Look you will always have some comeback even if it is to say someone is insane. What I am saying is if a person walks into a store and demands money and shoots and kills 5 people on video then the person should get the needle. Not a subject that anyone is changing their mind about so good luck.
The Death Penalty?
- Thread starter TontoKowalski
- Start date
Look you will always have some comeback even if it is to say someone is insane. What I am saying is if a person walks into a store and demands money and shoots and kills 5 people on video then the person should get the needle. Not a subject that anyone is changing their mind about so good luck.
But... we are saying one life is better than another...
Furman v GA started the moratorium on the death penalty and Gregg reinstated it.
In Furman... the guy was committing a felony and accidently tripped and shot a person... he was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
Answer this question... could you be on a death qualified jury... you would pretty much be killing this person. how could you live with that?
Ok lets say this...
I have a gun to your head... and I order you to shoot a random by stander... would you do it? and would the law permit you to do it?
So the himleck and heart transplants/invitro are the same
I could care less if people agree or disagree with the death penalty, but the "we shouldnt play god" argument is a rather ridiculus one given the things we do to save/create lives. GL
The death penalty is a massive, massive waste of resources. Regardless of whether or not you think someone should be killed for killing, that is the truth. There is no bigger waste of legal resources than purusing the death penalty. The problem is that the average Joe Six-Pack thinks that, "well, they get 3 hots and a cot.... why the hell should us taxpayers be paying that kind of money for that??" Which is not only incredibly naive, but just flat-out wrong. The county I work in has been crushed because the county attorney chooses to pursue the DP in almost all Murder 1 cases. And it costs us millions and millions and millions of dollars. So few realize the additional resources this takes up.
As mentioned above, the deterrent argument is a f*cking joke. If anyone honestly thinks that a prospective killer thing "Well, I would do this if I were facing life without parole, but since I'm facing death, I won't".... well, you are a f*cking idiot. There's no way around it. You are a complete and total moron.
The amount of DNA-released people from Death Row should be enough for the simpletons who still support the death penalty to realize what a joke it is, but for some reason it is not. They think it is "justice." Which, of course, it never is. It's revenge. Not that desire for revenge is not understable, but it's not justice.
Sometimes I hear the whole "closure" agument. That is seriously just a bunch of shit. Interview the family of a murder victim. Did the execution bring their family member back? No. I'm sure they thought it would before the execution, because they are looking for anything and everything to make them feel better. But did it honestly make them feel better about it? No. It is the most bullshit argument that is made in support of the death penalty.
To me, that fact that certain states still think that killing someone to show that killing someone is wrong, is morbidly amusing. But at the end of the day, it's all a joke. Regardless of how you feel about capital punishment in principle, it is such a ludicrous waste of taxpayer money that there is no leigitmate reason to pursue it.
As mentioned above, the deterrent argument is a f*cking joke. If anyone honestly thinks that a prospective killer thing "Well, I would do this if I were facing life without parole, but since I'm facing death, I won't".... well, you are a f*cking idiot. There's no way around it. You are a complete and total moron.
The amount of DNA-released people from Death Row should be enough for the simpletons who still support the death penalty to realize what a joke it is, but for some reason it is not. They think it is "justice." Which, of course, it never is. It's revenge. Not that desire for revenge is not understable, but it's not justice.
Sometimes I hear the whole "closure" agument. That is seriously just a bunch of shit. Interview the family of a murder victim. Did the execution bring their family member back? No. I'm sure they thought it would before the execution, because they are looking for anything and everything to make them feel better. But did it honestly make them feel better about it? No. It is the most bullshit argument that is made in support of the death penalty.
To me, that fact that certain states still think that killing someone to show that killing someone is wrong, is morbidly amusing. But at the end of the day, it's all a joke. Regardless of how you feel about capital punishment in principle, it is such a ludicrous waste of taxpayer money that there is no leigitmate reason to pursue it.
As I stated earlier BJ... most people believe its just an in and out process... they don't understand what goes on behind the scenes so to speak.
I agree. Under the current laws with mandatory appeals and the time that they can be drawn out it makes no economic sense to persue. That is a far superior argument than we shouldnt play god.
And its jsut like the current view on crime... punitive...
We want to put everyone in prison... but we don't waent to pay for it...
We need to build more prisons... but guess what.. NIMBY!
We want to put everyone in prison... but we don't waent to pay for it...
We need to build more prisons... but guess what.. NIMBY!
- Jun 11, 2007
- 4,564
- 3
- 0
I wouldnt say I support the death penalty, but I am all for an eye for an eye, meaning if a perverted horny ass old man pokes some little boy in his bung hole and leads that little boy to believe its ok and does it time and time again, well then that said old man should be plowed by some twisted and demented dude that likes hairy asses.
Killing people is wrong no matter the evidence stacked against them, some believe killing animals would be wrong, I disagree, but you shall get what you give.
Killing people is wrong no matter the evidence stacked against them, some believe killing animals would be wrong, I disagree, but you shall get what you give.
have you talked with anyone who has had a family member taken from them? have you even read anything that supports this? or did you make it up?
Let's play a little mind game here. Some of you say there is no reason for "closure".
Ok so would you answer that it would give you an amount of closure, or pleasure, to ahve the person locked up that did something to your child? As opposed to killed? Whats the difference?
If you argue there is no difference, and your joy comes from just having the person off the streets to not harm someone else, then aren't you saying you should be as concerned about every criminal out there that harms anyone just as much as one that would harm your own child?
I'm jsut pointing out that its REAL EASY to hypothetically put yourself in the victim's family's shoes, but a whole new set of emotions and feeligns will arrive when you actually are there.
Ok so would you answer that it would give you an amount of closure, or pleasure, to ahve the person locked up that did something to your child? As opposed to killed? Whats the difference?
If you argue there is no difference, and your joy comes from just having the person off the streets to not harm someone else, then aren't you saying you should be as concerned about every criminal out there that harms anyone just as much as one that would harm your own child?
I'm jsut pointing out that its REAL EASY to hypothetically put yourself in the victim's family's shoes, but a whole new set of emotions and feeligns will arrive when you actually are there.
um ok. well I guess that settles it... though I find it very odd taht you cant give at least a watered down version of your anecdotal evidence
trials and sentencing are about the defendant... not the victim...
I disagree strongly with victim impact statements and that garbage... What if the victim doesn't have a family?
Justice is blind.
I disagree strongly with victim impact statements and that garbage... What if the victim doesn't have a family?
Justice is blind.
I never said there was no reason for closure. I said the closure doesn't happen simply by executing the killer. This I have seen with my own eyes through my own experience working in capital defense.
There are ample studies that back this up, but I don't have the references or studies handy right now. If you choose to disbelieve me, that is fine. But it is the truth.
As a sidenote, I actually DO believe that if the victim's family were allowed to carry out the death sentence themselves (i.e. give them five minutes in a room with the inmate, armed with a hammer or gun), I think it might be different. But we aren't Iran or Congo, etc. And we should be glad for that.
Well if you ever do come across those studies, I'd like to hear them. Or if you can give more concrete yet non-specific enough to your liking of your anecdotal evidence, I'd appreciate that too.
