Jump to content

Death Penalty


Recommended Posts

With respect to law and order, the state does not murder...it lawfully kills (executes). Murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought

 

In the old Soviet Republic, millions were lawfully and legally killed(executed) by the state, for various "crimes". In Afghanistan, hundreds of women were executed for the "crime" of being out in public without a male guardian. These and other governments have since been labelled mass murderers. By your own definition these governments were not committing murder. They were legally and lawfully killing (executing) their citizens for their crimes. If you agree that these mentioned governments were mass murderers you must admit that a government or, "the state" can commit murder. Logically you cannot have mass murder without first having murder. Therefore my point must logically stand as I had originally stated it.

 

Laws change according to the whim of a government. What is a crime punishable by death in one country is not necessarily a crime at all in another. Even in the same country, what may be a crime punishable by death in one era may not be a crime at all in a later era. As little as 250 years ago, people were being killed legally and lafully for the crime of witchcraft, which is now only a crime in a very few countries.

 

Using words like 'murder' with respect to lawful executions, whether one agrees with them or not, demeans your overall position because you are using an emotionally loaded word in the wrong context perhaps in order to add argumentative weight to your position...an appeal to emotion.

 

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that point. I use the word "murder" not as a word full of emotion, but to point out the needless deaths of innocent people, killed by their own governments all over the world, legally and lawfully by their own laws. At what point do legal and lawful deaths for criminal acts become mass murder? 100 people? 1,000 people? 1,000,000 people? If you believe that there is a difference then you must believe there is a cut off point. What is it? If there is no cut off point, then the only logical conclusion is that you don't agree that regimes like the Khmer Rouge committed mass murder. It was simply 3,000,000 lawful killings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

well the first thing I'd get rid of if the jury of peers. The idea of a group of anybodies with quite possibly no real training in critical analysis and examination, and no real degree of knowledge in

I've been enjoying your posts on this. I don't agree with this statement though. I can see the death penalty as an ethical punishment for certain crimes, and I do, while indicting a particular legal

I agree that the justice system is deeply flawed. I live in Australia, and was recently on a jury trial for a murder case. It was an absolute joke and all it did was make me deeply concerned about the

In the old Soviet Republic, millions were lawfully and legally killed(executed) by the state, for various "crimes". In Afghanistan, hundreds of women were executed for the "crime" of being out in public without a male guardian. These and other governments have since been labelled mass murderers. By your own definition these governments were not committing murder. They were legally and lawfully killing (executing) their citizens for their crimes. If you agree that these mentioned governments were mass murderers you must admit that a government or, "the state" can commit murder. Logically you cannot have mass murder without first having murder. Therefore my point must logically stand as I had originally stated it.

 

Laws change according to the whim of a government. What is a crime punishable by death in one country is not necessarily a crime at all in another. Even in the same country, what may be a crime punishable by death in one era may not be a crime at all in a later era. As little as 250 years ago, people were being killed legally and lafully for the crime of witchcraft, which is now only a crime in a very few countries.

 

 

 

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that point. I use the word "murder" not as a word full of emotion, but to point out the needless deaths of innocent people, killed by their own governments all over the world, legally and lawfully by their own laws. At what point do legal and lawful deaths for criminal acts become mass murder? 100 people? 1,000 people? 1,000,000 people? If you believe that there is a difference then you must believe there is a cut off point. What is it? If there is no cut off point, then the only logical conclusion is that you don't agree that regimes like the Khmer Rouge committed mass murder. It was simply 3,000,000 lawful killings.

 

 

My words were with respect to countries that have a system of Law and Order that works in the interest of it's subjects as a whole.....democracies. I thought this discussion was about applying capital punishment within a judicial system that essentially cares about the common well-being of its citizens and the ethical problems associated with applying it in such a system. The Khmer Rouge, Communist Russia et al aren't relevant here really imo if that is the line of discussion wouldn't you say?

 

Killing by government forces becomes murder when it is acting in its own interest and not of the population as a whole. Ethics is part of process that socially binds a population, so if a policy alienates the majority of a population such that it destabilises it, it's not ethical. If the majority of the population of Iran or Saudi, for example, agrees with capital punishment: it is, by their definition, ethical. As they say in physics: it's all relative and depends on your frame of reference...there is no preferred frame or universal standard.

 

Here's a definition of moral behaviour in the Evolutionary sense that I think supports my case:

 

Some evolutionary biologists[who?] believe that morality is a natural phenomenon that evolves by natural selection. In this case, morality is defined as the set of relative social practices that promote the survival and successful reproduction of the species, or even multiple cooperating species.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Edited by StringJunky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Picture this scenario. We have a man thinking about murder. He is an atheist and therefore has no belief in eternal damnation. Before acting on his impulse, he first asks himself this question, "what is the worse thing that can happen to me, if I murder and I am caught? Based on the laws of many states, my penalty would be life in prison, no matter how many people I kill, or how horrific the means by which I kill them. They will not even torture me, even if I torture another. Even the loved ones and families of the victims can't touch me, since I mean more to many than any victim. That being the worse case scenario, I only need to be careful not to get caught. But if I do, no matter what i do, they will treat me better than I treated everyone else."

Edited by pioneer
Link to post
Share on other sites
My words were with respect to countries that have a system of Law and Order that works in the interest of it's subjects as a whole.....democracies. I thought this discussion was about applying capital punishment within a judicial system that essentially cares about the common well-being of its citizens and the ethical problems associated with applying it in such a system. The Khmer Rouge, Communist Russia et al aren't relevant here really imo if that is the line of discussion wouldn't you say?

 

All governments claim that they are working in the interests of their country as a whole, that they care about the well being of their citizens, who would you suggest decide which governments are telling the truth? It becomes subjective to the point of view of the observer as to which type of government is the best type of government, whether it be a democracy, a benevolent dictatorship, a regime, or absolute monarchy, to name a few styles of government. As such all types of governments are relevant to a discussion on the ethics of a government killing it's own citizens. Not just a favoured few. In this context, to say that for some styles of governments to kill thier citizens is murder but for other types of governments killing their citizens are legally and lawfully killing their criminals, is bordering on hypocritical wouldn't you agree?

 

A quick question, How does it benefit a country to convict and kill an innocent person?

 

I cannot see how it can be ethical to have capital punishment in any system that cannot guarantee that the true guilty party will be convicted in the first place. Less than a week ago an innocent man was freed in Texas after more than two decades in prison for a crime he did not commit. This alone tells us that the system cannot offer that guarantee. Even in this day and age of DNA testing, with the mystery shows on television such as C.S.I. telling us what the police look for and what yeilds DNA, there can be no absolute guarantees that the true guilty person will be convicted. All the real criminal has to do is to take steps to ensure that his or her DNA does not get left at a crime scene. Just as Criminals started wearing gloves to avoid their fingerprints being left at a scene once the guardians of the law figured out how to use them as evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old Soviet Republic, millions were lawfully and legally killed(executed) by the state, for various "crimes". In Afghanistan, hundreds of women were executed for the "crime" of being out in public without a male guardian. These and other governments have since been labelled mass murderers. By your own definition these governments were not committing murder. They were legally and lawfully killing (executing) their citizens for their crimes. If you agree that these mentioned governments were mass murderers you must admit that a government or, "the state" can commit murder. Logically you cannot have mass murder without first having murder. Therefore my point must logically stand as I had originally stated it.

 

Yes, in those countries people were legally executed under those countries laws. However, it should be made clear that the question at hand is whether the death penalty is ethical, not whether the legal system of the Soviet Union and Afghanistan is ethical. To mix the two discussions detracts from the initial debate.

 

The term "Mass Murderers" is more of a layperson term rather than a legal one. So really in a legal sense a government cannot be dubbed a mass murder. This would make your point that one must either admit a state can murder or denounce the atrocities of certain governments moot. Also the delima you propose does not revolve around whether the death penalty itself is ethical, but whether or not the justice systems of a certain country are considered ethical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the point though is that the death penalty is very convenient for certain types of governments. In the US, the death penalty is so inconvenient that lawyers frequently pursue life in prison instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the point though is that the death penalty is very convenient for certain types of governments. In the US, the death penalty is so inconvenient that lawyers frequently pursue life in prison instead.

 

Those governments, which find the death penalty to be a convenient way to eliminate people, or groups of people, however, would in my opinion find any excuse or way to execute/eliminate those they wanted regardless if they could use the death penalty to do so. For example, the one of the Soviet Union's greatest crime was committed simply by a few changes in policy that led to the death of 3-10 million people in one year during the Holodomor. It doesn't matter if the Soviet Union had outlawed the death penalty or not, they would have still committed genocide through different means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, in those countries people were legally executed under those countries laws. However, it should be made clear that the question at hand is whether the death penalty is ethical, not whether the legal system of the Soviet Union and Afghanistan is ethical. To mix the two discussions detracts from the initial debate.

 

DJBruce,

 

I would like to clarify, as I feel that I may have been misunderstood. The argument you that you refer to was simply my defence of the word murder in my very first post in this thread. My point in that post was that I equate capital punishment with murder and as such, I stated

 

To answer the ethics of the death penalty we need to ask ourselves just one question.

 

Can murder ever be considered ethical?

 

I was not intending to go into the ethics of individual legal systems at that point in time, despite the fact that one cannot properly argue the ethics of a punishment used by a legal system without arguing the ethics of the legal system. The two are inseparable. If a punishment is deemed unethical, does this not make the legal system that uses it also unethical? String Junky called to order my use of the word "Murder" and I was justifying it, plain and simple. So far, no-one has argued anything else about that first post, just the use of one word. String Junky argued that a government or "The State" does not murder it's citizens. I showed examples of governments, or "States" that have murdered their citizens. I was simply saying in that first post that I am against the death penalty and why I am against it goes into the ethics of such a punishment. To be in favour of the death penalty you must first believe it to be ethical.

 

The term "Mass Murderers" is more of a layperson term rather than a legal one. So really in a legal sense a government cannot be dubbed a mass murder. This would make your point that one must either admit a state can murder or denounce the atrocities of certain governments moot. Also the delima you propose does not revolve around whether the death penalty itself is ethical, but whether or not the justice systems of a certain country are considered ethical.

 

I used the term "Mass Murderers" because that is what those governments did. They committed "Mass Murder". Maybe you would prefer the term "Genocide" considering the numbers of people killed by some of these governments? Governments and the people who make up the governments can be and are tried and convicted of crimes against humanity, which include genocide or in laymans terms, "Mass Murder".

 

But again I move back into the ethics of the legal systems, rather than the death penalty itself. So to satisfy your distinction, I will return to the original question, is the death penalty ethical?

 

History shows us that the deathy penalty can be and is misused by corrupt governments all over the world. To say that it is ethical for one government to have the death penalty, but it is unethical for another is to be hypocritical and I as such, have to state with certainty that the death penalty or to use the legal term "Capital Punishment", is most certainly unethical. So far, the only people I have seen arguing for the death penalty are people who argue for the death penalty in legal systems they approve of and against it in legal systems they don't. Unless you can state with absolute certainty that the death penalty is ethical no matter which legal system uses it, you cannot state that the death penalty is ethical at all without appearing to be hypocritical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not intending to go into the ethics of individual legal systems at that point in time, despite the fact that one cannot properly argue the ethics of a punishment used by a legal system without arguing the ethics of the legal system. The two are inseparable.

 

I've been enjoying your posts on this. I don't agree with this statement though. I can see the death penalty as an ethical punishment for certain crimes, and I do, while indicting a particular legal system using it as unethical. That's very close to my position actually - that our legal system cannot gaurantee 100% accuracy, therefore the punishment of death is not ethical for them to use. No legal system has been invented yet that can do this. If such a system were possible, then we could start talking about what crimes make that punishment ethical.

 

String Junky argued that a government or "The State" does not murder it's citizens. I showed examples of governments, or "States" that have murdered their citizens. I was simply saying in that first post that I am against the death penalty and why I am against it goes into the ethics of such a punishment. To be in favour of the death penalty you must first believe it to be ethical.

 

I think you might be conflating objective and subjective claims of murder. Or, at least we should be clear about what claim we're making. I agree with String Junky that the state does not "murder" - but I only mean that by the definition of that word with respect to the state: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. Laws are created by the state.

 

The state does not murder unless it terminates citizens outside of its laws - such as capital punishment for an innocent person. Except we can interpret what the state is doing as murder - we can subjectively judge the value of their actions and call it murder.

 

And I think that goes back to your statement above about the ethics of the legal system using the punishment. I'm supposing we don't believe the old Soviet Republic were using an ethical legal system, so while technically they did not murder, interpretatively we think they did.

 

So far, the only people I have seen arguing for the death penalty are people who argue for the death penalty in legal systems they approve of and against it in legal systems they don't. Unless you can state with absolute certainty that the death penalty is ethical no matter which legal system uses it, you cannot state that the death penalty is ethical at all without appearing to be hypocritical.

 

I don't see any hypocrisy in judging one legal system over another and using the ethics inferred to judge subsequent punishments by them. That's analysis, not hypocrisy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an alternative perspective on the debate: We can all agree that theft is immoral. But most legal systems impose monetary fines on people for violating various social rules, not all of which are universally recognized rules. Thus would we say that those societies which punish certain acts with fines which our own society would not fine are immoral, and indeed, their entire legal system is immoral, since their fining system is 'theft' in our terminology, so their legal code is simply an authorization of state theft?

 

Just to keep things clear, it is useful to operate with a legal definition of 'murder' as 'felonious homicide' within the legal system of some jurisdiction, whether that legal system is valid or invalid when judged from the perspective of another system. This will then permit the useful distinction between killing committed by ordinary citizens for private purposes and killing by the state for a public purpose sanctioned by the state's legal code.

 

The Bible does not forbid killing per se but only a 'murderous act,' which is wrongful killing. Similarly legal codes recognize many types of killing of humans as either legal or less than murder, such as manslaughter, negligent homicide, suicide, assisted suicide, infanticide by a woman during depression in the first year following the birht of the child, killing in self-defense, killing with a defense of necessity, killing with a battered spouse defense, killing in authorized police or military action, killing of the terminally ill by withdrawal of life support, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said before on these forums, I don't think this is a moral argument. I think it is always immoral to kill, but sometimes society has to balance out different 'evils' and make a choice. In this case, if the person can be rehabilitated at reasonable cost, then they should not have the death penalty. If they cannot, they should be executed. The money spent on housing a murderer for the rest of his life, is money not spent on front-line life-saving services to the poor, such as medical care.

 

Once we life in a society that is free from poverty and hunger, then we may indulge in the 'luxury' of housing murderers in prisons.

 

(And, as I have said before, the risk of executing an innocent is a red herring.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you mind restating why it is so or point to a thread where you have made this argument?

 

We do plenty of things with an inherent risk of death. You get in your car with the knowledge that someone may crash into you and kill you, but we still drive cars because we believe the cost of not driving (inconvenience) is more than the cost of an accident (a small chance of death). Participating in a society with a death penalty carries a similar small risk of death, but we sign up for that risk when we join the democratic process. The innocent lives lost are unfortunate but not intentional, so should be considered like any other accident. Also, the "small chance" of death this way is way way smaller than the chance of death via a raid accident.

 

Edit: Note to admin: posting from a mobile gives lots of weird formatting errors.

Edited by Severian
Link to post
Share on other sites

<br /><br /><br />

 

We do plenty of things with an inherent risk of death. You get in your car with the knowledge that someone may crash into you and kill you, but we still drive cars because we believe the cost of not driving (inconvenience) is more than the cost of an accident (a small chance of death). Participating in a society with a death penalty carries a similar small risk of death, but we sign up for that risk when we join the democratic process. The innocent lives lost are unfortunate but not intentional, so should be considered like any other accident. Also, the "small chance" of death this way is way way smaller than the chance of death via a raid accident.

 

Thanks for the clarification. :)

 

How does it benefit society having the death penalty that justifies the possible unintentional killing of an innocent person? It would seem you think the benefit outweighs this potential problem that makes most people, who are otherwise agreeable in principle, reticent about actually applying it in practice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. :)

 

How does it benefit society having the death penalty that justifies the possible unintentional killing of an innocent person? It would seem you think the benefit outweighs this potential problem that makes most people, who are otherwise agreeable in principle, reticent about actually applying it in practice?

 

It benefits society by releasing money for 'worthwhile' things, like easing poverty, or building a new school or hospital. Of course, you would have to reduce the (frankly ridiculous) appeals procedure we have now, since keeping someone on death row for a long time is very expensive.

 

Also, I think you could make an argument for executing all violent criminals. That would mean violent criminals are permanently removed from the streets for a much reduced cost, but more significantly, prisons become more sane places with a serious prospect of rehabilitation and not just the criminal training camps they are now. Such a move would drastically reduce crime in our society (at the cost of some innocent deaths via wrongful execution).

 

Remember that the people who you wrongfully execute for murder, are usually in that situation because of their life choices. They are a member of a gang, or have a record of violence and have usually committed some violent crime in the past. It is quite rare to wrongly convict someone who has lead an exemplary life. And even if they are totally innocent, these are the same people who we are at the moment locking up for years in a dangerous prison. You have already ruined their lives by sticking them in with violent killers to be bullied and gang raped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any hypocrisy in judging one legal system over another and using the ethics inferred to judge subsequent punishments by them. That's analysis, not hypocrisy.

 

ParanoiA,

 

I have to disagree with you on this point. To state that one legal system should be allowed to use a particular punishment because you approve of it, while another should not because you don't approve of it is blatant hypocrisy.

 

Let's put it in a different situation to clarify the hypocrisy.

 

If I were to say that "One person can have ice-cream because they live in a particular area", while at the same time saying that "Another person cannot have ice-cream because they live in a different area" would be hypocritical. Why should the location a person lives determine whether or not they can have ice-cream?

 

Let's change the wording slightly. "One country should have Capital Punishment because they have a particular style of government but another country shouldn't because they have a different style of government." How is this not hypocritical?

 

The Bible does not forbid killing per se but only a 'murderous act,' which is wrongful killing.

 

Marat,

 

I would like to simply point out Exodus 20 verse 13 which states, "Thou shalt not kill." Correct me if I am wrong, but that is forbidding killing, is it not?

 

The innocent lives lost are unfortunate but not intentional, so should be considered like any other accident. Also, the "small chance" of death this way is way way smaller than the chance of death via a raid accident.

 

Severian,

 

If you wish to consider the wrongful conviction and death of an innocent person an accident, then if you are an average every day sort of person you should logically wish to aviod such an accident from occurring. The death of an innocent person is 100% avoidable in the case of an innocent man or woman convicted. One would have to wonder about the ethical standards of any government that does not do everything in it's power to avoid such "accidents". Removing the death penalty avoids such "accidents" completely.

 

Also, I think you could make an argument for executing all violent criminals. That would mean violent criminals are permanently removed from the streets for a much reduced cost, but more significantly, prisons become more sane places with a serious prospect of rehabilitation and not just the criminal training camps they are now. Such a move would drastically reduce crime in our society (at the cost of some innocent deaths via wrongful execution).

 

It could also be argued that murder would be a crime on the increase as criminals decide that if they are going to die if they are caught and convicted anyway, why not kill any witnesses to reduce the chances of getting caught in the first place.

 

Remember that the people who you wrongfully execute for murder, are usually in that situation because of their life choices. They are a member of a gang, or have a record of violence and have usually committed some violent crime in the past. It is quite rare to wrongly convict someone who has lead an exemplary life.

 

If this really is true, why is the spouse often the first person susected followed closely by the last person to argue with them. Most murder victims know thier killers in some way. If a husband and wife regularly have yelling fights but no violence and one of them die, it can be assumed that because the neighbors heard the yelling, that violence was common.

 

And even if they are totally innocent, these are the same people who we are at the moment locking up for years in a dangerous prison. You have already ruined their lives by sticking them in with violent killers to be bullied and gang raped.

 

Maybe you have, but if and when they prove thier innocence, they can sue for and often win, compensation for thier suffering. How do you compensate them for killing them?

 

I have however, come up with a possible alternative to capital punishment.

 

Make prison time hard labour again.

 

These days, (at least in Australia) Inmates often have thier own television, they eat and live better than a lot of people who are not in prison. Why not put them to work fixing roads, keeping public parks clean and safe, perfoming any task that benefits the community. Take away thier luxuries and make them earn thier keep. Most people who are for capital punishment cite the cost of keeping offenders alive, but if they are put to work in such a fashion, they earn the cost of keeping them alive. If you bring back the chain gang, you lessen the chance of escape. Graffiti is a problem in most cities, why not have them clean it off and repair vandalism.

 

Make thier uniform an embarrassing colour when they are out in the chain gangs, so that the public can see that the criminals are paying for thier crimes. The reason a large number of criminals reoffend is because it is cheaper and easier for them than living out in the real world. The worse the crime, the longer other people pay for them to have a roof over thier heads and 3 square meals a day which they get for free. If going to prison is more trouble than it's worth, people will generally try to avoid it.

 

If an innocent person is convicted, they work the same as everyone else who is convicted, but if and when they prove thier innocence, they could be paid for the work they have put in, which if made automatic may possibly cut out compensation lawsuits for wrongful conviction. Not to mention that if the inmates are worked hard enough, they might just be too exhausted at the end of the day to cause any trouble or harm another inmate.

Edited by DragonDancer
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were to say that "One person can have ice-cream because they live in a particular area", while at the same time saying that "Another person cannot have ice-cream because they live in a different area" would be hypocritical. Why should the location a person lives determine whether or not they can have ice-cream?

 

It would only be hypocritical without analysis to determine if both locations are truly equal, applicably. If we analyze each area, and discover a fatal ice cream parasite in location A that only exists in location A, and cannot be eliminated or mitigated satisfactorily, then it's not hypocritical to deny ice cream for folks in location A. Denying it for folks in location B, in turn then, is just being cruel for no better reason than some elementary desire for everyone to suffer the same.

 

You're separating the punishment from the justice system; the act from the context. Similarly, I would guess you would not say that all murder is unethical, and therefore sacrifice your life while an intruder beats you to death. I must assume that you would hypocrtically defend yourself, and perhaps hypocritically kill the intruder in the process. You're only a hypocrite if you don't analyze - or more accurately, put into context - why you killed the intruder.

 

By analyzing the events, we can see that the intruder intiated violent confrontation, that you presumably wished NOT to have - therefore your choices were to sacrifice yourself, or the intruder.

 

 

To apply this to capital punishment. If all governments were equal, all factors equal - just as in your example of ice cream hypocrisy - then you could say it's hypocritical to oppose it for one, and support it for another. But not all governments are equal - just as all locations are not equal, as I added to your example of ice cream hypocrisy. So no, you cannot claim hypocrisy there.

 

In other words the applicable context has to be the same in order to claim hypocrisy. That applicable context is what determines a given person's actions as ethical or not.

Edited by ParanoiA
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to simply point out Exodus 20 verse 13 which states, "Thou shalt not kill." Correct me if I am wrong, but that is forbidding killing, is it not?
Well... when put in context, both of its original delivery, and within the Old Testament as a whole... it was written for the Jews, with regards to the Jews. Thou shalt not *Murder*, but it's only murder if they're a Jew so it's ok to massacre the male children and non-combatant males and non-virgin women of a tribe you're out genociding, which is fine with God. Encouraged. Commanded even. Plus, it's clearly, according to the same God that passed the commandment down, not a problem to kill even a Jew that has broken this or that rule. Because it's righteous punishment. Sooo... yeah.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Capital punishment is murder...you are killing someone intentionally with forethought aren't you? That's called murder.So whoever the executioner(s) is(are) they too should be executed for murder. Law doesn't and shouldn't make any exceptions...hey, it's your law.

Can't we just put them into reversible comas/sustained unconsciousness...they require less resources that way. We should probably also sterilise them to stop them having children. I don't think a that all people deserve to procreate. Not all criminals...just in crimes that it is appropriate in: Eg: Repeat drug use offences, serial murder, rape.

That way we don't kill them...We just steal several years of their lives...and their ability to procreate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.