Death Penalty

[1Parker1]

I don't normally post in this forum, but I recently saw the previews for a new show on ABC called "InJustice" which follows the fictional lives of in mates on death row, most wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commmit.

Death Penalty is something that I can always debate with back and forth. On the one hand, I feel that "an eye for an eye" is the right thing in some cases. Yet, the fact is, there are many people on death row wrongly convicted of crimes they didn't commit. And even if there's a chance that one innocent person can die as a result of the death penalty, makes me lean against it.

What are your thoughts?

[Oh, Gee!!]

stay in the girls forum

[bigzak25]

Once in captivity and no longer a threat to society?

I'm ANTI DEATH PENALTY, IN ALL CASES.

As a matter of fact, i think parole should be abolished as well.

Give out 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 year sentences based on the crime.

Limit of ONE appeal, so you better make it count.

Crime rates would dive.

Tax payer dollars used for trials would drop.

In the worst case crimes? 100 years should do it. If they live that long? They can live out the remainder in a nursing home. :lol

[1Parker1]

stay in the girls forum


You should also.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You should also.

I would if they weren't all "big-boned."

[bigzak25]

thanks for posting here parker, ignore the kids. :tu

[1Parker1]

:depressed Damn political activists are cold blooded...


:lol

[PakiDan]

Once in captivity and no longer a threat to society?

I'm ANTI DEATH PENALTY, IN ALL CASES.

As a matter of fact, i think parole should be abolished as well.

Give out 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 year sentences based on the crime.

Limit of ONE appeal, so you better make it count.

Crime rates would dive.

Tax payer dollars used for trials would drop.

In the worst case crimes? 100 years should do it. If they live that long? They can live out the remainder in a nursing home. :lol

Tax payer dollars used to permantly house inmates would skyrocket. Don't want to die?? Don't commit murder.

[bigzak25]

well, i understand your viewpoint Paki as I was once a strong supporter of the death penalty. i just feel it's wrong now if the criminal is safely in custody.

[ducks]

you can preventing alot more murders if they started using the death penalty more and started actually put people to death within the first 3 years instead of 20 years after the fact


you may put somone to death that did not commit the crime but with dna now that is almost impossible

[exstatic]

I am pro-death penalty, but I think it is WAY overused, especially in some states that start with T and end with exas. I think it should be reserved for any killings in which the victim is tortured, and also serial killings. Serial killers are like the tiger or the lion that acquires a taste for human flesh. They will not stop killing, and cannot be rehabbed, and almost everyone would sleep better knowing they were planted.

[SpursWoman]

I am pro-death penalty, but I think it is WAY overused, especially in some states that start with T and end with exas. I think it should be reserved for any killings in which the victim is tortured, and also serial killings. Serial killers are like the tiger or the lion that acquires a taste for human flesh. They will not stop killing, and cannot be rehabbed, and almost everyone would sleep better knowing they were planted.


And if it's against a small child, we should be able to kill him/her twice. :fro

[Nbadan]

I would if they weren't all "big-boned."

:lmao

ddddaaaammmmmmnnnnn.

[Nbadan]

I'm generally against the death penalty, that is, except for turdblossoms who expose CIA operatives working to find illegal WMDs and then lie about it to the Special Counsel.

[jochhejaam]

I'm generally against the death penalty, that is, except for turdblossoms who expose CIA operatives working to find illegal WMDs and then lie about it to the Special Counsel.
So you're basically against it except for when you're for it...that's heavy.


I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -John F. Kerry-

Inconsistency seems to run in the family.

[Ginofan]

.

[MannyIsGod]

:depressed Damn political activists are cold blooded...


:lol
People that bitch and moan on the internet are not political activists.

[SA210]

So you're basically against it except for when you're for it...that's heavy.



Inconsistency seems to run in the family.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_two_faced.jpg

[1Parker1]

It costs more to execute someone than keep them in maximum security for life. This is a fact. Three times as much, approximately

Where did you find that stat? I was under the impression it costs more to hold criminals behind bars for life, which also causes the problem of overpopulation, than to execute them. Isn't that one of the arguments FOR the death penalty?

[Vashner]

Once in captivity and no longer a threat to society?

I'm ANTI DEATH PENALTY, IN ALL CASES.

As a matter of fact, i think parole should be abolished as well.

Give out 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 year sentences based on the crime.

Limit of ONE appeal, so you better make it count.

Crime rates would dive.

Tax payer dollars used for trials would drop.

In the worst case crimes? 100 years should do it. If they live that long? They can live out the remainder in a nursing home. :lol

Then your IRS taxes should be flagged and extra money should come from your payroll to pay for 3 squares and expenses.

Killing the fuckers saves a lot of money...

[Crookshanks]

Where did you find that stat? I was under the impression it costs more to hold criminals behind bars for life, which also causes the problem of overpopulation, than to execute them. Isn't that one of the arguments FOR the death penalty?

Last week when we were discussing Tookie Williams, someone posted info about the costs of imprisonment vs. death. Death costs more because of all the appeals afforded to death row inmates. Let's face it, Tookie was on death row for 20 years and had several appeals to all levels of the court, including the US Supreme Court. Since death row inmates have no income, we the taxpayers get to pay for all those appeals!

I say severly limit the number of appeals and the costs will go down. There's no way a person should be on death row for 20 years! I think 5 years is plenty.

[Extra Stout]

I say severly limit the number of appeals and the costs will go down. There's no way a person should be on death row for 20 years! I think 5 years is plenty.
Costs will go down with an expedited appeals process, yes. We would have to accept as a consequence an increase in mistaken executions.

[ducks]

It costs more to execute someone than keep them in maximum security for life. This is a fact. Three times as much, approximately
they could always use a 25 cent bullet :smokin

[Nbadan]

People that bitch and moan on the internet are not political activists.

:rolleyes

I remember a time when people said this forum would never succeed.

Information is power.

:hat

[FromWayDowntown]

Costs will go down with an expedited appeals process, yes. We would have to accept as a consequence an increase in mistaken executions.

That and a willingness to ignore fundamental tenets of due process. I suspect that if anyone of the "fewer appeals" crowd had a loved one who was up for capital murder with a claim of innocence, they'd be all about more appeals and careful examination of what's going on.

I'm honestly against the death penalty in every circumstance. It is not my place to deprive any person of his life, regardless of the reasons for suggesting that he should die. There is value in every person, even if that person commits acts that we might deem unpardonable. A life behind bars remains a life open to the possibility of making atonement and seeking foregiveness. Even if its a remote possiblity, it's a possibility. Plus, in most cases, we can't be 100% sure that the convicted person actually committed the murder -- there have been too many instances in which people sentenced to death were later shown to be innocent for me to believe that death sentences accurately reflect what took place.

[xrayzebra]

That and a willingness to ignore fundamental tenets of due process. I suspect that if anyone of the "fewer appeals" crowd had a loved one who was up for capital murder with a claim of innocence, they'd be all about more appeals and careful examination of what's going on.

I'm honestly against the death penalty in every circumstance. It is not my place to deprive any person of his life, regardless of the reasons for suggesting that he should die. There is value in every person, even if that person commits acts that we might deem unpardonable. A life behind bars remains a life open to the possibility of making atonement and seeking foregiveness. Even if its a remote possiblity, it's a possibility. Plus, in most cases, we can't be 100% sure that the convicted person actually committed the murder -- there have been too many instances in which people sentenced to death were later shown to be innocent for me to believe that death sentences accurately reflect what took place.

I will go along with that, no death penalty. But, a very big but, life means
life. And believe me when I say there are some who have no value in this
world. None. I don't buy the statement: many instances in which people
sentenced to death were later shown to be innocent. Some have been
found innocent, not many. But saying your sorry just doesn't make it so.

[FromWayDowntown]

I will go along with that, no death penalty. But, a very big but, life means life. And believe me when I say there are some who have no value in this world. None. I don't buy the statement: many instances in which people sentenced to death were later shown to be innocent. Some have been found innocent, not many. But saying your sorry just doesn't make it so.

Many instances could be several -- it doesn't mean its pervasive, but it does mean that it has happened on a number of occasions. To me, if one innocent person has been executed, it's too many.

If you're so sure that life is sacrosanct, I'd think the idea that ANY innocent person may have been put to death would be enough to convince you that the death penalty is wrong. That, or enough to remind you that it really isn't all that important when we're dealing with poor minorities who don't get very good representation in courts and can be railroaded through to a death sentence without anything other than circumstantial evidence to support the conviction.

[xrayzebra]

Many instances could be several -- it doesn't mean its pervasive, but it does mean that it has happened on a number of occasions. To me, if one innocent person has been executed, it's too many.

If you're so sure that life is sacrosanct, I'd think the idea that ANY innocent person may have been put to death would be enough to convince you that the death penalty is wrong. That, or enough to remind you that it really isn't all that important when we're dealing with poor minorities who don't get very good representation in courts and can be railroaded through to a death sentence without anything other than circumstantial evidence to support the conviction.

Then you agree that we should do away with air bags in cars? Why, because it has taken the life of many children. Using your argument,
if they kill one child, it is to many. How about the poor, I can cite many
cases where good intentioned laws discriminate against the poor. Mandatory liability insurance is just one.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then you agree that we should do away with air bags in cars? Why, because it has taken the life of many children. Using your argument,
if they kill one child, it is to many. How about the poor, I can cite many
cases where good intentioned laws discriminate against the poor. Mandatory liability insurance is just one.

I think you're badly confusing concepts here. The idea that any person should be permitted to decide that another should die is a view that I don't subscribe to. That is leagues different from acknowledging that there are circumstances in the world that lead to unfortunate deaths. Planes crash and kill people, too, but generally, there isn't a jury of 12 people deciding whether the plane crashes or not.

Death is a consequence of living, but it's not a matter that should be imposed upon any one person by another who purports to sit in judgment.

I have no idea how mandatory liability insurance has anything to do with the dearth of quality legal services available to poor people who are charged with capital crimes. I don't see the State sentencing people to the termination of their lives because they can't pay for car insurance. I do see the real possibility that the State is deciding whether people can live or die because they can't afford to retain good lawyers who will put the State to its proof and provide at least adequate defense against criminal charges. If you equate the two, I can't possibly convince you to let go of that illogic.

[xrayzebra]

I think you're badly confusing concepts here. The idea that any person should be permitted to decide that another should die is a view that I don't subscribe to. That is leagues different from acknowledging that there are circumstances in the world that lead to unfortunate deaths. Planes crash and kill people, too, but generally, there isn't a jury of 12 people deciding whether the plane crashes or not.

Death is a consequence of living, but it's not a matter that should be imposed upon any one person by another who purports to sit in judgment.

I have no idea how mandatory liability insurance has anything to do with the dearth of quality legal services available to poor people who are charged with capital crimes. I don't see the State sentencing people to the termination of their lives because they can't pay for car insurance. I do see the real possibility that the State is deciding whether people can live or die because they can't afford to retain good lawyers who will put the State to its proof and provide at least adequate defense against criminal charges. If you equate the two, I can't possibly convince you to let go of that illogic.

The legislature passing law making air bags mandatory is different from
12 people? It is people passing judgement of what is necessary for
others. The liability thing was an example of other laws that discriminate
against poor. In some cases it is almost a matter of life and death.
They are made to either have the insurance, not drive or violate a law
which is very expensive if caught. I am just trying to show you how
law affects all people at all levels and not necessarily fair. People say
all the time there ought to be a law, but never think of the consequences.

[Extra Stout]

FWD, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

:lol

sigh