Reply With Quote
stay in the girls forum
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?
stay in the girls forum
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.
You should also.
I would if they weren't all "big-boned."
thanks for posting here parker, ignore the kids.
Damn political activists are cold blooded...
Tax payer dollars used to permantly house inmates would skyrocket. Don't want to die?? Don't commit murder.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.
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.
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
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.
ddddaaaammmmmmnnnnn.
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.
Inconsistency seems to run in the family.I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -John F. Kerry-
.
People that and moan on the internet are not political activists.
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?
Then your IRS taxes should be flagged and extra money should come from your payroll to pay for 3 squares and expenses.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.
Killing the ers saves a lot of money...
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!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?
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.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.
they could always use a 25 cent bullet
I remember a time when people said this forum would never succeed.
Information is power.
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 cir stance. 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
