Skyrad 0 #26 September 22, 2011 Quote That's not particularly different from the Romans watching gladiators fighting lions in the Coliseum. And not as sporting eitherWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #27 September 22, 2011 Quote>Is it because you genuinely can't conceive any other opinions than the two you >provide or is it because you have a sexual fetish for false dichotomies? Why does it have to be one or the other? Kinda sorta the point...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 September 22, 2011 Quote IMO - no death penalty ever. For anything. It reduces our behavior to theirs. Releasing them from their torment. Easier than serving time. More expensive. Cruel. Can't be corrected when innocents are killed. Has had ZERO impact on murder reductions. Admit it, it's revenge. Plain and simple. Much like our drug war, it has proven to be a total waste. See.. it's not so hard to agree with me sometimesAdmit it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #29 September 22, 2011 Quote Keeping the white line strong! Go Texas! GO GEORGIA!!!! KILL BLACKIE!!!! Reminds me of that movie "Black Sheep" I think it was, where Chris Farley's whipping up the crowd into a frenzy, and then they go dead silent when he screams "KILL WHITEY!!!" "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 643 #30 September 22, 2011 Rarities do happen. I've even agreed with Kallend numerous times lately. We're not all that different. We humans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 136 #31 September 23, 2011 Quote I do firmly believe that there are people out there that do not deserve to breath the same air as I do. Osama Bin Laden, Hilter, several mass murders I am sure... THIS Hilter ? scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #32 September 23, 2011 QuoteIt reduces our behavior to theirs. This is suggesting that behavior is based on the end and not the means. I believe there is a difference between our behavior and theirs. QuoteReleasing them from their torment. Wouldn't releasing someone from their torment be considered more humane? This appears to be more revengeful ... QuoteEasier than serving time. Once again, this appears to be more revengeful ... QuoteMore expensive. A problem with the current system. Time from sentence to execution. QuoteCan't be corrected when innocents are killed. A problem with the current system. Amount (and type) of evidence for sentence to be execution. QuoteHas had ZERO impact on murder reductions. The point isn't to reduce murders, the point is to enforce justice. QuoteAdmit it, it's revenge. Plain and simple. I won't admit it because it's not. It's justice, plain and simple."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 146 #33 September 23, 2011 QuoteThe point isn't to reduce murders, the point is to enforce justice. These are only two of the points. From your point of view, there is only ONE point, and that is incorrect. There are many purposes of the justice system, or the death penalty. you cannot simplify it into one or two things. If a jury of his/her peers can sentence him/her to death, why cannot a jury of his/her peers free him 30 years later or commute the sentence ot life when questions about the guilt arise? The Casey Anthony case in FL recently - she may very well have been acquitted since the death penalty was on the table - she may very well have been convicted if it was not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #34 September 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe point isn't to reduce murders, the point is to enforce justice. These are only two of the points. From your point of view, there is only ONE point, and that is incorrect. There are many purposes of the justice system, or the death penalty. you cannot simplify it into one or two things. If a jury of his/her peers can sentence him/her to death, why cannot a jury of his/her peers free him 30 years later or commute the sentence ot life when questions about the guilt arise? The Casey Anthony case in FL recently - she may very well have been acquitted since the death penalty was on the table - she may very well have been convicted if it was not. Once again, a problem with the system. I think the jury should determine whether the individual is innocent or guilty and the judge should to determine the sentence based on a predefined set of rules."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #35 September 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe point isn't to reduce murders, the point is to enforce justice. These are only two of the points. From your point of view, there is only ONE point, and that is incorrect. There are many purposes of the justice system, or the death penalty. you cannot simplify it into one or two things. If a jury of his/her peers can sentence him/her to death, why cannot a jury of his/her peers free him 30 years later or commute the sentence ot life when questions about the guilt arise? The Casey Anthony case in FL recently - she may very well have been acquitted since the death penalty was on the table - she may very well have been convicted if it was not. Once again, a problem with the system. The clear and obvious problems of the system are the reasons it shouldn't pass irreversible sentences - ever.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #36 September 23, 2011 QuoteThe clear and obvious problems of the system are the reasons it shouldn't pass irreversible sentences - ever currently in most cases. Fixed it for you."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,169 #37 September 23, 2011 I agree there isn't a perfect system, and that's another part of why a death penalty without a clear video of the crime is not realistic. There isn't a system good enough to deliberately execute someone. That said, there are crimes for which, if the perpetrator were to ask for assisted suicide because they can't take prison any more -- I say go for it. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #38 September 23, 2011 QuoteThe clear and obvious problems of the system are the reasons it shouldn't pass irreversible sentences - ever. Spot on, IMO, John! I would have said "dead on" but I thought better of it. For the life of me (oops, there I go again) I cannot see how anyone could logically argue with that. And to tag Wendy's comment on: QuoteThat said, there are crimes for which, if the perpetrator were to ask for assisted suicide because they can't take prison any more -- I say go for it. I'd say go for it (allow it) no matter what the crime. I've always supported the "Death with Dignity" concept anyway.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 September 23, 2011 QuoteThe clear and obvious problems of the system are the reasons it shouldn't pass irreversible sentences - ever. Every day wrongly served in prison is irreversible. Is it okay to keep an innocent person in prison for life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 September 23, 2011 QuoteI agree there isn't a perfect system, and that's another part of why a death penalty without a clear video of the crime is not realistic. You seem to imply that you approve of the death penalty for the most heinous crimes, as long as the guilt of the accused is 100% positively known. Am I reading you correctly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #41 September 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe clear and obvious problems of the system are the reasons it shouldn't pass irreversible sentences - ever. Every day wrongly served in prison is irreversible. In the literal sense, that's true. But legally, at least, that harm, just like any other damages (like, say, permanent loss of health in an accident), is compensible. It's a way of "making the person whole" (as the term goes) in a way that, even if not equal, is at least as equivalent as possible. Plus, in the case of an innocent person (sentenced to life in prison) who is released before he dies, at least the wrongful harm can be stopped. Ain't no stoppin' dead. QuoteIs it okay to keep an innocent person in prison for life? Of course not. But at least he's still alive; and most of the time, life holds more than death, even in captivity. Is life in prison better or worse than death? I'd say that's for each individual prisoner to decide for himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #42 September 23, 2011 Quote .... Every day wrongly served in prison is irreversible. Is it okay to keep an innocent person in prison for life? Awwwww - so much compassion in your question ... but why does that entire post sound so hypocritical? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,169 #43 September 23, 2011 Not as a legal construct. It's not worth it. I do believe there are people who deserve to die. That's a different thing. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #44 September 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou seem to imply that you approve of the death penalty for the most heinous crimes, as long as the guilt of the accused is 100% positively known. Am I reading you correctly? Not as a legal construct. It's not worth it. I do believe there are people who deserve to die. That's a different thing. I'm having a little trouble with that one. It sounds just like the earlier argument that was made about how some people deserve to die, yet not by capital punishment. Again, that sounds contradictory to me. So you disapprove of government executing people, but think some people should be killed "somehow"? If they deserve to die, then why not by government, with all of our checks and balances to ensure that a fair trial has been given and a just verdict rendered? On the other hand if you think they deserve to die, yet don't want them to be killed, then that's nonsensical - you should just say that they don't deserve to die, period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #45 September 23, 2011 Quote Awwwww - so much compassion in your question ... but why does that entire post sound so hypocritical? Blah blah blah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 79 #46 September 23, 2011 QuoteI'm having a little trouble with that one. It sounds just like the earlier argument that was made about how some people deserve to die, yet not by capital punishment. Again, that sounds contradictory to me. I think what she is saying (Wendy forgive me if I am wrong) and what I would agree with is the fact that just because she personally would think that some people don't deserve to live, that doesn't me she thinks the government or legal system should be killing people. You can say the same for free speech. There are some people who's words make my blood boil and I would love nothing more than to have the law shut them up, but I don't think the government should be restricting speech so I bite my tongue and let them say what they will say. In the case of capital punishment there is just too much of a chance for failure within the system to risk executing someone. That doesn't mean they should be set free, it just means that we shouldn't be in the business of killing people. It also doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see that person killed, it just means that I don't think that a civilized society should execute people. Lock them up sure but at least if we find out that they were wrongly convicted we can let them out. Killing em, well, unless they were only mostly dead, you just can't reverse that.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #47 September 23, 2011 QuoteIt sounds just like the earlier argument that was made about how some people deserve to die, yet not by capital punishment. That was not the argument. QuoteAgain, that sounds contradictory to me. Because you're getting it wrong. QuoteSo you disapprove of government executing people, but think some people should be killed "somehow"? Wrong again. QuoteIf they deserve to die, then why not by government, with all of our checks and balances to ensure that a fair trial has been given and a just verdict rendered? Because the checks and balances of the legal system cannot always ensure a fair trial, and even a fair trial cannot always ensure a just verdict. Please try to understand that there is a difference between believing an individual person in an individual case deserves to die and believing that there is a good enough system in place to carry it through. QuoteOn the other hand if you think they deserve to die, yet don't want them to be killed, then that's nonsensical - you should just say that they don't deserve to die, period. Wrong again.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #48 September 23, 2011 QuoteBecause you're getting it wrong. Wrong again. Wrong again. Thanks for telling me how wrong I am, without bothering to offer a shred of explanation as to why you believe that to be so. Meaningless. You might as well spare your breath. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #49 September 23, 2011 Quote Quote Because you're getting it wrong. Wrong again. Wrong again. Thanks for telling me how wrong I am, without bothering to offer a shred of explanation as to why you believe that to be so. Meaningless. You might as well spare your breath. You post like you've never run into her before. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #50 September 23, 2011 QuoteThanks for telling me how wrong I am, without bothering to offer a shred of explanation as to why you believe that to be so. Except for the part of my reply which you didn't quote, which told you exactly why you're wrong. If you're so determined not to even understand an opposing argument, let alone see any shred of merit in it, I really have to wonder what the fuck it is you get out of this forum?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
