Billo_Really said:It's funny. My mother voted for Bush because she said he was "pro-life". I couldn't stop laughing at this. I told her, "You consider a man, that while he was govenor executed more people than any other govenor in the history of our country, as being "pro-life"? That is too funny.
I don't know what it is about people from Texas. They seem to have a death fetish.
I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?
Billo_Really said:It's funny. My mother voted for Bush because she said he was "pro-life". I couldn't stop laughing at this. I told her, "You consider a man, that while he was govenor executed more people than any other govenor in the history of our country, as being "pro-life"? That is too funny.
I don't know what it is about people from Texas. They seem to have a death fetish.
I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?
Navy Pride said:I often wonder how you people who are for the rights of murderers and rapists and are against the death penalty would feel if it was the wife, mother, or daughter who was viciously murdered and raped........I wonder if these bleeding hearts would feel the same way..........
Kelzie said:No I wouldn't feel the same way. I would want the SOB tortured to death in a slow and painful way. But I call that revenge. Not justice.
If you were to torture someone who committed a horrible crime you are only bringing yourself down to their level. And as Kelzie quite rightly said - that's revenge, not justice.Navy Pride said:So are you saying that if a family member was butchered by one of these scum you would not want and eye for and eye? A little confused here, sorry...
I'm against the death penalty. To say it is a deterrent, is saying that murder is a rational act. And besides, it doesn't solve the problem. There has never been, in the history of the world, a violent baby born. So how do we end up with all these Manson's?
Navy Pride said:So are you saying that if a family member was butchered by one of these scum you would not want and eye for and eye? A little confused here, sorry...
mistermain said:The death penalty is not a deterrent, but that is only because we do not carry it out quickly enough. A punishment must be swift and severe if it is to be an effective deterrent. Allowing death row inmates decades worth of appeals defeats the purpose of the death penalty.
Maybe we would have more success if trials, appeals, and punishment were carried out in a specific time period, not to exceed say one year (maybe less). Of course the justice system needs some fine tuning. The rate of error in conviction is way to high. I do not know what the answer is to that.
montymike said:If you were to torture someone who committed a horrible crime you are only bringing yourself down to their level. And as Kelzie quite rightly said - that's revenge, not justice.
Don't forget, a lot of those people are beaten to death in prison.....
Brigand said:You don't have an answer on how to solve or dramatically reduce the high error rate of death convinctions..
But.."We need to kill 'em quick, anyway, and that will surely stop the beggers from killing....after a little fine tuning...that I don't know how to do!"
Brigand said:Your logic fails because of this: If you recognize a fault with a particular system, then you define what the fault is. You then go about twirling a few ideas around on how to alleviate the problem. Take the cost and benefits of each idea and do the math. Then talk about implimentation of the appropriate plan.
1) Now, the problems are:-
A high crime rate
A high error rate of convictions.
2) Take your ideas on how to alleviate the problems:-
For the crime rate, you say: Substantially reduce the time to kill convicts.
3) Do the Cost/Benefit math:-
Have you done this? enlighten me, if you have.
4) Impliment your idea:-
Let's deal with step 3. Also, you haven't given any ideas on how to reduce the high error rate of convinction, yet...you've only said "I don't know how to do it".
Use the plan, man.
There is no logic behind statements like: "I don't know how to do it....But it will Work!!!."
If it's so incoherent, why have you been able to provide an appropriate response to everything I said?mistermain said:That was fairly incoherrent.
Not me.mistermain said:First, who says I need to solve all the problems.
NOW, thats inchorence! and one BIG contradiction.mistermain said:The original post asked why we have a death penalty if it is not a deterent. I simply explained that is not an effective deterrent when it is not implemented correctly. I never said I was for using the death penalty.
Not if the ideas are good ones and fairly proved to be good ones. but you haven't said why your ideas are good.mistermain said:We are not necessarily here to destroy each other's ideas.
Brigand said:MISTERMAIN QUOTES:
I have no good ideas about cutting down the rate of wrongful convictions. If anybody does, let's hear them.
I gave you one, just.
BRIGAND QUOTES:
I've got an idea on a way of reducing the error rate of death convictions...Give more time for reviewing a case and the appeals.
mistermain said:That's your answer? Some of these trials already stretch out over six months. O.J. was given one of the longest trials in recent memory, and they still gave the wrong verdict (if you fell otherwise, please start a different thread). I asked for good ideas.
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?