- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Two comments for that one:What about cases of identity theft? Some claim it's a pretty big problem, when people use dead people's names to get driver's licenses, credit cards, perhaps even to vote?
Two comments for that one:
One, ID cards aren't going to stop that kind of thing. If they've got all that info then they're essentially you. ((But the Board of Elections checks death records, that's why they have your DoB.))
Two, the Board of Elections sends out voter cards every election to your address of record. Sure, someone could intercept said card at the mailbox but at that point they're playing with USPS regulations, which makes voter fraud look like a speeding ticket.
Have you ever seen the penalties for mail theft? Last I looked, up to $250k and five years in (federal) jail - and a felony on your record.Hmm. That's an interesting statement.
Have you ever seen the penalties for mail theft? Last I looked, up to $250k and five years in (federal) jail - and a felony on your record.
To even get to the point where you're committing voter fraud like that you have to break a bunch of other laws, too. I just don't want to see someone who moved recently be fined or thrown in jail for voting at their old place of residence if they're not voting at their new address. That's still, technically, voter fraud (at least, it used to be) but I don't think it's worthy of a chain around your neck for life since you're only voting in one place.That's the thing. Maybe the penalties for voter fraud should be more harsh. Not the death penalty though! :lol:
Did he propose a solution? I thought he asked a question.
If the legal road to execution were reformed, yes I would support the death penalty for voter fraud. With the current system, it would cost too much. We should have a verdict either way within a year of being charged, and if found guilty one appeal to confirm the ruling, then if confirmed the sentence to be carried out within 90 days. Method of execution to be a firing squad, as that's the most humane and cost-effective form of execution.So would you support capital punishment for people who commit voter fraud?
Please explain why or why not.
They should, all the time. Rape, murder (any degree), violent sex crimes against children, felony fraud (which voter fraud w/should fall under), desertion and treason are offences worthy of a swift and humane death.Seems a bit harsh, don't you think? Even actual murderers don't get the death penalty all the time.
Some would argue that if a politician uses fraud to get elected and then uses the power of that office to keep us in wars we aught not be in, that voter fraud did indeed cost lives.I only support the death penalty in cases where a life was taken. No lives are taken with voter fraud.
And within that question was the solution. Sometimes that is how question work.
They should, all the time. Rape, murder (any degree), violent sex crimes against children, felony fraud (which voter fraud w/should fall under), desertion and treason are offences worthy of a swift and humane death.
The OP made no statement as to the prevalence of the problem.
right..... they just threw out the death penalty for the sheer fun of it and not as a remedy for something they believed was a problem that needed a solution.
Tell you what - if you accept that premise, I have the official 100% legal deed to the official Golden Gate Bridge that you can get pretty cheap.
You tell all of us now and explain it like we are five year olds ---- why would anybody propose the death penalty connected with a public issue as anything but a solution to a problem?
You may very well be correct that he is addressing the problem of voter fraud. But, as I said initially, the OP made NO statements as to the PREVELANCE OR EXENT of the problem.
I think the death penalty is overused. Let them go to prison where they can get ass-raped for years rather than take a chance that God will have mercy on them.
Which brings us to the question of what is more absurd - asking about the death penalty for voter fraud to cure that problem or simply proposing the death penalty for voter fraud when it is not a problem?
So that we can properly gauge this situation, can you tell us the number of actual election fraud convictions in the last election cycle?
I have no idea which is more absurd. My point is simply that your question from earlier in the thread is irrelevant:
The op was not making any claim regarding the number of actual fraud convictions.
I have made it clear that I disagree and the obvious implication of a problem was more than evident by the prescribed solution of the death penalty. Again, if the OP was not based on the presumption of a problem, why would anyone except the mentally deranged proposed the death penalty for a problem which they believe does NOT exist?
That's rather expensive, though. :shrug:
Again, it may very well have been based upon the presumption of a problem, but no assertion was made regarding the prevalence or frequency of the problem. Therefore your question was irrelevant.
It still seems that death is so overused now that it's lost its power. As evidenced by someone thinking that it's an appropriate penalty for voter fraud. Why not just have the death penalty for speeding? Have it for everything, and give the police the authority to execute you on the spot without a trial.
As the OP's solution inherently presumes the existence of a problem which merits such a serious punishment, my question is 100% relevant.
The seriousness of the crime has nothing to do with the frequency of the crime. Your question about the crime's frequency is irrelevant to considerations of its seriousness and what the punishment ought to be.
Really now?! One case of voter fraud is irrelevant. A million cases is one serious national problem.
This demands a number.
The appropriate penalty for a crime is not a function of the frequency of that crime. The OP made no statements about the frequency, as the frequency is immaterial to the punishment. We don't say, well if one person does it it should be a week in prison, but if a million people do it it should be the death penalty. It doesn't work that way. You pick a punishment for a crime, regardless of that crime's frequency. Your question about the frequency of the crime is irrelevant to a discussion of that crime's appropriate punishment.
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?