PDA

View Full Version : I've changed my mind about the death penalty...


memyselfI
03-19-2005, 07:16 PM
this whole Jessica Lunsford thing is the straw the broke the camel's back. I'm now willing to support the death penalty for sexual preditors of children who commit murder. There seems to be no rehabilitation of them thus I can see no reason why they deserve to live and no reason why the government should not dispose of them.

Sigh. I hate this position.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 07:17 PM
:eek:

:clap: I'm impressed. I might have to rethink my position on you... :banghead:

stevieray
03-19-2005, 07:21 PM
unless you're aborting your own kid.

|Zach|
03-19-2005, 07:29 PM
I am still up in air on this issue...

PastorMikH
03-19-2005, 07:37 PM
She just took her first step to becoming a Republican.


:clap: :)

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 08:04 PM
I am still up in air on this issue...

Oh, I'm still adamently against the death penalty. I just think this crime (and that of Adam Walsh, Polly Klaas, Danielle van Dam, etc. are so horrendous that there is no compelling reason not to fry the f*ckers who commit these murders.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 08:05 PM
She just took her first step to becoming a Republican.


:clap: :)

uh, no. Heck no.

jettio
03-19-2005, 08:06 PM
I had a visceral reaction seeing the report on the news of that guy. MSNBC was showing footage of him laughing probably at some soup kitchen or something, and I thought the same thing.

I think the death penalty is wrong and unnecessary, but you would have to be a saint to not want to kill that guy.

Florida's death penalty did not do anything to prevent the crime.

I think it might be appropriate to release that guy on a signature bond, and then give that girl's father a dozen get out of jail free cards, and the keys to the gun locker.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 08:14 PM
Why wait until they murder?

Almost all of the murderer offenders have sexually assualted and been charged and convicted of assaults against people weaker than themselves.

Violent sexual offenders should be executed, period.

RINGLEADER
03-19-2005, 08:16 PM
That's a slippery slope you just stepped out on D-Nise...What if the her killer had been 17?

I guess I really shouldn't be trying to make you rethink this position, but if the parameters you laid out are sufficient then how about people who do a host of other equally heineous things to people who are ten years older?

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 08:23 PM
Why wait until they murder?

Almost all of the murderer offenders have sexually assualted and been charged and convicted of assaults against people weaker than themselves.

Violent sexual offenders should be executed, period.

Hey, it's taken me almost 30 years and countless of dead kids to get to this point...

give me some time. I'm not there yet. I definitely think they should be locked up and the key thrown away. But executing them based on one or more violent sexual attack? I dunno. Perhaps I'll get there. I never believed I'd get to this point so who knows.

memyselfI
03-19-2005, 08:24 PM
That's a slippery slope you just stepped out on D-Nise...What if the her killer had been 17?

I guess I really shouldn't be trying to make you rethink this position, but if the parameters you laid out are sufficient then how about people who do a host of other equally heineous things to people who are ten years older?

If her killer was 17 he's a juvenile end of story. A far different crime than a man 28 years older than that who did this and had done so before.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 09:09 PM
I don't see any need to execute someone. There are too many uncertainties in our legal system regarding guilt to allow for an irriversible punishment, IMO. No matter how disgusting the circumstances might feel.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 09:28 PM
I don't see any need to execute someone. There are too many uncertainties in our legal system regarding guilt to allow for an irriversible punishment, IMO. No matter how disgusting the circumstances might feel.
But locking them up for life somehow seems more humane to you?

jAZ
03-19-2005, 09:30 PM
But locking them up for life somehow seems more reversible to you?
Yes.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 09:40 PM
Yes. Because our prison system will torture them thoroughly while waiting for reversal

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 09:50 PM
I don't see any need to execute someone. There are too many uncertainties in our legal system regarding guilt to allow for an irriversible punishment, IMO. No matter how disgusting the circumstances might feel.
Sure, it makes sense when someone like Couey admits to the murder and shows them where the body is located.

I am betting you wouldn't have the nerve to state to the Lunsfords that Couey doesn't deserve to die with a straight face.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 10:08 PM
I am betting you wouldn't have the nerve to state to the Lunsfords that Couey doesn't deserve to die with a straight face.
Me feeling that someone deserves to die doesn't make the death penalty any more reversible in the other 99% of the cases where the person decides not to admit to the murder.

It doesn't change the fact that in 100% of the cases where the wrong person it convicted and sentenced to death, that "innocent" person is wrongly executed.

I can feel someone doesn't deserve to live, and still believe that we shouldn't execute people.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 10:10 PM
.
I'm not sure why you keep putting your words in my mouth. I never said anything about prison being "more humane". I corrected that claim of yours with the word that reflects my previously stated position.

In return you ignore the point entirely and go back to putting your words in my mouth.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2005, 10:15 PM
Ah, you finally are seeing some of the light....keep thinking for yourself, and you may depart from the darkside yet. Heh.

FTR, I'm believe death penalty should be like abortion--necessary, but extremely rare. They should also be quickly administered.

Michael Michigan
03-19-2005, 10:21 PM
Yes.

Did you pay for that fine UofA education or did I?

jAZ
03-19-2005, 10:24 PM
Did you pay for that fine UofA education or did I?
Huh?

Michael Michigan
03-19-2005, 10:29 PM
Huh?

Thank you for proving my point with but one word.

How many years?

jAZ
03-19-2005, 10:36 PM
Thank you for proving my point with but one word.

How many years?
No problem. Now in return, feel free to tell me what your point is.

Michael Michigan
03-19-2005, 10:38 PM
No problem. Now in return, feel free to tell me what your point is.

Sigh.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 10:41 PM
Sigh.
Don't mean to wear out the old man. I'll slow it down for you.

W-h-a-t T-h-e F-*-c-k I-s Y-o-u-r P-o-i-n-t?

Or is this totally unrelated to the thread, and you are just looking to stir some crap?

Michael Michigan
03-19-2005, 10:46 PM
Don't mean to wear out the old man. I'll slow it down for you.

W-h-a-t T-h-e F-*-c-k I-s Y-o-u-r P-o-i-n-t?

Or is this totally unrelated to the thread, and you are just looking to stir some crap?

Wear Out?

That's it? That's the best you got?

How many years did you attend the University of North Nogales?

4, 8, 10, 12?

How many?

Rain Man
03-19-2005, 10:48 PM
Ironically, I used to be strongly in favor of the death penalty, and in the past couple of years I've changed my stance. The situation in Illinois has shown me that the system we have now is quite fallible. (Is that a word?) I'm starting to see less of a right for government to make a final decision about someone's life or death. There's too much potential for mistakes or abuse.

Even if an infallible system is developed, I'm becoming more wary of the moral right of government to kill somebody, regardless of the reason.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 10:50 PM
Wear Out?

That's it? That's the best you got?

How many years did you attend the University of North Nogales?

4, 8, 10, 12?

How many?
So says the guy desperately clinging to the same torched jokes for the umpteenth time. ANYTHING new from you on this front would be appreciated.

No joke.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 10:52 PM
Ironically...
Ironic because the giant green foot in your Avatar is that of George W. Bush?

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2005, 10:54 PM
Ironically, I used to be strongly in favor of the death penalty, and in the past couple of years I've changed my stance. The situation in Illinois has shown me that the system we have now is quite fallible. (Is that a word?) I'm starting to see less of a right for government to make a final decision about someone's life or death. There's too much potential for mistakes or abuse.

Even if an infallible system is developed, I'm becoming more wary of the moral right of government to kill somebody, regardless of the reason.

As long as it's rare, with eye-witness/DNA/videotape evidence, I'm okay with it in theory.

My problem stems from equal protection: Martha Stewart could commit multiple homicides, and she'd spend a few years in a federal country club facility. Poor, uneducated, poor, black guy from Philly does the same thing? He's toast. That's the definition of UNequal protection, IMO.

That's why, I've become philosophically opposed to the death penalty--even if it's not passionately so. Hell, 40-50 yrs in prison would be worse than the death penalty for some of these creeps=--and less expensive for the gubment because of appeals.

Michael Michigan
03-19-2005, 10:55 PM
So says the guy desperately clinging to the same torched jokes for the umpteenth time. ANYTHING new from you on this front would be appreciated.

No joke.


Front?


How many years did you spend at the U of A?

Rain Man
03-19-2005, 11:04 PM
As long as it's rare, with eye-witness/DNA/videotape evidence, I'm okay with it in theory.

My problem stems from equal protection: Martha Stewart could commit multiple homicides, and she'd spend a few years in a federal country club facility. Poor, uneducated, poor, black guy from Philly does the same thing? He's toast. That's the definition of UNequal protection, IMO.

That's why, I've become philosophically opposed to the death penalty--even if it's not passionately so. Hell, 40-50 yrs in prison would be worse than the death penalty for some of these creeps=--and less expensive for the gubment because of appeals.


To some extent, that's part of what bothers me more now. We've seen a lot of people get railroaded into the death penalty when modern technology is now proving that they didn't commit the crimes. Also, I think that the justice system (i.e., juries of peers) are more keen to put some people to death than others.

Perhaps it's just transferring the injustice to put them in prison rather than 'the chair', but at least with prison you can - to a very minor degree - correct the mistake if it's made.

Now, what happens if you catch a guy standing over a victim with a bloody knife, saying, "I did it and I can't control myself. Give me the Chair." Even in that case, I'm starting to think that the government has no right to kill him, even if he wants it. Maybe we can hand him a bunch of pills and say, "Do whatever you want," but that's it.

This is actually a big change in thinking for me. I used to be in the "string up a bunch of lawn chairs and do several at once" group.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 11:06 PM
Front?


How many years did you spend at the U of A?
Let me know when you've given up the ghost on your failed attempts at intra-state rivalry and we'll talk.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 11:25 PM
I'm not sure why you keep putting your words in my mouth. I never said anything about prison being "more humane". I corrected that claim of yours with the word that reflects my previously stated position.

In return you ignore the point entirely and go back to putting your words in my mouth.
How ironic... since I only mimicked your own technique.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2005, 11:40 PM
To some extent, that's part of what bothers me more now. We've seen a lot of people get railroaded into the death penalty when modern technology is now proving that they didn't commit the crimes. Also, I think that the justice system (i.e., juries of peers) are more keen to put some people to death than others.

Perhaps it's just transferring the injustice to put them in prison rather than 'the chair', but at least with prison you can - to a very minor degree - correct the mistake if it's made.

Now, what happens if you catch a guy standing over a victim with a bloody knife, saying, "I did it and I can't control myself. Give me the Chair." Even in that case, I'm starting to think that the government has no right to kill him, even if he wants it. Maybe we can hand him a bunch of pills and say, "Do whatever you want," but that's it.

This is actually a big change in thinking for me. I used to be in the "string up a bunch of lawn chairs and do several at once" group.

Damn, this is gettin' really scarey for me, Kev.... :shake:

I keep readin' your rare serious comments on stuff like this, and think: "damn, me too." I guess given a choice, I'd RATHER see life in prison; all I'm sayin' is IF there is not doubt....let's do it. Get it done. Make it a deterrent for some. Otherwise, we might as well just keep 'em in prison for their pathetic lives.

jAZ
03-19-2005, 11:54 PM
How ironic... since I only mimicked your own technique.
Once again you (deliberately?) miss the point.

I'm not complaining about you actually changing the words between the {QUOTE} tags. I'm pointing out that you can't respond to my own words, so you paraphrase them in your own way (deliberately changing it from "reversible" to "humane") with the hope that you can make your some point about how prison sucks too.

Problem is, my position has little to do with the lack of humanity, and everything to do with the lack of correctability.

You most certainly understood this, but felt the need to try to reset the terms of the discussion in such a way that you might "win". Like I said before, you seem to only come around here on a quest for message board supremecy. Not to share any principled positions you might have.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 11:57 PM
Once again you (deliberately?) miss the point.

I'm not complaining about you actually changing the words between the {QUOTE} tags. I'm pointing out that you can't respond to my own words, so you paraphrase them in your own way (deliberately changing it from "reversible" to "humane") with the hope that you can make your some point about how prison sucks too.

Problem is, my position has little to do with the lack of humanity, and everything to do with the lack of correctability.

You most certainly understood this, but felt the need to try to reset the terms of the discussion in such a way that you might "win". Like I said before, you seem to only come around here on a quest for message board supremecy. Not to share any principled positions you might have.
I would venture to state that it is more your own total condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you rather than my quest to win anything.

And regardless of your point, you deliberately dodged the pertinent data, as usual. This man admitted to the murder and sexual assault. He also showed where the body was hidden. How in the world could you ever tell the father or mother "Hey, we aren't sure it's him, so we shouldn't execute him, right?"

Next you will be telling us to understand what you meant and not what you actually said.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 12:08 AM
I would venture to state that it is more your own total condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you rather than my quest to win anything.

And regardless of your point, you deliberately dodged the pertinent data, as usual. This man admitted to the murder and sexual assault. He also showed where the body was hidden. How in the world could you ever tell the father or mother "Hey, we aren't sure it's him, so we shouldn't execute him, right?"

Next you will be telling us to understand what you meant and not what you actually said.
There you go again.

I've responded to each of the points clearly already. You choose to ignore my response. I assume it's merely your attempt as finding some kind of frame that you hope gains you some kind of rhetorical advantage.

I'll repeat it one more time so that even you can't dance your way past it onto some tanget you think might be a verbal victory for you.
This man admitted to the murder and sexual assault. He also showed where the body was hidden. How in the world could you ever tell the father or mother "Hey, we aren't sure it's him, so we shouldn't execute him, right?"
You chose not to respond to this the last time, maybe you will this time.
Me feeling that someone deserves to die doesn't make the death penalty any more reversible in the other 99% of the cases where the person decides not to admit to the murder.

It doesn't change the fact that in 100% of the cases where the wrong person it convicted and sentenced to death, that "innocent" person is wrongly executed.

I can feel someone doesn't deserve to live, and still believe that we shouldn't execute people.
The english language doesn't get much more simple or clear. If you continue to struggle with your comprehension of this, I'll have to leave you to figure it out on your own.

Michael Michigan
03-20-2005, 12:12 AM
we'll talk.

How many of my tax dollars went to fund your 12-year stint at the U of A?

Are you ashamed of the years you spent there?

jAZ
03-20-2005, 12:20 AM
How many of my tax dollars went to fund your 12-year stint at the U of A?

Are you ashamed of the years you spent there?
I'm ashamed to be geographically associated with someone so absent a real sense of humor, he is forced to incessantly parrot the same hackneyed, pseudo-slam catch phrases.

Michael Michigan
03-20-2005, 12:22 AM
I'm ashamed to be geographically associated with someone so absent a real sense of humor, he is forced to incessantly parrot the same hackneyed, pseudo-slam catch phrases.

Asking how many years you spent at the U of A is a catch phrase?

Is that part of the curriculum?

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 12:32 AM
I'd have loved to be a KU verson of jAZ: damn, career student....

unfortunately, I had to leave the Ivory Tower after four years. :banghead:

jAZ
03-20-2005, 12:34 AM
Asking how many years you spent at the U of A is a catch phrase?

Is that part of the curriculum?
No it's a pseduo-slam. The catch phrase is your NNU stuff.

Sorry, but I just don't get into the Phoenix/Tucson stuff. It doesn't ruffle my feathers as much as it confounds me. There was a crappy local sports-talk guy here in town who tried the same kinda stuff to try and stir UofA fans to play along. He'd repeated call ASU "Tempe Normal".

I thought that was stuipd too, so don't take it personally.

If you are gonna try to be the kind of person who runs smack... try to do something more unique than "your school sucks", "you must have wasted my tax dollars on 20 years in the first grade". I congratulate you on doing almost nothing more (but at least something slightly more) than that.

And UofA is a quality school. Both the business college and the engineering colleges are top 25 or so. A 3.95 GPA in engineering isn't too shabby either. Neither is a full ride to business school.

ASU is also a quality school. Their business program is probably even better than UofA's.

And Phoenix? It's a big too crowded and a bit too hot, but aside from that, it's a pretty good place to live.

Tucson? I've never really liked it. So you trying to trash it, doesn't really resonate with me. It's about on par with Phoenix IMO. Smaller, cooler and more of a college town. Even if it has more of a "mid-town" kind of a feel to it. With a lot less grass (which is both good and bad).

jAZ
03-20-2005, 12:37 AM
I'd have loved to be a KU verson of jAZ: damn, career student....

unfortunately, I had to leave the Ivory Tower after four years. :banghead:
"version of jAZ"?

Are you taking MM's sad attempt at smack as something akin to fact?

Michael Michigan
03-20-2005, 12:41 AM
With a lot less grass (which is both good and bad).

I don't care how much weed you smoke, I'm just curious on how many years you spent at the UofA.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 12:46 AM
"version of jAZ"?

Are you taking MM's sad attempt at smack as something akin to fact?

Smack?

A categorical denial of the entirety of MM's allegations would cause me to rephrase it, to...."I wish I had been a career student," I guess. :hmmm:

jAZ
03-20-2005, 12:47 AM
I don't care how much weed you smoke, I'm just curious on how many years you spent at the UofA.
Now I'm curious myself. Why do you want to know exactly?

And where did you go to school yourself? How many years? What degree(s) did you earn or fail to earn?

Michael Michigan
03-20-2005, 12:50 AM
Now I'm curious myself. Why do you want to know exactly?



Research.

Michael Michigan
03-20-2005, 12:52 AM
And where did you go to school yourself? How many years? What degree(s) did you earn or fail to earn?

I don't live in Michigan. And I failed to earn several degrees.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 12:54 AM
Now I'm curious myself. Why do you want to know exactly?

And where did you go to school yourself? How many years? What degree(s) did you earn or fail to earn?

His question is direct, Jason; you are evading....HOW MANY YEARS???

I spent FOUR at KS for my undergrad; two at Augustana College for my MA; and two at USD for my second MA....

You, friend???? :hmmm:

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:03 AM
Smack?

A categorical denial of the entirety of MM's allegations would cause me to rephrase it, to...."I wish I had been a career student," I guess. :hmmm:
I didn't spend 12 years in college. I'd love to have, but I didn't.

I spent 6 years getting my degrees in Software Engineering (4 years) and an MBA (2 years).

I started my undergrad in 1991 and did 2 years before I got bored and quit school. I worked full time in building my non-degreed, selft-taught career in the IT field (software tech support > system administrator > database administrator > software engineer).

For a time, I took a part-time sequense of programming classes at the community college.

Then I met my wife and we got married. When she started law school, I decided to return to do my last 2 years in Engineering in 1998. In those final 2 years I also got a 2nd degree in Entrepreneurship. I finally (almost 10 years after I started) graduated in 2000.

I went back to work as a software engineer (this time with a degree and the sweet pay raise that one brings when you have 6 years working experience).

Then after a year of programming, I decided to also get my MBA. So I went back full time for 2 years. I finished that degree in 2003. Since I've worked as a financial analyst at one of the fastest growing bio-tech companies in the world. In January, I quit that job in order to buy a company. I'm now President of a 20-year old wholesale distributor of salon/spa/beauty supplies. Best "job" I've ever had by 1000 miles.

Does that answer your question? How about you Mikey? You golden?

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:04 AM
Research.
Research of what?

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:04 AM
His question is direct, Jason; you are evading....HOW MANY YEARS???

I spent FOUR at KS for my undergrad; two at Augustana College for my MA; and two at USD for my second MA....

You, friend???? :hmmm:
Wow, your 8 trumps my 6.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:07 AM
I don't live in Michigan. And I failed to earn several degrees.
Where at and which degrees did you attempt and the fail to earn? Just curious. Seems fair.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:09 AM
For the record... both my degrees are from the UofA.

Oh, and if you include the college classes I took in the evening at Rockhurst College while I was in still high school, I spent 2 more "years" in college.

But I'm guessing that doesn't exactly fit the whole "ivory tower" thing, huh?

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:11 AM
Where at and which degrees did you attempt and the fail to earn? Just curious. Seems fair.
And why did you choose not to go back. I certainly can relate to trying and failing to ear a college degree. Why did you decide not to go back (or is that still on your radar)?

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:11 AM
Jason
Oh, and it's Justin.

;)

Pitt Gorilla
03-20-2005, 01:11 AM
Who spends eternity in hell for pulling the switch? I'm guessing the person being put to death will end up there (unless they repented and assuming they are guilty), but what about the jury, judge, executioner, etc? Granted, they are "doing their job" and give unto Ceasar..., but they are also playing a part in a premeditated death. I'm confused...

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 01:20 AM
Who spends eternity in hell for pulling the switch? I'm guessing the person being put to death will end up there (unless they repented and assuming they are guilty), but what about the jury, judge, executioner, etc? Granted, they are "doing their job" and give unto Ceasar..., but they are also playing a part in a premeditated death. I'm confused...

The Bible makes distinctions between MURDER on the one hand; and executions of condemned individuals on the other. You may be comfortable ignoring the distinction, but most societies and cultures---there is a big difference between innocent and condemned life. :shrug:

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:22 AM
The Bible makes distinctions between MURDER on the one hand; and executions of condemned individuals on the other. You may be comfortable ignoring the distinction, but most societies and cultures---there is a big difference between innocent and condemned life. :shrug:
Just out of curiousity as well... did Jesus say execution was okey dokey? Or was that added later by someone else?

Not much of a biblical scholar.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 01:24 AM
....Does that answer your question? How about you Mikey? You golden?

Sounds like a convuluted six plus to me....but, I was mostly pilin' on with MM there.

Your head does seem stuck in the "ivory tower" though....heh. :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 01:26 AM
Just out of curiousity as well... did Jesus say execution was okey dokey? Or was that added later by someone else?

Not much of a biblical scholar.

I don't recall that Jesus spoke directly to the issue; in which case, Old Testament teaching's prevail....

Research the Hebrew and Greek language of the Old and New Testaments; much insight can be gained when one realizes a lot is "lost in translation" as they say..... :hmmm:

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:28 AM
Sounds like a convuluted six plus to me....but, I was mostly pilin' on with MM there.

Your head does seem stuck in the "ivory tower" though....heh. :hmmm:
How very trite and partisan of you to declare. So I shouldn't expect the retraction you suggested you would provide earlier? How about the humility that comes with being exposed as the greater "career student"?

;)

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:31 AM
I don't recall that Jesus spoke directly to the issue; in which case, Old Testament teaching's prevail....

Research the Hebrew and Greek language of the Old and New Testaments; much insight can be gained when one realizes a lot is "lost in translation" as they say..... :hmmm:
I'm sure that's an amazing understatment. Not just in the form of literal language translation, but also in the translation from generational story telling to eventual documentation.

Unless you subscribe to the bible being the littleral (or 100% inspired) word of God. In which case the language translation thing isn't much of an issue either.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 01:37 AM
I'm sure that's an amazing understatment. Not just in the form of literal language translation, but also in the translation from generational story telling to eventual documentation.

Unless you subscribe to the bible being the littleral (or 100% inspired) word of God. In which case the language translation thing isn't much of an issue either.

I'm no literalist/fundamentalist....not even close.

However, that ANYONE can read the Bible though, and walk away with the idea that God frowned upon capital punishment, or endorsed homosexuality.... is completely and utterly absurd.

Neither of those positions are remotely defensible given the overwhelming statements and context of scripture--unless one choses to engage in mental gymnastics and intellectual insincerity.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 01:44 AM
I'm no literalist/fundamentalist....not even close.

However, that ANYONE can read the Bible though, and walk away with the idea that God frowned upon capital punishment, or endorsed homosexuality.... is completely and utterly absurd.

Neither of those positions are remotely defensible given the overwhelming statements and context of scripture--unless one choses to engage in mental gymnastics and intellectual insincerity.
I don't mean to hijack this discussion, but your response has nothing to do with my post that you quoted.

Like I said, I'm not even remotely close to a biblical scholar. So that's why any discussion with me will tend to wander away from an interpretation discussion to a more general discussion.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 02:07 AM
I'm no literalist/fundamentalist....not even close.

However, that ANYONE can read the Bible though, and walk away with the idea that God frowned upon capital punishment, or endorsed homosexuality.... is completely and utterly absurd.

Neither of those positions are remotely defensible given the overwhelming statements and context of scripture--unless one choses to engage in mental gymnastics and intellectual insincerity.
I guess in a sense I can see something in this that is related to my post. I'll see if I can connect the two.

My point is that much of the bible's contents is based on translation and not just language translations, but also word-of-mouth stories finally written down by men, and then recrafted and translated by other men.

Your point is that the contents of the bible say little or nothing to condem capital punishment.

The connection between the two posts seems to be that your assumption that the ideas in the bible not directly attributed to Jesus himself (including it would seem all references to capital punishment) are at the very least possibly the thoughts of those men who crafted the documents we now know as the bible. Rather than the pure, unfiltered "word of god".

Taco John
03-20-2005, 04:04 AM
Did Michael Michigan prove he was better than you yet or not? I missed the punch line.

Taco John
03-20-2005, 04:06 AM
I don't recall that Jesus spoke directly to the issue; in which case, Old Testament teaching's prevail....




ROFL


Please dude. You have a hard enough time with politics and you're a Political Science major. Stay TFOO theology. You're just embarassing yourself.

Rausch
03-20-2005, 05:08 AM
I have yet to understand the difference between people so ****ing horrible they should be locked away for life and people so ****ing horrible they should be killed...

I mean, I'm no geni(o)us but let's just combine the two and be done with it...

Marada
03-20-2005, 06:38 AM
Oh, I'm still adamently against the death penalty. I just think this crime (and that of Adam Walsh, Polly Klaas, Danielle van Dam, etc. are so horrendous that there is no compelling reason not to fry the f*ckers who commit these murders.

Wouldn't this fall under the contridiction catagory? I'm against the death penalty unless! Your saying in this case because you feel so strongly that it was children that were slain it should be allowed. What about the person who feels so strongly about cannabalism and a body being hacked up to provide a meal? Isn't the principle the same? All your doing is injecting your emotion on a particular area into the mix and disregarding the emotions of others who feel just as strongly about other areas. The bottom line is a victim is dead and what do we do about it? A victim can't be more dead because of who they are or how it happened. So you either accept that that it is wrong to take a life intentionally and the death penalty is the punishment or you don't.

memyselfI
03-20-2005, 07:23 AM
Wouldn't this fall under the contridiction catagory? I'm against the death penalty unless! Your saying in this case because you feel so strongly that it was children that were slain it should be allowed. What about the person who feels so strongly about cannabalism and a body being hacked up to provide a meal? Isn't the principle the same? All your doing is injecting your emotion on a particular area into the mix and disregarding the emotions of others who feel just as strongly about other areas. The bottom line is a victim is dead and what do we do about it? A victim can't be more dead because of who they are or how it happened. So you either accept that that it is wrong to take a life intentionally and the death penalty is the punishment or you don't.

No, I'm admitting there is a contradiction and this issue is not black or white. And that a crime like this one is so heinous that there need not be normal circumstances applied to him. Humanely and quickly get him off the planet.

Do I feel the same about Brian Nichols? Nope.

Braincase
03-20-2005, 07:23 AM
The crime lies in the integration of known sex offenders back into the community. Maybe there ought to be a quaint little broom factory in the middle of the mojave, 500 miles from any kids or women, and no Greyhound service. Let 'em live amongst themselves, a sick little sort of leper colony for their kind.

alanm
03-20-2005, 07:45 AM
Asking how many years you spent at the U of A is a catch phrase?

Is that part of the curriculum?
Must be mighty touchy there down in Tucson. :shake:

memyselfI
03-20-2005, 07:51 AM
I don't see any need to execute someone. There are too many uncertainties in our legal system regarding guilt to allow for an irriversible punishment, IMO. No matter how disgusting the circumstances might feel.

Yeah, I was right with you JAZ. But child after child after child has been taken, violated, and killed often by people who have had previous sexual preditor convictions.

These are not people they are preditors who hunt children and as such should not be afforded the same standard of compassion as regular criminals. Yes, they should be afforded the same legal rights but as far as I'm concerned their crime is one that is above and beyond any violation or crime known to humanity, thus they should be dealt with as such.

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 08:20 AM
Who spends eternity in hell for pulling the switch? I'm guessing the person being put to death will end up there (unless they repented and assuming they are guilty), but what about the jury, judge, executioner, etc? Granted, they are "doing their job" and give unto Ceasar..., but they are also playing a part in a premeditated death. I'm confused...
You do understand there is a huge difference between "death" and "murder" and the whole concept of freewill when committing a sin and having to pay for a sin, right?

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 08:20 AM
Just out of curiousity as well... did Jesus say execution was okey dokey? Or was that added later by someone else?

Not much of a biblical scholar.
Obviously not as Jesus personally never said anything about execution. However, he did mention that when you live in the corporeal world, you must live by the corporeal laws.

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 08:23 AM
I'm no literalist/fundamentalist....not even close.

However, that ANYONE can read the Bible though, and walk away with the idea that God frowned upon capital punishment, or endorsed homosexuality.... is completely and utterly absurd.

Neither of those positions are remotely defensible given the overwhelming statements and context of scripture--unless one choses to engage in mental gymnastics and intellectual insincerity.
Yup.

The fact jAZ that he confuses society's punishment with individual sin shows just that.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 09:00 AM
Yeah, I was right with you JAZ. But child after child after child has been taken, violated, and killed often by people who have had previous sexual preditor convictions.

These are not people they are preditors who hunt children and as such should not be afforded the same standard of compassion as regular criminals. Yes, they should be afforded the same legal rights but as far as I'm concerned their crime is one that is above and beyond any violation or crime known to humanity, thus they should be dealt with as such.
Denise,

As much as the conservatives around here would see to want to praise you for your independant thinking on this subject, it seems pretty clear that "thinking" has absolutely NOTHING to do with your position on this.

It sounds like you are driven almost 100% by rash emotional reaction. Which isn't suprising since it's a pretty dramatic, emotional case. I'm sure you would readily admit what I'm saying to be mostly correct, if not particularly flattering.

It also shows fairly clearly how all too often the conservative way to approaching so many issues seems to work: national secuity, personal morality, gay marriage, tax policy, its all the same. Find an angle on the issue that tugs at your emotional strings and then run with it.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 09:19 AM
Denise,

As much as the conservatives around here would see to want to praise you for your independant thinking on this subject, it seems pretty clear that "thinking" has absolutely NOTHING to do with your position on this.

It sounds like you are driven almost 100% by rash emotional reaction. Which isn't suprising since it's a pretty dramatic, emotional case. I'm sure you would readily admit what I'm saying to be mostly correct, if not particularly flattering.

It also shows fairly clearly how all too often the conservative way to approaching so many issues seems to work: national secuity, personal morality, gay marriage, tax policy, its all the same. Find an angle on the issue that tugs at your emotional strings and then run with it.
Yeah, like "if the Republicans get their way old people will have to eat dog food". Oh, wait, that wasn't the conservatives saying that...

jAZ
03-20-2005, 09:36 AM
Yeah, like "if the Republicans get their way old people will have to eat dog food". Oh, wait, that wasn't the conservatives saying that...
Fear mongering is a fundemental part of all politics... no doubt. Your point that the "Dems do it too!" is correct.

However, the dems far more often IMO take the anti-emotional position on issues, which makes it hard (if not impossible) to apply the fear-mongering political tool. The entire push to war in Iraq was a case of fear mongering. The entire campaign to end SS is another. Maybe it's unfair to criticize all conservatives in this regard, but the current poster child for conservatives is a world champion at this stuff.

Unlike anything the world of politics has seen in generations.

mikey23545
03-20-2005, 09:40 AM
Yeah, I was right with you JAZ. But child after child after child has been taken, violated, and killed often by people who have had previous sexual preditor convictions.

These are not people they are preditors who hunt children and as such should not be afforded the same standard of compassion as regular criminals. Yes, they should be afforded the same legal rights but as far as I'm concerned their crime is one that is above and beyond any violation or crime known to humanity, thus they should be dealt with as such.

Yeah, I feel the same way about Islamic terrorists....

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 09:49 AM
Fear mongering is a fundemental part of all politics... no doubt. Your point that the "Dems do it too!" is correct.

However, the dems far more often IMO take the anti-emotional position on issues, which makes it hard (if not impossible) to apply the fear-mongering political tool. The entire push to war in Iraq was a case of fear mongering. The entire campaign to end SS is another. Maybe it's unfair to criticize all conservatives in this regard, but the current poster child for conservatives is a world champion at this stuff.

Unlike anything the world of politics has seen in generations.
You just used a little fear mongering there yourself. The only person I've met who actually wants to END Socialist Insecurity is me. Neither the Republicons or the Demoncrats will give up that sword, it's too damn powerful a weapon.

Maybe if our govt. schools weren't churning out class after class of morons we could appeal to people's intelligence instead of their heart?

Don't worry though Jaz, "I feel your pain". Sound familiar?
:)

jAZ
03-20-2005, 09:57 AM
You just used a little fear mongering there yourself. The only person I've met who actually wants to END Socialist Insecurity is me. Neither the Republicons or the Demoncrats will give up that sword, it's too damn powerful a weapon.
You must not get out much then...

Just do a google search on "end social security" and you'll find thousands like you... Hell, just read a few posts in the DC on the subject and you won't feel so alone.

There is no fear mongering in saying that conservatives want to end SS. It's a long-standing fact. It's ideologically unsavory to the standard conservative mind.

However it is politically suicidal to actually build your strategy for eliminating it around actually SAYING you want to eliminate it. But don't confuse baby-steps towards ending it ("phase out"), with a desire to keep SS.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 10:03 AM
You must not get out much then...

Just do a google search on "end social security" and you'll find thousands like you... Hell, just read a few posts in the DC on the subject and you won't feel so alone.

There is no fear mongering in saying that conservatives want to end SS. It's a long-standing fact. It's ideologically unsavory to the standard conservative mind.

However it is politically suicidal to actually build your strategy for eliminating it around actually SAYING you want to eliminate it. But don't confuse baby-steps towards ending it ("phase out"), with a desire to keep SS.
I'll agree with you here if we define "conservative" as more Libertarian than Republican. I don't consider Republicans very conservative any more.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 10:07 AM
I'll agree with you here if we define "conservative" as more Libertarian than Republican. I don't consider Republicans very conservative any more.
Yeah, its a tough world in politics these days. Conservatives don't want ot be called Republicans because Republicans aren't conservative. Republicans don't want to be called conservatives because the Christian Conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives have done their best to hijack the name.

The same thing happened to the term liberal back in the 80s.

I'll try to remember to refer to you as a Libertarian and just sorta leave it at that. There is very little confusion as to what a Libertarian stands for these days.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 10:09 AM
I'll try to remember to refer to you as a Libertarian and just sorta leave it at that. There is very little confusion as to what a Libertarian stands for these days.
Unfortunately for the party most people think "pot smoker" first. :cuss:

If they would just move the war on drugs to the bottom of the party platform, every time someone sees that they immediately dismiss the LP as a bunch of dope fiends looking to get buzzed.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 10:14 AM
Unfortunately for the party most people think "pot smoker" first. :cuss:

If they would just move the war on drugs to the bottom of the party platform, every time someone sees that they immediately dismiss the LP as a bunch of dope fiends looking to get buzzed.
Funny thing is, that I think both Republicans and Democrats kinda wish the Libs would replace that "other" party.

I actually almost entirely agree with the Libertarian way of thinking. It's mostly very pragmatic. But I do feel that a healthy society needs a greater degree of socialized policy.

The "leave me the hell alone" vision works in most - but not all - situations. A measured dose of "socialism" is healthy for a society.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 10:26 AM
Funny thing is, that I think both Republicans and Democrats kinda wish the Libs would replace that "other" party.

I actually almost entirely agree with the Libertarian way of thinking. It's mostly very pragmatic. But I do feel that a healthy society needs a greater degree of socialized policy.

The "leave me the hell alone" vision works in most - but not all - situations. A measured dose of "socialism" is healthy for a society.
If the US was controlled tomorrow on a purely libertarian platform the two biggest issues would be stupidity and apathy. To live in a Libertarian dream world you have to be willing and able to fend for yourself for the most part, though most of the Libertarians I know are very charitable. I agree there need to be social programs, I just think they should be run by someone other than the Fed. govt. Hell, I'm even Ok with states doing it if they decide to. I'm not an anarchist, I'm just against our ever-expanding Imperial Federal Govt.

memyselfI
03-20-2005, 12:41 PM
Denise,

As much as the conservatives around here would see to want to praise you for your independant thinking on this subject, it seems pretty clear that "thinking" has absolutely NOTHING to do with your position on this.

It sounds like you are driven almost 100% by rash emotional reaction. Which isn't suprising since it's a pretty dramatic, emotional case. I'm sure you would readily admit what I'm saying to be mostly correct, if not particularly flattering.

It also shows fairly clearly how all too often the conservative way to approaching so many issues seems to work: national secuity, personal morality, gay marriage, tax policy, its all the same. Find an angle on the issue that tugs at your emotional strings and then run with it.

I'll agree that this has to do with a now visceral reflex more than it has to do with logic or even religion. And, I agree with you that the CONS have used emotion and fear to completely manipulate the masses...

however, I do not consider myself one of the manipulated. I've spent YEARS defending these type of guys from the death penalty and just can't do it with any conviction any longer thus I must admit to myself that my view has changed. Emotionally driven, or not. It's changed. To continue to argue about something and not mean it but to merely to remain consistent or to not appear to be appeasing the other side is wrong...

thus, you won't be seeing me trying to spare these folks from the death penalty but neither will you see me rejoicing at their execution either. It's a suitable punishment for a horrible crime...end of story.

Michael Michigan
03-20-2005, 01:43 PM
Research of what?

Nothing sinister.

I just wondered how many years of higher learning it took to get as ate up as you seem to be.

Michael Michigan
03-20-2005, 01:45 PM
Did Michael Michigan prove he was better than you yet or not?

I am but a humble scribe.

I'm sure everyone on this board is "better than me."

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 02:03 PM
ROFL


Please dude. You have a hard enough time with politics and you're a Political Science major. Stay TFOO theology. You're just embarassing yourself.

You seemed to be the only one of that opinion (although I certainly not claiming to be an expert, though I am married to a "religion" major who's Dad taught theology for 30+ years)--jAZ just seems confused, but Russ understood my intent.... :hmmm:

Are you just slingin' general pre-emptive insults; or do you have a specific beef with something I said?

Are YOU now a biblical expert and master theologian? .... :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 02:07 PM
How very trite and partisan of you to declare. So I shouldn't expect the retraction you suggested you would provide earlier? How about the humility that comes with being exposed as the greater "career student"?

;)

Actually, I held down a full-time job, WHILE I was going to school part-time during both my MAs....it really sucked.

I consider myself a student of life. :)

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 02:23 PM
...I do feel that a healthy society needs a greater degree of socialized policy.

The "leave me the hell alone" vision works in most - but not all - situations. A measured dose of "socialism" is healthy for a society.

Damn, he came CLOSE...but he's been trained well.

jAZ, you almost admitted to being a socialist....guess we'll have to settle for that....heh. ;)

jAZ
03-20-2005, 02:35 PM
Nothing sinister.

I just wondered how many years of higher learning it took to get as ate up as you seem to be.
You seemed to ignore my return questions. Care to answer them? Or explain why you won't?

unlurking
03-20-2005, 02:36 PM
Well, back to some of the original discussion of this thread, I'm all for the death penalty against anyone intentionally injuring children.

As for pulling the switch, I'm of the opinion that role should be "offered" to the victim or their surviving family members.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 02:39 PM
Actually, I held down a full-time job, WHILE I was going to school part-time during both my MAs....it really sucked.

I consider myself a student of life. :)
Working party time while going to school for 6 years is still trumped by someone going to school for 8 years when they worked part time.

I didn't think you would step up to your commitment and retract your prior statements, but I am a little suprised anyhow.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 04:02 PM
Working party time while going to school for 6 years is still trumped by someone going to school for 8 years when they worked part time.

I didn't think you would step up to your commitment and retract your prior statements, but I am a little suprised anyhow.

Retract what? That I was messin' with you to see how much of a career student you were--while at the same time lamenting the fact I WISH I had spent more. It turns out, along with my FULL-TIME job, I did go an additional two years more than you....mostly because it was "part-time"....and somehow I need to retract something? Okay.... :hmmm:

Here you go Justin: "I'm sorry I went to school for 8 yrs; 4 yrs full time as a student, with part time jobs--followed by 4 yrs of full-time employment, but took night and weekend classes to get my MAs." :spock:

RINGLEADER
03-20-2005, 04:32 PM
I don't see any need to execute someone. There are too many uncertainties in our legal system regarding guilt to allow for an irriversible punishment, IMO. No matter how disgusting the circumstances might feel.


I'm not against the death penalty. But I also wouldn't be against a higher standard for invoking it.

RINGLEADER
03-20-2005, 04:34 PM
So says the guy desperately clinging to the same torched jokes for the umpteenth time. ANYTHING new from you on this front would be appreciated.

No joke.


But seriously Jaz, why DID you change your position on privatizing social security?



;)


Yes, that was a torched joke...

RINGLEADER
03-20-2005, 04:44 PM
I'll agree that this has to do with a now visceral reflex more than it has to do with logic or even religion. And, I agree with you that the CONS have used emotion and fear to completely manipulate the masses...

Please. So have the Dems. That's why they don't want social security changed. They've already printed up their attack materials for the next three elections and actually fixing the thing (let alone with Republicans in control) would force them to find another wedge issue.

however, I do not consider myself one of the manipulated. I've spent YEARS defending these type of guys from the death penalty and just can't do it with any conviction any longer thus I must admit to myself that my view has changed. Emotionally driven, or not. It's changed. To continue to argue about something and not mean it but to merely to remain consistent or to not appear to be appeasing the other side is wrong...

:clap: :clap: :clap:

thus, you won't be seeing me trying to spare these folks from the death penalty but neither will you see me rejoicing at their execution either. It's a suitable punishment for a horrible crime...end of story.

My thoughts EXACTLY.


Jaz, you need to understand that some evil is just so vile that it has to be eliminated. I think D-Nise's POV is narrow, more narrow than mine at least, but I feel the same way as her about it. There's no rejoicing in it. And the argument that the death penalty doesn't deter criminals is a valid argument from the left. But that isn't what it's there for...it's there to punish certain people who do things so grievous that rehabilitation is impossible. When you starting raping children or killing millions you've forfeited your right to be treated humanely IMO.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 06:14 PM
Retract what? That I was messin' with you to see how much of a career student you were--while at the same time lamenting the fact I WISH I had spent more. It turns out, along with my FULL-TIME job, I did go an additional two years more than you....mostly because it was "part-time"....and somehow I need to retract something? Okay.... :hmmm:

Here you go Justin: "I'm sorry I went to school for 8 yrs; 4 yrs full time as a student, with part time jobs--followed by 4 yrs of full-time employment, but took night and weekend classes to get my MAs." :spock:
A categorical denial of the entirety of MM's allegations would cause me to rephrase it, to...."I wish I had been a career student," I guess. :hmmm:
I didn't expect you to live up to your statements, but I also didn't expect to see all the verbal gymnastics to avoid it either. I figured you'd just avoid the thread. Hell, a cut-and-paste of your own past words would suffice.

As MM would say: Sigh.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 06:22 PM
I'll agree that this has to do with a now visceral reflex more than it has to do with logic or even religion. And, I agree with you that the CONS have used emotion and fear to completely manipulate the masses...

however, I do not consider myself one of the manipulated. I've spent YEARS defending these type of guys from the death penalty and just can't do it with any conviction any longer thus I must admit to myself that my view has changed. Emotionally driven, or not. It's changed. To continue to argue about something and not mean it but to merely to remain consistent or to not appear to be appeasing the other side is wrong...

thus, you won't be seeing me trying to spare these folks from the death penalty but neither will you see me rejoicing at their execution either. It's a suitable punishment for a horrible crime...end of story.
You may not be one of the manipulated, but you are not entirely different in the end. Because like most emotionally motivated Republicans, you willingly surrender to emotion over reason.

I guess you deserve a certain amount of credit for being up front about the seeming short-comings (IMO) of your renewed position on the subject. I'll surely give you that, and doing little other than shine a light on it just like I would any Republican in the same position.

And you won't see me trying to spare "these folks" in particular at all. What you will see is me standing by my position that no one should be executed. I personally think there are better political tactics for changing our society's mindset on this issue than merely protesting each execution. That does more harm for the cause than good, by giving fodder for the RL-types who will mock, scorn, frame and judge those people and their actions in a political strategy to marginalize the entire notion of liberalism.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 06:39 PM
Jaz, you need to understand that some evil is just so vile that it has to be eliminated. I think D-Nise's POV is narrow, more narrow than mine at least, but I feel the same way as her about it. There's no rejoicing in it. And the argument that the death penalty doesn't deter criminals is a valid argument from the left. But that isn't what it's there for...it's there to punish certain people who do things so grievous that rehabilitation is impossible. When you starting raping children or killing millions you've forfeited your right to be treated humanely IMO.
Life in prison is identical in it's ability to "elminate" those guilty from our society.

The only real bitch that I recognize from those who complain about "life in prison" approach is that of the high cost of housing these people. It's a fair complaint to a very limited extent. However, it's marginalized to some extent in that it *may* cost more to execute someone.

And in the end, there will be those innocent people who will be executed. IMO it's worth the "life in prison" costs to ensure that our system of justice is actually just. Executing innocent people certainly isn't remotely near just. Neither is being falsely imprisoned, but obviously unlike execution, "life" is a reversible in-justice.

We deliberately go to great lengths in this society to protect the best notion of justice we can have. I'm willing to spend the extra dollars to protect a small minority of people from falsely being exectued.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 06:44 PM
However, it's marginalized to some extent in that it *may* cost more to execute someone.

We deliberately go to great lengths in this society to protect the best notion of justice we can have. I'm willing to spend the extra dollars to protect a small minority of people from falsely being exectued.

1. Everything I've read said it costs double or more to execute than to provide life behind bars because of the legal costs.

2. I don't know, man. Is a needle and a nap worse than 25 years of being Bubba's bitch, only to be turned back out into the world with no job, no ability to cope, no family, no friends, and a world that's probably convinced you got off on a technicality?

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2005, 07:09 PM
I didn't expect you to live up to your statements, but I also didn't expect to see all the verbal gymnastics to avoid it either. I figured you'd just avoid the thread. Hell, a cut-and-paste of your own past words would suffice.

As MM would say: Sigh.

Heh....dude; I was buzzin' pretty good last night....and you are SOOOO picky, sheesh. I pretty much already tried to say it, but just so you are satisfied, Justin:

"....I wish I had been a career student," with apologies for you for insinuating that you were a career student. (FTR, I don't even think that's a bad thing... ROFL )

CosmicPal
03-20-2005, 07:09 PM
Eye for an eye.

You kill my family, and I get to kill you myself. But, I should ultimately have the right to decide.

I honestly believe capital punishment should ultimately be up to the victim's immediate family members- not the court of law. I think all states, upon finding the person guilty, should then address the victim's or victims' family/families. Should the family/families all unanamously vote the murderer should be put to death- then the state must carry out the family/families request. They should be the ones to decide if the guilty should die as they choose OR if the guilty should remain incarcerated for the remainder of his/her life.

The state must find the person guilty, and then the family/families can ultimately decide the fate of the guilty.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 07:09 PM
1. Everything I've read said it costs double or more to execute than to provide life behind bars because of the legal costs.

2. I don't know, man. Is a needle and a nap worse than 25 years of being Bubba's bitch, only to be turned back out into the world with no job, no ability to cope, no family, no friends, and a world that's probably convinced you got off on a technicality?
Legalize suicide and let the prisoner decide for themselves.

:p

(but I'm more than a little serious.)

Calcountry
03-21-2005, 01:33 PM
this whole Jessica Lunsford thing is the straw the broke the camel's back. I'm now willing to support the death penalty for sexual preditors of children who commit murder. There seems to be no rehabilitation of them thus I can see no reason why they deserve to live and no reason why the government should not dispose of them.

Sigh. I hate this position.I sense the conflict in you, let go of your hate, turn back, to the good side.
:p

mlyonsd
03-21-2005, 01:58 PM
Legalize suicide and let the prisoner decide for themselves.

:p

(but I'm more than a little serious.)

I think a person on death row has the right to move up their execution date. Or at least I think that's what Timothy McVeigh did. I'd like to know of that's true or not.

If that's the case I'd say those that think making a murderer stay in prison until the end of his normal life as being a worse punishment then death don't know what they are talking about. If that were true more death row prisoners would be asking to get the axe.

Calcountry
03-21-2005, 02:27 PM
I think the survivors family ought to have right of vengence prior to terminating the convict. The guilty murderer, is immobilized with straight jacket, then they are to be beaten to death by the family members if they so choose.

If they choose to stop beating prior to death, then they are to be finished with a lethal injection, we don't want the state to be barbaric.

Of course, that is cruel and unusual to take a child rapist/ murderer and do to them less than they did to an innocent.

Mark M
03-21-2005, 02:29 PM
Some people should die ... that's just unconscious knowledge.
--Perry Ferrel, Pigs in Zen

MM
~~:)

BIG_DADDY
03-21-2005, 10:35 PM
Denise on the right of any issue, say it isn't so.