Yes. People say have a heart, well I do. I also have something called logic. What some people fail to realize is that the more prisoners, the more money the state has to spend. They should just kill people that have committed violent crimes, most of them are psychopaths that wouldn't give two *CENSORED* about what happens to themselves or others. Psychopaths and sociopaths that don't feel emotion shouldn't be felt sorry for. Simple as that.




Now getting off the psychopath train, back to the economic factor. Less prisoners = more money for the state & less taxes paid by the citizens of said state + less violent prisoners alive = better quality of life for average citizens.

In an ideal world, people who knowingly and effectively kill others should just be put down like a dog. Sure, give them a trial. But also put the thought into their head that they're going to die no matter what.

Keep the ones that are in prison for minor things, like drug possession and theft, and enter them into rehabilitation programs and the likes. Doing this along with being more loose with the death penalty would result in less crowded prisons and as previously mentioned, a better quality of life for normal people.

Plus if you keep them in prison they will most likely lead to more problems in there and even more killings of prisoners who aren't even in there for life. Bye bye your chances of changing after getting out.

Oh, and don't forget how many gang members are in prison, and how many gangs are prison based.

I am completely against the death sentence but not for any of the reasons above. If you were wrongly accused and sentenced to death then you have had a murder committed against you. Should the prosecutor be sentenced to death?

Also, your countries control your own laws so the death sentence could be given for anything. For example say one country give a death for a death, seems fair. In another country stealing an apple could be considered an offence punishable by death in their culture. Who are we to tell them they are wrong?

However in extreme cases such as Bin Laden then I would make an exception.

The system is pretty efficient, at least here. There are tests (even a simple lie detector test could prove plenty). So being wrongly accused isn't really an issue when you consider the extensive investigating and judging that they do.


Extreme cases such as Bin Laden? There are serial killers that murder or have murdered hundreds or even thousands of people, the same as Bin Laden. Just because he was a 'mean terrorist'. Surely he hated us and going to war and spending all of our money on him, and then failing to catch him until a decade later was the most amazing thing that has ever happened. It's not like there are people in our own country that have biological weapons or are just plain psychotic. Bin Laden is a total *CENSORED* compared to some of the people that have been convicted of murder. And like I've said, yes Bin laden was an evil man and he deserved to be killed, but George Bush deserves it even more. He's the real criminal in the scenario.


^ That's another issue. The point is that there are people 10x worse than people like Bin Laden and Kony and whoever else you want to come up with. It's important to consider what could have been as well as what has already happened.

i am for it theres to many humans on this planet anyway

if youre doing it because we have too many people.......

That..... wow. Just wow.