81 replies to this topic

[Stannis]

The problem is human life is worth far less than any of us want to believe people put $$ on it all the time, its sad but it is reality.

If you kill anther then you should forfeit your own life simple as that.

So because some people hire hit men and whatnot, that makes human life valueless? Or of minimal value? No. Human life is all important. It's the most important thing any of us have. I'd gladly give up all I have to guarantee myself longer life. I think anybody would, assuming they are of sound mind. Killing another isn't enough to be yourself killed. An eye for an eye sends the world blind. Senseless killing is terrible, but doing unto others what they have done to you isn't always a great way to live.

[Razzy]

Being put down is better than living in the hell that is general population high-security prison. The justice and prison systems both need major changes. We should be segregating violent and non-violent prisoners into separate prisons and lowering/eliminating the penalties for minor crimes.

[cantrell]

Only the people who murder others, and putting down a dog is cheaper jackass, its the cost of the lawyers than none of them can afford that makes the process more expensive, but i wouldn't expect a liberal piece of poo like you to know that.

I have scraped gum off my shoe that I hold in higher esteem than people like you.

congrats on your dehumanization bro. you know who else dehumanized people?

oh and it really cuts to the bone to hear that a self-described big gubmint fearing ron paul libertarian who also somehow thinks that the government should have the authority to kill its own citizens does not have a high opinion of me

i mean did you just pick your beliefs out of a hat, or did you really go out of your way to come up with such a contradictory ideology?

also, by saying "its the cost of the lawyers than none of them can afford that makes the process more expensive, but i wouldn't expect a liberal piece of poo like you to know that." you are literally arguing against the 6th amendment of the constitution that you and other paulzheimers sufferers hold so dearly and misinterpret so routinely

[cantrell]

as a Libertarian (big L, not little l) i think that fiat money is a violation of the rights of every american. furthermore, i think the government should be able to literally murder its own people and you are truly subhuman if you disagree

[cantrell]

Being put down is better than living in the hell that is general population high-security prison. The justice and prison systems both need major changes. We should be segregating violent and non-violent prisoners into separate prisons and lowering/eliminating the penalties for minor crimes.

yes we should eliminate penalties and actually focus on rehabilitation and restorative justice rather than just locking people away for decades and/or murdering them and acting like society is better for it

[cantrell]

If you kill anther then you should forfeit your own life simple as that.

why?

e: also, this isn't reddit. you can't make my posts disappear by downvoting, or in this case, neg repping them. it only makes you look upset that someone is challenging your horribly broken ideology.

[Inimicus]

you realize the death penalty is more expensive than keeping them in prison, right?

The raw cost of incarceration far exceeds the cost of an execution. The financial ramifications of a death sentence can exceed the cost of a life sentence only when you factor in all of the time that lawyers, judges, guards, and gubernatorial staff will devote to seeing the sentence carried out.

All of those costs can be reduced if not eliminated if the standard of proof in death sentence cases is raised from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "beyond any doubt" as in the two cases Ive mentioned in this thread. The legal standard for the state to take a life should be near metaphysical certainty and once the ruling is made there should be a single expedited review before the execution that should be no more than 90 days after the verdict.

That would address your cost concerns.

[thatlookseasy]

Yes it is.

Its going to absolutely and irrevocably guarantee that neither of these men will ever take a free step again. That they will not slip through some loophole and find themselves amongst the citizenry where their diseased minds can cook up a reason to execute another 20 people.

No it wont bring anyone back and no it wont ease the pain of those who loved their victims.

But it IS justice.

It seems like giving them life in prison without parole would preclude the possibility of those people being released (except for those cases where they are proven innocent obviously). I dont have a problem with the idea of the death penalty, but I dont think it should apply in cases where there is no physical evidence like the one mentioned in the OP.

What is good for many outweighs what is good for a few, If one innocent man must die for 50 or even hundreds of guilty murdering pieces of garbage to die it is worth it.

Besides the alternative is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars providing for them in prison for the rest of there lives.

Really, you are okay with with 2% of state executions being innocent people? All for the money we would save? Well fug, lets start killing old people- then we could save on all their health care costs, plus no more social security!

[Inimicus]

It seems like giving them life in prison without parole would preclude the possibility of those people being released (except for those cases where they are proven innocent obviously). I dont have a problem with the idea of the death penalty, but I dont think it should apply in cases where there is no physical evidence like the one mentioned in the OP.

LWOP doesn't preclude future pardons or commutations. It in no way prevents a Governor or President from deciding that the individual "has learned their lesson" and turning them loose. Haley Barbour granted pardons, clemency, or early release to 203 people convicted of crimes, including murder, rape and armed robbery on his way out of office just this year. http://en.wikipedia....ur#2012_Pardons

[Darth Biscuit]

I have no problem per se with the death penalty for those who have committed heinous crimes, but I agree that the level of proof needs to be more than "reasonable doubt" but doesn't that kind of go against the way our system is setup... don't they determine guilt first, then determine the sentence after?

[thatlookseasy]

LWOP doesn't preclude future pardons or commutations. It in no way prevents a Governor or President from deciding that the individual "has learned their lesson" and turning them loose. Haley Barbour granted pardons, clemency, or early release to 203 people convicted of crimes, including murder, rape and armed robbery on his way out of office just this year. http://en.wikipedia....ur#2012_Pardons

Fair point, but like a lot of the problems with the death penalty that one could be easily fixed. The problem is convincing Texas to make changes

[Harris Aballah]

Sounds like your boy needed a better lawyer. But the only time the death penalty is a good idea is when it's limited to an 8 dollar rope.

[SuperMan]

It seems like giving them life in prison without parole would preclude the possibility of those people being released (except for those cases where they are proven innocent obviously). I dont have a problem with the idea of the death penalty, but I dont think it should apply in cases where there is no physical evidence like the one mentioned in the OP.



Really, you are okay with with 2% of state executions being innocent people? All for the money we would save? Well fug, lets start killing old people- then we could save on all their health care costs, plus no more social security!

I'm not okay with knowingly killing the innocent, I think the measures to insure guilt should be increased, but there is also a margin for error I mean we are only human some will slip through the cracks.

[FurdTurgason]

How many would be for the death penalty if Cantrell was first in line?

(raises hand as high as possible)

[cantrell]

I'm not okay with knowingly killing the innocent, I think the measures to insure guilt should be increased, but there is also a margin for error I mean we are only human some will slip through the cracks.

i'm not ok with knowingly killing innocent people, but come on guys, there's a margin of error involved and i mean you have have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right?

i mean you just managed to contradict yourself in the same sentence. you accept that innocent people will die due to "margin for error" but you're not ok with innocent people dying, but you're totally for a death penalty where a "margin for error" exists. i mean, do you even proofread your posts?