- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 11,593
- Reaction score
- 2,380
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I hope not. It was getting a little silly.
I hope not. It was getting a little silly.Thank you. :mrgreen: I know this. You don't have to keep saying it.
It's because his pain ends once he's dead.
I hope not. It was getting a little silly.
Este no es el sotano.Because my above comment is true, and you can't refute it, so now you are going to pout. Okay, pout away.
what like you have special powers to bore people into submission:liar2:kissassPreferably? The manner of his demise would be wrought of every protracted agony as ingenuity can conceive of. Consider it a preview of what some believe could well be his eternity.
You know what amuses me most about you enablers? The fact that, despite your teary histrionics, you don't actually give two ****s what happens to these ****bags. No one does. You merely affect concern, in some contrived pretence of enlightened social comment.
I'm the guy you don't fool.
If only. Were it so, I might be spared the impediment of encroaching witlings like yourself.what like you have special powers to bore people into submission:liar2:kissass
what like you have special powers to bore people into submission:liar2:kissass
Bandwagon!
Chris lives again. Yay!
You know, you're really letting emotion overtake logic here. The only logical reason you would have for supporting the death penalty would be overcrowding in prisons. THAT is the only logical argument for it; every other argument for it is laden with emotion and knee jerk responses.
The emotional argument in this case would be that society "should" let a man who raped and killed a 6 month old live, because of an obligation to treat him humanely. He did not act humanely when he raped and killed a baby, thus deserves no humane treatment. The logical response would be to kill him. Logic implies that equity would be utilized.
Since 1977, California has had 13 executions at a cost placed by
federal Ninth Circuit Judge Arthur Alarcon and Loyola Law School
Professor Paula Mitchell at $4 billion. That amounts to about
$300 million dollars per execution, or 20 times what seemed to
Magagnini and others a reasonable estimate in 1988. A report by
Natasha Minsker at ACLU of Northern California nicely sums up the
question of costs, "And today, with California's urgent budget crisis in law
enforcement and victims' services as well as other vital areas,
we simply can't afford this kind of extravagance!"
Getting more cops and homicide investigators on the beat, solving
more "cold case" homicides and improving on the clearance rates
for murder now at only around 50% in many of our counties,
keeping services for victims adequately funded, and "connecting
the dots" to prevent some of these homicides and other violent
crimes -- these are agendas the public can understand. And SB 490
gives them the opportunity to rethink priorities in a situation
the voters didn't have before them in 1972, 1978, or 1986.
Finally, there's a third trend that's been quietly percolating
over these eventful decades: a recognition that LWOP actually
means what it says in California! Over 3700 California prisoners
have received this sentence, with only a handful released because
of the one "escape clause" we should want to keep: later it had
been discovered that they were actually innocent of the offenses
for which they had been convicted. LWOP, like the death penalty,
spells permanent incarceration and death in prison -- but allows
room for correcting the rare but not unknown miscarriage of
justice.
No it isn't. The logical argument is that to get rid of the death penalty saves money, and again there is the potential of executing innocent people. Why spend this money on executions when it could be spent in much more productive manner?
Death Penalty*:*Cost
Logic has nothing to do with money. Logic is about making judgements based on facts and circumstances.
Yes, and the amount of money spent is a fact and a circumstance.
Fools, reason, intellect. A frightful nuisance they are. lulzSorry, I don't suffer fools well. :lol:
Fools, reason, intellect. A frightful nuisance they are. lulz
Indeed. That was a contribution of rare insight.Look, go bother someone else with your ridiculousness. I'm trying to discuss the topic like an adult.
Indeed. That was a contribution of rare insight.
Some people need to be put out of their misery. These arguments about "civilized people don't do that" and "we need to set an example" are ridiculous. Clearly, these people have never been affected by violent crime. As for the examples posted where victims of violent crimes are against the dp.. i don't care. This isn't about them and their revenge or healing process-- whatever it may be. It is about getting rid of people who are not worthy to exist.
Of course you do, it's not YOUR arse on the line. These appeals are in place for a reason. They are there to protect US, the United States citizen, to make sure we are not being railroaded, etc. It's like one of OUR rights to protect us. Sorry that so many of you don't understand that concept.
You know, you're really letting emotion overtake logic here. The only logical reason you would have for supporting the death penalty would be overcrowding in prisons. THAT is the only logical argument for it; every other argument for it is laden with emotion and knee jerk responses.
Nonsense. And overplayed. Every time someone uses an example of the type of people who should receive the dp due to horrific crimes, those against the dp chime in with "you're just being emotional." That's their only retort. It's simply untrue. People who would rape and murder infants should not exist in the first place. But there's nothing that can change what they did, so erasing their existence is the closest option. If these individuals did not exist, the world would be a better place. And no, overcrowded prisons are not the only logical argument for the dp. Try a little harder.. seriously. Even I wouldn't argue that people should die because prisons are overcrowded.
Secondly, those against the dp try to appear enlightened while arguing that those who support the dp are barbaric. Don't be so sure. These same people value worthless, depraved individuals. That, in no way, makes them enlightened.
I don't think that anyone who is against the DP "values" these kinds of people. It is just extremely ineffective in every realm, as a deterrent, as being cost effective, etc., etc.
I don't think that anyone who is against the DP "values" these kinds of people. It is just extremely ineffective in every realm, as a deterrent, as being cost effective, etc., etc.
No it isn't. The logical argument is that to get rid of the death penalty saves money, and again there is the potential of executing innocent people. Why spend this money on executions when it could be spent in much more productive manner?
Death Penalty*:*Cost
Yes, they do value them. They act concerned about these individuals being treated with dignity as if that should matter. They are not people. They are empty vessels which is why they suck the life out of others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?