peacefuljeffrey 0 #26 January 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteFirst he accused me of wanting a guy executed for attempted murder you said that he should have been executed after he murdered somebody. Quote***He's a murderer; he should have been executed. And if they didn't want to do it the first time he murdered, they damn well should have done it after he tried to then kill the pope! Most if not all western nations do not agree that there should be a death penalty. Further, now you want the death penalty for attempted murder as well? See? You were accusing me of wanting him executed for the attempted murder of the pope, before you even knew that he was already a convicted murderer. QuoteTo go back to your original post, in which you only mention the attempted murder. If two heads of state pardon him, including the one he attempted to murder, then what is it to you if they let him go or not? I expect the courts and governments to do their job and protect society from such people who have demonstrated their willingness to murder. That's the job of governments; releasing murderers out among us is malfeasance. Murderers should be executed upon conviction for murder. Whether to release this guy years later should have been a nonissue. The only thing there should have been to release is a small bowl of ashes, maybe. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #27 January 11, 2006 >And dead murderers never kill again. Neither dead murderers nor murderers in prison for life can kill again. >I guess we should just let them go free . . . . A straw man argument. We don't do that. No one, not one, capital-punishment protester claims we "should just let them go free." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #28 January 11, 2006 QuoteSee? You were accusing me of wanting him executed for the attempted murder of the pope, before you even knew that he was already a convicted murderer. Not quite sure how you get to that conclusion, nor see what it matters. I was asking you if you wanted the death penalty for attemtped murder based on the statement you made. If he killed before really has no bearing on that (though I was aware of that). QuoteI expect the courts and governments to do their job and protect society from such people who have demonstrated their willingness to murder. That's the job of governments; releasing murderers out among us is malfeasance. Murderers should be executed upon conviction for murder. Whether to release this guy years later should have been a nonissue. The only thing there should have been to release is a small bowl of ashes, maybe. Then you may want to start at home. The governments of all three countries involved (Vatican, Italy and Turkey) are doing a better job at protecting their societies than America is. Murder rates (since we are discussing murder in this thread) are lower in those countries than the USA. These countries seem to be doing something right...maybe you should learn from them in stead of behaving like they would be better of if they adopted American style punishment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #29 January 11, 2006 Quote>And dead murderers never kill again. Neither dead murderers nor murderers in prison for life can kill again. Sure, murder never occurs in jails....(sigh!)."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #30 January 12, 2006 QuoteFurther, now you want the death penalty for attempted murder as well? I'm entering this one late, so apologies if this has already been discussed. WHY would you give someone a lesser sentence for failing? Murder was in his heart, the penalty should be the penalty for murder. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #31 January 12, 2006 QuoteMurder doesn't carry the death penalty in most Western Nations. Some call it evolving. And some call it soft. Let's pretend for a moment that the death penalty is off the table everywhere. Is a measly 10 years in prison an adaquate punishment for murder? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #32 January 12, 2006 Quote QuoteMurder doesn't carry the death penalty in most Western Nations. Some call it evolving. And some call it soft. Let's pretend for a moment that the death penalty is off the table everywhere. Is a measly 10 years in prison an adaquate punishment for murder? - Jim Some consider candy bars to be appropiate for reaching repentance."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #33 January 12, 2006 Quote>And dead murderers never kill again. Neither dead murderers nor murderers in prison for life can kill again. For shame, Bill! Quote the whole sentence!: "We have no shortage of murderers in jail for sentences other than execution. Apparently, 25-years-to-life is also no deterrent to murderers. I guess we should just let them go free, since the threat of prison also won't stop them." For what it's worth, PLENTY of people who have already been in prison for murdering another human being (you can call it "manslaughter" if you want -- I include those too) go on to murder more people after release. "Life in prison" is a FUCKING BULLSHIT TERM -- one of the BIGGEST FRAUDS ever perpetrated on the People. HARDLY ANYONE, it seems, actually serves the rest of their lives in prison. Well, maybe some big-money drug dealers do, but not the fucking MURDERERS. And then there are the escapes. How many times do we hear in the news of "life in prison" murderers becoming escapees who somehow get out, carjack someone, hold hostages, kill again...? More often than we should ever hear -- since murderers should be dead. Bill, I might be pursuaded away from the death penalty if we could stop with the fucking lies. Stop calling a 10 year sentence "life in prison," and make sure these people stay there until they actually DIE there. We are not nearly there. So I cannot yet support "life in prison" as an alternative to capital punishment. QuoteQuote>I guess we should just let them go free . . . . A straw man argument. We don't do that. No one, not one, capital-punishment protester claims we "should just let them go free." The argument used against the death penalty -- that it is not a deterrent to murder -- can be used against life in prison. Why bother to keep them there for life? It won't deter them from murdering to know that they stand to go to prison until they die there. Why spend all that money? Why not just give them ten years, during which we'll try to "rehabilitate" them -- make them "productive members of society"? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #34 January 12, 2006 QuoteQuote>And dead murderers never kill again. Neither dead murderers nor murderers in prison for life can kill again. Sure, murder never occurs in jails....(sigh!). Excellent point, juanesky. Thank you. And they sometimes murder prisoners who are there for much much less serious crimes. How about a drug offender who is murdered by a hard-core killer in prison? Should the drug offense be a capital crime, in that sense? Bill is the one who wants the murderer housed in prison for life, just because some of the public and politicians are too squeamish about executing them. And such imprisoned-for-life people do get the opportunity to murder other inmates, sometimes riot, sometimes take hostages, sometimes maim and kill prison guards. (How it is so much more palatable to them to lock a guy in a drab, 6x8 cell for 23 hours of every day is something I cannot fathom. That seems the cruelest, most harsh kind of existence, and death would be preferable to that kind of "life." But the anti-death-penalty crowd tells us that we are the ones who are cruel and bloodthirsty and want to be mean to the murderers...) -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #35 January 12, 2006 >Why bother to keep them there for life? So they never kill an innocent person again. Pretty simple really. If you're worried about them killing other prisoners, put em solitary for life. Doesn't really matter to me. What matters is they never get out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #36 January 12, 2006 Quote>Why bother to keep them there for life? So they never kill an innocent person again. Pretty simple really. If you're worried about them killing other prisoners, put em solitary for life. Doesn't really matter to me. What matters is they never get out. REAL WORLD experience PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY that they DO get out, and they DO murder additional innocent people. Your solution does not guard against that. Mine does. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #37 January 12, 2006 QuoteAnd some call it soft. Yet it appears to be effective. All those western countries without a death penalty have lower murder rates than the US, with the death penalty. Like I said earlier, I guess americans just like killing eachother. It does make it very comical when an American starts lecturing other countries about justice and how to reduce crime with more severe punishment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #38 January 13, 2006 >Your solution does not guard against that. Life in solitary prevents them from killing anyone else, period. Now, if the justice system/jailers are incompetent, they may indeed get out; that's a good reason to fix the system. But if you assume incompetent justice system/jailers, you sure as hell are going to have problems with executing people via that system. Think about it this way. If you are accused of killing a cop, and the justice system is seriously flawed - do you really want there to be a death penalty? Like I've said before, I don't care much whether or not someone is put in jail for life (and that's for _life_ not for 10 years) or executed. Same result in the end. In both cases they die and in both cases they don't kill anyone else. And it's true that you have to have a good (consistent, fair, unwavering) justice system to have life imprisonment work - but you need an even better one for capital punishment to work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #39 January 13, 2006 Quote>Your solution does not guard against that. Life in solitary prevents them from killing anyone else, period. Yeah, well, I'd like to know just what percentage of murderers get life in solitary confinement as their sentence. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
