk breaking a law that is vague, or unknown to most of the population...that is until some poor fool is arrested and executed for it?).

But like I said: I highly suspect the OP made this thread simply to see how many pages of outraged replies he could get, as this is how he gets off.