• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bull Gator

The death Penalty must be abolished

287 posts in this topic

Shouldn't this shit be on PA? And I suppose you're "reasonable?"

 

And the evidence doesn't exonerate him. He was a career criminal who admitted robbing the victim who was murdered. All three perps should have been hanged. Good riddance.

 

God, but you're a fuckwit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't this shit be on PA? And I suppose you're "reasonable?"

 

And the evidence doesn't exonerate him. He was a career criminal who admitted robbing the victim who was murdered. All three perps should have been hanged. Good riddance.

 

God, but you're a fuckwit.

 

1) No this is not a political matter. (Though knuckle dragging regressives like you disproportionately approve of the murder of innocent people)

 

2) Yes I am one of the most reasonable people on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Texas, it's called rope-a-dope.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Texas, it's called rope-a-dope.........

 

Everywhere else it's called murder :(

 

no it's called "The Death Penalty"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Texas, it's called rope-a-dope.........

 

Everywhere else it's called murder :(

 

no it's called "The Death Penalty"

 

reasonable people call the killing of innocent people murder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the animal who taught me how to drive and who was my high school coach spent a decade on death row for a double murder before getting off on a technicality. And yet on all the capital offense .org websites he's an innocent victim.

 

I think I understand what you consider "reasonable." Now I'm wondering how you define "innocent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Texas, it's called rope-a-dope.........

 

Everywhere else it's called murder :(

 

no it's called "The Death Penalty"

 

reasonable people call the killing of innocent people murder

How do you know this guy was innocent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The killing of an innocent person is murder. However, saying that we should abolish the death penalty because of errors in the system is a little foolish, IMO. Should there be more accountability for those involved in death penalty cases? Perhaps. Should we make the circumstances under which the death penalty applies more stringent so that more serious offenders are the ones affected? Probably.

 

Should we do away with life in prison because we might incarcerate an innocent person for 50 years before they are exonerated? How about 30 year sentences without parole? Hell, let's just parole everyone after 3 months so that we're sure not to punish an innocent person too hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will never go away, it will always be a part of society. Also, if they are convicted by a jury of their peers, I'd say that makes them guilty. Thats why that system is in place.

 

 

 

Let it go BG........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BG,

I believe that sodomy is only a capital crime in a few Middle Eastern countries, so if you steer clear of that region you should be fine. On the positive side, if you do visit say Iran and are put to death, it will be the only time anyone ever said you were hung.

 

I like the approach of replacing the criterion from beyond reasonable doubt to beyond any possible doubt for the death penalty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaytors right, a good slap on the wrist is all they need....

 

nun_ruler.jpg

 

 

You fuckin' idiot!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Texas, it's called rope-a-dope.........

 

Everywhere else it's called murder :(

 

no it's called "The Death Penalty"

 

reasonable people call the killing of innocent people murder

How do you know this guy was innocent?

 

As it relates to the state doing the killing it's called "The Death Penalty" period. Guilt or innocence doesn't matter. If the penal system puts you to death it's called "The Death Penalty". If they get it wrong you can sue them for "Wrongful Death" but that's still not murder. It's "Wrongful Death".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claude Jones, 60, was executed by lethal injection on 7 December in Huntsville, Texas for the murder of a liquor store owner. In November 1989, Jones entered Zell's liquor store in Point Blank and asked the owner, Allen Hilzendager, to retrieve a bottle for him. As Hilzendager turned to get the bottle, Jones shot him three times with a .357 Magnum revolver. Jones took $900 from the cash register and fled in a getaway vehicle waiting outside. Waiting in the car were Jones' two accomplices, Kerry Daniel Dixon Jr. and Timothy Mark Jordan.

 

Three days later, the trio robbed a bank in Humble, Texas, obtaining $14,000 in loot. They then went on a weekend trip to Las Vegas. About three weeks after the liquor store robbery, Jones was arrested in Florida for bank robbery.

 

Jones, who also used the aliases Carl Roy Davis, Butch Jones, and Douglas Ray Starke, had eleven prior convictions in Texas for crimes including murder, armed robbery, assault, and burglary. He served 6 years of a 9-year prison sentence from 1959 to 1963 and three years of a 5-year sentence from 1963 to 1965. In 1976, he was convicted of murder, robbery, and assault in Kansas and received a life sentence. While in Kansas prison, Jones killed another inmate. He was paroled in 1984. Kerry Dixon also had a lengthy prior record that included murder and two prison terms.

 

The evidence at Jones' trial was conclusive. A number of witnesses placed Jones at the scene of the crime, including Leon Goodson, who heard the shots and watched Jones leave the liquor store. A strand of Jones' hair was found at the murder scene. Also, Timothy Jordan testified against his partners in crime. Jones was convicted of capital murder and received the death sentence. Dixon was convicted of murder and received a 60-year prison term. Jordan received a 10-year prison term.

 

Jones' execution was delayed by about a half an hour because prison staff were unable to find suitable veins in his hands and arms. Executions are usually performed with an IV in each arm. In Jones' case, only one IV was used, and it was inserted in his left thigh. In his brief final statement, Jones apologized to the victim's family and expressed love to his own family. He was pronounced dead at 6:42 p.m.

 

Hardly an innocent, and the fact that a previous life sentence failed to keep him in prison and prevent him taking another innocent life is a pretty strong argument for the death penalty. You should choose better examples if you wish to make a convincing case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't this shit be on PA? And I suppose you're "reasonable?"

 

And the evidence doesn't exonerate him. He was a career criminal who admitted robbing the victim who was murdered. All three perps should have been hanged. Good riddance.

 

God, but you're a fuckwit.

 

1) No this is not a political matter. (Though knuckle dragging regressives like you disproportionately approve of the murder of innocent people)

 

2) Yes I am one of the most reasonable people on this forum.

 

No reasonable person would agree with No. 2 above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you got 2 options:

 

1. get 51% of the people in your state to agree with you and get it on the ballot. Or get your Senator to try and get a constitutional amendment up and running.

 

2. Move to someplace that already has it.

 

 

Your only problem is that the majority of American's kinda like the death penalty. So I suggest you start looking at immigration options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the death penalty is that it costs us taxpayers more to have an inmate on death row than it does to incarcerate them for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Texas, it's called rope-a-dope.........

 

Everywhere else it's called murder :(

 

no it's called "The Death Penalty"

 

reasonable people call the killing of innocent people murder

How do you know this guy was innocent?

 

How do you know he wasn't! The burden of proof is on the executor. There is no proof that the death penalty is any deterrent...criminals simply do not plan on getting caught.

 

Clearly prison is not a deterrent either because the prison population worldwide is greatly increasing. Either the police are getting cleverer or the criminals are getting stupider!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do you know he wasn't! The burden of proof is on the executor. There is no proof that the death penalty is any deterrent...criminals simply do not plan on getting caught.

 

Clearly prison is not a deterrent either because the prison population worldwide is greatly increasing. Either the police are getting cleverer or the criminals are getting stupider!

 

It's the ultimate deterrent! The person executed will NEVER be committing another crime of any kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Everywhere else it's called murder :(

 

no it's called "The Death Penalty"

 

reasonable people call the killing of innocent people murder

How do you know this guy was innocent?

How do you know he wasn't! The burden of proof is on the executor. There is no proof that the death penalty is any deterrent...criminals simply do not plan on getting caught.

 

Clearly prison is not a deterrent either because the prison population worldwide is greatly increasing. Either the police are getting cleverer or the criminals are getting stupider!

 

 

He was found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to death. That is the basis for my belief that he wasn't innocent. But regardless of my belief, Gator implied that an innocent man was killed. I want to know how he can say that he was innocent?

 

His previous life sentence did not deter him from committing any more crimes, but since he was placed on death row and subsequently executed he has committed no crimes against society. I would call that a deterrent, even if its only a one man deterrent. every little bit helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dawg - could you delete this thread or move it to PA

 

 

Idiot!!!

 

These is not a political matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dawg - could you delete this thread or move it to PA

 

 

Idiot!!!

 

These is not a political matter

 

Bull Gator is really Jose Jimenez?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The death penalty will only go away when bad people stop killing good people.

 

May be a few other things that need to happen in Texas as well before it goes away here, but that's the way it goes.

 

"I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives." GEORGE W. BUSH, presidential debate, Oct. 17, 2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DON"T FEED THE TROLL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dawg - could you delete this thread or move it to PA

 

 

Idiot!!!

 

These is not a political matter

It absolutely is a political matter. You want it banned in the states that currently allow it. To have it banned means a legislative process to create new laws. Politics is the definition of how collective groups make decisions and create policies (hence "politics")....which in our government are instantiated as laws. So, if your point is to argue for new laws to BAN the act which you don't agree with, by definition, you are politicing.

 

Ergo, this thread, and your inflamatory ego, need to be incarcerated in political anarchy where they belong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dawg - could you delete this thread or move it to PA

 

 

Idiot!!!

 

These is not a political matter

 

The death penalty is a legislative issue, dealt with by our representatives, delegates and congresspersons, i.e. "politicians".

 

Take it to PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

Wow the knuckle draggers model themselves after despots, mooslims and commies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

So what's with that list of countries? I've lived in two of them and am quite proud of both for different reasons. There are a few others on that list that I've been to and would live in and be quite proud to call myself a resident/citizen of. So what's with the list. They all have the death penalty on their books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If knuckle dragger = want to go to St. Lucia, count me in.

 

So, Bull, what would you suggest we do with someone who rapes and murders little girls? A short stint in prison? Counseling? Exposure therapy?

 

I'm ok with leaving someone locked up for life, but far too many lifer's are getting out on parole for my taste - so I'm pro death penalty. Is that unreasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still like the way they do things in China, Firing Squad, then send the family the bill for the bullets. Nothing says "play by the rules or else" like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If knuckle dragger = want to go to St. Lucia, count me in.

 

So, Bull, what would you suggest we do with someone who rapes and murders little girls? A short stint in prison? Counseling? Exposure therapy?

 

I'm ok with leaving someone locked up for life, but far too many lifer's are getting out on parole for my taste - so I'm pro death penalty. Is that unreasonable?

 

 

Yes.

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Bull Gator, November 12, 2010 - No reason given

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

 

 

Wow if you aren't a stupid POS

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff

 

McDuff received three death sentences and Green received a 25-year prison sentence. However, McDuff's death sentences were commuted to a life sentence. At that time, a life sentence in Texas meant serving a minimum of 10 years in prison before being paroled.

 

I have schooled you again

Share this post


Link to post

If knuckle dragger = want to go to St. Lucia, count me in.

 

So, Bull, what would you suggest we do with someone who rapes and murders little girls? A short stint in prison? Counseling? Exposure therapy?

 

I'm ok with leaving someone locked up for life, but far too many lifer's are getting out on parole for my taste - so I'm pro death penalty. Is that unreasonable?

 

 

Yes.

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

 

Sorry. You can't simply call me unreasonable because you disagree with the reasons for my argument. You can say that I'm wrong, or that my argument is weak.

 

You appear to be correct:, at least in the US: I was unable to find a reference to a child murderer-rapist who was released on parole. Although I found several examples of child rapists, or child murderer who were released, the only references to the parole of a person who both raped and murdered a child I could find occurred in what I'm sure you will say are the more 'enlightened' judicial systems of Canada and Australia. I'm sure I could pull up some from Europe if I tried hard enough. Let's not even think about the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

you could carve a better man out of a turd. The turd of an executed serial rapist murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

One example is all you got you fucking POS??

 

Seems to me it was a structural problem with the Texas justice proble. They made up for it by murdering innocent people so all's good i suppose.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Not this again.

 

I know a number of liberals that vehemently support the death penalty. I also know a number of archly conservative, anti-abortion christians who oppose the death penalty.

 

What I cannot abide are

 

A> conservatives that support the death penalty and oppose abortions

 

and

 

B> liberals that support abortion and oppose the death penalty.

 

To do so is rank hypocrisy in my opinion, and for what it is worth, I agree with Steve Martin that there should be a mandatory death sentence for parking violations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

One example is all you got you fucking POS??

 

Seems to me it was a structural problem with the Texas justice proble. They made up for it by murdering innocent people so all's good i suppose.....

 

Technically you can't accuse Texas of "murdering" innocent people. Murder is a malicious act, with forethought, of one person by another person. Its also only murder if you've been convicted. Before that you are simply accussed of it. So, Texas isn't murdering anyone -- most specifically because only one human being can murder another; and Texas doesn't fit the definition of human being. Plus, since what Texas is doing is perfectly legal, "it" can't be convicted of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

 

One example is all you got you fucking POS??

 

Seems to me it was a structural problem with the Texas justice proble. They made up for it by murdering innocent people so all's good i suppose.....

 

Technically you can't accuse Texas of "murdering" innocent people. Murder is a malicious act, with forethought, of one person by another person. Its also only murder if you've been convicted. Before that you are simply accussed of it. So, Texas isn't murdering anyone -- most specifically because only one human being can murder another; and Texas doesn't fit the definition of human being. Plus, since what Texas is doing is perfectly legal, "it" can't be convicted of anything.

 

So you're saying Germany didn't murder 6 million Jews during WWII. It was just wrongful death?

 

That's not an argument I'd want to make.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

 

One example is all you got you fucking POS??

 

Seems to me it was a structural problem with the Texas justice proble. They made up for it by murdering innocent people so all's good i suppose.....

 

Technically you can't accuse Texas of "murdering" innocent people. Murder is a malicious act, with forethought, of one person by another person. Its also only murder if you've been convicted. Before that you are simply accussed of it. So, Texas isn't murdering anyone -- most specifically because only one human being can murder another; and Texas doesn't fit the definition of human being. Plus, since what Texas is doing is perfectly legal, "it" can't be convicted of anything.

 

So you're saying Germany didn't murder 6 million Jews during WWII. It was just wrongful death?

 

That's not an argument I'd want to make.........

 

Gotta hand it to the Germans. 6 Million trials, 18 million appeals and all within the course of about 6 years. Quite the judicial system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

 

One example is all you got you fucking POS??

 

Seems to me it was a structural problem with the Texas justice proble. They made up for it by murdering innocent people so all's good i suppose.....

 

Technically you can't accuse Texas of "murdering" innocent people. Murder is a malicious act, with forethought, of one person by another person. Its also only murder if you've been convicted. Before that you are simply accussed of it. So, Texas isn't murdering anyone -- most specifically because only one human being can murder another; and Texas doesn't fit the definition of human being. Plus, since what Texas is doing is perfectly legal, "it" can't be convicted of anything.

 

So you're saying Germany didn't murder 6 million Jews during WWII. It was just wrongful death?

 

That's not an argument I'd want to make.........

What Germany did as a nation was genocide -- not murder. However, by ordering the illegal killing of Jews, many people --many of whom were most notable for their membership in the Nazi political party -- did in fact commit murder on an individual basis. Your lack of language skills is troubling --- you misuse words just like Glen Beck. Who also can be bested by a man carved from a banana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are not a good jew :(

 

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/36quest1.html

How many Jews were murdered during the Holocaust?

 

 

Answer: While it is impossible to ascertain the exact number of Jewish victims, statistics indicate that the total was over 5,860,000. Six million is the round figure accepted by most authorities

Oh, you have skewered me Glen!

 

Just because other people misuse the term doesn't make them right either. However, it does, still, make you wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

So what's with that list of countries? I've lived in two of them and am quite proud of both for different reasons. There are a few others on that list that I've been to and would live in and be quite proud to call myself a resident/citizen of. So what's with the list. They all have the death penalty on their books?

 

Yes. Some of them are fine places to be. Most are not what I would think of as...models of enlightenment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Not this again.

 

I know a number of liberals that vehemently support the death penalty. I also know a number of archly conservative, anti-abortion christians who oppose the death penalty.

 

What I cannot abide are

 

A> conservatives that support the death penalty and oppose abortions

 

and

 

B> liberals that support abortion and oppose the death penalty.

 

To do so is rank hypocrisy in my opinion, and for what it is worth, I agree with Steve Martin that there should be a mandatory death sentence for parking violations!

 

Good thing it is only your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

So what's with that list of countries? I've lived in two of them and am quite proud of both for different reasons. There are a few others on that list that I've been to and would live in and be quite proud to call myself a resident/citizen of. So what's with the list. They all have the death penalty on their books?

 

Yes. Some of them are fine places to be. Most are not what I would think of as...models of enlightenment.

 

So in other words: Including it in your post was pointless. It might have made sense if you removed the ones that are good places to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

 

+1

 

That's classic, though I've gotta confess, CL - not exactly what one would typically expect from a Hinckley owner, or skipper of one of the most beautiful boats you'll ever see... (grin, bigtime)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

So what's with that list of countries? I've lived in two of them and am quite proud of both for different reasons. There are a few others on that list that I've been to and would live in and be quite proud to call myself a resident/citizen of. So what's with the list. They all have the death penalty on their books?

 

Yes. Some of them are fine places to be. Most are not what I would think of as...models of enlightenment.

 

So in other words: Including it in your post was pointless. It might have made sense if you removed the ones that are good places to live.

 

Nah, that's the sort of thing FOX News would do, to skew the argument a bit more in their favor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

 

+1

 

That's classic, though I've gotta confess, CL - not exactly what one would typically expect from a Hinckley owner, or skipper of one of the most beautiful boats you'll ever see... (grin, bigtime)

 

Hinckley owner? That settles it - into my signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

 

 

If we replaced the death penalty with solitary confinment, a daily waterboarding, and no parole I'd rethink my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

 

 

If we replaced the death penalty with solitary confinment, a daily waterboarding, and no parole I'd rethink my position.

Waterboarding? Your idea for punishing the vilest of criminals is to splash a little water in their face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

 

 

If we replaced the death penalty with solitary confinment, a daily waterboarding, and no parole I'd rethink my position.

Waterboarding? Your idea for punishing the vilest of criminals is to splash a little water in their face?

 

Solitary for life's not enough for ya?

 

Maybe we'll add the "rack" and the "Chinese drip" as an added bonus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If knuckle dragger = want to go to St. Lucia, count me in.

 

So, Bull, what would you suggest we do with someone who rapes and murders little girls? A short stint in prison? Counseling? Exposure therapy?

 

I'm ok with leaving someone locked up for life, but far too many lifer's are getting out on parole for my taste - so I'm pro death penalty. Is that unreasonable?

 

 

Yes.

 

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

 

 

Sorry. You can't simply call me unreasonable because you disagree with the reasons for my argument. You can say that I'm wrong, or that my argument is weak.

 

You appear to be correct:, at least in the US: I was unable to find a reference to a child murderer-rapist who was released on parole. Although I found several examples of child rapists, or child murderer who were released, the only references to the parole of a person who both raped and murdered a child I could find occurred in what I'm sure you will say are the more 'enlightened' judicial systems of Canada and Australia. I'm sure I could pull up some from Europe if I tried hard enough. Let's not even think about the middle east.

 

 

GUESS AGAIN GENTLEMEN! It happened just last year in San Diego County. Google 'Chelsea King'to learn more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

 

 

If we replaced the death penalty with solitary confinment, a daily waterboarding, and no parole I'd rethink my position.

 

Do you want fries with that or an apple pie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did TX Execute Another Innocent Man?

 

David Grann’s New Yorker story about Cameron Todd Willmingham asked whether Texas executed an innocent man in 2004. Willmingham may not have been the first: Claude Jones was executed in Texas 10 years ago for a liquor-store murder, based on a single hair that was found at the scene of the crime. But a recent DNA analysis has shown that the hair did not belong to Jones and it may have belonged, in fact, to the murder victim. Jones was a career criminal who never admitted to the crime. As his execution neared, he pushed then Governor George W. Bush for a DNA test on the hair, but Bush’s office never brought Jones’ request to the governor’s attention. During Jones’ trial, a forensic expert looked at the hair under a microscope and said it could have been Jones’, but not the victim’s; a DNA test was never performed before Jones’ execution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bolded comments are very relevant.

 

Career Criminals are people who have proven the cannot live by societies' rules. He probably should have been sentenced to death the last time he was convicted of a crime. He may have not committed the murder but he was a douche bag career criminal none the less.

 

 

 

 

 

People who prove over and over again that they cannot live by societies, rules have no place in society.

 

 

 

 

HTFU

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pretty much sums up this case

 

I'm gunna begin this gregalogue by stating plainly that I'm probably a jerk.

 

I say this, because when I examine the opinion I am about to give - the reason for that opinion could be that I'm a jerk.

 

So here goes:

 

Apparently, A DNA test on a strand of hair has cast doubt on the guilt of a dude named Claude Jones, who was executed a decade ago in Texas, while evil George W. Bush was governor.

 

The guy had been found guilty for shooting a liquor store owner named Allen Hilzendager to death in 1989.

 

His getaway driver Danny (they're always named Danny) had been previously convicted of shooting a girl between the eyes - and dumping her in a graveyard.

 

So, a wonderful pair.

 

Anyway, much of the "primary" evidence against Jones came from his accomplices. But the hair had been the only physical evidence linking Jones to the scene -and the DNA analysis said it wasn't his, and could in fact be the victim's instead.

 

So the guy was executed, when he shouldn't have been.

 

Sad story.

 

But not for me.

 

Jones was a brutal, career criminal, who - while serving a 21-year jail sentence, set fire to his cellmate, killing him. Even though a lot of people are now making hay about this DNA finding - life's too short for me to care if the court messed up.

 

This guy was involved, and had a history of cruelty against fellow humans- strand of hair or not. An innocent person died - either directly, or indirectly - cuz of him. Even Jones said, before he died, that he hoped his death "can bring some closure to y'all."

 

It did. And I thank him for that.

 

That makes me a jerk. I know I am wrong - yep I do - But I can live with it.

 

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic jerkophobe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the question is how many innocent lives are worth killing the guilty ?

 

and to those of you who wish to maintain no innocent folk have been executed

 

BULL SHIT .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

 

+1

 

That's classic, though I've gotta confess, CL - not exactly what one would typically expect from a Hinckley owner, or skipper of one of the most beautiful boats you'll ever see... (grin, bigtime)

 

+1. Well done, CL. The really amusing thing is no matter how many times Trollston gets smacked down he still comes back for more bragging about how he "schooled" people and desperately trolling for attention. Mom must have turned off cable in the basement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the question is how many innocent lives are worth killing the guilty ?

 

and to those of you who wish to maintain no innocent folk have been executed

 

BULL SHIT .

 

I'll live with my sins if you agree to live with yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

HTFU

 

This is not accurate. Some people such as myself have absolutely no problem with the concept of death being warrented for some crimes, but are against the death penalty. That this opinion is based on softness is a canard.

 

First off, our system of determining guilt is deeply flawed, and unless you are willing to say that OJ is innocent, you agree.

 

Second: Simple fact is, it is a penaly nearly entirely reserved for people who can not afford top flight legal representation. They didn't even try for it against OJ, BTW.

 

Third: It is, in our system, a vastly more expensive penalty to execute. By the time the appeals are done, the state in into the thing for millions, and far more than what it would have cost to keep him in a cage for life. It also absorbs a lot of the staffs and the offices's limited resources that could be used much more wisely.

 

Fourth: The description of a DA is sometimes given as "Somebody running for office". It is pretty accurate too. The penalty (and vast amounts of state funds are spent) is sometimes about pandering to a certain demographic and raising the DA's public visibility. This isn't right. Especially when you look at it as a penalty excluded from consideration for the wealthy.

 

 

There are a lot of good reasons to consider banning it. Even for someone who has no issue with killing. It just looks a bit different when you look at the whole picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the question is how many innocent lives are worth killing the guilty ?

 

and to those of you who wish to maintain no innocent folk have been executed

 

BULL SHIT .

 

I'll live with my sins if you agree to live with yours.

 

bet your cavalier attitude would disappear quickly should it be one of your loved ones in the position of being murdered by the state for something they didn't do .

 

and if the above isn't true I've no interest in you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

If we had Life without the possibility of parole at hard labor as a punishment I would be in favor of eliminating the death penalty. I believe in punishment for crime. Criminals can't be rehabilitated, they can only change themselves and as long as they look at law-abiding citizens as saps, they won't change.

 

The only reason the death sentence is more expensive than LWOP is the endless appeals that are filed for death row inmates. Allowing only one appeal directly to the Supreme Court followed by IMMEDIATE execution of sentence would be far cheaper than long-term incarceration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not aware of anyone who having raped and murdered little girls spent time in jail and was subsequently paroled.

 

Your argument is weak and unreasonable. I award you no stars..............

Kenneth McDuff, raped and murdered 16 year old Edna Sullivan. He received 3 death sentences (he'd also killed two boys) but, due to prison overcrowding and the overturning of the death penalty, ended up paroled, along with 20 other death row inmates and 127 murderers.

 

Three days after his release he started killing again. He killed at least 6 more women after his release.

 

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

 

One example is all you got you fucking POS??

 

Seems to me it was a structural problem with the Texas justice proble. They made up for it by murdering innocent people so all's good i suppose.....

 

Technically you can't accuse Texas of "murdering" innocent people. Murder is a malicious act, with forethought, of one person by another person. Its also only murder if you've been convicted. Before that you are simply accussed of it. So, Texas isn't murdering anyone -- most specifically because only one human being can murder another; and Texas doesn't fit the definition of human being. Plus, since what Texas is doing is perfectly legal, "it" can't be convicted of anything.

 

So you're saying Germany didn't murder 6 million Jews during WWII. It was just wrongful death?

 

That's not an argument I'd want to make.........

 

 

Under the laws of Germany at the time, what the Nazi's did was perfectly legal. It was morally inexcusable and I personally would fight and die to prevent it, but it was legal. It was made illegal ex-post facto after the war by the winnning side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

If we had Life without the possibility of parole at hard labor as a punishment I would be in favor of eliminating the death penalty. I believe in punishment for crime. Criminals can't be rehabilitated, they can only change themselves and as long as they look at law-abiding citizens as saps, they won't change.

 

The only reason the death sentence is more expensive than LWOP is the endless appeals that are filed for death row inmates. Allowing only one appeal directly to the Supreme Court followed by IMMEDIATE execution of sentence would be far cheaper than long-term incarceration.

 

yup one appeal and then your dead. Simple - kind of like you regressives.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason the death sentence is more expensive than LWOP is the endless appeals that are filed for death row inmates. Allowing only one appeal directly to the Supreme Court followed by IMMEDIATE execution of sentence would be far cheaper than long-term incarceration.

 

There's the conundrum, eh? I think even the most hardened pro-death penalty advocate would recoil at the idea of killing the wrong person for a crime they didn't commit. All of the DP arguments I hear include the caveat, "if you're 100% sure they did it." So if you want to be 100% certain, you can't just shortcut the process and say, "well, that's good enough." It's abundantly clear that what we have now is not good enough as more innocent people are exonerated by DNA evidence and other means. If we're going to execute people, we need more safeguards, not fewer; and that is not going to make the process less expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a major disconnect between how liberals and conservatives see criminal punishment, and I don't see the gap closing.

 

Liberals believe that criminals are just misguided or misunderstood, and after a "time out" to think about what they have done you can let them back into society and they will play by the rules.

 

Conservatives believe that murderers, thieves, child molestors and drug dealers are not a necessary part of society, and should be physically separated from their next victim to prevent further crime. Since parole boards are fond of interpreting "life sentence" to mean something less, which ended the life of Mr. Hilzendager prematurely, they figure the death penalty is the only sure way to eliminate the risk of reoffending.

 

Nonsense.

 

I'm a liberal, and I have no inherent belief that the likes of John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy are "misguided": or ever have any chance of rejoining society. They need to be taken out of society permanently.

 

We disagree on the means however.

 

My fundamental objections to the death penalty stem from several other reasons which have nothing to do with your nonsensical suggestions.

 

1) You can't un-execute someone is you convict the wrong guy. Being let out of jail after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment...not a total "Undo" but better than killing the wrong guy. Our system has been shown to be far from perfect and far from fair, and as evidence technology gets better and better I suspect we will see more and more stories of wrongful convictions. Not so many for wrongful executions because no one is trying to appeal their sentence any more - it's only crusaders trying to clear names that keep that alive.

 

2) It costs way more to kill someone then to let them rot in a hole for the rest of their lives. This is well documented. Really well documented. In order to ensure the death penalty is delivered "fairly" you have to ensure that there is an appeals process, all rights are observed, etc. This costs MILLIONS per execution. Most criminals that have been executed would have had to live until they were about 200 to make lifetime incarceration cost more than executing them. In purely pragmatic terms every death penalty state could cut millions from their budgets today by banning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole.

 

3) Frankly I do not like the idea of the State having that sort of power over it's citizenry. The chances of it being abused or misused intentionally or accidentally are too large.

 

4) There is little or no evidence to suggest that the death penalty acts as any sort of a deterrent. In point once you've committed a capital crime, well what's to stop you from doing more?

 

5) I view the killing of another human is abhorrent no matter the reason, and to do so as an act of judgment is not something I think makes it any more correct. Too often - and you can clearly hear it in the bloodthirsty rhetoric of this thread and others - capital punishment is about revenge, not justice.

 

6) Personally I view executing someone as letting them off easy. I do not believe in heaven, hell or afterlife rewards or punishment - and even if I did we're not the one's that set that sentence. In reality the needle slips in, lights out it's over. Spending the rest of your natural life with no hope of seeing the light of day or freedom again while you think about what you did to get you there...that seems a lot worse than just falling to sleep and never waking up.

 

 

Read this list of countries and ask yourself how many of them you would want to live in - or be proud to call yourself a citizen of:

 

  • Afghanistan
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Burundi
  • Cameroon
  • Chad
  • China (People's Republic)
  • Comoros
  • Congo (Democratic Republic)
  • Cuba
  • Dominica
  • Egypt
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Korea, North
  • Korea, South
  • Kuwait

  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Nigeria
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • St. Kitts and Nevis
  • St. Lucia
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Syria
  • Taiwan
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United States
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

If we had Life without the possibility of parole at hard labor as a punishment I would be in favor of eliminating the death penalty. I believe in punishment for crime. Criminals can't be rehabilitated, they can only change themselves and as long as they look at law-abiding citizens as saps, they won't change.

 

The only reason the death sentence is more expensive than LWOP is the endless appeals that are filed for death row inmates. Allowing only one appeal directly to the Supreme Court followed by IMMEDIATE execution of sentence would be far cheaper than long-term incarceration.

 

yup one appeal and then your dead. Simple - kind of like you regressives.........

 

 

I'm not regressive, I'm realistic. I grew up poor in a bad neighborhood. When I was in my twenties I was sitting around with some friends from grade school and we tried to figure out where our classmates were. Out of the 36 kids in our second grade classroom, we could account for twenty who were dead or in prison or jail. From personal experience I know how criminals think. Someone who takes a life illegally deserves to have their life forfiet. Perhaps if you could guarantee that they could never harm another person, in or out of jail, and never get out of jail I could be convinced to eliminate the death penalty. As far as an innocent person being executed, it is very rare for someone who is actually innocent to be executed. Of those who are, they are usually career criminals who have committed crimes all their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason the death sentence is more expensive than LWOP is the endless appeals that are filed for death row inmates. Allowing only one appeal directly to the Supreme Court followed by IMMEDIATE execution of sentence would be far cheaper than long-term incarceration.

 

There's the conundrum, eh? I think even the most hardened pro-death penalty advocate would recoil at the idea of killing the wrong person for a crime they didn't commit. All of the DP arguments I hear include the caveat, "if you're 100% sure they did it." So if you want to be 100% certain, you can't just shortcut the process and say, "well, that's good enough." It's abundantly clear that what we have now is not good enough as more innocent people are exonerated by DNA evidence and other means. If we're going to execute people, we need more safeguards, not fewer; and that is not going to make the process less expensive.

 

No system designed and operated by humans is perfect. The system works properly in the vast majority of cases. The answer isn't in more appeals or functions at the back end of the case, it is getting jurys that aren't handpicked and allowing them to do their job. A jury should be picked at random with no removals allowed by either side and the instructions shouldn't be allowed to restrict what information or charge the jury should consider. If the charge is Murder the jury should have the option to convict of a lesser charge if they feel it is just. Most of the bad verdicts we get are because of stacked jurys or overly restrictive instructions from the judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are cases where it could not be any more obvious that they were the one that committed the crime, and deserve to die. if the death penalty is abolished, what happens to people like that? of course, if they are those who wanted suicide by state then i guess they are suffering more anyway.

 

 

 

BG, do you want the courtesy of abolishing the death penalty extended to soldiers? or do they all deserve to die anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No system designed and operated by humans is perfect. The system works properly in the vast majority of cases. The answer isn't in more appeals or functions at the back end of the case, it is getting jurys that aren't handpicked and allowing them to do their job. A jury should be picked at random with no removals allowed by either side and the instructions shouldn't be allowed to restrict what information or charge the jury should consider. If the charge is Murder the jury should have the option to convict of a lesser charge if they feel it is just. Most of the bad verdicts we get are because of stacked jurys or overly restrictive instructions from the judge.

 

But the system we have in place guarantees a fair trial for anyone accused and puts in place important safeguards to ensure that fairness. A competent attorney, the right to an impartial jury of one's peers,the right to examine the evidence, the right to cross examine your accuser. If a person is denied any of those or many other guaranteed safeguards within the limits of practicality, then the trial has not been fair, and the results of that trial are also not fair; and the verdict is not fair.

 

Everybody arguing against "endless appeals" or the ACLU or other means of ensuring the rights of the accused have one thing in common from my observation; and that's a presumption of guilt. "We're letting criminals go free!" they moan. But the legal system is no different from a scientific experiment in that if you contaminate the input, you can't trust the results. If a jury finds a guy guilty but he gets off on a "technicality", then he's not guilty. That's the system we have, and it's the system symbolized by the flag everyone so eagerly waves. Everyone thinks the accused is guilty until they're the accused, or it's a friend or relative. Then lawyers start to look pretty friendly.

 

You set up a lot of conditions that look good on their face, but don't hold up to scrutiny. Pick jurors at random? Sure, from what pool? Is that pool random and adequately representative of one's peers? Says who? No matter how you do it, bias creeps in. And as for hand picking, don't forget that goes both ways. Prosecutors get the same opportunities as the defense. If the jury is stacked for the defense, the DA screwed up, not the system.

 

But the key facet remains a fair trial. If that cannot be ensured by all means, then nobody should be put to death until it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No system designed and operated by humans is perfect. The system works properly in the vast majority of cases. The answer isn't in more appeals or functions at the back end of the case, it is getting jurys that aren't handpicked and allowing them to do their job. A jury should be picked at random with no removals allowed by either side and the instructions shouldn't be allowed to restrict what information or charge the jury should consider. If the charge is Murder the jury should have the option to convict of a lesser charge if they feel it is just. Most of the bad verdicts we get are because of stacked jurys or overly restrictive instructions from the judge.

 

But the system we have in place guarantees a fair trial for anyone accused and puts in place important safeguards to ensure that fairness. A competent attorney, the right to an impartial jury of one's peers,the right to examine the evidence, the right to cross examine your accuser. If a person is denied any of those or many other guaranteed safeguards within the limits of practicality, then the trial has not been fair, and the results of that trial are also not fair; and the verdict is not fair.

 

Everybody arguing against "endless appeals" or the ACLU or other means of ensuring the rights of the accused have one thing in common from my observation; and that's a presumption of guilt. "We're letting criminals go free!" they moan. But the legal system is no different from a scientific experiment in that if you contaminate the input, you can't trust the results. If a jury finds a guy guilty but he gets off on a "technicality", then he's not guilty. That's the system we have, and it's the system symbolized by the flag everyone so eagerly waves. Everyone thinks the accused is guilty until they're the accused, or it's a friend or relative. Then lawyers start to look pretty friendly.

 

You set up a lot of conditions that look good on their face, but don't hold up to scrutiny. Pick jurors at random? Sure, from what pool? Is that pool random and adequately representative of one's peers? Says who? No matter how you do it, bias creeps in. And as for hand picking, don't forget that goes both ways. Prosecutors get the same opportunities as the defense. If the jury is stacked for the defense, the DA screwed up, not the system.

 

But the key facet remains a fair trial. If that cannot be ensured by all means, then nobody should be put to death until it is.

 

I would use the voter rolls as a pool and make sure that only citizens are on the rolls. I would not allow attorneys on either side to remove jurors except for stated bias. The way the system works now, the jury is reduced to the lowest common demoninator so it can be swayed by summations which are not admissable evidence. Both sides do this, we need intelligent jurors who will make judgements based on admissable evidence, not rhetoric from lawyers. Our system has gone from a search of innocence or guilt to a game for attorneys. The power should be vested in the jury, not the professionals who administer the system now. What we have now is jurys that are not allowed to be impartial due to judicial influence on jury instructions and evidence of past conduct. When someone has a pattern of past behavior, why isn't it relevant and admissable? When a jury isn't satisified that it has heard enough evidence or witness' to make a determination it should have the power to order more testimony or evidence be presented. In other words a trial jury should have much the same power as a grand jury, not be forced to rule on what it feels is incomplete evidence. A jury of your peers is the key safeguard to liberty.

 

As to the endless appeals, once a person has been convicted, he is legally assumed to be guilty of the crime. Rarely are appeals decided by misconduct at trial, or mistakes in fact, they are usually made by nitpicking every aspect of a trial looking for anything that MAY be improper. An exam,ple would be like an police officer makes a mistake on a warrant application, often the results of the search are thrown out. This is wrong, if evidence of criminal activity is found, discipline the officer but include the evidence in the case. If public officials and employees were held personally responsible for violations of the constitution ther would be an incentive to stop. As it is now, nothing happens to the individual, they just toss the evidence. Again it comes down to a search for justice and the truth of the matter, not games and egos. If a "technicality" is found to be improper, the accussed shouldn't be released, he should be retried just as he would for a mistrial, since that ishat happened in reality. Why should a convicted person go free for a minor mistake? If the issue was critical towards conviction, the new jury will render a valid verdict based on the evidence presented to it.

 

I've been on both a trial jury and a criminal grand jury so I've seen how the system operates from inside, it gives me an ususual perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are cases where it could not be any more obvious that they were the one that committed the crime, and deserve to die. if the death penalty is abolished, what happens to people like that? of course, if they are those who wanted suicide by state then i guess they are suffering more anyway.

 

 

 

BG, do you want the courtesy of abolishing the death penalty extended to soldiers? or do they all deserve to die anyway...

 

 

different sample group. But i would in most cases be willing to settle for life doing hard labor.

 

 

I just find it a little odd the my regressive friends are reluctant to send war criminals to their death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But i would in most cases be willing to settle for life doing hard labor.

 

 

Weell, heere in Kalifornia, our Bleeding Heart Liberal Burrito Supreme Court has outlawed any "Hard Labor" other than voluntary forest fire fighting. Lifers and Death Row inhabitants are not eligible for this.

 

Here's another creep that needs to be cut off from Oxygen:

 

Earl Ellis Green

 

Career criminal, Cop Killer. Found with slain officer's gun in his house. Cop was a Iraq War Veteran. This thug killed the cop as he pleaded for his life. This Fukwit could have run away, as the cop had fallen in some wet grass chasing him after he pulled him over in a stolen semi-truck. Gaytor, give me one REASONABLE excuse that this fucker should get to live the rest of his natural life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But i would in most cases be willing to settle for life doing hard labor.

 

 

Weell, heere in Kalifornia, our Bleeding Heart Liberal Burrito Supreme Court has outlawed any "Hard Labor" other than voluntary forest fire fighting. Lifers and Death Row inhabitants are not eligible for this.

 

Here's another creep that needs to be cut off from Oxygen:

 

Earl Ellis Green

 

Career criminal, Cop Killer. Found with slain officer's gun in his house. Cop was a Iraq War Veteran. This thug killed the cop as he pleaded for his life. This Fukwit could have run away, as the cop had fallen in some wet grass chasing him after he pulled him over in a stolen semi-truck. Gaytor, give me one REASONABLE excuse that this fucker should get to live the rest of his natural life!

 

Are you FUCKING RETARDED?? In addtion to the practical mon moral reasons the moral reasons are instructive..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a foul, despicable troll, who comes here instead of porn sites because your own hands refuse to jerk you off. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in some time. Thank you.

 

 

If we replaced the death penalty with solitary confinment, a daily waterboarding, and no parole I'd rethink my position.

 

Do you want fries with that or an apple pie?

 

I am thinking of the scene in A Fish called Wanda where kevin Kline is torturing K-K-K- Ken. Shoving the "chips" up his nose and eating the fish, getting closer and closer to Wanda.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you FUCKING RETARDED?? In addtion to the practical mon moral reasons the moral reasons are instructive..................

 

Well considering the way you continually type non-sensical answers, I'd say the retarded one is you. Mon moral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As to the endless appeals, once a person has been convicted, he is legally assumed to be guilty of the crime. Rarely are appeals decided by misconduct at trial, or mistakes in fact, they are usually made by nitpicking every aspect of a trial looking for anything that MAY be improper. An exam,ple would be like an police officer makes a mistake on a warrant application, often the results of the search are thrown out. This is wrong, if evidence of criminal activity is found, discipline the officer but include the evidence in the case. If public officials and employees were held personally responsible for violations of the constitution ther would be an incentive to stop. As it is now, nothing happens to the individual, they just toss the evidence. Again it comes down to a search for justice and the truth of the matter, not games and egos. If a "technicality" is found to be improper, the accussed shouldn't be released, he should be retried just as he would for a mistrial, since that ishat happened in reality. Why should a convicted person go free for a minor mistake? If the issue was critical towards conviction, the new jury will render a valid verdict based on the evidence presented to it.

 

I've been on both a trial jury and a criminal grand jury so I've seen how the system operates from inside, it gives me an ususual perspective.

 

There is a fatal flaw in that argument. Chain of evidence, probable cause, all those nitpicky rules are there for a reason. You CAN'T just keep the evidence and slap the cop on the wrist if there is a procedural violation, because the procedures are there to ensure that policeman are following the law as well.

 

If you are pulled over and a cop searches your car without probable cause and finds drugs, you are suggesting they can convict you for the drugs and discipline the cops for the clerical error. But what is to say that the drugs were even legitimately there? You have a policeman that already broke one important procedure - how do you know that others weren't broken? If you require that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed at least you are taking steps to ensure that you don't have bad cops misusing their authority.

 

Anytime you skip a step in the process you allow room for error and abuse. While policemen need to do their jobs, the procedures and policies are in place to protect us from the government's power as well.

 

And as for those idiots that say "well he was a career criminal anyway so he was surely guilty of something anyway" - you need to wake up. You can't just execute people on the assumption they've committed a crime. You need to convict people of a specific crime with evidence - convicting someone of a crime they did not commit they sloughing it off as "well they probably were guilty of something anyway" makes a mockery of the fundamental liberties our country is based on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the endless appeals, once a person has been convicted, he is legally assumed to be guilty of the crime. Rarely are appeals decided by misconduct at trial, or mistakes in fact, they are usually made by nitpicking every aspect of a trial looking for anything that MAY be improper. An exam,ple would be like an police officer makes a mistake on a warrant application, often the results of the search are thrown out. This is wrong, if evidence of criminal activity is found, discipline the officer but include the evidence in the case. If public officials and employees were held personally responsible for violations of the constitution ther would be an incentive to stop. As it is now, nothing happens to the individual, they just toss the evidence. Again it comes down to a search for justice and the truth of the matter, not games and egos. If a "technicality" is found to be improper, the accussed shouldn't be released, he should be retried just as he would for a mistrial, since that ishat happened in reality. Why should a convicted person go free for a minor mistake? If the issue was critical towards conviction, the new jury will render a valid verdict based on the evidence presented to it.

 

I've been on both a trial jury and a criminal grand jury so I've seen how the system operates from inside, it gives me an ususual perspective.

 

There is a fatal flaw in that argument. Chain of evidence, probable cause, all those nitpicky rules are there for a reason. You CAN'T just keep the evidence and slap the cop on the wrist if there is a procedural violation, because the procedures are there to ensure that policeman are following the law as well.

 

If you are pulled over and a cop searches your car without probable cause and finds drugs, you are suggesting they can convict you for the drugs and discipline the cops for the clerical error. But what is to say that the drugs were even legitimately there? You have a policeman that already broke one important procedure - how do you know that others weren't broken? If you require that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed at least you are taking steps to ensure that you don't have bad cops misusing their authority.

 

Anytime you skip a step in the process you allow room for error and abuse. While policemen need to do their jobs, the procedures and policies are in place to protect us from the government's power as well.

 

And as for those idiots that say "well he was a career criminal anyway so he was surely guilty of something anyway" - you need to wake up. You can't just execute people on the assumption they've committed a crime. You need to convict people of a specific crime with evidence - convicting someone of a crime they did not commit they sloughing it off as "well they probably were guilty of something anyway" makes a mockery of the fundamental liberties our country is based on.

My example was a mistake on a warrant application, not a deliberate falsification of fact. The whole concept of the fruit of the poison tree is a bad idea as far as I am concerned. Letting a criminal go free because of an illegal act by the polie is one thing, letting him go free over a mistake is a horse of another color.

 

To answer your direct example, if a cop pulls you over based on faulty cause, (mistaken ID or something similar) and discovers contraband or evidence of illegal activity, yes I think yoou should be prosecuted. A good-faith mistake is not an evil act. On the other hand, if he legitimately had no cause for the stop, he should do some jail time. With that standard, you wouldn't see many bogus stops and searches. Riight now there are no real penalties for the cops that actually violate people's rights. The department may get sued, the case might get thrown out, or they might even get a little time off, but no real hard penalties for the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone commits a crime, I want them held responsible and punished for that crime, not to skate becouse someone else did something wrong. That punishes society, not the criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the endless appeals, once a person has been convicted, he is legally assumed to be guilty of the crime. Rarely are appeals decided by misconduct at trial, or mistakes in fact, they are usually made by nitpicking every aspect of a trial looking for anything that MAY be improper. An exam,ple would be like an police officer makes a mistake on a warrant application, often the results of the search are thrown out. This is wrong, if evidence of criminal activity is found, discipline the officer but include the evidence in the case. If public officials and employees were held personally responsible for violations of the constitution ther would be an incentive to stop. As it is now, nothing happens to the individual, they just toss the evidence. Again it comes down to a search for justice and the truth of the matter, not games and egos. If a "technicality" is found to be improper, the accussed shouldn't be released, he should be retried just as he would for a mistrial, since that ishat happened in reality. Why should a convicted person go free for a minor mistake? If the issue was critical towards conviction, the new jury will render a valid verdict based on the evidence presented to it.

 

I've been on both a trial jury and a criminal grand jury so I've seen how the system operates from inside, it gives me an ususual perspective.

 

There is a fatal flaw in that argument. Chain of evidence, probable cause, all those nitpicky rules are there for a reason. You CAN'T just keep the evidence and slap the cop on the wrist if there is a procedural violation, because the procedures are there to ensure that policeman are following the law as well.

 

If you are pulled over and a cop searches your car without probable cause and finds drugs, you are suggesting they can convict you for the drugs and discipline the cops for the clerical error. But what is to say that the drugs were even legitimately there? You have a policeman that already broke one important procedure - how do you know that others weren't broken? If you require that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed at least you are taking steps to ensure that you don't have bad cops misusing their authority.

 

Anytime you skip a step in the process you allow room for error and abuse. While policemen need to do their jobs, the procedures and policies are in place to protect us from the government's power as well.

 

And as for those idiots that say "well he was a career criminal anyway so he was surely guilty of something anyway" - you need to wake up. You can't just execute people on the assumption they've committed a crime. You need to convict people of a specific crime with evidence - convicting someone of a crime they did not commit they sloughing it off as "well they probably were guilty of something anyway" makes a mockery of the fundamental liberties our country is based on.

My example was a mistake on a warrant application, not a deliberate falsification of fact. The whole concept of the fruit of the poison tree is a bad idea as far as I am concerned. Letting a criminal go free because of an illegal act by the polie is one thing, letting him go free over a mistake is a horse of another color.

 

To answer your direct example, if a cop pulls you over based on faulty cause, (mistaken ID or something similar) and discovers contraband or evidence of illegal activity, yes I think yoou should be prosecuted. A good-faith mistake is not an evil act. On the other hand, if he legitimately had no cause for the stop, he should do some jail time. With that standard, you wouldn't see many bogus stops and searches. Riight now there are no real penalties for the cops that actually violate people's rights. The department may get sued, the case might get thrown out, or they might even get a little time off, but no real hard penalties for the individual.

 

How do you know a "mistake" is not a deliberate one? Sure - mispelling a suspect's name...pretty clearly a mistake. In theory...but there could be other "mistakes" some of which allow a warrant to go through that other wise might not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone commits a crime, I want them held responsible and punished for that crime, not to skate becouse someone else did something wrong. That punishes society, not the criminal.

 

I agree with you in theory.

 

But in practice those procedures are put in place to maintain necessary checks on the power of government.

 

Society has a responsibility to it's citizens as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone commits a crime, I want them held responsible and punished for that crime, not to skate becouse someone else did something wrong. That punishes society, not the criminal.

 

Giving cops cart blanche to do fishing expeditions on people is fundimentally against our nature. Cops can be put under political stress quite easily, and used as harassment tools against people that are not toeing the line. This is the reason it was deemed important at the founding of this nation. They saw, and felt, how easily police power can become a political tool. No unreasonable searches.

 

You make it easy for them to get away with "mistakes" (as long as they dig something up) and you open the door to that very thing. Has to be clear lines drawn and abided by if this is to be prevented.

 

Sucks, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are cases where it could not be any more obvious that they were the one that committed the crime, and deserve to die. if the death penalty is abolished, what happens to people like that? of course, if they are those who wanted suicide by state then i guess they are suffering more anyway.

 

 

 

BG, do you want the courtesy of abolishing the death penalty extended to soldiers? or do they all deserve to die anyway...

 

 

different sample group. But i would in most cases be willing to settle for life doing hard labor.

 

 

I just find it a little odd the my regressive friends are reluctant to send war criminals to their death

 

You make an point -- hard labor. I would be happy not to have the death penalty if I knew the convicted were going to be out breaking rocks from cain't see to cain't see. But they don't anymore -- hard labor doesn't exist in the U.S. (and don't tell me making license plates -- even in the hot sun -- is hard labor) I think most death penalty advocates would agree...our prison system and the life time incarceration feels like warehousing our problems. There is too much anecdotal evidence that criminals really don't give a shit if they go to prison or not -- its not something they are afraid of. If we brought back the chain gangs and the quarry work, I'd feel like Prison actually was a deterrent to bad behavior and would cut down on crime. And then I would be happy restricting the death penalty to a very select set of individuals: cop killers and serial rapist/killers. The rest can get that sledge and some sunscreen.

 

As for war criminals, convict them and kill them under the right circumstances. I'm all for it. But be careful how you define a war criminal and a crime in the context of a guy with a gun in combat pissing his pants with fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone commits a crime, I want them held responsible and punished for that crime, not to skate becouse someone else did something wrong. That punishes society, not the criminal.

 

Giving cops cart blanche to do fishing expeditions on people is fundimentally against our nature. Cops can be put under political stress quite easily, and used as harassment tools against people that are not toeing the line. This is the reason it was deemed important at the founding of this nation. They saw, and felt, how easily police power can become a political tool. No unreasonable searches.

 

You make it easy for them to get away with "mistakes" (as long as they dig something up) and you open the door to that very thing. Has to be clear lines drawn and abided by if this is to be prevented.

 

Sucks, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

 

I don't think doing jail time for falsification of probable cause or information on a warrant is getting away with a mistake.; I would hold a police officer to a higher ethical standard than the average citizen becouse of the power we lend to him. Political pressure doesn't work if the penalty the officer pays is worse than the harrassment he gets from the politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are cases where it could not be any more obvious that they were the one that committed the crime, and deserve to die. if the death penalty is abolished, what happens to people like that? of course, if they are those who wanted suicide by state then i guess they are suffering more anyway.

 

 

 

BG, do you want the courtesy of abolishing the death penalty extended to soldiers? or do they all deserve to die anyway...

 

 

different sample group. But i would in most cases be willing to settle for life doing hard labor.

 

 

I just find it a little odd the my regressive friends are reluctant to send war criminals to their death

 

You make an point -- hard labor. I would be happy not to have the death penalty if I knew the convicted were going to be out breaking rocks from cain't see to cain't see. But they don't anymore -- hard labor doesn't exist in the U.S. (and don't tell me making license plates -- even in the hot sun -- is hard labor) I think most death penalty advocates would agree...our prison system and the life time incarceration feels like warehousing our problems. There is too much anecdotal evidence that criminals really don't give a shit if they go to prison or not -- its not something they are afraid of. If we brought back the chain gangs and the quarry work, I'd feel like Prison actually was a deterrent to bad behavior and would cut down on crime. And then I would be happy restricting the death penalty to a very select set of individuals: cop killers and serial rapist/killers. The rest can get that sledge and some sunscreen.

 

As for war criminals, convict them and kill them under the right circumstances. I'm all for it. But be careful how you define a war criminal and a crime in the context of a guy with a gun in combat pissing his pants with fear.

 

anyone in uniform is a war criminal to gator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are cases where it could not be any more obvious that they were the one that committed the crime, and deserve to die. if the death penalty is abolished, what happens to people like that? of course, if they are those who wanted suicide by state then i guess they are suffering more anyway.

 

 

 

BG, do you want the courtesy of abolishing the death penalty extended to soldiers? or do they all deserve to die anyway...

 

 

different sample group. But i would in most cases be willing to settle for life doing hard labor.

 

 

I just find it a little odd the my regressive friends are reluctant to send war criminals to their death

 

You make an point -- hard labor. I would be happy not to have the death penalty if I knew the convicted were going to be out breaking rocks from cain't see to cain't see. But they don't anymore -- hard labor doesn't exist in the U.S. (and don't tell me making license plates -- even in the hot sun -- is hard labor) I think most death penalty advocates would agree...our prison system and the life time incarceration feels like warehousing our problems. There is too much anecdotal evidence that criminals really don't give a shit if they go to prison or not -- its not something they are afraid of. If we brought back the chain gangs and the quarry work, I'd feel like Prison actually was a deterrent to bad behavior and would cut down on crime. And then I would be happy restricting the death penalty to a very select set of individuals: cop killers and serial rapist/killers. The rest can get that sledge and some sunscreen.

 

As for war criminals, convict them and kill them under the right circumstances. I'm all for it. But be careful how you define a war criminal and a crime in the context of a guy with a gun in combat pissing his pants with fear.

 

anyone in uniform is a war criminal to gator.

 

 

not true you obnoxious zionist :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites