reading comprehension 101. Use of bold.

Quote :

"If there is irrefutable proof, why in the hell do they deserve more than one trail. That trial could last less than a week. witness 1: I saw it witness 2: I saw it witness 3: DNA witness 4: no aliby witness 5: cameras witness 6: forensic evidence kill him."

4/20/2006 4:13:38 PM

we had irrefutable proof al'qaida was training in iraq and that iraq had nuclear weapons ready to send to america.

that was proved false, but only after an amount of time. the appeals process is a good thing. get over it.

4/20/2006 4:16:03 PM

No we didn't.

I don't support the Iraq war. I dont' support Bush. Just because I'm conservative doesn't mean you'll catch me in that loop.

4/20/2006 4:20:20 PM

Quote :

"buddha1747: its pretty big news whenever some is executed "

Quote :

" 30thAnnZ: really? off the top of your head, who was the last executed in NC? in the US? yeah that's what i thought. bigger news than tom cruise's baby alright. "

Quote :

"abonorio: it might be big news because hippies make it big news with protests. THat's usually the topic of the news. You might hear what that person did to be on death row behind the scenes, but it's ususally about the moratorium discussion, the vigils, the blah. Crazy, no one holds vigils for the slain people 25 years ago that these monsters tortured. If you get caught killing someone red handed and the community comes out the day after, drags you to the city square, and hangs your ass, people will think twice about it, I guarantee. "

http://www.n-tv.de/659386.html

babelfish won't directly translate and i have class, so just copy and paste into http://babelfish.altavista.com/

4/21/2006 8:59:30 AM

Quote :

"I'm just gonna let this one fizzle out on its own, unless it just gets even more absurdly chit chatty and stupid. i'd prefer not to get into the business of locking threads just because they're dumb."

NO FIZZLE

5/11/2006 4:19:05 PM

honestly I feel that murder is murder is murder

I don't see how the government can feel that the death penalty is justifiable. We have laws that say killing someone is illegal, however if you kill someone it's okay for us to kill you.

I understand the whole eye for an eye thing, but for many convicted of murder, life in prison would me much worse than being sentenced to death.

Think about someone convicted of raping a killing a 8 year old girl, the other inmates after finding out about this would put that person in hell because a lot of inmates have children that they would do anything to be with again.

There are also too many flaws and politics in the judicial system to ensure that every person sentenced to death is guilty of the crime

5/22/2006 12:59:51 PM

Because killing != murdering

5/22/2006 1:25:58 PM

I think the fact that it takes 25 yrs to execute someone is ridiculous. Give'em a few years to "appeal" and thats it, end of story.

You sympathetic bastards can foot their bill for 40 yrs of prison, living better than a lot of citizens.

5/22/2006 1:39:24 PM

Quote :

"You sympathetic bastards can foot their bill for 40 yrs of prison, living better than a lot of citizens"

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

Quote :

"it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life. "

I would rather pay for life in prison

5/22/2006 2:11:58 PM

Quote :

"We have laws that say killing someone is illegal, however if you kill someone it's okay for us to kill you."

We also have laws against locking someone up against their will, but I don't see you saying that prison terms aren't justifiable.

5/22/2006 2:18:59 PM

[Edited on May 22, 2006 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ugh... not reading clearly]

5/22/2006 2:22:23 PM

Quote :

"good god no i like living in a relatively civil society, thank you"

there really isnt anything un-civil about it. i mean there is an audience for non-public ececutions already.

now here is the uncivil aspect, imagin how much money you could make by making them aired on pay per view

5/22/2006 9:43:55 PM

^^^haha

not to mention the fortyeleven other things wrong with her post

5/23/2006 1:44:42 AM

Criminals are dumb. Sure, we can all agree on that. If they were smart, they wouldn't be breaking the law in the first place.

However, I feel as if the punishments we assign to many of the crimes in this country don't deter the criminals from commiting the crimes.

Are we trying to assign slaps on the wrist or visits to the time-out corner OR should we be trying to find a way to deter the crime from ever happening?

Then there is the impossible task of assigning which infraction gets which punishment.

*Shrug*

It's a slippery slope.

I, for one, think we should cane people. Branding sex offenders would be kinda cool too.. like on the cheek or forehead or something. Public executions? Too quick. Death is an easy out. Keep em alive, in a deep, dark hole. Bring them out and beat then every few days. Throw them back in the hole. Bread and water.

5/23/2006 1:55:46 AM

or not



and i don't think many are arguing for deterrance

5/23/2006 2:15:47 AM

If the government brings back public executions, we should publicly execute the government.

Whatever the hell that means.

5/23/2006 7:45:41 AM

Just to throw an example out there..

Singapore has a VERY strict penal code, with the death penalty assigned to a lot of crimes not considered worthy of execution.

Example: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020412re.htm

That basically talks about how they hang people for drug trafficing.

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

There's the Wiki link to Caning. Shows a list of all the offenses a criminal can be caned for.

Now, yeah all this sounds like a harsh, barbaric society. However, Singapore DOES enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Plus, as stated in that first link, they have no intention of getting rid of capital punishment. Obviously either their implimentation is correct, or the punishments are severe enough (or both), to effectively cut down crime.

I don't know... but they are doing something right.

5/23/2006 9:47:02 AM

By executing someone, does that remove all the pain and suffering that the family has endured? Does it bring back or removed the pain of the victim? If not, what is the point?

5/23/2006 10:03:49 AM

Quote :

"If not, what is the point?"

Well, I equate this loosely to nuclear weapons. I preface this with the underlined loosely, becuase it's definitely not a perfect comparison.

One of the big arguments behind nuclear weapons is that they are a deterrant. In this respect they could be compared to the death penalty. The argument could be made that there are people out there crazy enough to kill, but they don't want to die themselves. If you remove or significantly lower the likelyhood of death from the equation, then those people would have one less barrier to overcome if they were to decide to kill. No one is saying that they definitely WILL start a killing spree, but taking that deterrant away could make it easier for someone to decide to kill.

Then again, look at the way we handle executions. I'd almost argue that those sentanced to death don't have life taken from them in the way that deters the crime from taking place. Its a long, drawn out process in which a criminal, even if 100% guilty still gets many years to live life, even if in a cell.

5/23/2006 10:14:17 AM

Quote :

"I would rather pay for life in prison"

sawahash, did you miss the first thing I said, about giving them a few years to appeal and thats it. B/c that would GREATLY reduce the bullshit costs for them we all pay in taxes.

5/23/2006 1:19:47 PM

^^the death penalty isn't really a deterrant, while MAD (or simply "assured destruction") certainly is.

5/23/2006 2:15:11 PM

^I agree. I also support a system where people who commit high crimes (murder, rape, child molestation) are forced to work for the rest of their lives, as opposed to killing them. Killing the perpetrator solves nothing. It does not bring back the vicitm if s/he was killed, and does not alleviate the pain s/he suffered/is suffering if s/he was assaulted in some way. Let me ask people this. Which would you prefer: to die or to look forward to a life of digging ditches everyday for the rest of your life (15 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year)?

5/23/2006 2:24:45 PM

Quote :

"the death penalty isn't really a deterrant"

Are you positive? You're telling me that no one, not a single person on the earth throughout the course of human history has ever thought about killing someone then thought "Well, I don't want to die too."

I'd say that is a very broad generalization, which is probably untrue. Granted, I'll wager it's not the deterrant it may have been, or probably COULD be.

And yes, it's similiar. Getting killed for killing someone is sorta like nuking someone and getting nuked in return. The difference is that with nuclear weapsons, everyone else dies too.

5/23/2006 2:36:26 PM

The DP may be a deterrent to individuals, but overall executing someone does not have a significant effect on the amound of murders. So no it is not a deterrent!

5/23/2006 5:52:37 PM

capital punishment for a capital crime

5/23/2006 6:23:00 PM

I'm against the death penalty, but what I don't understand is if you're going to do it.... what is "cruel and unusual" about a firing squad. Seems short, sweet, and cheap. I would rather be shot point blank in the back of the head then get the electric chair.

5/23/2006 7:02:08 PM

if you're going to die.. who cares about cruel and unusual. You're not going to suffer any lasting effects of psychological damage.. you'll be dead. Feed them to the pigs.

5/23/2006 11:47:55 PM

the constitution cares about cruel and unusual fuckwad

5/24/2006 8:11:48 AM

Nono... I'm being semi-serious. Forget about the constitution for a sec. Or at least, provide me with a logical reason why it's wrong other than "Cause the constitution says so." Cruel and Unusual doesn't seem to make a lot of logical sense. Sure it sounds good to the moral ear to say "Oh, well, we kill people humanely," but you're still killing, which is hardly humane in the first place. Furthermore, what difference does it make? They're dead in the end. Nothing changes. Throw them in a giant meat grinder, skin them alive with a cheese grater, make them slide naked down a greased razorblade, kick them off the Sears Tower, they still die in the end.

5/24/2006 8:53:02 AM

I don't know, maybe its a case of trying to rise above the crimes the person commited? Like ok, this criminal raped a woman and gutted her with a knife... so we'll execute him, but we won't be as sick as him and just give a lethal injection? Plus it probably has to do with rules about torture.


My question is just when did someone decide the firing squad was cruel? Becuase its definately not unusual. What was their justification, because I'm not seeing it... unless there was a case of the firing squad missing and just horribly wounding the person and then having to do it again.

5/24/2006 12:27:45 PM

Quote :

"Of course, I understand that you're largely just pointing out the flaw in the If the death penalty serves as a deterrent to even 1 potential murder, then it has served it's purpose argument. I resolve both with the "are we saving lives, on the whole" consideration...although I still then apply the "would I be comfortable with throwing the switch myself" as a final sanity check."

if innocent people being fried are a worry, i don't think your concern should be whether or not you'll be pulling the switch, i think your concern (as is mine) should be whether or not you'll be the (innocent) one sitting in the chair on lying on the table.

5/24/2006 4:39:17 PM

^I agree. Its always fine and dandy, until YOU'RE the one lying on the table, knowing in your heart that you are innocent of the crime and the only thing you are guilty of is being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

5/24/2006 4:49:06 PM

why in the hell is it costing us 2 million+ to execute someone? A bullet and some clorox doesn't cost anywhere that much

5/24/2006 5:36:25 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, what difference does it make? They're dead in the end. Nothing changes. Throw them in a giant meat grinder, skin them alive with a cheese grater, make them slide naked down a greased razorblade, kick them off the Sears Tower, they still die in the end."

So we can just torture anyone, because we're all going to die sometime

5/24/2006 9:27:04 PM

Quote :

"So we can just torture anyone, because we're all going to die sometime"

But I'm not directly talking about torture. I'm making the distinction of killing someone cruelly, not torturing them then letting them go.

If you are being executed, it doesn't make a difference HOW you're killed, because somewhere in the process it is intended that you will die.

5/25/2006 8:57:37 AM