If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that people killing people is wrong, people?   (rawstory.com) divider line 362
    More: Ironic, Hosni Mubarak, found guilty, Al-Ahram  
•       •       •

16752 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2011 at 3:18 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



362 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-15 09:39:40 PM  

ox45tallboy: proteus_b: ox45tallboy: proteus_b: considering that a murderer has a one in a thousand chance of being exectued, and that it will take an average of fifteen years, i'm going to assume you meant the opposite and that the death penalty isn't used nearly often enough..

well i'm not going to look for the well known figure that it's about 15 years on death row. it may even be longer nowadays.

and we executed 46 people last year. there were about 50,000 murders. i can't expect a georgian like yourself to do simple arithmetic, but this does work out to about one in a thousand. i used computers to arrive at that result, it must be true.

Well, you see, us simple Georgians have this thing called "the Internet" where we can look up these things called "facts." You might not have heard of them up in Yankee territory, but down here, we don't just pull figures out of our asses. We understand that the US government will provide these statistics free of charge.

Such as, according to the FBI, there were 15,241 murders in the US in 2009. That's a far cry from the 50,000 you claim.

If you did, as you claim, "use computers," you might also be interested in this thing called "Google." You can type in questions, and it will provide you with answers and links to relevant data. Us simple Georgia folk love it.


Alright, here's one for your precious google: Of the 15,241 murders committed, how many of those offenders were sentenced to death row? How many of those were released on technicalities?

I would be willing to bet good money that less than 1% of the offenders were sentenced to death.
 
2011-04-15 09:39:56 PM  

ox45tallboy: Such as, according to the FBI, there were 15,241 murders in the US in 2009. That's a far cry from the 50,000 you claim.


i'll give you that. i did not use the computer. i just estimated. so you are absolutely correct: a murderer has about a one in 350 chance of being executed. thank you for correcting me.

by the way i'm not a yankee. and i am aware of the inequalities in application of the death penalty---which is a far stronger argument for its abolition than any moral qualms about the penalty itself. but, as someone mentioned, this just means that we need to get on with killing more white people, in my humble, border state raised, expat opinion.
 
2011-04-15 09:41:36 PM  

proteus_b: ox45tallboy: Such as, according to the FBI, there were 15,241 murders in the US in 2009. That's a far cry from the 50,000 you claim.

i'll give you that. i did not use the computer. i just estimated. so you are absolutely correct: a murderer has about a one in 350 chance of being executed. thank you for correcting me.

by the way i'm not a yankee. and i am aware of the inequalities in application of the death penalty---which is a far stronger argument for its abolition than any moral qualms about the penalty itself. but, as someone mentioned, this just means that we need to get on with killing more white people, in my humble, border state raised, expat opinion.


Justice should be blind. A white psycho should be just as much cannon fodder as a black one or hispanic or asian or whatever. You do the crime, you accept the punishment.
 
2011-04-15 09:43:37 PM  

MorphOSX: A jury of their peers, and every single judicial review of their cases agree that they aren't redeemable. They have committed acts so heinous as to be put up on death row. And you're telling me that you would give these scumbags a second chance? Really? What about the people whom they killed?

You seem so intent to protect the offenders...what do you propose we do for the victims? We spend millions of dollars every year on these assholes who commit crimes. How much money do we spend on helping the victims of these crimes? How much do we spend on making things right for them? Rebuilding homes torched by arsonists? Paying for the life-long treatment, mental and/or physical that these people need?

You want to help someone? You want to care about someone? Care about the innocent who didn't HAVE a choice. fark the assholes who MADE THE CHOICE.


It's not the offenders I'm interested in protecting, it is the innocent wrongly accused. Once again, I am only "generally" against the death penalty. I shed no tears for Timothy McVeigh. But we need to take a step back and look at some of these cases, and whether our lust for revenge is taking over from our good sense at surgically removing a cancer.

Innocent people have been sentenced to death in this country in the past several years. This is a fact. Therefore, the system is not perfect. The death penalty should be a last resort that is ONLY used for those such as McVeigh, who was sane and still killed innocent people just out of meanness. He was found guilty not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no question he deliberately and knowingly murdered those people in the Oklahoma Federal Building. The problem is, this is not the case for many on death row.
 
2011-04-15 09:47:19 PM  
In modern times we use a sophisticated system that has prevented any innocent people from being executed.

I'm sorry you don't like that and you wish it wasn't true but it's a fact.
 
2011-04-15 09:50:38 PM  

proteus_b: ox45tallboy: Such as, according to the FBI, there were 15,241 murders in the US in 2009. That's a far cry from the 50,000 you claim.

i'll give you that. i did not use the computer. i just estimated. so you are absolutely correct: a murderer has about a one in 350 chance of being executed. thank you for correcting me.

by the way i'm not a yankee. and i am aware of the inequalities in application of the death penalty---which is a far stronger argument for its abolition than any moral qualms about the penalty itself. but, as someone mentioned, this just means that we need to get on with killing more white people, in my humble, border state raised, expat opinion.


Actually, it's LESS than that, being that the average person on death row murdered multiple people.

And your profile says you're "new york-ish."

www.andyellwood.com

/Get a rope
 
2011-04-15 09:57:03 PM  

ox45tallboy: Innocent people have been sentenced to death in this country in the past several years. This is a fact. Therefore, the system is not perfect. The death penalty should be a last resort that is ONLY used for those such as McVeigh, who was sane and still killed innocent people just out of meanness. He was found guilty not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no question he deliberately and knowingly murdered those people in the Oklahoma Federal Building. The problem is, this is not the case for many on death row.


ok, but innocent people have also served life in prison and died. should we abolish prisons just because determining guilt is necessarily imperfect? perhaps we should, but this question doesn't only pertain to the "finality" of the death penalty. it's final after 15-20 years. in MOST of the cases, there is no doubt over the guilt. the cases to which you refer are a minority, likely ten percent or less of the cases, where there is even any doubt. when there is doubt, i don't have a problem with moving towards life in prison, but is it really better to serve life in prison for a crime you didn't commit, either?

honestly, it's a little cynical to say, but i think that if you're a poor black guy wrongly accused and convicted of murder, it's almost better to be sentenced to death. this will generate the massive appeals process and possibly spark the interest of 'innocence project' types in your case, giving you some chance of being exonerated. whereas if you're sentenced to life, the onus is on yourself (to a greater extent) to fund the search for exculpatory evidence.

and innocent people have been killed by murderers and violent offenders who were released from prison. nothing is perfect, but if we have to lean one way, i say lean towards protecting the innocent, rather than those probably guilty of murder.
 
2011-04-15 09:58:43 PM  

TheWhoppah: In modern times we use a sophisticated system that has prevented any innocent people from being executed.

I'm sorry you don't like that and you wish it wasn't true but it's a fact.


Yes, the sophisticated system called "The Innocence Project" that relies on private donations to fund DNA tests and pay attorneys to show that someone was wrongfully convicted? Like the 17 guys that were exonerated from death row?

THAT is a fact. And I can't disprove a negative, such as "no innocent people were executed." It is a logical fallacy to base your argument on "well, I must be right since he can't disprove a negative."

This is your "sophisticated system?" You are happy with this? You think that if The Innocence Project didn't exist, those guys would have just been set free anyhow? Are you high?
 
2011-04-15 10:01:11 PM  

ox45tallboy: we need to take a step back and look at some of these cases, and whether our lust for revenge is taking over from our good sense


Surely you jest. Revenge is not a dirty word! Revenge is a totally appropriate justification for the death penalty. In fact, revenge and revenge alone is sufficient justification.

To clarify, I am saying there is no problem if an execution serves no other purpose than revenge.

The goal of our justice system is not to eliminate revenge, but to purify revenge. To remove the messy emotions by having the evidence gathered by professional police not personally involved in the case. To eliminate the blind rage by having disinterested third parties like judge and jury determine guilt and the severity of punishment...

Stop pretending punishment is not about revenge. It is. And thats OK. And it is nothing to be ashamed of because it is natural and honest and pure. Watch toddlers play. They'll soon fight. They understand revenge.

Any "legal system" that does not offer revenge is failing in its most basic duties. Revenge is a core part of the social contract between the government and free men. We'll surrender our private messy revenge and you provide efficient accurate retribution. This is the deal and it is usually a fair deal but if we eliminate the death penalty the deal collapses.
 
2011-04-15 10:01:12 PM  
Green Scorpio

Saborlas:
We just like killing people. We'll trot out any excuse if it means we can justify killing.

This message brought to you by:

www.gop.com
 
2011-04-15 10:02:03 PM  

ox45tallboy: And your profile says you're "new york-ish."


yeah i lived there some years ago but don't anymore. i'm american, living abroad. i guess i'm consigned to a life of carpetbaggery.

ox45tallboy: Actually, it's LESS than that, being that the average person on death row murdered multiple people.


another good point. you are indeed knocking the number down to... say, one in a hundred. ok, i will not dispute that. the point was that it is substantially less than "ninety percent" or "fifty percent" or even "ten percent" of murderers.

/and you mean the average person on death row "is accused and likely innocent of murdering several people"
//ok i'm kind of farking with you. i appreciate your integrity towards the matter, and agree that reasonable doubt must free even those who are likely rabid murderers... but have no qualms about offing the masses who are guilty beyond any doubt.
 
2011-04-15 10:07:07 PM  

Bung_Howdy: Green Scorpio

Saborlas: We just like killing people. We'll trot out any excuse if it means we can justify killing.

This message brought to you by: GOP.jpg


Except Abortion!
 
2011-04-15 10:09:17 PM  

proteus_b: ox45tallboy: And your profile says you're "new york-ish."

yeah i lived there some years ago but don't anymore. i'm american, living abroad. i guess i'm consigned to a life of carpetbaggery.

ox45tallboy: Actually, it's LESS than that, being that the average person on death row murdered multiple people.

another good point. you are indeed knocking the number down to... say, one in a hundred. ok, i will not dispute that. the point was that it is substantially less than "ninety percent" or "fifty percent" or even "ten percent" of murderers.

/and you mean the average person on death row "is accused and likely innocent of murdering several people"
//ok i'm kind of farking with you. i appreciate your integrity towards the matter, and agree that reasonable doubt must free even those who are likely rabid murderers... but have no qualms about offing the masses who are guilty beyond any doubt.


And I appreciate your integrity as well, good sir. I just feel that not everyone on death row is totally unredeemable as a member of society. It seems you do not feel the same way. I do believe we should still be able to coexist.
 
2011-04-15 10:16:00 PM  
Because by taking away someone else's right to life, you forfeit your own. Unfortunately, without an infallible justice system, this isn't always what happens.

/Excludes accidents and whatnot.
 
2011-04-15 10:16:17 PM  
The jury is free to consider the offenders potential future dangerousness when deciding if the needle is appropriate. Predicting this sort of thing is probably impossible but I'm sure it is part of the calculus.
 
2011-04-15 10:20:04 PM  

ox45tallboy: And I appreciate your integrity as well, good sir. I just feel that not everyone on death row is totally unredeemable as a member of society. It seems you do not feel the same way. I do believe we should still be able to coexist.


yes... perhaps... but what if hitler had decided not to kill himself, surrender, and admit that what he'd done was a horrible crime to the jews, gipsies, british, russians, poles and all the other countless civilians that he'd murdered. and decided to devote his considerable human capital towards helping these peoples rebuild themselves after the tragic war? could he have been redeemed?

ok, i get it that you already said that mcveigh was irredeemable, and you'd likely conclude thusly vis a vis hitler. but how about that 18 year old who just callously killed a chaperone? is he redeemable? well, i suppose, he no longer kills people. but what about the family of the chaperone? i doubt that they really care if this guy has now learned that it is wrong to kill. they probably don't care if he kisses puppies, saves whales, feeds the homeless, and so on. because no matter how much he redeems himself, he really cannot undo the murder. at all.

note that this guy was likely not convicted of murder, i believe he got some kind of manslaughter. which, since there are 40-50k americans killed by guns every year, indicates that the 14k murders are only a select group of the killings. the badder of the bad. and those sentenced to death may not be the baddest of them, but rather a somewhat more whimsically determined subgroup---depending on state or even country, and the kind of evidence and the prosecutor and all that. i do agree that this kind of whimsy should be removed. perhaps even to the extent of abolishing it. but i don't have a problem with the penalty per se. a person who serves life in prison for a crime they didn't commit has still lost their life.
 
2011-04-15 10:29:25 PM  

proteus_b: ok, i get it that you already said that mcveigh was irredeemable, and you'd likely conclude thusly vis a vis hitler. but how about that 18 year old who just callously killed a chaperone? is he redeemable? well, i suppose, he no longer kills people. but what about the family of the chaperone? i doubt that they really care if this guy has now learned that it is wrong to kill. they probably don't care if he kisses puppies, saves whales, feeds the homeless, and so on. because no matter how much he redeems himself, he really cannot undo the murder. at all.

note that this guy was likely not convicted of murder, i believe he got some kind of manslaughter. which, since there are 40-50k americans killed by guns every year, indicates that the 14k murders are only a select group of the killings. the badder of the bad. and those sentenced to death may not be the baddest of them, but rather a somewhat more whimsically determined subgroup---depending on state or even country, and the kind of evidence and the prosecutor and all that. i do agree that this kind of whimsy should be removed. perhaps even to the extent of abolishing it. but i don't have a problem with the penalty per se. a person who serves life in prison for a crime they didn't commit has still lost their life.


*sigh*

know what you did was wrong = redeemable. You are likely able to contribute to society in some way, such as making license plates for $.05/hr.

don't know that what you did was wrong = mentally ill. You need help and treatment, not a bullet to the head or poison in your vein.
 
2011-04-15 10:32:04 PM  
Why? Because it's okay to shoot a rabid dog, that's why.
 
2011-04-15 10:45:28 PM  

ox45tallboy: know what you did was wrong = redeemable. You are likely able to contribute to society in some way, such as making license plates for $.05/hr.

don't know that what you did was wrong = mentally ill. You need help and treatment, not a bullet to the head or poison in your vein.


yeah i know what you're saying. but honestly, at some point, if some mentally ill fark would rape, torture and kill my family, it wouldn't make me feel better that he was mentally ill. in some way i'd say anyone who goes around killing people is mentally ill. that's why they're cold-blooded murderers---cause they're mentally different than you and me. i'm not totally without compassion, but i am saving the majority of it for the rest of us who have demonstrated no malice by not engaging in murder in the first place, rather than those few who do decide or slip unknowingly into such destructive acts.
also i think the mentally ill aspect is overplayed by zealous defense attorneys. i mean, if you really really didn't know it was wrong... ok, that's one thing... if you're just a crazy farked up person... well, i don't really give a shiat. of course you are, that's why you're a murderer and i'm a taxpayer.*

i think we can go no further. we've laid out our positions and they will not change. again, my firmest points are (1) i'm not in principle opposed to the death penalty, but (2) inequity in application of the penalty makes it a very questionable and possibly unconstitutional punishment. i have to sleep, it's way too late here.

*i'm more of a potential taxpayer, being as i'm abroad these years...
 
2011-04-15 10:46:42 PM  
Because time is on my side...
 
2011-04-15 10:49:14 PM  

proteus_b: i think we can go no further. we've laid out our positions and they will not change. again, my firmest points are (1) i'm not in principle opposed to the death penalty, but (2) inequity in application of the penalty makes it a very questionable and possibly unconstitutional punishment. i have to sleep, it's way too late here.


Actually, I think we have found common ground. I cannot oppose your position here.

Thanks for the discussion, see you around.
 
2011-04-15 10:50:03 PM  
The exception proves the rule.
 
2011-04-15 10:54:47 PM  

proteus_b: *i'm more of a potential taxpayer, being as i'm abroad these years...


Just out of curiosity, are you willing to state what country you're in now, and whether they have the death penalty?
 
2011-04-15 10:54:48 PM  
We kill people because they're pests ... and it's fun!
 
2011-04-15 11:00:54 PM  
Why do people accept the slaughter of the unborn but oppose the death penalty while pretending to be righteous? Because people are hypocrites blinded by their filthy sin.
 
2011-04-15 11:04:19 PM  
If your dealing with civilized human beings you treat them like human beings. If you're dealing with rabid animals you likewise act accordingly and put them down.
 
2011-04-15 11:07:13 PM  

Mija: Why do people accept the slaughter of the unborn but oppose the death penalty while pretending to be righteous? Because people are hypocrites blinded by their filthy sin.


Why do people go rabid over the elimination of a small blob of mostly undifferentiated cells but are overly enthusiastic about the saturation napalming of brown skinned human beings and then pretend that they're righteous? Because people are hypocrites blinded by their filthy sin.
 
2011-04-15 11:09:06 PM  

ox45tallboy: IAMTHEINTARWEBS: It isn't to show that it was wrong to kill.
It is to protect the rest of us from the killer.
Sure we could lock up the murderer, but they could still kill in prison or escape. Dead, they are no longer a threat.

The governments job is to protect our rights. Our primary right is our life, so... they gov't must protect us from people who threaten our lives.

Que no?

No.

Judges, jurors, and even executioners face no possible repercussions from executing an innocent person. The government can "protect" us from those who are convicted of committing terrible crimes by incarcerating them, rather than executing them.


You didn't read what I wrote and I was not talking about innocents executed for crimes they didn't commit. That is not the issue I was arguing and not the topic of the headline. DNRTFA

The issue in the headline is whether the death penalty teaches society not to infringe on ones right to their own life. My argument is that this is beside the point. The gov't has the responsibility to protect my right to my own life regardless of whether or not it teaches a criminal not to harm people. The publics right to their own lives superceeds the criminals right to his/hers. The criminal gives up their right to their own life when they chose to jeopardize the life of another. Social contract theory at work. If you want to reap the benefits of a society, you must follow the rules of said society. Our society says you cannot harm other people if you want to live freely in our society, the penalty is an infringement of your rights up to and including your right to live. It is the govts job to enforce that.

AND you missed the point I made about incarceration not being a guarantee that the offender will be rendered harmless. Or you chose to ignore it.
Incarceration does not eliminate the possibility that the person may yet harm more people. They can harm other inmates, or guards. They can escape and harm more people in the general public. With parole and the ludicrisly short sentences they can get out of prison and commit further crimes.

The only 100% sure way to protect society at large from someone who has proven to be a threat to our most basic right is to kill them.

Failing to observe the right someone else has to their own life relieves you of that right for yourself.
 
2011-04-15 11:19:25 PM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Failing to observe the right someone else has to their own life relieves you of that right for yourself.


I see your point, but I respectfully disagree that killing someone found guilty of murder is in the best interest of society as a whole. If this person does have redeeming qualities, they can work to help pay back their injury to society, such as by making license plates for $.05/hr. There is plenty of other work they can be given for minimal wage which also benefits society. If they truly have no redeeming qualities, then they are mentally ill and need therapy. It is our job to help them obtain treatment for their mental illness.

Failing that, yes, they should be killed, but only as a last resort. I do not believe that all 3300 +/- individuals currently on death row are irredeemable.
 
2011-04-15 11:34:08 PM  
If they are mentally ill they are not really people and so there is no harm in exterminating them as dangreous petss... unless you are one of those nuts that believed Teri Schaivo was an actual "person" and you couldn't wrap your head around the fact that she was just a sack of meat.
 
2011-04-15 11:50:00 PM  

TheWhoppah: If they are mentally ill they are not really people and so there is no harm in exterminating them as dangreous petss... unless you are one of those nuts that believed Teri Schaivo was an actual "person" and you couldn't wrap your head around the fact that she was just a sack of meat.


Hey, I would have not have let her starve to death, but found some other way to humanely end her suffering. I am not entirely opposed to the death penalty, but I do think it is overused. Those who are mentally ill and living in a separate reality need help, not mercy killing. Terry Schaivo was beyond our assistance. Her physical injuries precluded a psychological cure. I believe that she was pretty much as you described her, a "sack of meat."

This does not mean that every person with psychological issues is beyond the help of modern psychology/psychiatry. Some of these people do not understand the magnitude of what they have done, and need help. Help is available. We should give them this help simply because it is the right thing to do.
 
2011-04-15 11:52:13 PM  

ox45tallboy: ex-nuke: Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that people killing people is wrong, people?

We don't, we kill people who kill people to protect the people that people who kill people haven't killed yet.

Wrong. People are just as safe with the murderer incarcerated as they are with the murderer dead.


Yeah because escapes never happen and inmates never murder inmates.
 
2011-04-15 11:57:14 PM  
Because if we keep killing wrong people it will eventually become wrong to kill people because only right people are left and it would be wrong to shoot a right.


Your mileage may vary.
 
2011-04-16 12:00:18 AM  

genner: ox45tallboy: ex-nuke: Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that people killing people is wrong, people?

We don't, we kill people who kill people to protect the people that people who kill people haven't killed yet.

Wrong. People are just as safe with the murderer incarcerated as they are with the murderer dead.

Yeah because escapes never happen and inmates never murder inmates.


I never said that "the current prison system is a viable alternative to killing them." In fact, I believe I have stated the opposite.
 
2011-04-16 12:02:50 AM  

ox45tallboy: genner: ox45tallboy: ex-nuke: Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that people killing people is wrong, people?

We don't, we kill people who kill people to protect the people that people who kill people haven't killed yet.

Wrong. People are just as safe with the murderer incarcerated as they are with the murderer dead.

Yeah because escapes never happen and inmates never murder inmates.

I never said that "the current prison system is a viable alternative to killing them." In fact, I believe I have stated the opposite.


No system can exist in the real world that prevents these two things from happening.
 
2011-04-16 12:08:49 AM  
One organ donor can save up to eight people and thats not counting the blood donation if you drain them fresh.

A murderer can only be redeemed by chopping him up and giving his organs to good people who happened to get unlucky. Their life is less valuabe than the sum of their parts.
 
2011-04-16 12:10:20 AM  

genner: ox45tallboy: genner: ox45tallboy: ex-nuke: Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that people killing people is wrong, people?

We don't, we kill people who kill people to protect the people that people who kill people haven't killed yet.

Wrong. People are just as safe with the murderer incarcerated as they are with the murderer dead.

Yeah because escapes never happen and inmates never murder inmates.

I never said that "the current prison system is a viable alternative to killing them." In fact, I believe I have stated the opposite.

No system can exist in the real world that prevents these two things from happening.


I will concede, even without you providing any citation, that no system currently exists in the real world that prevents these two things from happening. However, to dismiss the possibility? I do not agree.
 
2011-04-16 12:13:09 AM  

ox45tallboy: genner: ox45tallboy: genner: ox45tallboy: ex-nuke: Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that people killing people is wrong, people?

We don't, we kill people who kill people to protect the people that people who kill people haven't killed yet.

Wrong. People are just as safe with the murderer incarcerated as they are with the murderer dead.

Yeah because escapes never happen and inmates never murder inmates.

I never said that "the current prison system is a viable alternative to killing them." In fact, I believe I have stated the opposite.

No system can exist in the real world that prevents these two things from happening.

I will concede, even without you providing any citation, that no system currently exists in the real world that prevents these two things from happening. However, to dismiss the possibility? I do not agree.


If a perfect prison system can exist that prevents these from happening then I submit that it's then possible to have a perfect court system that only executes the guilty.
 
2011-04-16 12:15:40 AM  

genner: If a perfect prison system can exist that prevents these from happening then I submit that it's then possible to have a perfect court system that only executes the guilty.


Cool, so you agree that since the system is inherently flawed, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to kill people accused of a crime?
 
2011-04-16 12:43:54 AM  
I only came here for the Dexter reference.
 
2011-04-16 01:15:29 AM  
Its a pretty screwed up situation when a society spends a fortune trying to rehabilitate the worst of the worst while its leaders say the problem is the best of the best.

Welcome to Socialism.
 
2011-04-16 01:50:42 AM  
Right. Give him some Prozac and demand an apology.

The question is, why was he allowed to live this long?
And why are so many others allowed to live?
 
2011-04-16 02:15:16 AM  

spentmiles: apeiron242: Sirjohnfalstaff: Dead people can't kill any more people.

Or be released when the evidence proves they were innocent. Nor can they be rehabilitated.

Posthumous pardon. Problem solved.


fark it. Kill them all, let god sort 'em out. Get rid of courts and prisons. Let cops use lethal force at their discretion.

Problem solved.

Or have people register their choice, pro or anti death penalty. If they are convicted of a serious crime and voted pro, put them to death.
 
2011-04-16 10:54:07 AM  

TheWhoppah: Sorry that you were lied to by a yellow journalist with an axe to grind. The "panel" of which you speak was convened to investigate problems with the DPS crime lab in Houston that came to light in the early 2000s. The Innocence Project managed to get one of their own appointed as chairman of the "panel" and he took to investigating the Willingham case instead of the crime lab. The Texas Attorney General is expected to issue an opinion by July on whether or not it was even legal for the panel to do this.


Wow... you're a one poster derp factory. I'll bet you're a creationist birther who watches Hannity, too....

The people who exonerated Willingham were veteran arson investigators. The guy who convicted him in the first place was not.

Project innocence primarily uses DNA evidence to get innocent people freed. You know, the kind of evidence you will have brought to trial if you are falsely convicted of murder and you have the money to afford a competent attorney...

But then again, as a creationist, you probably don't believe the science behind DNA evidence, either.
 
2011-04-16 11:07:41 AM  

maddogdelta: But then again, as a creationist


creationists don't support murder, you must have meant to say "atheist" or evolutionist

/nice try lad
 
2011-04-16 12:27:28 PM  

I drunk what: maddogdelta: But then again, as a creationist

creationists don't support murder, you must have meant to say "atheist" or evolutionist

/nice try lad


They do if god told them to.
 
2011-04-16 12:43:34 PM  

Dead Mutters: I drunk what: maddogdelta: But then again, as a creationist

creationists don't support murder, you must have meant to say "atheist" or evolutionist

/nice try lad

They do if god told them to.


prove it
 
2011-04-16 02:43:20 PM  

I drunk what: prove it


I think we've already established that you would kill your own children if you thought god told you to.

Not only that, but you have indicated that Abraham did the right thing, and also that Andrea Yates was justified.

But for religious people, changing their morals comes quickly and easily. Or do you still think slavery, as ordained by god, is still a good idea?

Oh, wait. That's the OLD testament... the testament that god changed his mind about..
 
2011-04-16 03:30:07 PM  

maddogdelta: I think we've already established that you would kill your own children if you thought god told you to.


well sorta:


maddogdelta: I think we've already established that you would kill your own children if you KNEW god told you to.


that's better, which is why i said, Prove it!

/i meant prove that it is God said so
//not prove that i claimed such things

maddogdelta: Not only that, but you have indicated that Abraham did the right thing


correct

maddogdelta: and also that Andrea Yates was justified


incorrect

so then what is the difference?

maddogdelta: But for religious people, changing their morals comes quickly and easily.


i guess that depends on what religion one subscribes to, if for example you mean atheism, i can see your point, since they cannot grasp morality to begin with

maddogdelta: Or do you still think slavery, as ordained by god, is still a good idea?


God ordained slavery? are you sure it was God speaking? (same question as before)

/prove it

maddogdelta: Oh, wait. That's the OLD testament... the ignorance that God winked at..


correct

but "winked at" =/= "approved of"

//just so we're clear
 
2011-04-16 03:52:14 PM  
It has nothing to do with punishment, or lessons to others. The death penalty is simply the only workable solution to irreparably anti-social individuals. Much like with rabid dogs, if a person is so completely out of control that they are a danger to themselves and everyone around them, then the only safe thing to do for everybody is to put them to sleep. Vengeance, justice, abject lessons, those are all just corollaries to the primary purpose of executions: Public safety. If you have a rabid dog? You put it down so it doesn't maul anyone or endanger others. Dilapidated building with multiple gas leaks and shoddy wiring? You destroy it so it doesn't burn down or blow up and endanger everyone nearby. If you've got an unrepentant rapist or murderer who cannot understand why his actions harm society as a whole, or simply doesn't care, then the only thing you can do is put them down as safely and humanely as possible before they harm you and everybody around you.
 
Displayed 50 of 362 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report