2/3 of us support death penalty

[Foxtrot]

2/3 of American support the death penalty, but still many powerful people are calling for it's removal.

its not just that perpetrators of heinous crimes do deserve to be executed, its that when they crack down on the death penalty other punishments become too soft as well. I'm appaled at the number of sex offenders sentenced to "counseling" or "rehabilitation" (for rapists?). inmates in prison are better disiplinaries than most judges these days!

I also hear a lot of "wah, wah, prisons are overcrowded", so here's a solution: rather than waiting 20 or 30 years, send them to the needle and be done with it, ASAP! don't release the prisoners, just issue harsher punishments.

[sgdp]

They have the right to appeal. That is why it's so costly. It's cheaper to sentence them to life so we don't have to keep paying through the courts.

Won't even get into the "eye for an eye" thing.

And I never heard such a statistic. Where did you find that 2/3 support it?

[Foxtrot]

They have the right to appeal. That is why it's so costly. It's cheaper to sentence them to life so we don't have to keep paying through the courts.

Won't even get into the "eye for an eye" thing.

And I never heard such a statistic. Where did you find that 2/3 support it?

I'm not saying the have no right, I just don't think enough people realize the situation. enough with all this appealing; it's just lawyers and red tape! and here's that statistic:
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/news.htm

[Foxtrot]

and who else is for reinstating the electric chair?

[sgdp]

I'm against the death penalty period.

It loses money. It's not infallible. And IMHO, it's "cruel and unusual punishment".

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

You willing to play God and pull the lever and kill someone?

[PeterGriffin]

Where does a 'pro death penalty' website originate from? Saudi Arabia? Iran? China?

[Foxtrot]

It loses money. It's not infallible. And IMHO, it's "cruel and unusual punishment".

how does the DP lose us money? more money than keeping them alive for 20/30 extra years?

[Foxtrot]

You willing to play God and pull the lever and kill someone?

no, I'm willing to play executioner and execute somebody when ordered by the court.

[sgdp]

how does the DP lose us money? more money than keeping them alive for 20/30 extra years?

Yes. The appeal process costs more than lifetime housing.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

[Foxtrot]

Where does a 'pro death penalty' website originate from? Saudi Arabia? Iran? China?

maybe from Texas.

you'd be surprised how widespead a pro-DP attitude is in the south and midwest.

[gdoane]

You willing to play God and pull the lever and kill someone?

Dealing with evil is not "playing God" and taking out the trash isn't killing someone. Christians believe in life after death so the death penalty is simply sending the Devil a soul that we just can't deal with here on Earth.

I'm willing to kill vermin. My mind was made up on that issue when I joined the U.S. Navy at 17, taking up arms and defending this nation against her enemies whom I'm sure you realize have no problem with killing Americans.

I'm a military veteran, I hold a concealed carry weapons permit, I practice training with firearms at least twice per month and you're asking me if I'm willing to kill somebody? I've made that decision a long time ago and I wouldn't hesitate or rethink the issue at all. Some "people" would kill for pleasure, profit or politics. The only defense against such vermin is to kill them right back.

[sgtmac_46]

They have the right to appeal. That is why it's so costly. It's cheaper to sentence them to life so we don't have to keep paying through the courts.

Won't even get into the "eye for an eye" thing.

And I never heard such a statistic. Where did you find that 2/3 support it?
What do you do with the individuals like the Aryan Brotherhood leadership that is still locked up for life, in Super Maximum security lockdown 23 hours a day, in complete isolation.....and STILL ordering murders?

In short......what do you do to someone who is already doing life to punish him from murdering inmates or staff? Take away Jello day?

[gdoane]

Yes. The appeal process costs more than lifetime housing.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Giving a killer a lifetime to escape from prison is flat out stupid because dozens of them get out of jail every year. Jails are easily escaped from and escapes happen more often than liberals would like to admit.

[sgtmac_46]

Where does a 'pro death penalty' website originate from? Saudi Arabia? Iran? China?

Probably from some parent who's child was raped, sodomized and dismembered by some murdering piece of excrement you feel the need to defend from his rightful punishment.

Got anything else smart to say?

[sgtmac_46]

You willing to play God and pull the lever and kill someone?

I'm agnostic.......justice isn't up to god as far as i'm concerned. If you're going to be punished, it's going to be on this plain of existence or nowhere else.

Besides, even according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, God has accepted the death penalty as just punishment for the guilty........otherwise he wouldn't have sacrificed his own son on the Cross in place of the guilty......IF it were not in HIS eyes a just punishment........and that absolution wasn't an absolution against earthly punishment, as that was still owed even with God's forgiveness..... ;)

[Thor]

What gets me is these people who try to say that the death penalty is "not a deterrent". You know who disagrees with this? The criminals themselves! What does a criminal threaten if his demands aren't met? The immediate implementation of the death penalty! Why? Because the criminal knows that the threat of the death penalty is very likely to influence his victim's behavior. The death penalty does work. The problem is that the wrong people are using it.

[sgtmac_46]

What gets me is these people who try to say that the death penalty is "not a deterrent". You know who disagrees with this? The criminals themselves! What does a criminal threaten if his demands aren't met? The immediate implementation of the death penalty! Why? Because the criminal knows that the threat of the death penalty is very likely to influence his victim's behavior. The death penalty does work. The problem is that the wrong people are using it.

Your first mistake was applying logic and reason to these clowns......no, i'm not referring to criminals, i'm referring to leftists!

At least most criminals utilize a fundamental self-interested sort of logic.

[sgdp]

Giving a killer a lifetime to escape from prison is flat out stupid because dozens of them get out of jail every year. Jails are easily escaped from and escapes happen more often than liberals would like to admit.

Dozens? That's like 0.05% of the jail population in this country. Sounds like a pretty good success rate to me. Humans are not infallible.

And that's precisely why the death penalty is a bad idea. Innocent Americans have been incarcerated before.

In fact, I'd bet more people are wrongfully convicted each year than escape from prison. ;)

[Thor]

Your first mistake was applying logic and reason to these clowns......no, i'm not referring to criminals, i'm referring to leftists!

At least most criminals utilize a fundamental self-interested sort of logic.

You got that right!

It really frosts my buns when I see people protesting outside a prison on the day an execution is scheduled. They join hands, light candles, sing "Cumbaya" and pray. Never mind that the lowlife going to his doom because he raped and murdered a young girl. Nobody was there to sing "Cumbaya" while the scumbag slit her throat. Talk about having more concern for the criminal than the victim!

[gdoane]

Dozens? That's like 0.05% of the jail population in this country. Sounds like a pretty good success rate to me. Humans are not infallible.

The success rate of chucking the dead meat six feet under is pretty much perfect. As a bad guy keeper, nothing beats the Grim Reaper.

And that's precisely why the death penalty is a bad idea. Innocent Americans have been incarcerated before.


If a jury says they're guilty, that's all that matters. They're guilty and they go to prison or the gallows, whichever the case may be.

I'm not too worried about 100% accuracy. As long as over half the people convicted deserve it there's more good being done than harm.

In fact, I'd bet more people are wrongfully convicted each year than escape from prison. ;)

There's no such thing as a wrongful conviction. All convictions are rightfully carried out by a jury.

[Apatriot]

how does the DP lose us money? more money than keeping them alive for 20/30 extra years?

Yes. Prosecutors, judges and courthouses cost a lot more to operate than do prisons. The DP is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for 30 yrs.

[sgtmac_46]

Dozens? That's like 0.05% of the jail population in this country. Sounds like a pretty good success rate to me. Humans are not infallible.

And that's precisely why the death penalty is a bad idea. Innocent Americans have been incarcerated before.

In fact, I'd bet more people are wrongfully convicted each year than escape from prison. ;)

I bet you more people have been murdered by individuals who have murdered before, and been convicted of it, than have been wrongfully executed many times over. ;)


It's the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime......OR why do YOU think that some guy who embezzles a few hundred thousand dollars and gets a life sentence deserves the SAME punishment as someone who rapes and slaughters a 3 year old girl?

Without the death penalty you have ZERO way to deal justice out to the ultimate criminals.

[Thor]

Yes. Prosecutors, judges and courthouses cost a lot more to operate than do prisons. The DP is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for 30 yrs.

Cracks me up when libs complain how expensive it is to execute someone because of endless appeals. Yes, it is expensive to adjudicate appeal after appeal. And who are the ones filing all the appeals? LIBERALS! And, if you'll notice, they very rarely file appeals claiming the condemned is innocent. Typically, they try to get convictions overturned on technicalities or merely challenge the constitutionality of capital punishment.

[Foxtrot]

There's no such thing as a wrongful conviction. All convictions are rightfully carried out by a jury.

I'd have to agree; 12 people deciding whether or not someone is guilty is probably the safest bet we have for making convictions.

then it's up to the judge to give them a proper punishment.

[Kelzan]

I'm against the death penalty period.

It loses money. It's not infallible. And IMHO, it's "cruel and unusual punishment".

It's the endless appeals that cost all the money.

[LouC]

I am flat out against the death penalty.

I was for it in my ill informed youth.

Our justice system is far to fallible to mete out such irreversible sentencing.

[LouC]

It's the endless appeals that cost all the money.

I am going from memory but I think the figures I ran across one time was that the average life sentence cost 3 million per prisoner and executions averaged 15 million with all the appeal process added in, but the actual cost of performing the execution was about 6 thousand dollars.

[LouC]

I bet you more people have been murdered by individuals who have murdered before, and been convicted of it, than have been wrongfully executed many times over. ;)

I bet you are right.

That is not a reason to execute though.

That is an illustration of far greater problems in the justice system and society.

It's the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime......OR why do YOU think that some guy who embezzles a few hundred thousand dollars and gets a life sentence deserves the SAME punishment as someone who rapes and slaughters a 3 year old girl?

Case by case, but the convicted rapist in my prison would not be treated like the rapist in the prisons as we have allowed them to become.

Without the death penalty you have ZERO way to deal justice out to the ultimate criminals.

No that is not true.

Despite the death penalty we have a system, because of weak willed people, that is afraid to deal harshly with ultimate criminals.

[Foxtrot]

I am going from memory but I think the figures I ran across one time was that the average life sentence cost 3 million per prisoner and executions averaged 15 million with all the appeal process added in, but the actual cost of performing the execution was about 6 thousand dollars.

and all those appeals are just ways for the convict's lawyer to stall the process, so if you found a way to get rid of those then we'd save millions by going straight to execution.

[Kelzan]

and all those appeals are just ways for the convict's lawyer to stall the process, so if you found a way to get rid of those then we'd save millions by going straight to execution.

I have a problem with getting rid of all appeals, there have been people sentenced to death and later proven innocent, but the appeals process definitely needs to be streamlined.

[PredFan]

There are just some people who forfieted their right to remain alive. Thank God there are those who are willing to take them out.

[gdoane]

I have a problem with getting rid of all appeals, there have been people sentenced to death and later proven innocent, but the appeals process definitely needs to be streamlined.

If they were falsely proven guilty then it's just as likely that they were falsely proven innocent. The death penalty has a better safety record than your average children's chewable vitamin. So long as more than half of the people executed are guilty, the death penalty is doing more good than harm.

[sgtmac_46]

I bet you are right.

That is not a reason to execute though.

That is an illustration of far greater problems in the justice system and society. I absolutely is......as long as you a man alive he has the potential to do as he wills......even if you lock him up in the tightest prison known to man. As long as the human mind is there, he is capable of pursuing his agenda. The only sure way to stop some men is to STOP them.



Case by case, but the convicted rapist in my prison would not be treated like the rapist in the prisons as we have allowed them to become. If you're going to play 'tough guy' warden and torture your prisoners, then you've admitted that the death penalty IS humane and the real logical punishment for the worst offenders.



No that is not true. It's absolutely true.

Despite the death penalty we have a system, because of weak willed people, that is afraid to deal harshly with ultimate criminals. The only appropriate punishment for the ultimate criminals is death......not locking them in a cage for someone else to deal with in the future.....THAT IS MORAL COWARDICE!

But what should I expect from a society that expects it's grand children to foot every other bill we run up. ;)

[sgtmac_46]

I have a problem with getting rid of all appeals, there have been people sentenced to death and later proven innocent, but the appeals process definitely needs to be streamlined.

I wouldn't get rid of all appeals.......but 5 years is long enough to resolve all such appeals.

[gdoane]

I wouldn't get rid of all appeals.......but 5 years is long enough to resolve all such appeals.

I'd limit appeals to those intending to prove innocence. The BS appeals involving silliness like whether a needle in the arm is painful enough to be considered "cruel and unusual" just makes me want to slap a lawyer upside the head for acting stupid.

If the appeal doesn't begin with "My Client Is Innocent Because" then just throw it out. I don't care if Juror #5 was chewing gum and I don't care if the Judge yawned during cross examination a couple of times. Such technicalities do nothing to prove the sentence was undeserved or that the criminal is innocent of his crime.

The latest appeal here in Arizona was stupid because it was basically that the condemned mass murderer about to be executed was a Mexican and since Mexico has no death penalty, Mexicans shouldn't be put to Death for murders they commit in America either.

Any lawyer who makes a stretch like that for an appeal should be tarred and feathered. The appeals in death penalty cases are usually just about that stupid too, involving no argument about guilt or innocence at all. It's just tossing around technicalities and sophistries which have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the convicted slimeball.

[Thor]

the actual cost of performing the execution was about 6 thousand dollars.

I can get a length of rope at Home depot for about ten bucks. And it's reusable!

[sgtmac_46]

I'd limit appeals to those intending to prove innocence. The BS appeals involving silliness like whether a needle in the arm is painful enough to be considered "cruel and unusual" just makes me want to slap a lawyer upside the head for acting stupid.

If the appeal doesn't begin with "My Client Is Innocent Because" then just throw it out. I don't care if Juror #5 was chewing gum and I don't care if the Judge yawned during cross examination a couple of times. Such technicalities do nothing to prove the sentence was undeserved or that the criminal is innocent of his crime.

The latest appeal here in Arizona was stupid because it was basically that the condemned mass murderer about to be executed was a Mexican and since Mexico has no death penalty, Mexicans shouldn't be put to Death for murders they commit in America either.

Any lawyer who makes a stretch like that for an appeal should be tarred and feathered. The appeals in death penalty cases are usually just about that stupid too, involving no argument about guilt or innocence at all. It's just tossing around technicalities and sophistries which have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the convicted slimeball.
I agree 100%.........these stalling tactics should be out.

What is cruel and unusual is throwing a man in a cage for several years THEN killing him.....if you're going to do it, get it over with.

[sgtmac_46]

I can get a length of rope at Home depot for about ten bucks. And it's reusable!

Yeah, but even the worst criminal deserves to be hung with a new rope.

[Foxtrot]

The latest appeal here in Arizona was stupid because it was basically that the condemned mass murderer about to be executed was a Mexican and since Mexico has no death penalty, Mexicans shouldn't be put to Death for murders they commit in America either.

that only raises my support for the death penalty; the idea of foreigners coming into my country and killing people. it would send a good message to all Mexican criminals, make them think twice about that.

[sgdp]

It's the endless appeals that cost all the money.

I know. So should we just not allow appeals? I think not.

[Samm]

2/3 of American support the death penalty, but still many powerful people are calling for it's removal.

its not just that perpetrators of heinous crimes do deserve to be executed, its that when they crack down on the death penalty other punishments become too soft as well. I'm appaled at the number of sex offenders sentenced to "counseling" or "rehabilitation" (for rapists?). inmates in prison are better disiplinaries than most judges these days!

I also hear a lot of "wah, wah, prisons are overcrowded", so here's a solution: rather than waiting 20 or 30 years, send them to the needle and be done with it, ASAP! don't release the prisoners, just issue harsher punishments.

2/3 of Americans may support the concept of the death penalty, but there is no agreement when you get into the details.

[Foxtrot]

2/3 of Americans may support the concept of the death penalty, but there is no agreement when you get into the details.

well a large part of my objection is the diminishing of traditional values, the "concept of DP" being one. everything else I listed was a possible solution, because like you said people can't seem to agree when you get into details. so I got into details and offered some solutions.

[gdoane]

I agree 100%.........these stalling tactics should be out.

What is cruel and unusual is throwing a man in a cage for several years THEN killing him.....if you're going to do it, get it over with.

Do you remember what the anti-death kooks did with Tookie Williams, the convicted serial shooter and founder of the Crips street gang? It took decades to finally execute the villain and then the anti-DP kooks claimed that because good ol' Tookie had written some kiddie books and hadn't killed anybody in years (due to his incarceration of course) that he wasn't "the same man" who had been sentenced to die for his crimes.

It disgusts me that a killer can outlive his victims by decades and then start to claim he's been "reformed".

[Samm]

well a large part of my objection is the diminishing of traditional values, the "concept of DP" being one. everything else I listed was a possible solution, because like you said people can't seem to agree when you get into details. so I got into details and offered some solutions.

One of the most nagging details is how do you determine that the condemned convict is actually guilty? There are simply too many examples of wrongful convictions to convince me that the system is anywhere near infallible enough to say that the death penalty is a valid form of punishment. Eliminate the error rate and I would gladly reconsider; for there are certainly some criminals who do not deserve to live.

[Samm]

If they were falsely proven guilty then it's just as likely that they were falsely proven innocent. The death penalty has a better safety record than your average children's chewable vitamin. So long as more than half of the people executed are guilty, the death penalty is doing more good than harm.

Not to the half who were innocent...

[Foxtrot]

Do you remember what the anti-death kooks did with Tookie Williams, the convicted serial shooter and founder of the Crips street gang? It took decades to finally execute the villain and then the anti-DP kooks claimed that because good ol' Tookie had written some kiddie books and hadn't killed anybody in years (due to his incarceration of course) that he wasn't "the same man" who had been sentenced to die for his crimes. It disgusts me that a killer can outlive his victims by decades and then start to claim he's been "reformed".


Those anti-DP celebrities who backed him up in '05 didn't know what they were talking about, because their lives in their fancy Beverly Hills houses and penthouse homes on "Cribs" are completely shut off from the plaguing violence of South Central LA. if they had one taste of that horror they would hate Tookie as well.

Not to mention that as the founder of the Crips, he's created a system where young people will continue to kill each other every day (their main enemy is the Bloods). he is responsible not just for the 4 people he shot, but for those who continue to die because of gang violence. he is responsible even in death.

[gdoane]

Not to the half who were innocent...

Collateral damage is unavoidable. 40,000 "innocent" people die in car wrecks every year and nobody wants to ban cars, so what's the point of banning the death penalty if a couple hundred or few thousand accidents happen? The good done by the death penalty far outweighs the harm.

[Foxtrot]

Collateral damage is unavoidable. 40,000 "innocent" people die in car wrecks every year and nobody wants to ban cars, so what's the point of banning the death penalty if a couple hundred or few thousand accidents happen? The good done by the death penalty far outweighs the harm.

consider all the people who get wrongly convicted (probably few) and combine that with the percentage of prisoners who get executed (almost none). when you think about it, how many innocent people are really being executed?

[Samm]

Collateral damage is unavoidable. 40,000 "innocent" people die in car wrecks every year and nobody wants to ban cars, so what's the point of banning the death penalty if a couple hundred or few thousand accidents happen? The good done by the death penalty far outweighs the harm.

I'm certain you would feel the same way if you were innocent and sitting on death row...

Collateral damage is a war term... it is not acceptable in a justice system. Executing innocent people is as far from justice as you can get.

[gdoane]

I'm certain you would feel the same way if you were innocent and sitting on death row...

You can't even sit on death row. Most people are there for 20 years or more. If you actually sat on death row you'd need an IV with Preparation H.

I don't have any problem with death. It's a goal. Every human life will end in death. It's no big deal, really. I'm going to die, you're going to die, every man born is going to die and what can we do about it? NOTHING.

So you're already sitting on death row, aren't you? The death penalty doesn't really impose death. It merely accelerates the inevitable.

Collateral damage is a war term... it is not acceptable in a justice system. Executing innocent people is as far from justice as you can get.

Oh really? So killing innocent people is bad? I agree, but on the opposite side of the argument. If some bastard has killed an innocent person in a robbery or a murder or driving drunk, then that's bad. He gets a trial. He gets to plead. His victim gets NOTHING in the way of justice.

Here's the way justice works in my mind:

Vigilantism is bad, it's very close to chaos and is a breakdown of the rule of law.

The rule of law only prevents vigilantism if it's respected, and giving mass murderers three hots and a cot for life does nothing to make anybody respect the rule of law.

I read an article yesterday outlining the penalty for Bernie Madoff, the newest Club Fed inmate and his punishment is pulling weeds. Cripes, I pull weeds in my back yard and I didn't get convicted of any $13 Billion Ponzi scam. What kind of punishment is Club Fed dishing out? Condo incarceration with room service and mints on the pillow?

When Justice is seen to be weak and biased towards the criminal, while leaving the victim hanging high and dry as the stupid sucker who trusted them to deal with their attacker, you're going to get vigilantism and that's the way we're headed.

Mandatory sentencing is a vote of no confidence in our justice system.
Three Strikes and Out is a vote of no confidence too.

The one common thing I see in the appointments of Supreme Court Judges is that it doesn't matter if it's Alito, Roberts or Sotomayer, the American people HATE ON THEM. Judge Robert Bork got BORKED. Founded the term.

The Justice system is beyond broken. It's gone so liberal that it's fostering vigilantism because they lack trust in their fairness anymore.

[Samm]

You can't even sit on death row. Most people are there for 20 years or more. If you actually sat on death row you'd need an IV with Preparation H.

I don't have any problem with death. It's a goal. Every human life will end in death. It's no big deal, really. I'm going to die, you're going to die, every man born is going to die and what can we do about it? NOTHING.

So you're already sitting on death row, aren't you? The death penalty doesn't really impose death. It merely accelerates the inevitable.



Oh really? So killing innocent people is bad? I agree, but on the opposite side of the argument. If some bastard has killed an innocent person in a robbery or a murder or driving drunk, then that's bad. He gets a trial. He gets to plead. His victim gets NOTHING in the way of justice.

Here's the way justice works in my mind:

Vigilantism is bad, it's very close to chaos and is a breakdown of the rule of law.

The rule of law only prevents vigilantism if it's respected, and giving mass murderers three hots and a cot for life does nothing to make anybody respect the rule of law.

I read an article yesterday outlining the penalty for Bernie Madoff, the newest Club Fed inmate and his punishment is pulling weeds. Cripes, I pull weeds in my back yard and I didn't get convicted of any $13 Billion Ponzi scam. What kind of punishment is Club Fed dishing out? Condo incarceration with room service and mints on the pillow?

When Justice is seen to be weak and biased towards the criminal, while leaving the victim hanging high and dry as the stupid sucker who trusted them to deal with their attacker, you're going to get vigilantism and that's the way we're headed.

Mandatory sentencing is a vote of no confidence in our justice system.
Three Strikes and Out is a vote of no confidence too.

The one common thing I see in the appointments of Supreme Court Judges is that it doesn't matter if it's Alito, Roberts or Sotomayer, the American people HATE ON THEM. Judge Robert Bork got BORKED. Founded the term.

The Justice system is beyond broken. It's gone so liberal that it's fostering vigilantism because they lack trust in their fairness anymore.

"Kill them all; let God sort them out" may be a fine motto on the battle field; it has no place in our justice system. If you think there is a vote of no confidence in our justice system now, just start executing everyone at dawn the day following conviction.

[gdoane]

"Kill them all; let God sort them out" may be a fine motto on the battle field; it has no place in our justice system.

You don't get it. It's not "our" justice system. The concept of justice, as Constitutionally designed, consists of a jury of peers.

You live in Alaska. I live in Arizona. The climates could not possibly be more different, and the people living in these states are different too.

I believe Arizona has the right to decide its own justice system without major interference from Alaska, or Washington D.C. or anywhere else because I hold a belief in the basic concept of sovereignty.

The USA was founded upon that belief and it's reflected verbatim in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The USA is a Republic and what Alaskans think about Arizona's death penalty matters little to none. This nation is a united set of states, and not some homogenized bunch of robots.

If you oppose the Death Penalty in Alaska, that's fine. Do as you will with murderers in your state. Wine them and dine them and give them the keys to your city, I don't really care, but kill somebody in Arizona and I've got something to say about that.

If you think there is a vote of no confidence in our justice system now, just start executing everyone at dawn the day following conviction.I really don't care about the opinions or confidence of people on the wrong side of the law.

[Samm]

You don't get it. It's not "our" justice system. The concept of justice, as Constitutionally designed, consists of a jury of peers.

You live in Alaska. I live in Arizona. The climates could not possibly be more different, and the people living in these states are different too.

I believe Arizona has the right to decide its own justice system without major interference from Alaska, or Washington D.C. or anywhere else because I hold a belief in the basic concept of sovereignty.

The USA was founded upon that belief and it's reflected verbatim in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The USA is a Republic and what Alaskans think about Arizona's death penalty matters little to none. This nation is a united set of states, and not some homogenized bunch of robots.

If you oppose the Death Penalty in Alaska, that's fine. Do as you will with murderers in your state. Wine them and dine them and give them the keys to your city, I don't really care, but kill somebody in Arizona and I've got something to say about that.

I really don't care about the opinions or confidence of people on the wrong side of the law.

I know there is no point in me trying to change your mind or even make you see my point. All I can say is that I am extremely grateful that you are not the King. ;)

[gdoane]

I know there is no point in me trying to change your mind or even make you see my point. All I can say is that I am extremely grateful that you are not the King. ;)

Given that the King of Rock and Roll, the King of Pop, and the King of France all died early I can only say that I'm glad I'm not the King of anything either.

I'm not a King. If I were, I'd quit the job immediately before the lynch mob came for me.

[Samm]

Given that the King of Rock and Roll, the King of Pop, and the King of France all died early I can only say that I'm glad I'm not the King of anything either.

I'm not a King. If I were, I'd quit the job immediately before the lynch mob came for me.

Ah... we'd hang ya anyway. Why waste a good torch and pitch fork parade? ;)

[biggles53]

Collateral damage is unavoidable. 40,000 "innocent" people die in car wrecks every year and nobody wants to ban cars, so what's the point of banning the death penalty if a couple hundred or few thousand accidents happen? The good done by the death penalty far outweighs the harm.

Just a couple of questions....

What evidence do you have to show that communities using the death penalty are Less violent?

What evidence do you have to show that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to further violent crime?

Given the technological advances achieved through DNA research, what is your view of the situation that people almost certainly have been executed when innocent, and probably continue to be?

[Foxtrot]

I read that some states let the prisoners choose which way to go. lethal injection, electrocution, some places even offer hanging. hanging's the last one I'd go with. after reading a lot of survivor accounts, I'd have to settle with the chair. poison gas burns you up inside, there's a million ways hanging can go wrong, the injection gives you muscle spasms, but they say that getting shocked is the safest, most numb way to ensure death.

[PredFan]

You willing to play God and pull the lever and kill someone?

Yes.

[PredFan]

Yes. The appeal process costs more than lifetime housing.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Cut back on the amount of appeals they can make.

[PredFan]

Yes. Prosecutors, judges and courthouses cost a lot more to operate than do prisons. The DP is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for 30 yrs.

Solution:

Streamline the appeals process, and reduce the options.

Antother way would be if there is DNA evidence or if two or more people witness you pull the trigger, then you get NO appeal.

[PredFan]

I bet you are right.

That is not a reason to execute though.

That is an illustration of far greater problems in the justice system and society.



Case by case, but the convicted rapist in my prison would not be treated like the rapist in the prisons as we have allowed them to become.



No that is not true.

Despite the death penalty we have a system, because of weak willed people, that is afraid to deal harshly with ultimate criminals.


Crap.

There are some people that have just forfieted their right to exist.

[PredFan]

consider all the people who get wrongly convicted (probably few) and combine that with the percentage of prisoners who get executed (almost none). when you think about it, how many innocent people are really being executed?

Zero.

[Foxtrot]

Cut back on the amount of appeals they can make.

like I'm always saying: the appeals process is nothing but red tape so lawyers can get as much money out of their clients before they finally die.

[PredFan]

Just a couple of questions....

What evidence do you have to show that communities using the death penalty are Less violent?

What evidence do you have to show that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to further violent crime?

Given the technological advances achieved through DNA research, what is your view of the situation that people almost certainly have been executed when innocent, and probably continue to be?

Just this:

Of all the criminals executed, the number of them who went on to commit more crimes and murders is zero. That's what I call crime prevention.

[PredFan]

I read that some states let the prisoners choose which way to go. lethal injection, electrocution, some places even offer hanging. hanging's the last one I'd go with. after reading a lot of survivor accounts, I'd have to settle with the chair. poison gas burns you up inside, there's a million ways hanging can go wrong, the injection gives you muscle spasms, but they say that getting shocked is the safest, most numb way to ensure death.

If there are survivors of hangings, I'd have to go with hanging.

[Foxtrot]

If there are survivors of hangings, I'd have to go with hanging.

but then they'll just keep doing it till you finally go.

and if hanging goes wrong and your neck doesn't snap, the rope could cut your head off or you could hang there and strangle to death.

[gdoane]

Just a couple of questions....

What evidence do you have to show that communities using the death penalty are Less violent?

I never made such a claim and it makes sense that MORE violent communities would need the death penalty because they have MORE violent people to deal with. It's not like you need a death penalty in a convent full of nuns. You DO need a death penalty in a place like Phoenix, AZ which is currently the kidnapping capital of the USA due to influx from the New EME (Mexican Mafia), MS-13 and drug violence spillover because the incompetent Federales can't/won't control the stupid border.

What evidence do you have to show that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to further violent crime?

The recidivism rate of 0% for those put to death is pretty hard to argue against. You don't see Timothy McVeigh blowing up any more Federal Courthouses do ya?

Given the technological advances achieved through DNA research, what is your view of the situation that people almost certainly have been executed when innocent, and probably continue to be?

It's a don't-care. Collateral damage is no reason to surrender to the enemy.

[Samm]

Solution:

Streamline the appeals process, and reduce the options.

Antother way would be if there is DNA evidence or if two or more people witness you pull the trigger, then you get NO appeal.

There have been cases where DNA exonerated people who were convicted on the eye witness testimony of more than two people... Eye witnesses are notoriously bad evidence.

[gdoane]

There have been cases where DNA exonerated people who were convicted on the eye witness testimony of more than two people... Eye witnesses are notoriously bad evidence.

DNA wasn't good enough to convict O.J. Simpson because DNA is notoriously bad evidence.

I don't believe DNA has proven anyone innocent. DNA can't prove a negative. Just because DNA was missed at a crime scene hardly proves the innocence of anyone.

[Foxtrot]

DNA wasn't good enough to convict O.J. Simpson because DNA is notoriously bad evidence.

I don't believe DNA has proven anyone innocent. DNA can't prove a negative. Just because DNA was missed at a crime scene hardly proves the innocence of anyone.

I'm still outraged over the OJ trial but glad that he committed another felony in Vegas. if I was that judge I would be more than eager to sentence him to life.

Johnny Cochran should have been disbarred for using racial fear tactics just so he could get his multi-million dollar client off. the evidence was overwhelming and the only reason the jury said not guilty is because he scared them with the idea of more Rodeny King-style riots.

[biggles53]

I never made such a claim and it makes sense that MORE violent communities would need the death penalty because they have MORE violent people to deal with. It's not like you need a death penalty in a convent full of nuns. You DO need a death penalty in a place like Phoenix, AZ which is currently the kidnapping capital of the USA due to influx from the New EME (Mexican Mafia), MS-13 and drug violence spillover because the incompetent Federales can't/won't control the stupid border.

Thank you.
I see you agree with me that utilising capital punishment plays no part in diminishing the level of violent crime in a community.



The recidivism rate of 0% for those put to death is pretty hard to argue against. You don't see Timothy McVeigh blowing up any more Federal Courthouses do ya?

Your juvenile response was anticipated - that's why I phrased it the way I did. I didn't use "recidivism", I used "deterrent" and "further". Your answer confirms that you have no answer to the problem of capital punishment NOT deterring others from committing further violent crimes.


It's a don't-care. Collateral damage is no reason to surrender to the enemy.

Don't care? So tell me, how many innocent people are you prepared to see put to death, just so you can have the satisfaction of seeing some guilty ones die too? 2%? 5%? 10%? Please tell us how thirsty you are for blood....

[Samm]

DNA wasn't good enough to convict O.J. Simpson because DNA is notoriously bad evidence.

I don't believe DNA has proven anyone innocent. DNA can't prove a negative. Just because DNA was missed at a crime scene hardly proves the innocence of anyone.

By that standard everyone whose DNA is not found at a crime scene is not innocent. ;)

When a fellow is in jail for raping a woman but the DNA from her rape kit belongs to someone else, you can bet that he is not the rapist. That is good enough and should be good enough, to set him free.

[mgifford]

I'm against the death penalty period.

It loses money. It's not infallible. And IMHO, it's "cruel and unusual punishment".

Cruel and unusual punishment is "a country run by liberal, rogue judges".

[mgifford]

I'm pro DP and I'll even pull the switch if the "chair" is brought back. I'm also for verdicts of "life in the electric chair when a vermin kills a human being". I'm of the opinion that a state which is slack on killing criminals who kill innocent humans has to change. Murderers who kill for the fun of it need to have us kill them and give them the same fun.

[gdoane]

By that standard everyone whose DNA is not found at a crime scene is not innocent. ;)

That's exactly right. The DC snipers never left a trace of DNA anywhere. Many crimes, if not most, leave no DNA whatsoever. DNA is a lousy test and proves no innocence.

When a fellow is in jail for raping a woman but the DNA from her rape kit belongs to someone else, you can bet that he is not the rapist. That is good enough and should be good enough, to set him free.

Again, that proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Rapists don't always leave DNA. Ever heard of a condom? How about rapes that use foreign objects, how much DNA would that leave?

DNA is utterly useless and stupid to use in proving innocence. It can ONLY prove guilt. NEVER does DNA prove innocence.

[Samm]

That's exactly right. The DC snipers never left a trace of DNA anywhere. Many crimes, if not most, leave no DNA whatsoever. DNA is a lousy test and proves no innocence.



Again, that proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Rapists don't always leave DNA. Ever heard of a condom? How about rapes that use foreign objects, how much DNA would that leave?

DNA is utterly useless and stupid to use in proving innocence. It can ONLY prove guilt. NEVER does DNA prove innocence.

You are contradicting the discussion. We were talking about when DNA is in evidence that it can prove guilt or innocence. Of course DNA cannot prove anything if no DNA is in evidence.

[Foxtrot]

what else is getting really old is this argument from the left about how "in Europe they don't use capital punishment" or "most countries think the death penalty is barbaric".

well I have news for those people: in other countries, they don't live in America!

maybe in the rest of the world they don't have such heinous criminals as they do here. maybe in the so-called utopia of Europe there aren't such horrible instances of rape/murder.

[gdoane]

You are contradicting the discussion. We were talking about when DNA is in evidence that it can prove guilt or innocence. Of course DNA cannot prove anything if no DNA is in evidence.

It is not possible in any case whatsoever for DNA to prove innocence. It can prove guilt and guilt alone.

For example, if your DNA is found at the scene of a crime, you were definitely at the scene of the crime. However, if your DNA is not found, that only means your DNA was not found. It does not mean that you weren't at the scene of the crime.

[biggles53]

It is not possible in any case whatsoever for DNA to prove innocence. It can prove guilt and guilt alone.

For example, if your DNA is found at the scene of a crime, you were definitely at the scene of the crime. However, if your DNA is not found, that only means your DNA was not found. It does not mean that you weren't at the scene of the crime.

What rubbish!

If I've been convicted of raping and murdering someone, and the DNA of SOMEONE ELSE is later found to be present on/in the victim, then guess what - SOMEONE ELSE did it! Further, if I can show that my DNA was being left behind somewhere miles from the crime, at the time that it was being committed, then guess what - I couldn't have been there to do it!

[biggles53]

By the way, gdoane, you have yet to answer my question.

Given that you agree that some innocent people have/ will be executed along with the guilty, how many innocents are you 'happy' to see killed just so you can have the vengeful satisfaction of seeing someone done away with? Put a number on it please. 2%? 5%? 10%? What's it to be before you say "No, that's going too far."?

[DLaw911]

What rubbish!

If I've been convicted of raping and murdering someone, and the DNA of SOMEONE ELSE is later found to be present on/in the victim, then guess what - SOMEONE ELSE did it! Further, if I can show that my DNA was being left behind somewhere miles from the crime, at the time that it was being committed, then guess what - I couldn't have been there to do it!What you said about DNA is not quite that simple. First, gaining access to the national or state DNA base is nearly impossible so the best you can prove is that the DNA found was not yours. In some circumtances that can be exoneration, but what if the victim claims there were multiple perpetrators. Then the issue of non-matching DNA is one of weight, rather than exclusion, and not grounds for a writ of habeas corpus based on newly discovered evidence.

[Foxtrot]

it's not just DNA evidence that can convict somebody.

why do you all act like our justice system condems innocent people half the time?

[DLaw911]

It is not possible in any case whatsoever for DNA to prove innocence. It can prove guilt and guilt alone.

For example, if your DNA is found at the scene of a crime, you were definitely at the scene of the crime. However, if your DNA is not found, that only means your DNA was not found. It does not mean that you weren't at the scene of the crime.Actually Gene you are incorrect, although each case is unique. DNA testing comes in two forms. One is matching, one is exclusion. The former requires expert statistical opinion and the latter is conclusive evidence.

Let's try a factual scenario. Let's say 30 years ago a man rapes a woman and during the rape she scratches him and his blood gets on her clothing. There was only one perpetrator and no chance the blood could be from the man on the moon or somehow planted on the victim. If that blood is subsequently tested for DNA and found not to match the suspect in THAT situation it would be complete exoneration. But in other cases, especially where a person is accused of being an aider and abettor and not an actual perpetrator, DNA is not going to help.

[DLaw911]

it's not just DNA evidence that can convict somebody.

why do you all act like our justice system condems innocent people half the time?I don't think it happens "all the time" but it does happen occasionally. The fact is many persons are convicted based on uncorroborated eye witness identification of a single witness. Anyone who thinks this is good evidence is in for a rude awakening because, in fact, it is considered the worst evidence. Especially in cases of cross-racial identification. Eyewitness ID is especially good where the victim or witness KNOWS the perpetrator but, anything short of that should require some type of corroboration.

Ask yourself this question: how many times did you see a person on the street and you were sure you knew the person and it turns out you were wrong. What you saw in fact was someone who LOOKED LIKE a person you knew. Many of you (me included) have actually walked up to the person and said hello, only to get, "Do I know you?" in return.

[DLaw911]

I'm not saying the have no right, I just don't think enough people realize the situation. enough with all this appealing; it's just lawyers and red tape! and here's that statistic:
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/news.htmA trial lawyer is presumed incompetent to handle the appeal of his own client's case. That would be too convenient for a lawyer to avoid claiming incompetency of counsel. Further, most public defender offices do not handle their own appeals because they are too costly. In any event, whoever get's assigned the task of initial appeal has to wait for transcripts to be prepared (which can take months), review the entire case including pretrial motions and sentencing, and prepare an appellate brief with legal arguments.

Now I agree that appeals take WAY too long. But the fact is the process cannot be steamlined. Even the appellate courts take months, sometimes longer, to calendar a case for oral arguments. And guess who usually asks for the most continuances? No, not the defense. In most appeals it is the lawyer representing the State that seeks continuances to respond to appellate briefs. Let's take California as an example. While the District Attorney of a country might prosecute a case and obtain a conviction, in an appeal it's the California Attorney General who defends the conviction. Some lawyer with a zillion cases on his desk, each several feet high, now has to defend a criminal conviction. One mistake, one issue missed, one precedent not cited, and a case can be reversed. So for that reason the respondent attorney usually asks for a lot of time to prepare his response. And that is for the initial level of appeal. At each higher level it's possible a new appellate or respondent lawyer might be involved.

[gdoane]

By the way, gdoane, you have yet to answer my question.

Given that you agree that some innocent people have/ will be executed along with the guilty, how many innocents are you 'happy' to see killed just so you can have the vengeful satisfaction of seeing someone done away with? Put a number on it please. 2%? 5%? 10%? What's it to be before you say "No, that's going too far."?

So long as it's fewer than 50%, more good than evil is being done. If 100 people are executed, and 51 of them were guilty, then more right than wrong was done.

[gdoane]

Actually Gene you are incorrect, although each case is unique. DNA testing comes in two forms. One is matching, one is exclusion. The former requires expert statistical opinion and the latter is conclusive evidence.

Let's try a factual scenario. Let's say 30 years ago a man rapes a woman and during the rape she scratches him and his blood gets on her clothing. There was only one perpetrator and no chance the blood could be from the man on the moon or somehow planted on the victim. If that blood is subsequently tested for DNA and found not to match the suspect in THAT situation it would be complete exoneration. But in other cases, especially where a person is accused of being an aider and abettor and not an actual perpetrator, DNA is not going to help.

30 year old DNA is too old to be reliably tested. Canned Spam doesn't even have a shelf life of 30 years.

Besides, lab tests can be wrong and often are. I had a friend of mine get tested for diabetes and was told that he was, indeed diabetic. Problem is, he wasn't diabetic at all and the diabetes medicine he was prescribed nearly put him into a coma.

When I joined the United States Navy, a dental technician took x-rays of my teeth in Boot Camp and it wasn't until two years later that anybody noticed that the x-rays had fully developed wisdom teeth and I never had those teeth. "My" x-rays were from somebody else's head.

So because lab technicians make mistakes, and a LOT of them none of the so-called "evidence" is worth a plugged nickel.

A lab technician is one person. A jury is twelve people. It's a lot less likely for the twelve to err than it is the one. It's also a lot easier to threaten, coerce or bribe one person than twelve so I don't think the lab results are reliable enough to replace a jury verdict with.

[DLaw911]

30 year old DNA is too old to be reliably tested. Canned Spam doesn't even have a shelf life of 30 years.Yes DNA evidence can degrade over time. But it need not be preserved to be reliable. DNA has been tested from mummies! If the DNA markers are there, then the results are reliablle. If the sample is too small, or too degrated, then yes the results would lack significance.

Reference: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/genetics/medgen/dnatesting/dnatest_pcs.html

Besides, lab tests can be wrong and often are. I had a friend of mine get tested for diabetes and was told that he was, indeed diabetic. Problem is, he wasn't diabetic at all and the diabetes medicine he was prescribed nearly put him into a coma.Well there are different types of DNA testing. The two most common are PCR and RFLP, the latter being considered the most accurate. The science of DNA is too long for me to try and explain but here is a short primer:
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

On the NEGATIVE side of DNA testing would be this article. It's a very interesting read: http://www.callawyer.com/common/print.cfm?eid=900572&evid=1

When I joined the United States Navy, a dental technician took x-rays of my teeth in Boot Camp and it wasn't until two years later that anybody noticed that the x-rays had fully developed wisdom teeth and I never had those teeth. "My" x-rays were from somebody else's head.hahah Gene you're in denial!! hehehe Obviously someone stole your teeth.

A lab technician is one person. A jury is twelve people. It's a lot less likely for the twelve to err than it is the one. It's also a lot easier to threaten, coerce or bribe one person than twelve so I don't think the lab results are reliable enough to replace a jury verdict with.Like I said in another post jurors give way too much weight to the uncorroborated eye witness identification of a single witness ... especially when the witness and the person on trial did not know each other and, even worse, when their was cross-racial identification. I have seen my share of cases in which the police detain a suspect and have a one-person show up with a victim. The fact the person is in custody is a clue to many victims to agree that "He's the one!" So when a live line-up is later ordered by the court who do you think the victim or witness is going to chose? How about the person who they originally saw in police custody. But a lot of juries give testimony like this a lot of weight and it's THAT type of case that resulted in the most factual innocense exonoerations years later.

Trust me!

[gdoane]

Yes DNA evidence can degrade over time. But it need not be preserved to be reliable. DNA has been tested from mummies! If the DNA markers are there, then the results are reliablle. If the sample is too small, or too degrated, then yes the results would lack significance.

Reference: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/genetics/medgen/dnatesting/dnatest_pcs.html

Why are they testing DNA from mummies? They kill somebody?

There are other flaws possible. Test equipment out of calibration. Human error. Broken chain of sample custody. Intentional or unintentional adulteration. A sloppy lab tech could wind up testing his OWN DNA instead of the sample.

Well there are different types of DNA testing. The two most common are PCR and RFLP, the latter being considered the most accurate. The science of DNA is too long for me to try and explain but here is a short primer:
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

On the NEGATIVE side of DNA testing would be this article. It's a very interesting read: http://www.callawyer.com/common/print.cfm?eid=900572&evid=1

I'm still not convinced that a labcoat who wasn't even at the crime scene is the best witness.

hahah Gene you're in denial!! hehehe Obviously someone stole your teeth.

Thank heavens they didn't have a Navy Stock Number. I'd have had to fill out a loss report in triplicate and submit a plan to prevent future loss if they did.

Like I said in another post jurors give way too much weight to the uncorroborated eye witness identification of a single witness ... especially when the witness and the person on trial did not know each other and, even worse, when their was cross-racial identification. I have seen my share of cases in which the police detain a suspect and have a one-person show up with a victim. The fact the person is in custody is a clue to many victims to agree that "He's the one!" So when a live line-up is later ordered by the court who do you think the victim or witness is going to chose? How about the person who they originally saw in police custody. But a lot of juries give testimony like this a lot of weight and it's THAT type of case that resulted in the most factual innocense exonoerations years later.

I don't think police arrest all that many innocent people. I've been in situations where police questioned my presence in an area and I'm usually courteous and polite and the situation doesn't escalate much if at all.

Getting arrested by the police technically shouldn't be a factor in deciding guilt or innocence, but in my experience you've got to treat a cop pretty badly or smart off or do something really stupid to wind up getting booked.

Trust me!

I had a Navy recruiter say those very words to me, right after he said I'd see the world. He left out the bit about 2/3rds of the world being water, which is mostly what I saw.

[biggles53]

So long as it's fewer than 50%, more good than evil is being done. If 100 people are executed, and 51 of them were guilty, then more right than wrong was done.


You're kidding, aren't you...? This is a send-up, right?

Otherwise, you're telling us that the value you place on a human life is so poor that you would happily see an innocent person put to death, just so that you could also see a guilty one die....!!??

Sick puppy mate..........

[Poisonshady313]

DLaw... sounds like courtroom procedure needs to be fixed. It shouldn't be so easy to convict anyone.

That doesn't mean that the death penalty should go.

[DLaw911]

DLaw... sounds like courtroom procedure needs to be fixed. It shouldn't be so easy to convict anyone.

That doesn't mean that the death penalty should go.I'm not pretending even for a second that convicting the innocent is my reason to oppose the death penalty. It is one reason. I'm not going to rehash all my other reasons except to say I strongly believe life without parole (LWOP) is a better alternative. And I don't mean "life" in which a person CAN be parolled. Some people forfeit their right to walk the earth forever by committing certain crimes. Not only does it provide finality, the person is out of sight and mind. The cost is much less than the death penalty and it proves that we as a society are better than the person who kills another. Sure some people deserve to die for what they did, but "deserve" is a moral and emotional value and IMO the State has no business in taking part in executions.

[gdoane]

You're kidding, aren't you...? This is a send-up, right?

Otherwise, you're telling us that the value you place on a human life is so poor that you would happily see an innocent person put to death, just so that you could also see a guilty one die....!!??

Sick puppy mate..........

I didn't say happily.

Everybody dies. Immortality doesn't happen. Kings and Emperors have tried to buy eternal life. Pharaohs surrounded themselves with treasures to use in the hereafter but all to no avail, because WE ALL DIE.

So death isn't an injustice, simply an inevitability.

You're overthinking the question by quite a bit. Death isn't unjust. It's inevitable.

[mgifford]

I'm not pretending even for a second that convicting the innocent is my reason to oppose the death penalty. It is one reason. I'm not going to rehash all my other reasons except to say I strongly believe life without parole (LWOP) is a better alternative. And I don't mean "life" in which a person CAN be parolled. Some people forfeit their right to walk the earth forever by committing certain crimes. Not only does it provide finality, the person is out of sight and mind. The cost is much less than the death penalty and it proves that we as a society are better than the person who kills another. Sure some people deserve to die for what they did, but "deserve" is a moral and emotional value and IMO the State has no business in taking part in executions.

Dlaw, when we as a people allow monsters to viciously take the lives of our (women and children especially) citizens, we become no better than them. If we reward a bastard in the likes of "manson" to live the rest of his life at our expense, after he's killed the innocent, we've become a part of his horrific crime against innocent people.

Now, liberal courts can (and no doubt will) continue to make America look foolish and ridiculous, as we further follow the EU into extinction (look at the latest pathetic concessions they're making with muslims). What's so truly ridiculous is that we have watched the EU and communist countries begin to implode from their escapades into oblivion as a serious state. Liberals "good luck" with that.

[biggles53]

I didn't say happily.

Everybody dies. Immortality doesn't happen. Kings and Emperors have tried to buy eternal life. Pharaohs surrounded themselves with treasures to use in the hereafter but all to no avail, because WE ALL DIE.

So death isn't an injustice, simply an inevitability.

You're overthinking the question by quite a bit. Death isn't unjust. It's inevitable.

OK, so now I KNOW it's a joke...!

Because no-one would be so juvenile to argue that the death penalty is OK because we're all gonna die sometime anyhow...!!

If that were really your argument, there'd be no point in convicting someone for murder, would there...? Because "Death isn't unjust. It's inevitable"....!

Oh boy......

[gdoane]

OK, so now I KNOW it's a joke...!

Because no-one would be so juvenile to argue that the death penalty is OK because we're all gonna die sometime anyhow...!!

If that were really your argument, there'd be no point in convicting someone for murder, would there...? Because "Death isn't unjust. It's inevitable"....!

Oh boy......

Murder's a crime because the death of a decent person is a loss. Children lose their parents, friends lose their companionship, lenders lose their money and survivors have to pay the death tax to the IRS.

When a criminal dies it's no big loss. They're lower that pond scum so their execution isn't a murder, it's just an insecticide.

[biggles53]

Murder's a crime because the death of a decent person is a loss. Children lose their parents, friends lose their companionship, lenders lose their money and survivors have to pay the death tax to the IRS.

When a criminal dies it's no big loss. They're lower that pond scum so their execution isn't a murder, it's just an insecticide.

Read your own silly words! "Death isn't an injustice"...!!

According to your adolescent logic, death is no biggie - it's "inevitable"! Furthermore, you're quite satisfied to see an innocent person die for each of the "pond scum" you get to fry - so it's NOT only the criminal that dies under your twisted system of what's fair...!

Sheesh.....!