Democrats introduce bill to end the death penalty

[regulator 0]

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and seven other Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the possibility of imposing the death penalty for a range of federal offenses, including several categories of murder and crimes against the government like treason and espionage.

The Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act, H.R. 3741, would end the death penalty for assassination or kidnapping that results in the death of the president or vice president, and also ends it for the murder of a member of Congress.

Under the bill, the death penalty could no longer be used to punish people for using a weapon of mass destruction, or murder done via torture, child abuse, war crimes, aircraft hijackings, sexual abuse, bank robberies or the willful wrecking of a train.

Using chemical or biological materials to kill could also no longer result in the death penalty, nor could deaths related to treason or espionage. The death or injury of an unborn child could not result in the death penalty either.

Death of state or local law enforcement officials, using the mail to kill, kidnapping and killing people to stop them from testifying could no longer lead to the death penalty, nor could the use of firearms or armor piercing ammunition during any crime of violence.

http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/uncategorized/liberal-democrats-introduce-bill-end-death-penalty-treason/

[quade 3]

There is a fiscal conservative advantage to eliminating the death penalty. I dunno. Maybe we should at least look at it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[regulator 0]

What about prison overcrowding?

[Stumpy 256]

regulator

What about prison overcrowding?

What about it?
Death penalty doesn't even make a dent in that. Last year it was 0.003% of the prison population.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[regulator 0]

So if someone murdered your family I guess you'd bake them a pie and give them a card for the holidays.

[Stumpy 256]

regulator

So if someone murdered your family I guess you'd bake them a pie and give them a card for the holidays.

Huh?
WTF does that have to do with, well, anything? That's one of the least coherent arguments I have ever seen (and in here, that's saying something)

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[regulator 0]

do you or do you not support the death penalty?

[Stumpy 256]

As it happens I don't, but primarily for fiscal reasons. It doesn't make any sense.
And it doesn't help with prison overcrowding which is what you were implying (I think?).

As for giving them a card and baking them a cake - well that was just weird. Stick them somewhere with very high walls for life.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[quade 3]

regulator

What about prison overcrowding?

If we really wanted to do something about that, we'd change how we deal with drug related penalties.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rickjump1 0]

quade

There is a fiscal conservative advantage to eliminating the death penalty. I dunno. Maybe we should at least look at it.

Gitmo, and weld their shackles to the wall? Nah, final closure to the victim's families is a plus, but the fact that dead people never get out of prison to commit more murder is a bigger plus. There will always the "broken wing" Donnas of this world. She should switch to saving wolves or whales.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

There is a fiscal conservative advantage to eliminating the death penalty. I dunno. Maybe we should at least look at it.

Perhaps instead of ending all death penalty cases we should instead simply look at limiting the death penalty to the worst of the worst.

Me? I think that if a person kills someone (or arranges the death of someone) while in prison, that person have shown that he/she is a danger to the lives of others that cannot be eliminated.

Who here thinks that a humane option is to let a person live who kills while in prison?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

rickjump1

Nah, final closure to the victim's families is a plus, but the fact that dead people never get out of prison to commit more murder is a bigger plus.

The bigger discussion here is what society wants from its criminal justice system.

For the families, I completely understand the desire for death from a "closure" point of view, but that's never been what the criminal justice system was supposed to be about. It's not about providing "closure," and it shouldn't be about "revenge" either. It should be about preventing similar acts from reoccurring and to some people a "death penalty" simply isn't a deterrent.

The current death penalty system is expensive. Not because a vial of poison is expensive, but because of the lengthy appeals process. We could shorten that, but we'd also increase the incidents where an innocent man is put to death for no reason.

It's a tough question and one worth study.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

quade

I completely understand the desire for death from a "closure" point of view, but that's never been what the criminal justice system was supposed to be about. It's not about providing "closure," and it shouldn't be about "revenge" either. It should be about preventing similar acts from reoccurring

when did you start reading my newsletter?




(that's twice this week, Quade, on a couple fundamental concepts that I thought you were clear off on the other end of the playing field - cool. Merry Christmas)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rickjump1 0]

quade

***Nah, final closure to the victim's families is a plus, but the fact that dead people never get out of prison to commit more murder is a bigger plus.

The bigger discussion here is what society wants from its criminal justice system.

For the families, I completely understand the desire for death from a "closure" point of view, but that's never been what the criminal justice system was supposed to be about. It's not about providing "closure," and it shouldn't be about "revenge" either.
The current death penalty system is expensive. Not because a vial of poison is expensive, but because of the lengthy appeals process. We could shorten that, but we'd also increase the incidents where an innocent man is put to death for no reason.

It's a tough question and one worth study.I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent either, but I feel that some liberals are more interested in saving the life of a mass murderer than even considering the impact on the victims family. I think that's wrong. Revenge is sweet; maybe a byproduct, but it's wrong.
Expensive or not, "it should be about preventing similar acts from reoccurring", and executed people are never repeat offenders. It is no secret that murderers have been freed only to kill again, and people do escape from prison.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[normiss 644]

I do not.

I know you didn't ask me, but I couldn't resist.

I also do not teach my kids to not hit someone by hitting the kids.




I will never support our government killing us.
In any way.

They HAVE executed innocent people.

[quade 3]

rickjump1

Expensive or not, "it should be about preventing similar acts from reoccurring", and executed people are never repeat offenders.

That has to be balanced with, "Fuck! We just killed the wrong guy." My guess is we've probably killed the wrong guy far more times than we've let the right guy escape from prison and he's killed again.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[regulator 0]

normiss

I do not.

I know you didn't ask me, but I couldn't resist.

I also do not teach my kids to not hit someone by hitting the kids.




I will never support our government killing us.
In any way.

They HAVE executed innocent people.

I think the system should be re-evaluated and I am with lawrocket. It should be reserved for the worst of the worst.

If someone rapes, tortures and murders multiple people you honestly think that person deserves to live the rest of their lives on taxpayer money for their food every day? Yes they have made mistakes in the past, but I'm willing to keep it for the simple reason that some people are like mad dogs. They need to be put the fuck down. Here are a few examples

http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/dean_corll.htm

tortured, raped and murdered some 30 young boys.

What if that was your son?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/13/the-gruesome-story-of-a-murdered-tennessee-couple-you-may-have-never-heard-about-but-that-you-will-never-forget/

After they gangbanged this young girl and set her boyfriend on fire while he was still alive they poured draino down her throat thinking their splooge she ingested would go away.

Yeah by all means lets keep people like this alive. That is assinine.

So I guess you want the USA to be like Norway where someone can go crazy...murder 77 people and then be out in 20 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

[winsor 192]

It is now understood that violent crime is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain, so appropriate therapy is much more effective than any kind of punishment.

It has been demonstrated that an intracranial injection of 230 grains of lead restores the chemical balance, and results in a much more peaceful individual. Studies have shown that such therapy has had a 100% success rate in eliminating further violent actions.

Thus I agree with the good Congresswoman, we need less punishment and more therapy.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kelpdiver 2]

so....we know many other nations let people out that we would either executed or give real life sentences to.

but how many people have we put in jail for life, then paroled, then seen them kill again?

If you want to view this from a cost perspective, executions are losing. Now there's a lot of assumptions in the calculus to look at (including health care for old prisoners) that can be fucked with, but the legal expenses are fairly measurable.

And if reducing appeals is part of the solution for the cost equation, then how many more false executions are you willing to accept?

I don't have any moral objection to executing the right guy, but the two above are biggies, and they're on the wrong side of the argument to support the death penalty.

[jakee 1,280]

regulator

What about prison overcrowding?

What about it? 2011 US prison population: 2,266,800 - 2011 US executions: 43.

Do you even pretend to think about issues before making your mind up?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[regulator 0]

I said I think that the system does need to be re-evaluated. I do know that there have been people that were executed that could have been innocent. I'm familiar with the Houston crime lab and how many screw ups they've had, but I am unsure if that led to an innocent person getting executed. I do know that if the case has a mountain of evidence, perhaps witnesses that saw the perp do the crime, or DNA evidence linking them to say the murder of multiple children or something heinous like torture and murder of multiple people then they don't deserve to live the rest of their lives while their victims are long dead.

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent either, but I feel that some liberals are more interested in saving the life of a mass murderer than even considering the impact on the victims family.

And some republicans believe that the worse the crime, the laxer the judicial process should be, because killing someone in revenge quickly is more important than finding the right person. But those are both fringe issues. There are far better arguments both for and against.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

I do know that there have been people that were executed that could have been innocent.

Were innocent.

Quote

I do know that if the case has a mountain of evidence,

How do you distinguish that from 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Where do you find the window where you're sure enough to sentence to life but not sure enough to sentence to death?

Quote

perhaps witnesses that saw the perp do the crime,

Wrong a heck of a lot of the time.

Quote

or DNA evidence linking them

Wrong, misused or misrepresented in court a heck of a lot of the time.

Quote

to say the murder of multiple children or something heinous like torture and murder of multiple people

That the crime is horrific doesn't make the judicial process foolproof. Mistakes are made in the worse cases and tamest.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[regulator 0]

jakee

Quote

I do know that there have been people that were executed that could have been innocent.

Were innocent.

Quote

I do know that if the case has a mountain of evidence,

How do you distinguish that from 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Where do you find the window where you're sure enough to sentence to life but not sure enough to sentence to death?

Quote

perhaps witnesses that saw the perp do the crime,

Wrong a heck of a lot of the time.

Quote

or DNA evidence linking them

Wrong, misused or misrepresented in court a heck of a lot of the time.

Quote

to say the murder of multiple children or something heinous like torture and murder of multiple people

That the crime is horrific doesn't make the judicial process foolproof. Mistakes are made in the worse cases and tamest.

-------------------------------------------------
Then perhaps you can open up your house and they can live in your spare room for a while. Because what you are saying is equivalent to "well the system is broken so we should just let them go home"

[ryoder 1,412]

regulator

-------------------------------------------------
Then perhaps you can open up your house and they can live in your spare room for a while. Because what you are saying is equivalent to "well the system is broken so we should just let them go home"

Where in his post did he say life-without-parole was not an option?
In the event of a mistake, a life sentence can be commuted, unlike a death sentence.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.