The Public Execution Debate

[Dragoon Fighter]

Preface​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost all cultures in the history of the world has/had some form of public executions. If you need prove of this, go no further than your local world history text book. You will find examples though out history. The last public execution in the united states was 1963. Though in most states that I can think of (if not all) have banned public execution. I argue that public execution is beneficial and there for should be allowed for the following reasons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Argument​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public executions cons our out weighed by its pros, pros such as: Economic benefits, Tourism, Supporting Cultural morality.

Point 1)Public execution is economically beneficial, because it will create jobs and secure jobs. It will create jobs because in our instant satisfactory culture there will inevitably be a group of people who wish to see the execution of a criminal but do not wish to spend the time and money on travel. As a result there will more likely than not be something along the lines of paper view, only for executions. Also for cities with a high murder/execution rate it can reinforce tourism. As for the security of jobs it will secure jobs by keeping the fuel industry working and there for along other jobs that I mentioned one can conclude it will contribute to the economy.

Point 2)Public execution will create tourism. My argument as to reinforcing this is the fact there are many places in the world that already have a tourism industry feeding off of human death. (Example: Grave Yards, Old Jail cells, Execution chambers, Ghost Tours, Ect.) It is not that much of a stretch to think that this would also have tourism (as well as Anti-execution activist and protesters but that also helps the economy and tourism.)

Point 3) This also helps our culture morality by making the Punishment = Crime more tangible in our cultures youth. Yes, we all know that if you do something you get punished, but this makes it more tangible in the mind of the observer. If parents do not wish there children to observe such an action then just do not take your child to see it, problem solved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[TheMike]

Public execution is economically beneficial, because it will create jobs

There many other ways to create jobs, such as building places and roads. They are temporary jobs though. However, the workers will earn money and sometimes enough money to buy stuff, like cars. And if the demand of cars grows, more workers will be necessary to answer the population's requests.

cities with a high murder/execution rate it can reinforce tourism

Cities with a high murder rate should work on its security before trying to increase the number of tourists, because nobody will want to visit a city with that kind of rate.

If parents do not wish there children to observe such an action then just do not take your child to see it, problem solved

It's not so easy. In 1963, parents could easily avoid their children to see it, but nowadays, things are different, especially with the presence of globalization.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm going to assume that the OP is satirical, because those are all really poor reasons to justify execution.

And if you are serious, I have a reason to refute the idea of public executions (and executions in general):

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

The Innocence Project has freed 138 people from death row who were wrongly convicted. I would much rather see every murderer in America sit in prison forever than have one person be wrongly executed.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Exactly, I'm against capital punishment too. It seems that this is what the debate is going to be about: Capital punishment.

Dragoon before I debate can you tell me why capital punishment is needed?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I'm going to assume that the OP is satirical, because those are all really poor reasons to justify execution.

And if you are serious, I have a reason to refute the idea of public executions (and executions in general):

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

The Innocence Project has freed 138 people from death row who were wrongly convicted. I would much rather see every murderer in America sit in prison forever than have one person be wrongly executed.

I understand where you are coming from, but I believe that a murder needs to be destroyed from are culture in life in jail he will do nothing but eat up resources that he does not deserve (I know the classical counter argument for this is that it is cheaper to keep him alive for life than to kill him which is true, however I do not agree with the current methods of execution but that is a different debate entirely.) Edit: @BOB SAGET my response here sums up my reasoning.

There many other ways to create jobs, such as building places and roads. They are temporary jobs though. However, the workers will earn money and sometimes enough money to buy stuff, like cars. And if the demand of cars grows, more workers will be necessary to answer the population's requests.

Of course there are other ways to create jobs and unless it is so far out of the way it would be impractical I think we should do are best to help contribute to those to.

Cities with a high murder rate should work on its security before trying to increase the number of tourists, because nobody will want to visit a city with that kind of rate.

I am willing to bet that on the following list a total of 3 cities have a ok to good tourism indiestry (Well make that 2 Louisiana has not been doing so well. )

It's not so easy. In 1963, parents could easily avoid their children to see it, but nowadays, things are different, especially with the presence of globalization.

1936 but yes I understand what you mean. Here is my counter agument parents need to be more careful what they hand there child If the child sees it and the parents did not want the child to then it is the parents fault.

 

[TheMike]

Of course there are other ways to create jobs and unless it is so far out of the way it would be impractical I think we should do are best to help contribute to those to.

Do you think that making the public execution legal is the best way to create jobs when building things like roads creates not only jobs, but also make the population's life better and easier?

I am willing to bet that on the following list a total of 3 cities have a ok to good tourism indiestry (Well make that 2 New orlinds has not been doing so well. )

However, they are not is the most visisted cities list.

1936

Even in 1963 it would be easier. Edit: You also said 1963 in the OP. :S

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I responded earlier but my computer had issues and I realized it did not go though, I will edit in 2 or so links latter.

Do you think that making the public execution legal is the best way to create jobs when building things like roads creates not only jobs, but also make the population's life better and easier?

No, but every little helps and adding public execution is as simple as changing location, not really all that much of a challenge.

However, they are not is the most visisted cities list.

New York and las Vegas have a pretty high crime rate them selfs (granted new Yorks crime rate has been dropping as of late.)

Even in 1963 it would be easier. Edit: You also said 1963 in the OP. :S

My bad you are right edited and fixed.

 

[KrazyGlue]

New York and las Vegas have a pretty high crime rate them selfs (granted new Yorks crime rate has been dropping as of late.)

Just noting, you might want to check sources before making this kind of statement.

I just checked WolframAlpha, and NY and Los Angeles actually have lower crime rates per capita than the national average. Source

Just something to keep in mind.

I'd participate in this, but I don't want to make too much of a dogpile here.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Just noting, you might want to check sources before making this kind of statement.

I just checked WolframAlpha, and NY and Los Angeles actually have lower crime rates per capita than the national average. Source

Just something to keep in mind.

Ops The sourse I looked at must be out dated . Thank you for pointing that out, I will have to fix that part of my argument.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Um...Is this a joke?

Point 1. As mike said, (grats on being a debater) there are better ways to get jobs.
Point 2. A public execution is one event. There are other ways to increase tourism, like, I don't know, host a rock concert.
Point 3. I'm pretty sure watching the person get arrested does the trick. I don't see why they would need to watch them get hanged.

 

[Phantom7]

In my opinion, Point #2 has to be the most illogical and senseless of the three (None of them are really very logical to begin with). Why exactly would anyone list "tourism" as a reason to begin a nationwide execution system? Would tourists from foreign nations really be interested in visiting the United States (I'm only using the US because it was mentioned in the OP) to witness criminal executions or visit criminal burial locations?

As for Points 1 and 3, there are plenty of other actions to take to create and secure jobs (this has already been said quite a few times), and changing capital punishment from private to public would only present an immoral image of the US, since it would be commonly presumed that Americans enjoy witnessing the assassination of others.

Also, I believe public execution would conflict with the eighth amendment of the US Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Fuelbi]

Also, I believe public execution would conflict with the eighth amendment of the US Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I pretty much agree with this. If a person got hung and the rope would snap, I could imagine that person being in pretty horrible pain. I'm not too sure about other methods of execution like a shooting squad (or however you call those). Would it be possible to live? I'm not sure

Also, I'm pretty sure the last public execution was more recent. (feel free to correct me if shooting squads are not public.

 

[Lore]

Also, I believe public execution would conflict with the eighth amendment of the US Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

What makes a public execution crueler than a normal one? People can sometimes watch regular executions, and public ones only increase the number of viewers.

Give reasons before making a statement like "this goes against the __ ammendment."

The OP is completely illogical and has already been criticized for that, so I won't argue against it and go point-by-point.

I'm against public executions, but I can definitely see the advantages in executing huge criminals/terrorist leaders/dictators like Saddam Hussein. It shows that we are completely serious in our fight against their group, and it might give them a good scare.

It might also provoke some minor parts of the group into doing something stupid, like rushing at a well-defended base.

However, private executions are seen as "polite" to the (for lack of a better term) soon-to-be-executed. They usually (but not always) can pick who watches the execution, and they will probably be more comfortable with a small number of viewers.

If there is a loud crowd watching, then the soon-to-be-executed, already stressed out from the fact that they are about to die, might start freaking out, trying to escape, or become violent.

Edit: Who said that we have to hang or shoot some one publicly? Injections can easily be given in public, and there are other humane methods that can be made public.

 

[Fuelbi]

What makes a public execution crueler than a normal one? People can sometimes watch regular executions, and public ones only increase the number of viewers.

I disagree. I think it'd be pretty cruel to be humiliated by having a full crowd watching you in a public execution.

That, and some of the methods are pretty cruel in themselves i.e. hanging

 

[Lore]

I disagree. I think it'd be pretty cruel to be humiliated by having a full crowd watching you in a public execution.

That, and some of the methods are pretty cruel in themselves i.e. hanging

(I'm going to mostly play Devil's advocate now that I've stated my real opinion.)

Really? It isn't like they're going to be humiliated for very long, considering what they're there for.

Oh, and I edited my earlier post. I didn't notice your post before mine because I was typing mine when you posted it, and my response to your second part can be found in the edit.

 

[Fuelbi]

I don't think it'd be fair to have the person be humiliated within the last few minutes of their lives. If it were me, I'd prefer to have a private method be used.

And let's say that we do get a humane method to be done in public, my above opinion still stands.

I WILL agree with you in the fact that we should publicly execute terrorist figures like Sadam Hussein. That'll remind the other country who's in control here.

 

[Lore]

I don't think it'd be fair to have the person be humiliated within the last few minutes of their lives. If it were me, I'd prefer to have a private method be used.

And let's say that we do get a humane method to be done in public, my above opinion still stands.

I WILL agree with you in the fact that we should publicly execute terrorist figures like Sadam Hussein. That'll remind the other country who's in control here.

If it were me, I wouldn't care what happened before I was executed. It's not like I'll be there to regret what happened that day.

Besides that, it isn't like the executee (better term?) will be marched naked through the streets and then shot. You're acting like we would suddenly start publicly humiliating all executees.

Your last point is kinda funny, considering the fact that you just mentioned being fair.

If public execution is too cruel and embarassing to a normal executee, why would it suddenly be ok to do that to a dictator? They're still human.

Also, where would we draw the line between ok to publicly execute and not ok?

 

[Fuelbi]

If it were me, I wouldn't care what happened before I was executed. It's not like I'll be there to regret what happened that day.

Besides that, it isn't like the executee (better term?) will be marched naked through the streets and then shot. You're acting like we would suddenly start publicly humiliating all executees.

Your last point is kinda funny, considering the fact that you just mentioned being fair.

If public execution is too cruel and embarassing to a normal executee, why would it suddenly be ok to do that to a dictator? They're still human.

Also, where would we draw the line between ok to publicly execute and not ok?

Still, I don't care, I don't want my last moments to be being killed while everyone watches.

And I think it's excusable to kill people like Sadam publicly. I mean, he's been responsible for more deaths than a normal executee would be. I mean he was the cause for 9/11 (please correct me here, I've never actually known who was the actual cause for it, but most people say him so don't take my word for it) where many, many people died. I'm normally not one to bring up 9/11, but you can't ignore the fact that Sadam has been accused of being the cause of all those deaths

As for the line between public and private, it's pretty subjective tbh. I mean, look at my argument. Other people could simply state that one death should equal a public execution.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

If public execution is too cruel and embarassing to a normal executee, why would it suddenly be ok to do that to a dictator? They're still human.

Also, where would we draw the line between ok to publicly execute and not ok?

Contrapasso, one must make the punishment fit the crime. One yes can point out that Contrapasso is an illogical argument, however our complete justice system is built on it. This is only expanding for more options to make our justice system to make it more versatile.

 

[Lore]

Still, I don't care, I don't want my last moments to be being killed while everyone watches.

What? You can't respond to someone's point with "I don't care." That's just basically admitting that you have no argument against me, which is death in a debate.

And I think it's excusable to kill people like Sadam publicly. I mean, he's been responsible for more deaths than a normal executee would be. I mean he was the cause for 9/11 (please correct me here, I've never actually known who was the actual cause for it, but most people say him so don't take my word for it) where many, many people died. I'm normally not one to bring up 9/11, but you can't ignore the fact that Sadam has been accused of being the cause of all those deaths

Look up things before you say them, please. To quote wikipedia, "the 9/11 Commission Report stated that there is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al-Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States".

As for the line between public and private, it's pretty subjective tbh. I mean, look at my argument. Other people could simply state that one death should equal a public execution.

If one form of execution is "too cruel" for one person, then it is too cruel for anyone, no matter what they did.

If something is inhumane and you do it to someone, then you are treating them as less than human and denying them one of their basic rights.

I know that I'm supposed to be arguing for public executions, but I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument.

Contrapasso, one must make the punishment fit the crime. One yes can point out that Contrapasso is an illogical argument, however our complete justice system is built on it. This is only expanding for more options to make our justice system to make it more versatile.

Very, very good point, but please look at my response to Celebi's last point. It basically fits here.

This isn't a question of whether or not it fits the crime; it's about whether a public execution is inhumane or not.

 

[TheMike]

No, but every little helps and adding public execution is as simple as changing location, not really all that much of a challenge.

Personally, I don't think it's so simple, especially with the issue of the children seeing it. Actually, there are more cons than pros if the public execution becomes legal, in my opinion.

New York and las Vegas have a pretty high crime rate them selfs (granted new Yorks crime rate has been dropping as of late.)

What KrazyGlue said.

(grats on being a debater)

Thank you!

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Personally, I don't think it's so simple, especially with the issue of the children seeing it. Actually, there are more cons than pros if the public execution becomes legal, in my opinion.

What are the cons? Please, give a list so I can compare the two.

What KrazyGlue said.

I know I am wrong there. I have already said that, I will get back with a proper response after some research and some thought.

 

[TheMike]

What are the cons? Please, give a list so I can compare the two.

You can't compare pros with cons when there aren't real pros because the ones you mentioned are very, very poor.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

You can't compare pros with cons when there aren't real pros because the ones you mentioned are very, very poor.

Pros
+Closer to some families (more so than normal)
+Economic benefits (already justified)
+Crime deterrent (already justified)
+Expanding justice punishment options (See the Contrapasso post)
+public satisfaction if the murder is infamous and or killed many many people.
+Reinforcing the idea that there is justice in this world.

Just a few pros now can I see the cons list?

 

[Fuelbi]

Pros
+Closer to some families (more so than normal)
+Economic benefits (already justified)
+Crime deterrent (already justified)
+Expanding justice punishment options (See the Contrapasso post)
+public satisfaction if the murder is infamous and or killed many many people.
+Reinforcing the idea that there is justice in this world.

Just a few pros now can I see the cons list?

I don't understand the first point? Killing someone will bring families closer together? Oh yeah, instead of going to the park, let's take our kids to an execution. That'll sure be a lot of fun

The economic benefits have not been justified. They create temporary jobs and there are always higher paying jobs than having to be the guy to kill a criminal

I think death itself is enough to keep everybody away from murdering people. Hell, it's enough for everybody I know.

I'm still not quite clear on expanding justice options

Depends on how infamous we're talking about here. If we have Sadam Hussein, then yeah, it'll create public satisfaction. I think I agree with you here

You know that even though people don't see it, the news are always over the deaths of people who are killed. People will know anyways that justice is being served whether or not you're there to witness it.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I don't understand the first point? Killing someone will bring families closer together? Oh yeah, instead of going to the park, let's take our kids to an execution. That'll sure be a lot of fun

Typo, I mean it brings an tangible end the the victimizes as they see the murder get justice. (can not spell the word I wished to use.)

The economic benefits have not been justified. They create temporary jobs and there are always higher paying jobs than having to be the guy to kill a criminal

I think death itself is enough to keep everybody away from murdering people. Hell, it's enough for everybody I know.

I'm still not quite clear on expanding justice options

temporary jobs? to a degree yes but there will always be murders so there is (somewhat) a steady supply.

Depends on how infamous we're talking about here. If we have Sadam Hussein, then yeah, it'll create public satisfaction. I think I agree with you here

That is high standard I was referring to your local run of the mill cereal killer and higher (which yes would also cover Sadam Hussein.)

 

[Fuelbi]

Typo, I mean it brings an tangible end the the victimizes as they see the murder get justice. (can not spell the word I wished to use.)



temporary jobs? to a degree yes but there will always be murders so there is (somewhat) a steady supply.



That is high standard I was referring to your local run of the mill cereal killer and higher (which yes would also cover Sadam Hussein.)

Ah, ok typo. But then your first and second to last point would be the same. I mean, the victims are going to be informed anyways and the general public can be satisfied knowing he died anyways. It doesn't matter that he has to be seen being killed.

Alright, let's say that all your points are correct and this actually deters from killing other people. What about your temporary jobs now? With a lack of people to execute, this means that the temporary job thing won't work

Plus there aren't that many executions a year to begin with.

To make the death public, I believe it'd have to be even worse than that. For it to be public, the guy'd have to make a very big offense where literally the entire nation (or at least the state), want him dead.

 

[TheMike]

+Economic benefits (already justified)

Argument already countered.

+public satisfaction if the murder is infamous and or killed many many people.
+Reinforcing the idea that there is justice in this world.

There will be public satisfaction even if the execution isn't public, and the idea of justice will still exist.

can I see the cons list?

Some that I quickly thought:

- Public execution is a sensationalist spectacle
- The lawbreaker may be dehumanized
- Globalization. "A broadcast would violate the privacy of condemned persons"
- Not good at all if youngsters see it, and they are more likely to do so nowadays

 

[BOB SAGET!]

The desire to kill is a violent instinct. This is something as human beings in the 21 century we must control.

For the deterrence bull****:

People kill for three reasons: Money, Passion, and Compulsion.

People who kill for money can't be deterred by execution because once there in jail they can't kill for money anymore.

People who kill for passion can't be deterred either because it was usually a moment thing. If they hated a family member and killed them, executing them won't make them be deterred.

People who kill for compulsion are the most sick. The thing is most of these people try to hide their crimes anyway, so they had no fear of the system because they did it anyway.



Take a look at the numbers:
(2007)
Murder rate in death penalty states: 5.83
Murder rate in non death penalty states: 4.1

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

 

[Lore]

I'm still waiting for a response, Celebi.

Bob Saget, what is the point of all of that? I'm sorry, but you aren't very clear at all.

And why did you use a source from 2007?

 

[Fuelbi]

What? You can't respond to someone's point with "I don't care." That's just basically admitting that you have no argument against me, which is death in a debate.




Look up things before you say them, please. To quote wikipedia, "the 9/11 Commission Report stated that there is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al-Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States".



If one form of execution is "too cruel" for one person, then it is too cruel for anyone, no matter what they did.

If something is inhumane and you do it to someone, then you are treating them as less than human and denying them one of their basic rights.

I know that I'm supposed to be arguing for public executions, but I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument.

Alright, I admit that when I typed that it was unintentionally and I know I should've backed up more than "I don't care". Second off, I even said in my post forgive me if I was incorrect about saying that Sadam was behind the 9/11 attacks. When I mentioned Sadam, it was more of an example than anything

But the thing is, the said person deserves the "cruel" punishment if they're to the level of someone like Hitler (yeah, changing up the subject to someone I know a bit more about) who killed thousands of Jews in ways that in themselves are too cruel. Hell, even a person who's done less worse things than Hitler deserves it, only if the caliber of their crimes is that great.

Does somebody like Hitler deserve to be treated humanely who's treated an entire race of people inhumanely?

Sorry for not responding, but I didn't notice DX

 

[BOB SAGET!]

It was my arguement against dragoons statement of deterrence.

2007 was the latest year they had on that site. But the pattern tells all.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

The desire to kill is a violent instinct. This is something as human beings in the 21 century we must control.

For the deterrence bull****:

People kill for three reasons: Money, Passion, and Compulsion.

People who kill for money can't be deterred by execution because once there in jail they can't kill for money anymore.

People who kill for passion can't be deterred either because it was usually a moment thing. If they hated a family member and killed them, executing them won't make them be deterred.

People who kill for compulsion are the most sick. The thing is most of these people try to hide their crimes anyway, so they had no fear of the system because they did it anyway.



Take a look at the numbers:
(2007)
Murder rate in death penalty states: 5.83
Murder rate in non death penalty states: 4.1

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Hey! Please do not use words like bull**** that hurts my feelings . Anyway this data is for private executions and not public. You know of the Draconian laws, right?

Argument already countered.

- Public execution is a sensationalist spectacle

If it is a spectacle that would help stimulate the economy and yes I agree it would be a spectacle.

There will be public satisfaction even if the execution isn't public, and the idea of justice will still exist.

There is a slight physiological difference when you hear about it and see it for your self.

Some that I quickly thought:

- Public execution is a sensationalist spectacle

- The lawbreaker may be dehumanized

- Globalization. "A broadcast would violate the privacy of condemned persons"

Good Points, do you mind if I answer these latter after some research (tomorrow or two days from now should be enough time.)

- Not good at all if youngsters see it, and they are more likely to do so nowadays

I will argue that it is good for young people to see it. The reason I argue that is that imagine your self as a child and you saw an exaction of another human and your parents tell you that happens to people who misbehave, I know I would behave from then on!

 

[Fuelbi]

I will argue that it is good for young people to see it. The reason I argue that is that imagine your self as a child and you saw an exaction of another human and your parents tell you that happens to people who misbehave, I know I would behave from then on!

Or, the little kid can be mentally scarred after watching somebody die. Do you know how'd it be if you were a little kid and you saw somebody getting hung, shot, his head cut off, etc.?

I sure wouldn't want my kid to watch all that. I think there are more cons than pros for getting a young person to watch a man get executed. I mean, the person could end up mentally and emotionally hurt and could be more likely to do the crime anyways.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You know of the Draconian laws, right?

The draconian laws were horrible

If it is a spectacle that would help stimulate the economy and yes I agree it would be a spectacle.

BUT IT ISN'T! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!

There is a slight physiological difference when you hear about it and see it for your self.

And I doubt you've seen it yourself.

I will argue that it is good for young people to see it. The reason I argue that is that imagine your self as a child and you saw an exaction of another human and your parents tell you that happens to people who misbehave, I know I would behave from then on!

What celebi said.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

The draconian laws were horrible

I agree, but they got the job done, I am not pro draconian laws. Historically speaking though it created an atmosphere of fear and you always thought twice before you did something.

BUT IT ISN'T! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!

NO I DO NOT! (WHY ARE WE TYPING IN ALL CAPS?)

And I doubt you've seen it yourself.

True, However I am basing this statement off of Physiological evidence in other fields. When something is visible people have a better tendency to believe it. For an example let us take Alien Space Craft (I am not saying they exist this is just an example.) If you heard that they exist you might find that ridiculous, but if one landed in your back yard it will have more of an effect than if you just heard that it happens.

 

[Fuelbi]

True, However I am basing this statement off of Physiological evidence in other fields. When something is visible people have a better tendency to believe it. For an example let us take Alien Space Craft (I am not saying they exist this is just an example.) If you heard that they exist you might find that ridiculous, but if one landed in your back yard it will have more of an effect than if you just heard that it happens.

There's a difference between something that's extremely out of this world and something that happens around 30 times a year. There's solid proof that a criminal just died and there's little to no solid proof at all that aliens exist.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I agree, but they got the job done, I am not pro draconian laws. Historically speaking though it created an atmosphere of fear and you alway thought twice before you did something.

There are two ways to be well known: be famous or be infamous. Which would you chose.

NO I DO NOT! (WHY ARE WE TYPING IN ALL CAPS?)

That explains a lot. And I was typing in caps because I was pissed.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Hey! Please do not use words like bull**** that hurts my feelings . Anyway this data is for private executions and not public. You know of the Draconian laws, right?




If it is a spectacle that would help stimulate the economy and yes I agree it would be a spectacle.

sorry if I hurt your feelings then....

Of course they're for private, you said it yourself public exections were banned in the US many years ago.

Draconian laws as mentioned earlier, were terrible.....I don't get why you mentioned these laws. A revolt would be far more likely and many people who weren't guilty would be killed.



A spectatcle, listen before you even talk about public executions, we got to decide is it MORAL TO KILL A HUMAN BEING! Especially making a spectacle out of it.

There have been over 100 innocents that have been placed on death row. If public execution gets very popular a higher demand for people to be killed will result. This is how the world works nowadays, everything is connected. If there is more demand for people to be killed there could be a larger amount of innocent people placed on death row.

 

[TheMike]

If it is a spectacle that would help stimulate the economy and yes I agree it would be a spectacle.

It may help the economy, but isn't guaranteed. If you have sources proving that it grew when the public execution was legal, I would agree with you on this. Nevertheless, sources might not exist due to the date of its legality. If they really don't, we can't be sure that the economy will be stimulated.