An eye for an eye, the whole world goes blind"Here's a concern that's not unheard of.

Criminals regardless of how they arrived at the conclusion of "being criminals" be it the crime, the mental capacity, an influence, or by accident, if there was not a government in place to determine the extent of punishment, then such persons have the opportunity to be repeat offenders. Does that mean that I agree with the death penalty? Do I believe that Karma can do more in ways of retribution than by mans hands, sure I do. Does that mean that the victim or victims of the predator rest any easier at night...not always. Sure that individual/s may no longer be capable of committing acts agains the victim any longer, but the victim suffers over and over and over, everytime they re-tell what happened, everytime they think about it, everytime they go to therapy. There are other factors in which the death penalty was/has been in place for hundreds of years. To start, if you trace the fundamentalist ideology you will find that retribution begins with traditional old testiment teachings. Many thoughts are fueled by the purpose of the death penalty. Restituion is the first reason, where prevention of crime/repeat crimes is the second. Our system is designed to control the thought process of the human being. I believe that they're are other ways in which "restitution" can be achieved. The death penalty offers an easy way out. Even if the person remained alive, just exactly what kind of life would they have to boast of? They would'nt. Our government needs to be smarter. More inventive and sound. I think that people need to speak up and voice their ideas, get them into congress and try new methods of discipline. For those that cannot be taught, then punishment would be a politically correct term to refer them as.I'm throwing this up here by request from someone else and because I've wanted to hammer out this thought in clear language for a while anyway.

There's an ongoing notion in American culture that when you do something bad, you deserve something bad. If I kill you, I deserve to be, in turn, killed. Or incarcerated. Or, in some basic fundamental way, inconvenienced. I think this is a ridiculous notion; our punitive system strikes me as borderline fetishistic. We throttle our criminals with whatever punishments we feel morally comfortable with (rather than risk throwing away our 'moral superiority' by, say, torturing them) for what often feels like the sake of merely demonstrating how unlike criminals we ourselves are.The criminal system of an enlightened society should pursue only three purposes: 1) To offer victims of crime closure and compensation. 2) To protect others from being victimized. 3) To rehabilitate those criminals who can be rehabilitated.To this end, it might be necessary to imprison criminals -

perhaps this is the only way to protect their victims. It might be necessary to kill criminals perhaps, even when imprisoned, they will find ways to victimize others. But there is no way in which you can become 'deserving' of abuse of any kind; there is no way in which you forsake your human rights to not be tortured, killed, or abused. We violate these rights only as a function of protecting others from you. You do not 'give them up'; we violate them temporarily because if we don't, someone else's rights will be violated. What I'm getting at here is that the notion that criminals 'deserve' to be punished--rather than must be punished, as a function of either prevention or closure for their victims--is barbaric. People don't deserve anything. There are problems; we try to solve them. Doing harm to others because they did things we disapprove of is not problem solving--it's pornography.

When I am walking suddenly someone comes and asks me for money pointing a Gun at me, I say 'please I don't have any', that Idiot shoots me in the Leg and runs away. After 2 weeks in Hospital, I fear walking on the roads alone, actually I will never walk again on roads alone. This person is a Criminal! 'Criminal' is a person who commits some crime without thinking what consequences may be faced by one who is victim of a Crime.Should a person like that be Spared? What is the punishment for causing so much suffering to me? Yes, My Friends I am talking for the motion 'Criminals are wicked and should be punished' A wrong done under any circumstances is a wrong. A poor person who wants to give food to his son will commit robbery or murder, If this poor man murders a young man just for money should he be left away? Who has given him right to harm others because he is in need? Would it not be better if a poor person just eat something from a Garbage can?.criminals deserve to be punished. Most of the people would not hesitate to claim that those who break the law should be punished ans]d put into prison as long as possible in case they continue to endager our lives and property. Also, if criminals are not given any punishment they may commit crimes again and again.Crime in general is the worst thing a person can do because it violates the law and it is a violation against the victims.Therefore, to protect the security of the society they should be punished according to the

severity of the crime. So, regardless of what sort of crime someone is commiting they have to pay for their crime.

Criminals are wicked and deserve punishment. Committing a crime shows one lacks in ethics and values, and implies a person is lacking in any overall good. The fact that a person committed a crime is a reflection of their true self. If one is unable to live by ethical standards and chooses to do wrong, they are wicked. By being wicked and acting as such, then they deserve to face harsh consequences for their actions. Different actions have different levels of unethical standards, and thus the punishment must fit the crime...Yes, they are ALL wicked and need to be publicly executed, save the taxpayers from trillions of dollars. When squeaky from just got released last week, she was in prison for 40yrs.The average cost per criminal in prison is 30,000 to 40,000 dollars. Do the math, she alone cost ALL taxpayers in this country (not just the state she was imprisoned in)1 million and some odd dollars, that is outrageous! She was an accessory to MURDER, she herself must be murdered instead of being let go. Her victims werent "let go" now were they? I'm all in favour of the VICTIM, not the rat hole criminal