• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Change of mind on Death Penalty.

Goshin said:
I have always believed that some crimes are so heinous, the only appropriate penalty is death.


I still believe that... I just no longer believe the government has a right to carry out that sentence.


In fact, I am persuaded that Government should have no power to kill its own citizens at all. The only exception to this I would make is that individual government agents should have the exact same power as the citizenry in such matters... namely, the right to kill in defense of one's self or of innocents under threat where the threat is severe and imminent. Government agents (police, mainly) who do so should be subject to EXACTLY the same scrutiny and judgement as citizens who do so.


My reasoning is that government is already far too powerful, and abuses its power far too often. While I have doubts and caveats regarding some of the studies using DNA evidence to "prove innocence" of death row inmates (mainly due to old samples poorly stored), my doubts are a matter of degree... there is little question that "the system" has, at times, executed innocent citizens.

This is not acceptable. Since we cannot be certain those government executes are guilty and worthy of death, we must not allow government to execute its own citizens.

A man imprisoned can always be set free if found to be innocent later. A person executed cannot be restored to life if later found innocent.


Understand I am not speaking of the military or of war against foreign enemies, just of the government and its own citizens.




This is too great of a power and too easily misused or willfully abused, and we already know it has been in some cases.


It pains me to come to this conclusion for there are surely crimes that cry out for execution as simple justice, so heinous are they... but the government and the legal system are too fallible to entrust with such a thing.


If a criminal is killed in the act by a citizen or an officer of the law as a matter of defense, so be it. Once arrested and subjected to the judicial system, though, the government should not be allowed to kill its own citizens via cold and premeditated execution.

This is too much power to invest in the hands of an already-too-powerful, often corrupt, often wrong institution.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have changed my mind on this issue as well. IMO, while some people are certainly deserving of death, our society stoops to too low a level by allowing our government to punish people in this way.
 
Goshin said:
I come back to two things:

A person wrongfully imprisoned can be freed. A dead man cannot be restored.

Second, I don't want to entrust government with the power to kill its own citizens absent imminent threat. I simply don't trust government not to abuse this power. Remember the adage about limiting government in such a manner that even if your political apotheosis gains power, it will not be a disaster?
Click to expand...

And I come back with counters. A person rightfully imprisoned, yet never given the proper penalty can escape, in fact many have, and kill additional innocent people. This, we know for certain. To be found guilty and actually be put to death, after a jury trial of one's peers, with the right to appeals, with so many advocates of abolishing the death penalty out there willing to help even the worst of these, with the accuracy of forensics improving almost geometrically to establish guilt of innocence ... sorry, some people we just know are guilty of truly heinous crimes. There is no doubt.

Work needs be done on those fringe cases, where there is doubt, perhaps. But if your mind is immovable on the point, far be it from me to try to be the irresistible force. That would be a waste of both our time.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
And I come back with counters. A person rightfully imprisoned, yet never given the proper penalty can escape, in fact many have, and kill additional innocent people. This, we know for certain. To be found guilty and actually be put to death, after a jury trial of one's peers, with the right to appeals, with so many advocates of abolishing the death penalty out there willing to help even the worst of these, with the accuracy of forensics improving almost geometrically to establish guilt of innocence ... sorry, some people we just know are guilty of truly heinous crimes. There is no doubt.

Work needs be done on those fringe cases, where there is doubt, perhaps. But if your mind is immovable on the point, far be it from me to try to be the irresistible force. That would be a waste of both our time.
Click to expand...



If my mind were immovable, I would not have changed it in the first place. :)


I was a strong DP advocate all most all my life. I had good reason: I was 24 when my best friend like-a-brother was heinously and needlessly murdered in a robbery at his business. I went through the trials and appeals for years afterward, sweating that his murderers might escape their just fate.

In the end they were executed. Took 11 years for one, 14 for the other.

Closure? Maybe. The whole appeals process and long wait was torturous.

It didn't bring my friend back. It didn't really do much to ease his widowed mother's suffering, or the harsh truth that she's lost almost everything she truly loved in this world.


And here's the thing: I'm not 100% sure one of them really deserved to be executed. He maintained to the very end that he was pushed into it by the other under threat of death. His claim was questionable but not 100% refutable.

The day before his execution I called the Governor's office to ask him not to issue a stay of execution.

Now I have a doubt. A small one, but a doubt.


I get to live with that the rest of my life.



Mostly though, it is just this: it is known and without argument we have executed men who were not guilty in the past, regardless of how hard the process is. Odds are we are still doing it. That's terribly wrong.


And, the principle of executing our own citizens being established, I don't trust it to remain constrained, limited, and tied off in a little box we can label "that will never happen to me or mine".
 
VanceMack said:
I used to be pro death penalty. Then I was against the death penalty. Today...I am ambivalent towards the death penalty. My greatest opposition to the death penalty has everything to do with the families of the victims of those that commit the crimes. I believe people need to find unconditional healing and forgiveness and too often, the death penalty seals the hatred.

As for the execution of the sentence itself...in cases where there is absolutely no possibility of an incorrect finding of guilt...say...in the Dylan Roof trial upcoming for example...I am not opposed to them puling the switch and eliminating his existence from society. I think it is far more humane than throwing him in a small box and ignoring him for the rest of his natural existence and pretending that is somehow a superior moral position.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting perspective that I've never heard before. I'll have to ponder it a bit.
 
Goshin said:
I think if we considered government agents (ie police) exactly the same as citizens in this regard, it would also help with the whole police-shooting controversy... as in, a law enforcement officer must stand to scrutiny as a private citizen in regards to whether a shoot was legit, and a justified response to imminent threat, with the only caveat being that he was doing his lawful duty at the time the threat presented itself. Otherwise, he has to justify the shoot in exactly the same manner as a citizen would.
Click to expand...
I'm with ya almost completely. One question, though. You say police should be treated exactly the same as regular citizens. So, who does the investigating? The same police that they were a part of? That's who would be investigating a regular citizen.

I feel that any LE agency would be automatically biased toward one of their own, but having a separate investigative force, either state and/or federal, would help.
 
Goshin said:
I have always believed that some crimes are so heinous, the only appropriate penalty is death.


I still believe that... I just no longer believe the government has a right to carry out that sentence.


In fact, I am persuaded that Government should have no power to kill its own citizens at all. The only exception to this I would make is that individual government agents should have the exact same power as the citizenry in such matters... namely, the right to kill in defense of one's self or of innocents under threat where the threat is severe and imminent. Government agents (police, mainly) who do so should be subject to EXACTLY the same scrutiny and judgement as citizens who do so.


My reasoning is that government is already far too powerful, and abuses its power far too often. While I have doubts and caveats regarding some of the studies using DNA evidence to "prove innocence" of death row inmates (mainly due to old samples poorly stored), my doubts are a matter of degree... there is little question that "the system" has, at times, executed innocent citizens.

This is not acceptable. Since we cannot be certain those government executes are guilty and worthy of death, we must not allow government to execute its own citizens.

A man imprisoned can always be set free if found to be innocent later. A person executed cannot be restored to life if later found innocent.


Understand I am not speaking of the military or of war against foreign enemies, just of the government and its own citizens.




This is too great of a power and too easily misused or willfully abused, and we already know it has been in some cases.


It pains me to come to this conclusion for there are surely crimes that cry out for execution as simple justice, so heinous are they... but the government and the legal system are too fallible to entrust with such a thing.


If a criminal is killed in the act by a citizen or an officer of the law as a matter of defense, so be it. Once arrested and subjected to the judicial system, though, the government should not be allowed to kill its own citizens via cold and premeditated execution.

This is too much power to invest in the hands of an already-too-powerful, often corrupt, often wrong institution.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the process I went through several years ago.
 
Lutherf said:
I understand all that. I guess my position is that: A. The process to obtain a death sentence is difficult enough that it's not a sentence regularly sought and when it is sought there are very few instances where it is applied to an innocent person. B. The difference between a death sentence and LWOP is merely "slow death" versus "quick death". If someone is sentenced to LWOP it is a death sentence. The only thing that changes is that folks don't feel as guilty about it because none of them have to drop the hammer.
Click to expand...

But has you point out the DP has been applied to innocent people. That fact alone is enough to take it off the table for me. As for the fact that LWOP is "slow death" that is true enough but it is a sentence that can be fixed in a way that's meaningful to those incorrectly convicted.
 
Gaius46 said:
But has you point out the DP has been applied to innocent people. That fact alone is enough to take it off the table for me. As for the fact that LWOP is "slow death" that is true enough but it is a sentence that can be fixed in a way that's meaningful to those incorrectly convicted.
Click to expand...

I understand. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the death penalty provides much of a deterrent to criminal acts which might warrant its use. I also understand that the possibility of an innocent person being subjected to the penalty may well exist. That's why I figure the penalty should only be considered in the most egregious of cases.

The bottom line is that I'm not particularly inclined one way or the other WRT the death penalty but there sure are some folks who deserve it. I'm not convinced that, for example, justice would be truly served in the James Byrd murder except through the death penalty.
 
radcen said:
I'm with ya almost completely. One question, though. You say police should be treated exactly the same as regular citizens. So, who does the investigating? The same police that they were a part of? That's who would be investigating a regular citizen.

I feel that any LE agency would be automatically biased toward one of their own, but having a separate investigative force, either state and/or federal, would help.
Click to expand...



Absolutely and that would constitute a second exception.
 
Goshin said:
I have always believed that some crimes are so heinous, the only appropriate penalty is death.


I still believe that... I just no longer believe the government has a right to carry out that sentence.


In fact, I am persuaded that Government should have no power to kill its own citizens at all. The only exception to this I would make is that individual government agents should have the exact same power as the citizenry in such matters... namely, the right to kill in defense of one's self or of innocents under threat where the threat is severe and imminent. Government agents (police, mainly) who do so should be subject to EXACTLY the same scrutiny and judgement as citizens who do so.


My reasoning is that government is already far too powerful, and abuses its power far too often. While I have doubts and caveats regarding some of the studies using DNA evidence to "prove innocence" of death row inmates (mainly due to old samples poorly stored), my doubts are a matter of degree... there is little question that "the system" has, at times, executed innocent citizens.

This is not acceptable. Since we cannot be certain those government executes are guilty and worthy of death, we must not allow government to execute its own citizens.

A man imprisoned can always be set free if found to be innocent later. A person executed cannot be restored to life if later found innocent.


Understand I am not speaking of the military or of war against foreign enemies, just of the government and its own citizens.




This is too great of a power and too easily misused or willfully abused, and we already know it has been in some cases.


It pains me to come to this conclusion for there are surely crimes that cry out for execution as simple justice, so heinous are they... but the government and the legal system are too fallible to entrust with such a thing.


If a criminal is killed in the act by a citizen or an officer of the law as a matter of defense, so be it. Once arrested and subjected to the judicial system, though, the government should not be allowed to kill its own citizens via cold and premeditated execution.

This is too much power to invest in the hands of an already-too-powerful, often corrupt, often wrong institution.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that you've come around. I've never believed in the death penalty: tell'em he's gonna die and throw him in a cell for 20 years on a maybe...

It's not that I don't believe certain people who commit certain acts shouldn't be boiled in oil, I just don't like the way it's done and like you, I don't think that the government should kill anybody in the name of justice: let the mob do that.

I'm also not for protective custody in prison either. Creeps should go right into the general population. Such a guy created such a world for himself, he should live in it, for as long as they let 'em...
 
I say kill all the murderers and let God sort it out.
 
Goshin said:
I have always believed that some crimes are so heinous, the only appropriate penalty is death.


I still believe that... I just no longer believe the government has a right to carry out that sentence.


In fact, I am persuaded that Government should have no power to kill its own citizens at all. The only exception to this I would make is that individual government agents should have the exact same power as the citizenry in such matters... namely, the right to kill in defense of one's self or of innocents under threat where the threat is severe and imminent. Government agents (police, mainly) who do so should be subject to EXACTLY the same scrutiny and judgement as citizens who do so.


My reasoning is that government is already far too powerful, and abuses its power far too often. While I have doubts and caveats regarding some of the studies using DNA evidence to "prove innocence" of death row inmates (mainly due to old samples poorly stored), my doubts are a matter of degree... there is little question that "the system" has, at times, executed innocent citizens.

This is not acceptable. Since we cannot be certain those government executes are guilty and worthy of death, we must not allow government to execute its own citizens.

A man imprisoned can always be set free if found to be innocent later. A person executed cannot be restored to life if later found innocent.


Understand I am not speaking of the military or of war against foreign enemies, just of the government and its own citizens.




This is too great of a power and too easily misused or willfully abused, and we already know it has been in some cases.


It pains me to come to this conclusion for there are surely crimes that cry out for execution as simple justice, so heinous are they... but the government and the legal system are too fallible to entrust with such a thing.


If a criminal is killed in the act by a citizen or an officer of the law as a matter of defense, so be it. Once arrested and subjected to the judicial system, though, the government should not be allowed to kill its own citizens via cold and premeditated execution.

This is too much power to invest in the hands of an already-too-powerful, often corrupt, often wrong institution.
Click to expand...

Hear hear brother. I agree with every sentence of this.
 
Goshin said:
I have always believed that some crimes are so heinous, the only appropriate penalty is death.


I still believe that... I just no longer believe the government has a right to carry out that sentence.


In fact, I am persuaded that Government should have no power to kill its own citizens at all. The only exception to this I would make is that individual government agents should have the exact same power as the citizenry in such matters... namely, the right to kill in defense of one's self or of innocents under threat where the threat is severe and imminent. Government agents (police, mainly) who do so should be subject to EXACTLY the same scrutiny and judgement as citizens who do so.


My reasoning is that government is already far too powerful, and abuses its power far too often. While I have doubts and caveats regarding some of the studies using DNA evidence to "prove innocence" of death row inmates (mainly due to old samples poorly stored), my doubts are a matter of degree... there is little question that "the system" has, at times, executed innocent citizens.

This is not acceptable. Since we cannot be certain those government executes are guilty and worthy of death, we must not allow government to execute its own citizens.

A man imprisoned can always be set free if found to be innocent later. A person executed cannot be restored to life if later found innocent.


Understand I am not speaking of the military or of war against foreign enemies, just of the government and its own citizens.




This is too great of a power and too easily misused or willfully abused, and we already know it has been in some cases.


It pains me to come to this conclusion for there are surely crimes that cry out for execution as simple justice, so heinous are they... but the government and the legal system are too fallible to entrust with such a thing.


If a criminal is killed in the act by a citizen or an officer of the law as a matter of defense, so be it. Once arrested and subjected to the judicial system, though, the government should not be allowed to kill its own citizens via cold and premeditated execution.

This is too much power to invest in the hands of an already-too-powerful, often corrupt, often wrong institution.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
Your thoughts now mirror mine.
 
Goshin said:
If my mind were immovable, I would not have changed it in the first place. :)


I was a strong DP advocate all most all my life. I had good reason: I was 24 when my best friend like-a-brother was heinously and needlessly murdered in a robbery at his business. I went through the trials and appeals for years afterward, sweating that his murderers might escape their just fate.

In the end they were executed. Took 11 years for one, 14 for the other.

Closure? Maybe. The whole appeals process and long wait was torturous.

It didn't bring my friend back. It didn't really do much to ease his widowed mother's suffering, or the harsh truth that she's lost almost everything she truly loved in this world.


And here's the thing: I'm not 100% sure one of them really deserved to be executed. He maintained to the very end that he was pushed into it by the other under threat of death. His claim was questionable but not 100% refutable.

The day before his execution I called the Governor's office to ask him not to issue a stay of execution.

Now I have a doubt. A small one, but a doubt.


I get to live with that the rest of my life.



Mostly though, it is just this: it is known and without argument we have executed men who were not guilty in the past, regardless of how hard the process is. Odds are we are still doing it. That's terribly wrong.


And, the principle of executing our own citizens being established, I don't trust it to remain constrained, limited, and tied off in a little box we can label "that will never happen to me or mine".
Click to expand...
Good points.

I, too have had my mind changed over the years. Specifically on gun control and abortion. I used to be for both, but others made the better arguments.

While your skepticism of government is understood, and I agree with aspects we need to improve, I feel we are sufficiently restrained on the actual administration of capital punishment in the US. With very few, only 28 executed last year. So far, very late in this year, I think its at 18. Simply not an inordinate amount.

At the same time are you familiar, for example, with how many instances of murder and non-negligent manslaughter we had in the U.S. last year? 15,696. In comparison it does not seem a system out of control...at least in my view.

And, I just don't feel sorry for someone, in the case you presented, who knowingly associated with those of obvious bad intent then went on with participating in crime where someone was injured/killed.

Make poor decisions and one has only oneself to blame. It certainly is not yours, my or the system's fault. You say when your best friend was killed those involved were, after being found guilty and after many years, put to death. You will question the one for the rest of your life. Your friend was not given that option... of life, his was cut short without having committed a crime; no judge, no jury no trial.

I, too, as an acquired habit, fear/question our government. But, just by the numbers do feel this aspect of its control not over asserted.

We do need to work on true justice, tho the system will and can never be perfect. To me, those who in a premeditated/calculated manner go about killing innocent others, I just haven't much remorse for them paying the full price they made someone else pay.

One aspect of our system has been justly established to investigate, adjudicate then carry out punishment as the will of the people. To me, this is a protection for us all.
 
Last edited:
So many people who support the death penalty are blind to their own logical inconsistencies. On one hand they are very much against the government having control in other matters, but when government tries to assume the greatest power that that any government can claim to have, the power to kill its own citizens, they are blinded, and can't see the inconsistency of supporting the death penalty and how that contradicts their otherwise freedom principles.

No government acting genuinely as a servant of the people should ever be allowed to have that kind of power.
 
BrewerBob said:
As far as I am concerned you are an agent of the government during the time you are on a jury. In part because you only have access to the information about the case the government deems relevant.
Click to expand...

No, as a juror one is not an agent of government. As a juror one sits in judgement of the government's actions. One is an agent of We The People, from whom all political power flows. We The People created the government, and in theory it serves at our pleasure.

Reality and theory are worlds apart.

In reality, many jurors do see themselves as government agents, and rubber stamp wrongful government prosecutions all the time.

The government we want is clearly defined by the US Constitution.

The government we have is something entirely different.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, as a juror one is not an agent of government. As a juror one sits in judgement of the government's actions. One is an agent of We The People, from whom all political power flows. We The People created the government, and in theory it serves at our pleasure.

Reality and theory are worlds apart.

In reality, many jurors do see themselves as government agents, and rubber stamp wrongful government prosecutions all the time.

The government we want is clearly defined by the US Constitution.

The government we have is something entirely different.
Click to expand...

Which brings us full circle. Regardless of what you want to call the jury part of the system, I don't trust that system with the power to kill someone who no longer poses a risk.
 
Goshin said:
I have always believed that some crimes are so heinous, the only appropriate penalty is death.


I still believe that... I just no longer believe the government has a right to carry out that sentence.


In fact, I am persuaded that Government should have no power to kill its own citizens at all. The only exception to this I would make is that individual government agents should have the exact same power as the citizenry in such matters... namely, the right to kill in defense of one's self or of innocents under threat where the threat is severe and imminent. Government agents (police, mainly) who do so should be subject to EXACTLY the same scrutiny and judgement as citizens who do so.


My reasoning is that government is already far too powerful, and abuses its power far too often. While I have doubts and caveats regarding some of the studies using DNA evidence to "prove innocence" of death row inmates (mainly due to old samples poorly stored), my doubts are a matter of degree... there is little question that "the system" has, at times, executed innocent citizens.

This is not acceptable. Since we cannot be certain those government executes are guilty and worthy of death, we must not allow government to execute its own citizens.

A man imprisoned can always be set free if found to be innocent later. A person executed cannot be restored to life if later found innocent.


Understand I am not speaking of the military or of war against foreign enemies, just of the government and its own citizens.




This is too great of a power and too easily misused or willfully abused, and we already know it has been in some cases.


It pains me to come to this conclusion for there are surely crimes that cry out for execution as simple justice, so heinous are they... but the government and the legal system are too fallible to entrust with such a thing.


If a criminal is killed in the act by a citizen or an officer of the law as a matter of defense, so be it. Once arrested and subjected to the judicial system, though, the government should not be allowed to kill its own citizens via cold and premeditated execution.

This is too much power to invest in the hands of an already-too-powerful, often corrupt, often wrong institution.
Click to expand...

I have long held the DP to be rather antiquated. There are horrible crimes indeed, but the government having a legal method through which it can off its own citizens...it's a bit too much.

There's a lot that needs to be changed and reformed in our penal system, but I don't think that the DP provides anything to our overall security or ability to enact justice and punishment against crimes.
 
Goshin said:
I have always believed that some crimes are so heinous, the only appropriate penalty is death.


I still believe that... I just no longer believe the government has a right to carry out that sentence.


In fact, I am persuaded that Government should have no power to kill its own citizens at all. The only exception to this I would make is that individual government agents should have the exact same power as the citizenry in such matters... namely, the right to kill in defense of one's self or of innocents under threat where the threat is severe and imminent. Government agents (police, mainly) who do so should be subject to EXACTLY the same scrutiny and judgement as citizens who do so.


My reasoning is that government is already far too powerful, and abuses its power far too often. While I have doubts and caveats regarding some of the studies using DNA evidence to "prove innocence" of death row inmates (mainly due to old samples poorly stored), my doubts are a matter of degree... there is little question that "the system" has, at times, executed innocent citizens.

This is not acceptable. Since we cannot be certain those government executes are guilty and worthy of death, we must not allow government to execute its own citizens.

A man imprisoned can always be set free if found to be innocent later. A person executed cannot be restored to life if later found innocent.


Understand I am not speaking of the military or of war against foreign enemies, just of the government and its own citizens.




This is too great of a power and too easily misused or willfully abused, and we already know it has been in some cases.


It pains me to come to this conclusion for there are surely crimes that cry out for execution as simple justice, so heinous are they... but the government and the legal system are too fallible to entrust with such a thing.


If a criminal is killed in the act by a citizen or an officer of the law as a matter of defense, so be it. Once arrested and subjected to the judicial system, though, the government should not be allowed to kill its own citizens via cold and premeditated execution.

This is too much power to invest in the hands of an already-too-powerful, often corrupt, often wrong institution.
Click to expand...

I flipped against execution back in 1998. Welcome to the club!
 
Serenity said:
So many people who support the death penalty are blind to their own logical inconsistencies. On one hand they are very much against the government having control in other matters, but when government tries to assume the greatest power that that any government can claim to have, the power to kill its own citizens, they are blinded, and can't see the inconsistency of supporting the death penalty and how that contradicts their otherwise freedom principles.

No government acting genuinely as a servant of the people should ever be allowed to have that kind of power.
Click to expand...
I would say you are not very persuasive by only using your rather empty words to belittle those of us who have studied, thought about and debated this issue for decades.

Let me add that if we had in every instance 12 randomly chosen upstanding American citizens along with a judge, both sides allowed advocacy on any of those issues that you feel this side is inconsistent upon [as well as you somehow fail to actually specify these areas of inconsistency ]... I would suggest you are wrong.

Most of us believe in our Constitution, the basic governing framework of this great nation. It hints at that permission for a government having exactly that ultimate power which you say, without much effort in explanation, it should not.

No offense, but I will trust the founders over shallow contemporary feelings on the matter.
 
BrewerBob said:
Which brings us full circle. Regardless of what you want to call the jury part of the system, I don't trust that system with the power to kill someone who no longer poses a risk.
Click to expand...
About the only time a human poses no risk is if they are already dead or they are paralyzed, totally incapacitated in some anatomically physical manner. Almost any physical box or cell can be compromised in myriad ways. Magicians are wonderful examples. The many true stories on jailbreaks are undeniable.

I would suggest as an alternative to actually putting to death, that of inducing a coma from which those found guilty of a particularly heinous capital offense could never, unless found innocent later on, ever be awakened... I could probably agree with such an alternative.
 
BrewerBob said:
Which brings us full circle. Regardless of what you want to call the jury part of the system, I don't trust that system with the power to kill someone who no longer poses a risk.
Click to expand...

Humans are cruel. Most can be kind too, but we've long been known to practice cruelty. I'm not defending it, just observing it

I oppose the DP, except in the case of a man who would rather be dead than living in a cage. The argument that it is a deterrent is sophistry.
 
Goshin said:
It turns out to be a smidge more complex than that.
Click to expand...


Ofcourse. But seriously, I think it would be a big mistake to give up the death penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom