The Death Penalty

StrongRad · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:52 am

KISS-Cringle 66 wrote:

Quote:

So in my opinion, if someone commits an illegal act they are accepting the consequece that goes with that, regardless of whether or not the consequence is ethical. As a society, it is up to us to always evaluate our consequences and ensure that they are ethical.

Well why should death be the consequence? I honestly see no reason for it besides revenge. I agree, without it alot of people would just go on a rampage (it's working pretty good up here, but then again we have anti-gun laws). I think the only reason a person should be put to death is if they kill for the joy of it. If someone kills in revenge or for any other motive then just for thrill, then prison for them. But, if your an actual threat to many people and not just a select few, then I think they should either be put in one of those looney bins (please interpret that less harshly then it sounds) or be put to death

I know this sounds bad, but I was trying to think of a compromise and that's the best I got, it's not my actual view.

Actually, I kind of agree with you. I'm not in favor of putting all criminals, even all murderers, to death.
People who brutally kill someone who is completely innocent, probably deserve death.
Second degree murder isn't death worthy, in my eyes.

Punishment should fit the crime. Brutal muderers who are beyond rehabilitation are of no value to society, and are just a waste of space, food, and oxygen.
I won't go so far as to say "an eye for an eye" because that was more a call for fairness in punishment, than a call for revenge, but I do think, that, in certain circumstances, death is a warranted punishment.
(said circumstances are a minority of offenses.)

Jitka · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:14 am

StrongRad wrote:

Punishment should fit the crime. Brutal muderers who are beyond rehabilitation are of no value to society, and are just a waste of space, food, and oxygen.

Exactly. Cold-blooded serial killers and terrorists and child murderers and things like that have wasted their own lives as well as the lives of those they've killed. I do not see why we should need to pay for a lifetime of food, medical care, and other expenses for the absolute scum of society.

Now, a guy who catches his wife cheating on him and kills her shouldn't get the death penalty. But someone like Ted Bundy or Tim McVeigh should.

It's weird for me to be saying all this, liberal Democrat that I am, but hey, there's always one or two issues everyone has a different opinion on, right?

seamusz · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:49 am

A person who murders certainly doesn't deserve to live, but I agree that we shouldn't be handout our death penalties like candy. As far as cost being a factor, It seems I read somewhere that it actually costs more to execute an individual than to keep him for life in prison... I can't exactly remember why, seems it had to do with the appeals that a death row inmate has... fyi.

Anyway, also we must keep in mind that punishments deter crime. In Singapore they have almost no crime because the penalties are insanely cruel... but they get results. I'm NOT advocating their system of penalties is the way to go, but I think that it goes to show that when a society can be consistant with consequenses and they are sufficiently harsh to deter with out being cruel and unusual, the principle works.

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

StrongRad wrote:

Please quit trying to turn the criminal into the victim.

Yes I'm sorry, we should see this in an entirely black and white manner like you. That's surely the way forward.

Quote:

If you rape, stab, beat, and set someone on fire, I honestly don't think ANYONE should care about your emotions. If you don't want to face the death penalty, you shouldn't do something so awful.

That's terrible logic. That still doesn't provide any reason why they should be killed. Teaching people not to kill by killing them doesn't work. Violenece promotes violenece, it's as simple as that.

What if you had a Punisher style character who went around executing people who went around raping, stabbing and beating? He'd probably get the chair too.

I don't want lethal injection, so, you know what I do? I don't kill people.

And what if you were framed for something?

Quote:

It is highly unfortunate that innocent people are put to death,

And unnecessary. There is no reason for they should be put to death, so quite frankly, you have 0 respect in the face of your stupid pig headed vengence for the innocents.

Quote:

but that is an indictment on the prosecution and the defense, not the death penalty (although, granted, you can always let someone go when you find out they are innocent. it's hard to bring them back to life. Well, I don't know how to do it, anyway)

That's crazy reasoning. If there wasn't a death penalty, they wouldn't be killed.

If one innocent person dies because of the death penalty, that's too much. There simply isn't any valid reason to kill someone.

Who gets to decide whether they "deserve" to live? Maybe they thought their victims don't "deserve" to live, that they were somehow inferior.
It sounds pretty silly, but it's the kind of message it will send out to a lot of people.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:04 pm

If you would have paid any attention to the posts I've made you'd see that I don't see the world as black and white.

You make it sound as though I think we should draw and quarter anyone who jaywalks.
I'm not saying that.

There are a minority of those in prison who are beyond rehabilitaion. Those are the people I think deserve death.

A majority of death row defendants do show remorse for their crimes. While that, in itsself does not explicitly mean that they can be rehabilitated into members of society, it DOES show that there might be some value in trying (Tookie Williams is an extremely good example of this).

I guess I can see how you would consider that "black and white", those who can't be rehabilitated and/or don't want to be rehabilitated die, those who might able to be rehabilitated don't.

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

Quote:

There are a minority of those in prison who are beyond rehabilitaion. Those are the people I think deserve death.

You still haven't providing a convincing reason why you believe that, or that there's any way of knowing for sure how someone will change.

Everyone has the capability to change, and that's the biggest reason I'm against the death penalty.

You really don't know. You could even be killing a scientific genius, and no doubt the media would play down those facts in favour of spreading rumours of how he raped his kids, who may be innocent, or totally unremorseful at first, yet after a few years of though, begins to regret it completely and ends up behaving so well he's granted access to scientific research, and manages to cure a disease.

The truth is, you don't know. That's an unlikely situation, but there are many lesser situations which are far more liekly. Because the death penalty insists that some people can't change, we are only further reinforcing the idea that it's acceptable in some form to be a heartless murderer as there's nothing they can do to change it.

Which is one of the big reasons why the Death Penalty is such a bad deterrent.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:39 pm

Rosalie wrote:

Quote:

There are a minority of those in prison who are beyond rehabilitaion. Those are the people I think deserve death.

You still haven't providing a convincing reason why you believe that, or that there's any way of knowing for sure how someone will change.

Everyone has the capability to change, and that's the biggest reason I'm against the death penalty.

You really don't know. You could even be killing a scientific genius, and no doubt the media would play down those facts in favour of spreading rumours of how he raped his kids, who may be innocent, or totally unremorseful at first, yet after a few years of though, begins to regret it completely and ends up behaving so well he's granted access to scientific research, and manages to cure a disease.

The truth is, you don't know. That's an unlikely situation, but there are many lesser situations which are far more liekly. Because the death penalty insists that some people can't change, we are only further reinforcing the idea that it's acceptable in some form to be a heartless murderer as there's nothing they can do to change it.

Which is one of the big reasons why the Death Penalty is such a bad deterrent.

Well, the reason why someone who does not have the capacity to be rehabilitated should be apparent. You take a killer that has no problem with killing, and will do so whenever they get the chance, place them in prison with people who have seen the errors in their ways, what do you think is going to happen?

Either way, you're right about determining who is or is not rehabilitatable (don't know if that's a word or not). I don't know how to tell the difference. Then again, I'm not a psychologist. There are those in the field of psychology (and, thus know more about it than I would ever be able to) who probably DO know how to tell.

As for the time thing, it's not like they inject you or gas you as soon as you're sentenced (nor should they). There are people on death row in some states for as long as 10 years (and longer). Surely, by then, any remorse they have should have come to the surface (or at least be visible to someone that knows anything about psychology).

You could use the argument of "well, they might be a great mind and cure a disease", but seriously, how likely is it that a repeat felon, high school dropout that shoots 5 people in a liquor store robbery is going to be able to cure something that someone with years of training cannot?

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

Quote:

Well, the reason why someone who does not have the capacity to be rehabilitated should be apparent.

The whole point of change is that you go from one thing to another. It need not be apparent.

Quote:

You take a killer that has no problem with killing, and will do so whenever they get the chance, place them in prison with people who have seen the errors in their ways, what do you think is going to happen?

Err, maybe they'll see the error of their ways too? Just a thought. Nobody says you have to keep them all in the same space.

Quote:

Either way, you're right about determining who is or is not rehabilitatable (don't know if that's a word or not).

I don't really think anyone has the right to do that. We can't tell the future, it hasn't happened yet, it's not set in stone.

Quote:

I don't know how to tell the difference. Then again, I'm not a psychologist. There are those in the field of psychology (and, thus know more about it than I would ever be able to) who probably DO know how to tell.

But most psychologists would be against the death penalty, I'm afraid. I'm not a psychologist but I do study and read up on it a lot, and I'm pretty sure most would be against it.

Quote:

As for the time thing, it's not like they inject you or gas you as soon as you're sentenced (nor should they). There are people on death row in some states for as long as 10 years (and longer). Surely, by then, any remorse they have should have come to the surface (or at least be visible to someone that knows anything about psychology).

You're kidding me? What reason do you have to remorse when they're probably going to kill you anyway? And the average wait on death row is hardly 10 years. And how do you know it wouldn't take them 20?

Quote:

You could use the argument of "well, they might be a great mind and cure a disease", but seriously, how likely is it that a repeat felon, high school dropout that shoots 5 people in a liquor store robbery is going to be able to cure something that someone with years of training cannot?

As I said, that was an exagerrated example, but you're really stereotyping the kind of people that end up on death row. As a more realistic example, they could be people who have a change of heart and become charity workers, they could even end up SAVING someone's life instead of taking it, for all you know.

Jitka · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:30 pm

Rosalie wrote:

As I said, that was an exagerrated example, but you're really stereotyping the kind of people that end up on death row. As a more realistic example, they could be people who have a change of heart and become charity workers, they could even end up SAVING someone's life instead of taking it, for all you know.

Like Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who I linked to in my bump. He supposedly killed four people back in 1979, and he's scheduled to be executed next Tuesday. In the 26 years he's been on Death Row, he's had a chance to turn his life around, and he has. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. People like that shouldn't be executed, in my opinion.

However, I think people like that are the exception to the rule. I do believe there are people who deserve to be executed. Granted, not a whole lot, but there are some. We just need to make sure there's not a shadow of a doubt of the person's guilt before sentencing them to death.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:43 pm

Rosalie wrote:

As I said, that was an exagerrated example, but you're really stereotyping the kind of people that end up on death row. As a more realistic example, they could be people who have a change of heart and become charity workers, they could even end up SAVING someone's life instead of taking it, for all you know.

I'm not saying that everyone on death row right now deserves to die..
Look at Tookie Williams. Here is a man that's had a very big change of heart, and, while he may not deserve to leave prison (even that's up in the air), definately deserves to not die (I suspect Ah-nuld will probably grant that pardon, too)

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

StrongRad wrote:

Rosalie wrote:

As I said, that was an exagerrated example, but you're really stereotyping the kind of people that end up on death row. As a more realistic example, they could be people who have a change of heart and become charity workers, they could even end up SAVING someone's life instead of taking it, for all you know.

I'm not saying that everyone on death row right now deserves to die..
Look at Tookie Williams. Here is a man that's had a very big change of heart, and, while he may not deserve to leave prison (even that's up in the air), definately deserves to not die (I suspect Ah-nuld will probably grant that pardon, too)

And he was on Death Row for 26 years(how did he end up there that long I wonder?). That just shows how long it takes for someone to turn around, and pretty much proves that the death penalty is wrong in any scenario.

And he's going to be killed because of what you're defending.

Nobody could have known he'd have turned out like that. It's a prime example of what I'm saying.

DESTROY US ALL! · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:44 pm

I've got one simple view on the death penalty and I'll quote Ghandi on this one.

"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"

For me, the death penalty is just a form of revenge. I thinks its wrong for anyone's life to be ended unless in extreme cases such as a long-term terminal illness or the whole Schaivo incident, buts that's another topic.

And to look at it at a more cruel perspective, would you rather live your life in solitary confinement or be killed? Yeah I know I don't have a lot of facts on this because there are so few facts in this kind of a debate, its all based on morallity and beliefs of the individual.

But this seems like an issue best left up to the state governing bodies, not a bunch of anonymous people on a webtoon fan forum

Stu · **Posted:** Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:36 pm

Playing a little bit of devil's advocate today.

destroy_us_all wrote:

I've got one simple view on the death penalty and I'll quote Ghandi on this one.

"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"

That's good moral advice, but some punishment needs to exist to deter people from committing crimes.

destroy_us_all wrote:

For me, the death penalty is just a form of revenge. I thinks its wrong for anyone's life to be ended unless in extreme cases such as a long-term terminal illness or the whole Schaivo incident, buts that's another topic.

Couldn't the same be said about any form of punishment then? Wouldn't taking 25+ years of someone's life (by locking them in a cell) be just as much "revenge" as executing them?

destroy_us_all wrote:

And to look at it at a more cruel perspective, would you rather live your life in solitary confinement or be killed? Yeah I know I don't have a lot of facts on this because there are so few facts in this kind of a debate, its all based on morallity and beliefs of the individual.

That's completely up to the individual. The argument could be made... "as long as I am still alive, then there is hope of me being free" No matter how heinous the crime, there is still a possibility of something happening.

destroy_us_all wrote:

But this seems like an issue best left up to the state governing bodies, not a bunch of anonymous people on a webtoon fan forum

Amen! (but it is kinda fun to poke around and see how other people feel about the subject)

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

Stu, the death penalty is not an effective deterent. As it treats crinimals(ones that identify themselves as so, there's a very fine line between civilian and criminal as I said earlier) as they can't change, it counter-acts the "fear" by reassuring them that they are set in their ways. At least that's the best theory I can come up with. But for whatever reason, killing people doesn't stop them killing.

Taking 25+ years of their life still means you can get out, and you have a CHANCE to improve yourself.

There is no hope from death.

Personally, I am in favour of comfortable prisons because nobody really learns through that sheer amount of hard graft. It only makes them tougher and less emotional, which is the last thing you want.

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:

Rosalie wrote:

As I said, that was an exagerrated example, but you're really stereotyping the kind of people that end up on death row. As a more realistic example, they could be people who have a change of heart and become charity workers, they could even end up SAVING someone's life instead of taking it, for all you know.

Like Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who I linked to in my bump. He supposedly killed four people back in 1979, and he's scheduled to be executed next Tuesday. In the 26 years he's been on Death Row, he's had a chance to turn his life around, and he has. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. People like that shouldn't be executed, in my opinion.

However, I think people like that are the exception to the rule. I do believe there are people who deserve to be executed. Granted, not a whole lot, but there are some. We just need to make sure there's not a shadow of a doubt of the person's guilt before sentencing them to death.

I never responded to this in full.

But seriously, if you even end up killing ONE person like that, it's not worth it.

The truth is the Death penalty is actually quite expensive. The legal fees are enormous, among other things. It actually works out just as cheap to keep them in prison for life. So cost is not an issue, nor should a price be put on anyone's life.

People have shown reasons why they may not "deserve" fair treatment, but nobody's constructed a path between "Horrible killer" and "Should be killed. They're acting like it's common sense, when really it's not.

I still can't see a single reason to put ANYONE to death, except in extreme scenarios, which having someone caught and put in a prison is not one of.

Violence breeds violence. Putting people legally to death spreads the idea that there's such an idea as a "just death", a very dangerous idea indeed.

Sui · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:17 pm **Posts:** 396

Stu wrote:

destroy_us_all wrote:

For me, the death penalty is just a form of revenge. I thinks its wrong for anyone's life to be ended unless in extreme cases such as a long-term terminal illness or the whole Schaivo incident, buts that's another topic.

Couldn't the same be said about any form of punishment then? Wouldn't taking 25+ years of someone's life (by locking them in a cell) be just as much "revenge" as executing them?

Yes, there are common elements to both. Revenge? Yes, a similarity to revenge is present in both. Separation from normal society to avoid trouble? Yes, it's present in both.

They've got the same effects to them, except that prison leaves them a long time to think about things, and a long time to develop remorse. Not that all of them will, mind you, but the fact that that possiblity exists for some serving terms and none who are executed (post-execution, mind you) makes it a difference.

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

I personally think that there will always be evil, but anyone can potentially change.

Mr.KISS · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:55 am

Rosalie wrote:

I personally think that there will always be evil, but anyone can potentially change.

Well that can be debated. I agree with you, but the window for cure for some people is so small, the rest of the world would rather give up.

Frotzer · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:58 am

I dont know about you people but I am 100% with the death penalty.All thoose killers,rapisits,psychos,insanes,gang bangers, all thoose people being released back into the wild? They wont stop their crimes and continue till the end of their lives. So we gotta KILL them all before they do it again.

Simon Zeno · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:11 am

frotzy:AKA dealin burgers wrote:

I dont know about you people but I am 100% with the death penalty.All thoose killers,rapisits,psychos,insanes,gang bangers, all thoose people being released back into the wild? They wont stop their crimes and continue till the end of their lives. So we gotta KILL them all before they do it again.

Wow. Do you realize how barbaric you sound?

Frotzer · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:14 am

? what do you mean? Im saying that we cant have criminals on this world that can pollute the USA and corrupt it.

Jitka · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:24 am

Even if you do support the death penalty, supporting the execution of all criminals is just ridiculous.

The only, and I mean ONLY, people who should be executed are those who have absolutely NO hope for turning their lives around. Genuinely evil people, like Hitler or Charles Manson or Osama bin Laden, if we ever catch him.

Joshua · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:36 am

Rosalie wrote:

But seriously, if you even end up killing ONE person like that, it's not worth it.

But then again, a killer who is caught but not put death, but rather jailed and then released/escaped and then goes on to kill another ONE unnessecary victum makes the earlier execution a better idea.

The thing is we don't know. They could reform and repent, or they could get out and kill again. We can't tell the future.

I'm fine with it as long as its nessecary to stop him from harming more innocent people. I do not agree with the guy in question's execution.

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

Frotzer wrote:

I dont know about you people but I am 100% with the death penalty.All thoose killers,rapisits,psychos,insanes,gang bangers, all thoose people being released back into the wild? They wont stop their crimes and continue till the end of their lives. So we gotta KILL them all before they do it again.

Your opinion doesn't count, frotzer.

Why do the mods let this guy run around with homophobic comments like in the other topic, OOI?

Quote:

But then again, a killer who is caught but not put death, but rather jailed and then released/escaped and then goes on to kill another ONE unnessecary victum makes the earlier execution a better idea.

The thing is we don't know. They could reform and repent, or they could get out and kill again. We can't tell the future.

I'm fine with it as long as its nessecary to stop him from harming more innocent people. I do not agree with the guy in question's execution.

I don't think you realise how few killers escape. If american prisons were more comfortable they'd have less reason to get out of there. But they're horrible dirty violent places that only make people more and more hateful.

Sui · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:17 pm **Posts:** 396

Frotzer wrote:

? what do you mean? Im saying that we cant have criminals on this world that can pollute the USA and corrupt it.

Umm, but you hold opinions of the sort that pollute and corrupt the US. The idea that all criminals should be put to death, or at least how you hold that idea, is among them. Let's see... you think the insane should be put to death ("psychos,insanes,gang bangers"). Oh, yes, you also consider the homosexual population to be scum. Yes, you are not contributing to the corruption of the US. Go you!

Seriously, never say anything again, you disgusting hypocrite. If there's any group that needs to be eradicated, its those who think the way you do; you're all a major part of the hatred existent in the world (or just the US... hey, does anyone else smell a jingo?).

Then again... funny, I didn't notice 'perpetrators of hate crimes' on your list, so I guess you're not being hypocritical, because apparently hate crime does nothing to pollute the US. Sorry about that! [/sarcasm]

Why hasn't he been banned already? That 'homosexual scum' comment alone was enough to do it, so there's nothing stopping it.

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

Yeah, Frotzer hasn't even been warned, how come?

Then again, I know a couple of forums where I could be banned for that other topic, purely for holding an unpopular opinion and continually holding it. But, at the same time, I know plenty of other forums where Frotzer would hardly make it through the door.

If a mod doesn't take note of this I'm starting a topic.

BTW, most of the death penalty argument here is pretty dumb; read up on this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs ... fallacy%29

Smorky · **Joined:** Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:26 am **Posts:** 775

Rosalie wrote:

If american prisons were more comfortable they'd have less reason to get out of there. But they're horrible dirty violent places that only make people more and more hateful.

Um, as far as I know, most American prisons are very comfortable. My second cousin is in prison, and he has more cable channels than I do. I don't think we should make their lives comfortable anyway. We already have to work hard to pay for our own houses and stuff. Now we also have to pay so the prisoners can have free food, housing, television... it's like we're rewarding them for breaking the law.

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

Smorky wrote:

Rosalie wrote:

If american prisons were more comfortable they'd have less reason to get out of there. But they're horrible dirty violent places that only make people more and more hateful.

Um, as far as I know, most American prisons are very comfortable. My second cousin is in prison, and he has more cable channels than I do. I don't think we should make their lives comfortable anyway. We already have to work hard to pay for our own houses and stuff. Now we also have to pay so the prisoners can have free food, housing, television... it's like we're rewarding them for breaking the law.

I guess they've improved them over the last few years then, which is good.

But the point of prison is to take away your freedom. You still don't really have it in prison.

Not to mention having to share a home with people who may be less than desirable even to a murderer or rapist.

I don't see what's wrong with them recieving goddamn food and housing. What are you going to do, throw them in a pit? They already have it hard enough as it is, being seperated from reality.
As for television, I don't see what's wrong with that either. Sending someone somewhere for a few years with absolutely nothing to do will just drive them nuts.

Smorky · **Joined:** Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:26 am **Posts:** 775

Rosalie wrote:

Smorky wrote:

Rosalie wrote:

If american prisons were more comfortable they'd have less reason to get out of there. But they're horrible dirty violent places that only make people more and more hateful.

Um, as far as I know, most American prisons are very comfortable. My second cousin is in prison, and he has more cable channels than I do. I don't think we should make their lives comfortable anyway. We already have to work hard to pay for our own houses and stuff. Now we also have to pay so the prisoners can have free food, housing, television... it's like we're rewarding them for breaking the law.

I guess they've improved them over the last few years then, which is good.

But the point of prison is to take away your freedom. You still don't really have it in prison.

Not to mention having to share a home with people who may be less than desirable even to a murderer or rapist.

I don't see what's wrong with them recieving goddamn food and housing. What are you going to do, throw them in a pit? They already have it hard enough as it is, being seperated from reality.
As for television, I don't see what's wrong with that either. Sending someone somewhere for a few years with absolutely nothing to do will just drive them nuts.

I don't really have a problem with them having that stuff. I have a problem with us having to pay for them to get free stuff after we already have to pay for our own stuff. But they are the ones that broke the law.

Mistle Rose · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 pm **Posts:** 434

What you pay is almost neglible out of your weekly wages, really; and where else is the money going to come from?

Tough love doesn't work on criminals, as tough love is often how they got that way in the first place.

Anyway, the mandatory minimum sentences for pety offenders should be reduced.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

The Death Penalty

Who is online