Per the current political state in the USA-

Do ANY of you out there really believe in or trust this new prez? 
This CLOWN in 6 months has already done this for OUR future:
-EVERY working taxpayer now has an extra $6-7000 to pay back tot the gov't as part of the stimulus scam
-GM had their main CEO FIRED by the gov't and "the ONE" (which is unconstitutional)
-GM went bankrupt and was BOUGHT then scolded and shamed by the UAW and our Gov't (unconstitutional)
-Hate Crimes bills are being rushed thru as we speak (pass thru the House, the Senate votes on it next) which WILL void ALL 1st Amend Rights (Freedom of Speech) if it passes!
-Socialized Gov't ran health care is in the works (which means we have to pay for more SCUM who don't pay for their own problems)
 I could go on for a MONTH! This new Snake Oil Salesman in Obama really is turning this nation upside down. Meanwhile, you and I as hard working taxpayers are getting bent over and screwed royally! Are you proud of this???

Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.

Phewww.... How was THAT, eh?

		Deep Freeze wrote:
		BWWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!! Umm...er... uh... A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: A baldness upon you, hair owner!      Deep Freeze wrote: HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  No, no!! How about this.... A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!      Deep Freeze wrote: HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   A pox upon thee, serf!!!  HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...      Deep Freeze wrote: No! They wouldn't!  AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**)   HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget. IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.      ronhartsell wrote: axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...      _strat_ wrote: I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare. Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious. As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.      ronhartsell wrote: My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off??  Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,      _strat_ wrote: Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic... GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money. Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).  On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.

A baldness upon you, hair owner!

		Deep Freeze wrote:
		HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  No, no!! How about this.... A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!      Deep Freeze wrote: HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   A pox upon thee, serf!!!  HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...      Deep Freeze wrote: No! They wouldn't!  AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**)   HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget. IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.      ronhartsell wrote: axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...      _strat_ wrote: I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare. Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious. As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.      ronhartsell wrote: My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off??  Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,      _strat_ wrote: Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic... GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money. Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).  On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  No, no!! How about this....

A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

		_strat_ wrote:
		A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!      Deep Freeze wrote: HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   A pox upon thee, serf!!!  HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...      Deep Freeze wrote: No! They wouldn't!  AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**)   HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!      _strat_ wrote: Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget. IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.      ronhartsell wrote: axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...      _strat_ wrote: I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare. Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious. As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.      ronhartsell wrote: My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off??  Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,      _strat_ wrote: Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic... GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money. Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).  On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.

ok, short post

which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?

"Your problem is that you insist on thinking!"
                                        Delboy Trotter, Only fools and horses

		Head banger wrote:
		though you were already.  HA!      _strat_ wrote: Im all for it. But, it would be a big change, so lets do it gradualy. For a start, we can just absolve me from obeying any laws.      Head banger wrote: sure, lets try that?      _strat_ wrote: Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law.      Head banger wrote: I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power.  Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull.  people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging.  now a cure to that, I dont know.  Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.

You misspelled his name, lol... You seem to be under his influence.

		ronhartsell wrote:
		Then everybody would be all Keyed up!!!  lol      _strat_ wrote: Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law.      Head banger wrote: I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power.  Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull.  people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging.  now a cure to that, I dont know.  Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.

Minority Report
Theatrical release poster
Directed by	Steven Spielberg
Produced by	Gerald R. Molen Bonnie Curtis Walter F. Parkes Jan de Bont
Written by	Screenplay: Scott Frank Jon Cohen Short Story: Philip K. Dick Uncredited: John August
Starring	Tom Cruise Colin Farrell Max von Sydow Steve Harris Neal McDonough
Music by	John Williams
Cinematography	Janusz Kaminski
Editing by	Michael Kahn
Studio	Amblin Entertainment Cruise/Wagner Productions
Distributed by	Worldwide Theatrical Non-USA DVD 20th Century Fox USA DVD DreamWorks
Release date(s)	June 21, 2002
Running time	139 min.
Country	United States
Language	English
Budget	$102 million
Gross revenue	Domestic $132,072,926 Foreign $226,300,000 Worldwide $358,372,926

Minority Report is a 2002 science fiction film directed by Steven Spielberg and loosely based on the short story "The Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick. It is set primarily in Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia in the year 2054, where "Precrime", a specialized police department, apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge provided by three psychics called "precogs". The cast includes Tom Cruise as Precrime officer John Anderton, Colin Farrell as Department of Justice agent Danny Witwer, Samantha Morton as the senior precog Agatha, and Max von Sydow as Anderton's superior Lamar Burgess. The film has a distinctive look, featuring desaturated colors that make it almost resemble a black-and-white film, yet the blacks and shadows have a high contrast, resembling film noir.

Now, of course this is just a movie...but what if medical research discovered a gene that showed anyone born with this particular gene would become a violent criminal...how could, and more importantly, would society use this information to weed out the bad apples before the crime(s) were commited??  Maybe studying convicted violent criminals in the world of medical research isn't such a bad idea after all!!!!

		_strat_ wrote:
		Nope. Havent seen it. Top Gun - the only Tom Cruise movie that I liked. I dont really like the guy generaly. As for my post - well, what I wanted to say is that we would probably be more succesfull if we try to stop crime than punish it. Prevention, kinda like in medicine. Better to get a shot against a disease, then to get infected. Trying to figure out (Im sure that part at least wouldnt be hard) why criminals commit crimes, and try to do something about that. But, I guess that that is a bit much to expect. Then again, if we could crawl out of the medieval torture chambers, I guess we may someday come to that.      ronhartsell wrote: Have you seen the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise??  That's what came to mind reading the end of your post...if we could do that, there would be no crime...      _strat_ wrote: Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible. IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.      Head banger wrote: no.  and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also.  but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/      _strat_ wrote: Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo. Could be that we are. We always end up in one.      Head banger wrote: homicide, yes, but not general crime.   we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?      _strat_ wrote: Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate. Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.      Head banger wrote: there is less crime in iran.   you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first      _strat_ wrote: Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.  Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be. There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.      ronhartsell wrote: No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!!  Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...      _strat_ wrote: Good afternoon Ron...  Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same. If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.      ronhartsell wrote: Good morning Strat... In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while... To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue... In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence... I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...      _strat_ wrote: Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.  The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs. That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much. And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?

I agree that in some cases, money is the motive. But I dont see how that would be the case in rape, for example.

		Dime/UNDER BLOOD RED SKIES!!!! wrote:
		Crime is caused by currency. If we could move past currency i think crime would fall dramatically. Think of all the crimes that revolve around money.      _strat_ wrote: Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible. IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.      Head banger wrote: no.  and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also.  but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/      _strat_ wrote: Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo. Could be that we are. We always end up in one.      Head banger wrote: homicide, yes, but not general crime.   we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?      _strat_ wrote: Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate. Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.      Head banger wrote: there is less crime in iran.   you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first      _strat_ wrote: Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.  Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be. There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.      ronhartsell wrote: No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!!  Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...      _strat_ wrote: Good afternoon Ron...  Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same. If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.      ronhartsell wrote: Good morning Strat... In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while... To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue... In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence... I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...      _strat_ wrote: Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.  The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs. That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much. And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?