• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Are you for the legalization of crucifixion for felons and other criminals?

Are you for the legalization of crucifixion

  • Yes

    Votes: 68 60.2%

  • No

    Votes: 45 39.8%
  • Total voters
    113
Go to CruxDreams.com
Actually, I do not trust any legal system in the world, seen to much of it. So a death penalty, makes not much sense, just a provocative and perverse expression of Lenins statement; "The men (today we must say and other genders) with the guns decide,,,,"
 
Overall I’m generally against the death penalty. I understand the argument pro execution for grievous offences but many studies have shown it not to be a very good deterrent in modern society.

And to my mind, if a death penalty as torturous as crucifixion is on the table, doesn’t that just add incentive for a criminal murderer to leave no witnesses?

My understanding is that there are still some societies that may resort to crucifixion as a method of execution. None are what I’d think of as civilised societies.

Fantasy kink related only in my book.
 
They have many forms of execution in use today. I've always wondered why crucifixion isn't one of them. Line the streets with crosses. Crime rate would drop tremendously.
 
As a vegetarian (trying to become vegan), I am opposed to the taking of life,
Some may say that allowing state-sponsored killing inures people to the concept of taking human life and may even encourage murder to eliminate witnesses.
 
WhiteGirl said:
As a vegetarian (trying to become vegan), I am opposed to the taking of life,
Some may say that allowing state-sponsored killing inures people to the concept of taking human life and may even encourage murder to eliminate witnesses.
Click to expand...
Look up at "safew crucifixion". Like the mediveal garroting, the idea is to humiliate the condemned and then it is even important that he or she does not die....
 
Crucifyer said:
Are you for or against the crucifixion of criminals such as traffic violators, domestic abusers, murderers, and those convicted of theft?
Click to expand...
Discussing the death penalty in a broad sense, I suggest using data like these as a reference point.

"The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990."
 
Lucas Soranus said:
So if I speak out against the government, what should my fate be?
Click to expand...
The government is not the country.

As long as courts are independent from the government, the interests of the government and those of the country can remain distinct and separated.
 
Zephirantes said:
As long as courts are independent from the government,
Click to expand...
Dream on! :doh:
The courts will just do what the government expects them to do. After all, it's the government that nominates the 'independent' judges! :roto2nuse:
So, critics of the government, expect your naked back soon scratching the crux wood! :eek:
 
Constantine said:
I wouldn't mind if terrorists were sentenced to crucifixion. In my city three days ago there was a terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall.
Click to expand...
137 dead, that's one hundred and thirty-seven. I don't know what should happen to the terrorists but I do know that those 137 people didn't derserve to die.
 
Loxuru said:
Dream on! :doh:
The courts will just do what the government expects them to do. After all, it's the government that nominates the 'independent' judges! :roto2nuse:
So, critics of the government, expect your naked back soon scratching the crux wood! :eek:
Click to expand...
That's not the case in the UK, judges are appointed by an independent Judicial Commission (in Scotland, Judicial Appointments board) While appointments are recommended to the Lord Chancellor,who is a government minister (in Scotland, the First Minister), s/he has very limited powers of veto, hardly ever exercised, and the Commissioners, and the judges they appoint, are staunchly resistant to any hint of political interference. Of course, judges have to apply the laws that have been enacted by Parliament (or by the devolved legislatures), which usually followed the wishes of the government at the time they were made law, but that doesn't mean they 'do what the Government expects them to do', they actually rather often frustrate and annoy the Government. My understanding is that the independence of the judiciary is a requirement for membership of the European Union, too - which is why Hungary and (until lately) Poland have been at odds with the EU Commission.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom