- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Im sure they meant that murders deserve to die
Yes, I'm sure that is what he meant. That is to say I respect the distinction.
Im sure they meant that murders deserve to die
I take it we are supposed to believe you value life with a position like that.
I do, but not for those who have proven to not value others.
That seems a bit contrariety to me.
Im sure they meant that murders deserve to die
Short rope, long drop - proven effective and even the rope can be reused.
Killers deserve to die.
It's the difference between justice being served, as opposed to the taking of an innocent life. The murderer takes the life of someone who has done nothing to deserve it. The executor provides the means of justice being served when that innocent life has been taken.
Utah to allow firing squads for executions - CNN.com
Legal challenges to the drug mixes used.
Why not use the Chinese method- Shot to the back of the head, or a 22 cal, thru the ear canal, bullet bounces around the skull scrambles the brain.
Keep thinking about it, it will make sense.
I favor massive and unending suffering followed by a painful death for those with no value on life and for the suffering they have caused many others. But that's just me.
Killers deserve to die.
No, they do not. They deserve to be punished, that is obvious but almost none deserve to die (if any) but a good deal do deserve natural life in jail.
....or we can just not have the death penalty.
Hell, we just threw out a case of a woman wrongfully placed on death row. It doesn't seem like this is a good system to keep, we keep finding innocent people on death row. Hate to know how many innocents we've actually killed.
In 1985, John Thompson, a 22-year-old father of two, was wrongfully convicted of murder and sent to death row at Angola State Penitentiary in Louisiana. While facing his seventh execution date, a private investigator hired by his appellate attorneys discovered scientific evidence of Thompson’s innocence that had been concealed for 15 years by the New Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office.
Thompson was released and exonerated in 2003 after 18 years in prison, 14 of them isolated on death row. The state of Louisiana gave him $10 and a bus ticket upon his release. He sued the District Attorney’s Office. A jury awarded him $14 million, one for each year on death row. When Louisiana appealed, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. This spring, Justice Clarence Thomas issued the majority 5-4 decision in Connick v. Thompson that the prosecutor’s office could not be held liable.
....or we can just not have the death penalty.
Hell, we just threw out a case of a woman wrongfully placed on death row. It doesn't seem like this is a good system to keep, we keep finding innocent people on death row. Hate to know how many innocents we've actually killed.
The idea that if you take the life of an innocent you have forfeited your own is about as objective and impersonal as it gets. Plus if life in jail were 'worse for the offender' why does every one of them appeal to have their sentence reduced to life in prison? Answer: because the death penalty IS worse for the offender despite your claim to the contrary.
There is little doubt that the state has executed the innocent. I don't know if you're familiar with Cameron Todd Willingham, but his case is very disturbing. There's no way that he should've been convicted let alone put to death based on evidence and He was probably innocent, but that's Texas for you. In a perfect legal system I would be for the death penalty, but when there is a chance that one innocent person could be put to death under our system. I will not support the death penalty.....or we can just not have the death penalty.
Hell, we just threw out a case of a woman wrongfully placed on death row. It doesn't seem like this is a good system to keep, we keep finding innocent people on death row. Hate to know how many innocents we've actually killed.
That an idea or an action can trace its origins back over the centuries is hardly a reason to reject it, so your argument here is false.No, that is the old testament/muslim sharia kind of thinking.
I am glad you included "IMHO" in your quote. That relegates your response to the subjective realm of personal opinion, not objective fact. Nor can you point to anything 'irrational or haphazard' in the way the death penalty is carried out. Again that is your own person bias not something based upon reality.The death penalty is something from the dark ages, not from 2015 IMHO. And no, it is not objective or impersonal because of the subjective, irrational and haphazard manner in which people get the death penalty.
Yet these same criminals you pretend are haunted by their acts do whatever they can to prolong their own lives and avoid the death penalty. Your error here is to put your own feelings into the minds of cold blooded killers. You ASSUME they feel remorse because you would.And it is worse because the criminal will be confronted with the results of his actions and he will have to think about what he did for the rest of his life (long life). At least that is my opinion.
There is little doubt that the state has executed the innocent. I don't know if you're familiar with Cameron Todd Willingham, but his case is very disturbing. There's no way that he should've been convicted let alone put to death based on evidence and He was probably innocent, but that's Texas for you. In a perfect legal system I would be for the death penalty, but when there is a chance that one innocent person could be put to death under our system. I will not support the death penalty.
That an idea or an action can trace its origins back over the centuries is hardly a reason to reject it, so your argument here is false.
I am glad you included "IMHO" in your quote. That relegates your response to the subjective realm of personal opinion, not objective fact. Nor can you point to anything 'irrational or haphazard' in the way the death penalty is carried out. Again that is your own person bias not something based upon reality.
Yet these same criminals you pretend are haunted by their acts do whatever they can to prolong their own lives and avoid the death penalty. Your error here is to put your own feelings into the minds of cold blooded killers. You ASSUME they feel remorse because you would.
Nothing you wrote here counters
That an idea or an action can trace its origins back over the centuries is hardly a reason to reject it, so your argument here is false.
I am glad you included "IMHO" in your quote. That relegates your response to the subjective realm of personal opinion, not objective fact. Nor can you point to anything 'irrational or haphazard' in the way the death penalty is carried out. Again that is your own person bias not something based upon reality.
Yet these same criminals you pretend are haunted by their acts do whatever they can to prolong their own lives and avoid the death penalty. Your error here is to put your own feelings into the minds of cold blooded killers. You ASSUME they feel remorse because you would.
Nothing you wrote here counters
I'm sure the ACLU would file a lawsuit based on a dubious claim of some sort that the state would have to use a new rope for each execution.Short rope, long drop - proven effective and even the rope can be reused.
Utah to allow firing squads for executions - CNN.com
Legal challenges to the drug mixes used.
Why not use the Chinese method- Shot to the back of the head, or a 22 cal, thru the ear canal, bullet bounces around the skull scrambles the brain.
I'm sure the ACLU would file a lawsuit based on a dubious claim of some sort that the state would have to use a new rope for each execution.
Short rope, long drop - proven effective and even the rope can be reused.
better yet, the organs can be harvested for those with medical needs. Not so with electrocution, or a hot needle
I always been in favor of the guillotine. Fast, quick, relative painless. Surefire.