Death Penalty

[kal-el]

I still don't know how I can believe that some legal fees, a one-shot cost, would be more expensive than 70 years of food and lodging and legal costs assosiated with it.

I know, I know, it's hard to grasp, at first I didn't buy it.
http://www.sunfyre.com/deathpenalty.html

Well, intent, malice, circumstances, etc. would have to be considered.

For what? Who in the hell gives us the right to kill someone coldly, in an organized fashion?

Yes, yes, that's why the jury needs to have more proof and almost 100% assurance that the convicted did the said crime.

I agree, but capital punishment should never be an option.

That's because Afro-Americans are, on the whole, poorer and have more unstable families than whites, Asians, etc. Their lack of money is a big reason why so many more blacks are put in jail and put to death than other races. Poverty and unstable families are two huge factories in determining the causes of crime.

Good, so you agree on this.:2razz:

lol, okay maybe not give them a choice, you're right there. But it would depend on how much money we would have to give them, because it might turn out to be a lot more than it would if the prisoner stayed in the U.S.

So what? We can't afford it, or what? C'mon, if we did that, it would solve alot of our problems. IMO we should only keep people in this country that have committed petty offenses.

 

[Hornburger]

I know, I know, it's hard to grasp, at first I didn't buy it.
http://www.sunfyre.com/deathpenalty.html

hmm, I don't know, I'll have to research it more. If you are right, I agree with you, because my whole argument is based on money and tax dollars. I'll look into it.

For what? Who in the hell gives us the right to kill someone coldly, in an organized fashion?

Well, it's done pretty humanely, most states have lethal injection. I just think we have it because it is the most efficient way fo dealing with the prisoners, and we have more leverage to do with them as we like because of the crimes they committed against society. Again, I'll have to look into the efficiency I was talking about and compare money spent for the death penalty in comparison to life in prison.

I agree, but capital punishment should never be an option.

Again, depends on the money, in my opinion..

Good, so you agree on this.:2razz:

I agree that more blacks are in jail and put to death...However I do not feel it is racist because the blacks usually are the ones who committed such treacherous crimes (not to be racist or anything...it's just the truth).

So what? We can't afford it, or what? C'mon, if we did that, it would solve alot of our problems. IMO we should only keep people in this country that have committed petty offenses.

Well, if it saves more money to keep them in prison here or to kill them, I would say to keep em here. Frankly, I do not value a criminal's life as much, and it is a matter of which way saves us the most money. Also, how can we trust such countries to keep them locked up? Who knows, maybe they will get a shorter sentencing or something.

 

[kal-el]

hmm, I don't know, I'll have to research it more. If you are right, I agree with you, because my whole argument is based on money and tax dollars. I'll look into it.

Ok, fair enough.:2razz:

Well, it's done pretty humanely, most states have lethal injection. I just think we have it because it is the most efficient way fo dealing with the prisoners, and we have more leverage to do with them as we like because of the crimes they committed against society. Again, I'll have to look into the efficiency I was talking about and compare money spent for the death penalty in comparison to life in prison.

It dosen't matter how its done, the end is the same result. Why do we have to kill someone in order to prove that it's wrong to kill? To me, that sounds like hypocracy.

Again, depends on the money, in my opinion..

Why? To govern a population is to forsee, not follow a sheep-like sentiment of violence. If only wealthy citizens are pro-death penalty, and we base decisions on the wealthy elite, capital punishment will flourish.

I agree that more blacks are in jail and put to death...However I do not feel it is racist because the blacks usually are the ones who committed such treacherous crimes (not to be racist or anything...it's just the truth).

Those who murdered whites were 4x more likely to get the death penalty than those who murdered hispanics, or blacks. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=539

Well, if it saves more money to keep them in prison here or to kill them, I would say to keep em here. Frankly, I do not value a criminal's life as much, and it is a matter of which way saves us the most money. Also, how can we trust such countries to keep them locked up? Who knows, maybe they will get a shorter sentencing or something.

As I might have said before, I believe crime to be a sickness. For example, we are shocked when we remember that back in the day we used to suffocate people between mattresses if they suffered from fits of hysteria. IMO, in the future, when we find an antidote for this illness of crime, we will be just as shocked to learn that we used to kill criminals. That is why I don't think money matters here. We need to ship them off to 3rd world nations. We can't mix hardened criminals with lesser offenders. If crime is indeed a sickness, wouldn't you want to be seperated from someone with a cold, or the flu so as not to be contaminated?

 

[Brigand]

Ok, fair enough.:2razz:



It dosen't matter how its done, the end is the same result. Why do we have to kill someone in order to prove that it's wrong to kill? To me, that sounds like hypocracy.



Why? To govern a population is to forsee, not follow a sheep-like sentiment of violence. If only wealthy citizens are pro-death penalty, and we base decisions on the wealthy elite, capital punishment will flourish.



Those who murdered whites were 4x more likely to get the death penalty than those who murdered hispanics, or blacks. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=539





As I might have said before, I believe crime to be a sickness. For example, we are shocked when we remember that back in the day we used to suffocate people between mattresses if they suffered from fits of hysteria. IMO, in the future, when we find an antidote for this illness of crime, we will be just as shocked to learn that we used to kill criminals. That is why I don't think money matters here. We need to ship them off to 3rd world nations. We can't mix hardened criminals with lesser offenders. If crime is indeed a sickness, wouldn't you want to be seperated from someone with a cold, or the flu so as not to be contaminated?

Suffocate people for fits of hysteria = bad!

Ship people off to 3rd world nations and deem it as an ilness = good!


Erm.. what's your point again??!


If crime is indeed a sickness, wouldn't you want to be seperated from someone with a cold, or the flu so as not to be contaminated?

I'm sure I read Hitler say something synonymous with that..Protection from contamination of inferior persons, and all that...He's wanker, of course.

You're wanker... Maybe we should work out to destroy or protect ourselves from wankers...and keep on wanking without guilt!

I don't equate people who wank with those who are wankers, personally...but, you know, I'm following your rhythm, of things.

How's that sound to you?

You're a tosser and I'm not expecting to make a friend out of you...What a shame, eh?

 

[kal-el]

Suffocate people for fits of hysteria = bad!

You got that right, but try telling that to the primitive people way back when.

Ship people off to 3rd world nations and deem it as an ilness = good!

Let me make myself crystal clear here: only convicted murderers and rapists should take the voyage to the savage land.

If crime is indeed a sickness, wouldn't you want to be seperated from someone with a cold, or the flu so as not to be contaminated?

I'm sure I read Hitler say something synonymous with that..Protection from contamination of inferior persons, and all that..

Hitler? Really? I think you are taking my sentence out of context. If you read it somewhere, I'm sure you can provide a link for it?

You're wanker... Maybe we should work out to destroy or protect ourselves from wankers...and keep on wanking without guilt!

Dude, I didn't get a word of that.

 

[Brigand]

You got that right, but try telling that to the primitive people way back when.



Let me make myself crystal clear here: only convicted murderers and rapists should take the voyage to the savage land.



Hitler? Really? I think you are taking my sentence out of context. If you read it somewhere, I'm sure you can provide a link for it?



Dude, I didn't get a word of that.

Primative people, way back then??


No, there's nothing slipped out of context and there is no link! You're wanker, by MY point of view.

And criminals of the 'higher level', like a bad case of the flu, should be destroyed, according to you, or shipped off to Cannibal Holocaust Island...whats, the problem, man?

The problem is, you ain't getting my point.

 

[kal-el]

Primative people, way back then??

Of course. Even by flashing a simple flashlight, the people centuries ago would consider that a miracle. By flying a simple helicopter, centuries old people would think you are a "God." Because one has to be "divine" to make vaults out of the sky. So yea, compared to the knowledge we have now, suffocating people between mattresses is primitive.

No, there's nothing slipped out of context and there is no link! You're wanker, by MY point of view... and criminals of the higher level, like a bad case of the flu, should be destroyed, according to you...whats, the problem, man?

Why? If Hitler said that I want a link. If no one asked for evidence, one could make any asinine claim. You're not lying are you? Quote me where I "allegedly" said that criminals of the higher level should be destroyed. WTF is a wanker? I'm unfamiliar with your ebonics.

 

[Brigand]

Of course. Even by flashing a simple flashlight, the people centuries ago would consider that a miracle. By flying a simple helicopter, centuries old people would think you are a "God." Because one has to be "divine" to make vaults out of the sky. So yea, compared to the knowledge we have now, suffocating people between mattresses is primitive.



Why? If Hitler said that I want a link. If no one asked for evidence, one could make any asinine claim. You're not lying are you? Quote me where I "allegedly" said that criminals of the higher level should be destroyed. WTF is a wanker? I'm unfamiliar with your ebonics.

Ebonics?? I have some inkling where you're going with that, but clarify it, why don't you speak on what you, essentially, mean, fella?

As for destroying people? Clearly you see people of the '3rd world' as something inferior... and as a suitable punishment of those 'flu-like criminals', a worthy retribution means, to be put amongst them....Cannibal Holocaust, fear of flashlights and Helicopters, and all that?

You're a stupid boy, aren't you?


Cast away, from 'civilization' to live amongst the 'savages'.. Yes?


A wanker? Chiefly British...A Detestable person.

 

[kal-el]

Ebonics?? I have some inkling where you're going with that, but clarify it, why don't you speak on what you, essentially, mean, fella?

I mean I am unfamiliar with your slang or jive.

As for destroying people? Clearly you see people of the '3rd world' as something inferior... and as a suitable punishment of those 'flu-like criminals', a worthy retribution means, to be put amongst them....Cannibal Holocaust, fear of flashlights and Helicopters, and all that?

Exactly. Now your're starting to get it. There is light at the end of the tunnel.:2razz:

You're a stupid boy, aren't you?

WTF? How am I supposed to answer that, it's like a 3rd grade insult? "You're a stupid boy, you have kuddies"

Cast away, from 'civilization' to live amongst the 'savages'.. Yes?

Yup.

A wanker? Chiefly British...A Detestable person.

O,ok. But I didn't forget about my link. Where's the ****ing proof? Are you lying?

 

[Brigand]

I mean I am unfamiliar with your slang or jive.

Exactly. Now your're starting to get it. There is light at the end of the tunnel.[/I]



WTF? How am I supposed to answer that, it's like a 3rd grade insult? "You're a stupid boy, you have kuddies"







O,ok. But I didn't forget about my link. Where's the ****ing proof? Are you lying?

It's 3rd grade stuff, when you're being called a stupid boy...but if your sentiments go no further than 3rd grade claptrap coming from a 26 year old, then you're going get nothing more than what's eligible.

QUOTE:Exactly. Now your're starting to get it. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

Right...Except you didn't catch what I done, there did you? and you wonder you're being called a stupid boy.

Dear me.

 

[kal-el]

It's 3rd grade stuff, when you're being called a stupid boy...but if your sentiments go no further than 3rd grade claptrap coming from a 26 year old, then you're going get nothing more than what's eligible.

All that I am going to say is link? You said you read that Hilter said the exact thing I did, so prove it. It seems you can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.

QUOTE:Exactly. Now your're starting to get it. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

Right...Except you didn't catch what I done, there did you? and you wonder you're being called a stupid boy.

Dear me.

Yea dear you. And WTF did you say you did? Again, where is my link? You're not a lier, are you know? STOP ****ING LYNG

 

[Hornburger]

It dosen't matter how its done, the end is the same result. Why do we have to kill someone in order to prove that it's wrong to kill? To me, that sounds like hypocracy.

Because that way we might have the money working for the taxpayers, not the criminals.

Why? To govern a population is to forsee, not follow a sheep-like sentiment of violence. If only wealthy citizens are pro-death penalty, and we base decisions on the wealthy elite, capital punishment will flourish.

Why would only wealthy citizens be pro-death penalty? It get money for all taxpayers.

Those who murdered whites were 4x more likely to get the death penalty than those who murdered hispanics, or blacks. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=539

Because the majority of the population is white...

As I might have said before, I believe crime to be a sickness. For example, we are shocked when we remember that back in the day we used to suffocate people between mattresses if they suffered from fits of hysteria. IMO, in the future, when we find an antidote for this illness of crime, we will be just as shocked to learn that we used to kill criminals. That is why I don't think money matters here. We need to ship them off to 3rd world nations. We can't mix hardened criminals with lesser offenders. If crime is indeed a sickness, wouldn't you want to be seperated from someone with a cold, or the flu so as not to be contaminated?

All I'm saying it is the most efficient way of dealing with criminals who have done a terrible wrong to all of society. Why make taxpayers suffer just to have criminals live? It's not like the criminals are gaining a lot by living in prison instead of dying...in fact, they might be in a worse state.

 

[kal-el]

Because that way we might have the money working for the taxpayers, not the criminals.

How would money be working for the taxpayers if we kill someone? As I said, it's far more costly to kill someone, because of the legal fees. So I don't uderstand your reasoning here.

Why would only wealthy citizens be pro-death penalty? It get money for all taxpayers.

Dude, it dosen't take a "General Rove" to figure out whose interests judges and defense companies would defend: their own, as well as those who pay their wages; the wealthy. If the law exists to defend property, then it also exists to defend the power of capitalists against their workers. http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secF6.html

Because the majority of the population is white...

So? That might be true, but you are somewhat agreeing with me about those who murdered whites are 4x more likely to be put to death. Because if it's black on black crime, it usually won't merit such a sentence.

All I'm saying it is the most efficient way of dealing with criminals who have done a terrible wrong to all of society. Why make taxpayers suffer just to have criminals live? It's not like the criminals are gaining a lot by living in prison instead of dying...in fact, they might be in a worse state.

Well I hate to burst your little bubble, but if they are put to death, taxpayer's will suffer even more. If money is all you're concerned about, why not go with the lesser of 2 evils by abolishing the death penalty?

 

[Brigand]

All that I am going to say is link? You said you read that Hilter said the exact thing I did, so prove it. It seems you can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.



Yea dear you. And WTF did you say you did? Again, where is my link? You're not a lier, are you know? STOP ****ING LYNG

First of all, I didn't say anything about, Hitler said the 'exact same thing' as you did! You wally! Go and read it again. Perhaps, it's because I used a big word like 'synonymous' and your tiny little mind almost bled at the mere sight of it.

And what's all that big, noisy, bold tantrum, all about, small boy? Potty training may not have being implimented by your mommy in your prime (and indeed, spelling lessons by your English teacher), but If you're going to urinate in your little blue and red outfit, in the middle of the playground, sunshine, I'd suggest you go play in the corner instead, where the bigger boys can't see what you've done.

yes, indeed, dear, oh dear me.

 

[Brigand]

I'm curious, as I'm sure others are, how superboy here, somehow, thinks he has an important point and voice rasing questions about the system of the death penalty...which he sees as being inherently flawed, for reasons of it's 'racist leaning'...

OK, But, in what can only be seen as the strangest twist of logic, he deems people those less fortunate who happen to be born in the poorer countries of the world...as inferior?

He then expressed his disdain for a word he didn't get as 'Ebonics' - which means black english.(I'm not black by the way, but I'm sure the context of where he was going with that, is clear enough)

This complete simpleton seems to know more about the intricacies of "clark kent losing his powers in smallville"and relfecting his hurt about that (which he's elaborated on quite copiously in the off-topic/entertaiment section) than, what he's going to say next... resulting in dreadful, tragic, incongruous statements.

And this weirdo's statements, aren't really that far removed that the likes of other members here, like auftrag's and aryan imperium's rants...which he seemingly does with glee in his superman pyjamas.

One scary 26 year old man-freak!

 

[Hornburger]

How would money be working for the taxpayers if we kill someone? As I said, it's far more costly to kill someone, because of the legal fees. So I don't uderstand your reasoning here.

ANd as I said, I'm still working on finding which method costs more.

Dude, it dosen't take a "General Rove" to figure out whose interests judges and defense companies would defend: their own, as well as those who pay their wages; the wealthy. If the law exists to defend property, then it also exists to defend the power of capitalists against their workers. http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secF6.html

Well, let's say it costs less to use the death penalty. Then the government won't have to raise taxes as high to support the prisons as much. That means lower taxes for everyone, not just the wealthy. It wouldn't have to do with the judges and everything.

So? That might be true, but you are somewhat agreeing with me about those who murdered whites are 4x more likely to be put to death. Because if it's black on black crime, it usually won't merit such a sentence.

Well, it all depends on the jury you get. Maybe it is racist, but our system is the best we got (of course with a few flaws that we may need to correct )

Well I hate to burst your little bubble, but if they are put to death, taxpayer's will suffer even more. If money is all you're concerned about, why
not go with the lesser of 2 evils by abolishing the death penalty?

Well, again, I'm looking into which one is less $. If you are right about that, I will be glad to go with the lesser of two evils. I really do hope it is less money to tell you the truth. But I don't know, I'll have to see.

 

[kal-el]

First of all, I didn't say anything about, Hitler said the 'exact same thing' as you did! You wally! Go and read it again. Perhaps, it's because I used a big word like 'synonymous' and your tiny little mind almost bled at the mere sight of it.

And what's all that big, noisy, bold tantrum, all about, small boy? Potty training may not have being implimented by your mommy in your prime (and indeed, spelling lessons by your English teacher), but If you're going to urinate in your little blue and red outfit, in the middle of the playground, sunshine, I'd suggest you go play in the corner instead, where the bigger boys can't see what you've done.

yes, indeed, dear, oh dear me.

:rofl You're overzealous need to reply with asinine insults again and again demonstrates your lack of ability to argue. Every reply you make, I can't stop laughing.:lol:

You claim that I am an infant? I'm 26,despite it being in my profile, either your dumb, you forgot, or you are making yet another blasphemous claim.

I spelled a word wrong. **** happens. Apparently to you, this indicates that I am completely ignorant and need a spelling lesson.:lol:

And calling me a "wanker" or whatever you like to say when you resort to pointing out spelling mistakes while at the same time, making your own at a greater rate is indeed hypocritical. Spelling mistakes happen,and unless they make a post difficult to read, they should be overlooked in an internet forum. I hope that everyone realizes this, but for you, it seems its too much to hope for.

 

[kal-el]

ANd as I said, I'm still working on finding which method costs more.

That's good, but it should be obvious which method costs more. Even look at some pro-death penalty sites, wait they don't mention the cost, why do you think that is?

Well, let's say it costs less to use the death penalty. Then the government won't have to raise taxes as high to support the prisons as much. That means lower taxes for everyone, not just the wealthy. It wouldn't have to do with the judges and everything.

Yes, but it dosen't. So your reasoning here is not applicable.

Well, it all depends on the jury you get. Maybe it is racist, but our system is the best we got (of course with a few flaws that we may need to correct )

Yes, it does need correction. And I know where to start. For starters, the death penalty needs to be abolished.

Well, again, I'm looking into which one is less $. If you are right about that, I will be glad to go with the lesser of two evils. I really do hope it is less money to tell you the truth. But I don't know, I'll have to see.

Ok:2razz: .

 

[Hornburger]

That's good, but it should be obvious which method costs more. Even look at some pro-death penalty sites, wait they don't mention the cost, why do you think that is?

I apologize for me not looking at the sites and researching, I've been a little busy. I'll go and find out asap.

Yes, but it dosen't. So your reasoning here is not applicable.

Again, still researching.

Yes, it does need correction. And I know where to start. For starters, the death penalty needs to be abolished.

How would that decrease the racism? If your statistic is correct, the blacks would still be 4x more likely to be in prison for life. And they are probably convicted more because they do worse crimes.

 

[kal-el]

I apologize for me not looking at the sites and researching, I've been a little busy. I'll go and find out asap.

Cool :2razz: , I respect someone that's willing to hear both sides of an arguement,and then make an informed decision.

How would that decrease the racism? If your statistic is correct, the blacks would still be 4x more likely to be in prison for life. And they are probably convicted more because they do worse crimes.

It probably wouldn't. In the past, we had the fear of the neighboring tribe, now,we fear other races, in the future it will most likely be fear of potential aggressors coming from another planet. But anywho, I think racism will always be apparent, but in this current system, it shows its ugly head way to often. IMO I think everyone is racist to a point.Some won't admit it though. For instance, if you are white, do you feel comfortable in a room full of blacks? And vice versa of course. Racism will always be prevalent in society.

 

[Hornburger]

Cool :2razz: , I respect someone that's willing to hear both sides of an arguement,and then make an informed decision.

Thanks! :2razz:

It probably wouldn't. In the past, we had the fear of the neighboring tribe, now,we fear other races, in the future it will most likely be fear of potential aggressors coming from another planet. But anywho, I think racism will always be apparent, but in this current system, it shows its ugly head way to often. IMO I think everyone is racist to a point.Some won't admit it though. For instance, if you are white, do you feel comfortable in a room full of blacks? And vice versa of course. Racism will always be prevalent in society.

Ahh yes, that is true...but what I think is more prevalent than racism is classism, like we would respect a wealthy and powerful person alot more than we would respect a street thug or homeless person. But racism has also helped to widen the gap between classes...so it also contributes to such classism.

 

[kal-el]

Thanks! :2razz:

No problem,man.

Ahh yes, that is true...but what I think is more prevalent than racism is classism, like we would respect a wealthy and powerful person alot more than we would respect a street thug or homeless person.

True, but some sports figures don't command respect even though they're swimming in wealth. Look at Allen Iverson, he has done so much crime in his life, how the **** can any sane person respect an individual like that, yet he is wealthy.

 

[Hornburger]

True, but some sports figures don't command respect even though they're swimming in wealth. Look at Allen Iverson, he has done so much crime in his life, how the **** can any sane person respect an individual like that, yet he is wealthy.

ha, good point...the white culture hating the black one.

 

[kal-el]

ha, good point...the white culture hating the black one.

It's not nessarily the white culture doing the hating. Allen Iverson brings all the trouble on himself. I don't think running into a school bus full of children and driving away, or kicking down a cousin's door with an uzi in hand, is ideally, exceptable behavior. Especially in his case, with him being a public figure and all. Besides, I don't think he came into the NBA until he was 25, why? Because he was incarcerated for a bowling-alley brawl.:lol:

 

[Hornburger]

It's not nessarily the white culture doing the hating. Allen Iverson brings all the trouble on himself. I don't think running into a school bus full of children and driving away, or kicking down a cousin's door with an uzi in hand, is ideally, exceptable behavior. Especially in his case, with him being a public figure and all. Besides, I don't think he came into the NBA until he was 25, why? Because he was incarcerated for a bowling-alley brawl.:lol:

Well, on the whole, white people tend to not like Allen Iverson compared to black people. There isn't tatoos, braided hair, etc. in white culture like there is in black. And anyway, even before that incident, people tended not to like him, and I think it's because he unthinkingly promotes such "gang" lifestyles, with the tatoos, along with the way of talking, dressing, and walking.