The Death Penalty Can Save Lives
As much as it sounds like an oxymoron, in the future it could be true.
This is what I'd like to see happen in the near future.
Step one
Improve on DNA research and hold better trials. This way, we will always know we will have the right guy.
Step two
First, we will do away with the lethal injection and replace it with a bullet. I have a few reasons why. First, a bullet costs about 13 cents which really cuts down on federal spending. Also, the lethal injection will kill off organs that could get used, I'll get to that in a minute. Lastly, it's just plain easier.
Step three
Next, I would like to see something I like to call the CP donor plan. What it is, is when we give a criminal death, we use their organs to give to people that need them.
I think the organ donor plan is genius. There are sick people around the country just sitting in a hospital waiting for someone to get in a car crash so they can use that persons organs. With the death penalty organ donor, those patients have a better chance of living. The death penalty can save lives. There are plenty of poor people who deserve to live unlike the psycopaths in prison.
I do think a lifetime in jail would be a worse punishment, but my idea could actually save many lives and only take a few. And it's not like anyone cares if a murderer dies.
But this isn't a matter of morality, cost, or punishment. It's a matter of gaining important organs to be given to patients that need them.
Now obviously I am for the death penalty, and I'll give you those reasons shortly, but if we apply this plan, I think we could save lives, and what could be better than that?
I am for the death penalty because if you can catch a murderer or someone who applies for that punishment you are
A) Protecting the people from a dangerous man.
B) giving the victims family what they want
C) giving the criminal what he deserves
But if we apply my idea we will be doing this too
A) saving lives
B) saving money
What more could you ask for?
This is what I'd like to see happen in the near future.
Step one
Improve on DNA research and hold better trials. This way, we will always know we will have the right guy.
Step two
First, we will do away with the lethal injection and replace it with a bullet. I have a few reasons why. First, a bullet costs about 13 cents which really cuts down on federal spending. Also, the lethal injection will kill off organs that could get used, I'll get to that in a minute. Lastly, it's just plain easier.
Step three
Next, I would like to see something I like to call the CP donor plan. What it is, is when we give a criminal death, we use their organs to give to people that need them.
I think the organ donor plan is genius. There are sick people around the country just sitting in a hospital waiting for someone to get in a car crash so they can use that persons organs. With the death penalty organ donor, those patients have a better chance of living. The death penalty can save lives. There are plenty of poor people who deserve to live unlike the psycopaths in prison.
I do think a lifetime in jail would be a worse punishment, but my idea could actually save many lives and only take a few. And it's not like anyone cares if a murderer dies.
But this isn't a matter of morality, cost, or punishment. It's a matter of gaining important organs to be given to patients that need them.
Now obviously I am for the death penalty, and I'll give you those reasons shortly, but if we apply this plan, I think we could save lives, and what could be better than that?
I am for the death penalty because if you can catch a murderer or someone who applies for that punishment you are
A) Protecting the people from a dangerous man.
B) giving the victims family what they want
C) giving the criminal what he deserves
But if we apply my idea we will be doing this too
A) saving lives
B) saving money
What more could you ask for?
posted by Cody O'Connor @ 11:54 AM
23 Comments:
At 23/10/05 3:19 PM,
Anonymous said…
Walter says that we should A.) have gladatorial matches with death penelty prisoners to make money, or B.) use them as test subjects to cure cancer. Now I know that's ridicolously harsh and I don't agree with it, but its an interesting concept to ponder.
At 23/10/05 11:12 PM,
Allisoni Balloni said…
And it's not like anyone cares if a murderer dies.
Some murderers have FAMILIES...but let's just forget about them, shall we?
At 24/10/05 6:31 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Some murderers have FAMILIES...but let's just forget about them, shall we?
oh, it'll be so sad when their poor little innocent baby is carted off to the killing room.
Maybe the parents should have paid more attention to them when they were kids and they wouldn't have been like that. Lots of todays problems today are from bad parenting.
Anyways, I don't think they'll have too many objections. Besides, usually a murderer kills members of his own family.
So if the murderer kills his in-laws, how do you think the wifes family will feel about him?
They'll say shoot him.
Robby, there are endless possiblities. Organ donor, blood donor, research, all kinds of things.
At 24/10/05 9:10 AM,
Unknown said…
It's fine that you support the death penalty, but don't preach at me about abortion. You can't support murder on one hand and then criticize what you call murder on the other. It paints you very hypocritical.
Dark said:
Walter says that we should A.) have gladatorial matches with death penelty prisoners to make money, or B.) use them as test subjects to cure cancer. Now I know that's ridicolously harsh and I don't agree with it, but its an interesting concept to ponder.
Yeah. Hitler had those same bright ideas....
At 24/10/05 2:21 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Yeah. Hitler had those same bright ideas....
You hit the nail on the head there! I know the guy and trust me, there isn't another person I know that seems so Hitler-esq.
It's fine that you support the death penalty, but don't preach at me about abortion. You can't support murder on one hand and then criticize what you call murder on the other. It paints you very hypocritical.
Fair enough, I won't preach to you, but I will preach to everyone else.
A baby is innocent. A murderer is not innocent. It's toatally different, and I don't see it as hipocritical at all.
At 24/10/05 2:34 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hey, allosoni, some vitims have families too.
And drew, I said Walter was nuts, I didn't say I agreed with him.
At 24/10/05 3:28 PM,
Unknown said…
It's not a question of innocent or not innocent. Any time a person is ending another person's life whether they deserve it or not, it's killing. It's still murder, justified or not.
I support the death penalty, but then again, I'm pro-choice also. I guess that makes me a murder supporter all around.
At 24/10/05 3:31 PM,
Anonymous said…
Well, yeah actually, it does. See at least the murderers are being punished for something they did.
At 24/10/05 3:45 PM,
Unknown said…
Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord.
At 24/10/05 3:47 PM,
Anonymous said…
That passage refers to heaven or hell not who gets killed by whom.
At 24/10/05 4:15 PM,
Unknown said…
Romans 12:17
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
12:18
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
I think the Apostle Paul was referring to Heaven or Hell, but to how we were expected to treat each other by God.
At 24/10/05 4:16 PM,
Unknown said…
Not referring that is.
At 24/10/05 4:33 PM,
Anonymous said…
It depends how you interperet the passages. I happen to think that that particular one (12:19) means that God will damn those when they die. Anyway, it doesn't matter, its not about vengenge its about punishment.
At 25/10/05 5:05 AM,
Scoughman said…
I'm going to get horribly flamed for this, but I just read an extremely interesting book called Freakonomics, about how economics affect all facets of our society. One of the most interesting parts concerns abortion. Essentially, mid/late 20th century, crime levels, especially among teens, were rising like loaves of bread. A huge crime spree was predicted-a sort of apex of teenage crime that would turn the US into a Clockwork Orange-esque hell. However, suddenly, crime began to drop. Inexplicably, all the experts were suddenly wrong. The peak of crime predicted never happened, and American is much safer now. The question is, what caused it? The traditional answers are bogus-for example, a stronger economy, better police training, etc. etc. But the real reason, according to the writer, was Roe vs. Wade, where abortion was legalized across the nation. Suddenly, all those single-parent broken homes and their at-risk kids were not being born. The kids who were expected to have horrible childhoods and bad parental influences were never born, because the mothers knew they could not care for the child and that they would grow up with these negative influences.
Is there any point in saving the life of a child if he will simply get into crime and be sent to prison, where he may get the death sentence? If he's to be killed anyway, isn't it better to save the lives of the people he might kill? Isn't better to prevent him from suffering this detrimental childhood and life of crime?
Therefore, if you look at it this way, abortion saves lives too.
However, the entire pro-choice vs. pro-life thing is a moot point. Most of the pro-life supporters are saying so from a Christian point of view, in which the baby is a human from conception. The orthodox Jewish belief is that a baby is not a person until it is born. I believe in neither-a baby is capable of surviving if it is delivered by c-section early, and a fetus is incapable of thinking the self-aware thoughs that are the mark of those with souls. Most abortions are carried out early in pregnancy when the baby is not yet formed enough to make coherent thoughts. Therefore I believe it is not murder. If you want to argue it's the capacity for life that's being destroyed, then no woman should ever have her period, because an egg is lost, and that's capacity for life. It's not voluntary, like masturbation, or sex with a condom, both of which are forms of destruction of the capacity for life. Therefore these arguments are baseless. The truth here is that the government should never pass any law that prevents women from making that choice, especially not one that is motivated by religious belief. The separation of church and state is vital to the function of a free country and it is unacceptable to impose laws like those. It's also unacceptable to prevent homosexual people from marrying each other, because that belief is purely religious. If a lesbian couple owns a home, has children, and works for a living, in the eyes of the law they are the same as a heterosexual couple, and therefore should be treated the same. The country is not based on the bible-it's based on equality and freedom.
At 25/10/05 3:56 PM,
Anonymous said…
Sure, but look, if some kid gets themselves pregnent than its THEIR fault. They should deal with the consequences. If they don't they will learn to do it again and think its ok to go around doing whatever they want with whomever they want.
At 25/10/05 7:43 PM,
Scoughman said…
I agree-however wouldn't it be better to educate the kids about the consequences of their actions before they go ahead and do it? Then they wouldn't have to suffer a punishment, and their kids wouldn't have to suffer a bad chlldhood.
At 25/10/05 8:10 PM,
Anonymous said…
Why shopuldn't they be punished? (The kids who did it I mean.) Should we just let them get away with it? I don't think so.
At 26/10/05 6:29 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Sol Kauffman:
I see what you are saying. Almost Every problem in the world goes back to the parents and how well they did teaching their children.
I am pro-family, meaning I think a lot of problems could be solved if families could better train their kids, get along, that kind of thing.
But if that doesn't work, then it's the kids that have mental problems, not the parents.
But I still believe that abortion should be restricted to if it could harm the mother or baby.
If it's a matter of kids that can't keep it in their pants, either the kids should take care of the kid or put it up for adoption.
I agree with you about the family stuff, but not the abortion stuff. A 50% agreement.
At 27/10/05 2:25 PM,
Unknown said…
DarkSaturos said...
Why shopuldn't they be punished? (The kids who did it I mean.) Should we just let them get away with it? I don't think so.
So you believe that making the teenager have the child should be their punishment? You're going to bring a child into what is more than likely a bad situation, and have a child take care of a child, to PROVE A POINT?
You aren't just punishing the teenage parent, but the teen's child as well. That makes plenty of sense.
Look, as a teen you should realize this. The temptation to have pre-marital sex is out there. The proverbial apple was bitten a long time ago and all the Abstainence Only programs out there aren't going to change that at all. It's a great idea, just like world peace is, but it's not realistic when you look at today's hypersexual society. That's the purpose of sex education. That's why parents need to pay more attention to what their kids do, and explain to them there are consequences to their actions. Not having sex is great, in a perfect world, but parents and schools can't just bury their head in the sand when it comes to sex education and availablity of birth control.
At 27/10/05 4:43 PM,
Anonymous said…
You misunderstood me. Its not about proving a point, its about learning from mistakes.
At 27/10/05 4:45 PM,
Anonymous said…
Well, no, actually its more about personall responsibilty.
At 30/10/05 5:02 PM,
Gayle said…
And it's also about something very few know anything about these days: morality! An acquaintence of my daughter came over to the house just two days ago and I informed her my daughter was at work. The girl had a baby (out of wedlock, of course) and I asked her how the baby was. "She's fine" she said. Then I asked her if the boyfriend she was going with at the time she became pregnant was helping with the baby. Without any embarrassment at all, not so much as a slight blush, in fact with a great big fat smile on her face she said: "I don't know who the father is. I was seeing someone else at the same time."!!!!!
No shame. Perfectly normal these days. Everyone is doing it. The only great thing I have to say about her is at least she kept the child. Happily a DNA test is being done as I write this, and whichever guy it is has promised if he is proven to be the father he will help with the baby. Only time will tell.
At 7/11/05 10:14 PM,
MsAmber said…
I would like to interject here that having an abortion is not a painless solution. The girls who make that choice generally aren't in any hurry to make that choice again. They are paying a price for their mistake(s). I feel strange preaching this to a roomful of boys who will never have to make this decision for themselves. The experience of an abortion for a young lady is VERY traumatizing. They are poked, prodded, exposed, handled and desensitized. Not to mention the mental anguish. The thoughts that haunt her: What if... Will I be judged... Will God punish me for this? It takes years to get over such an event. Have you personally ever known a young lady who has made that choice? It was a harder decision than you may want to give her credit for.
If you want to be a better man, you should mentally try to be in her shoes before deciding what is right-or-wrong. I hope you take my advice and try to re-evaluate your stance on the abortion issue.
Me, I'm sad about children dying and I would love to adopt a house full. But I'm still pro-choice.
Thanks for letting me speak.
MsAmber
Post a Comment
<< Home