yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
An individual ending the lives of multiple individuals in horrific ways?I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
To me, it seems like a much more intrusive action than requiring someone buy healthcare.An individual ending the lives of multiple individuals in horrific ways?I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
Fair enough. I can understand that.Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
It's not a role I want of fellow citizens either, but it happens all the time.Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.I don't get this statement.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
It is to me as well. I also believe in accountability. And I believe that if you take another life with intent (Murder 1), you forfeit your right to life yourself. You may disagree but I think that's a reasonable stance to have on this issue.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
I don't believe in the death penalty, but I do believe it is a reasonable stance for those that do.It is to me as well. I also believe in accountability. And I believe that if you take another life with intent (Murder 1), you forfeit your right to life yourself. You may disagree but I think that's a reasonable stance to have on this issue.I see a pretty major difference in the role of government putting people to death vs locking them up. The right to life is a pretty basic and important concept for me.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
We are in agreement, I don't want my fellow citizens putting people to death either. Let's get them to stop.It's not a role I want of fellow citizens either, but it happens all the time.Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.I don't get this statement.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
thats the beauty of it. Once the murders stop, so does the death penalty.We are in agreement, I don't want my fellow citizens putting people to death either. Let's get them to stop.It's not a role I want of fellow citizens either, but it happens all the time.Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.I don't get this statement.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
Are you ok with them sending our young people to war?Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
I am OK with a volunteer army. I am strongly opposed to any kind of draft.Are you ok with them sending our young people to war?Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
Who is "them"? All the people that go to war now signed up for it.Are you ok with them sending our young people to war?Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
Yeah...maybe they just wanted to learn computer skills like you see in the recruitment advertisement. They certainly don't send themselves to war. A guy on death row at least gets numerous appeals. I would like to see at least as much consideration for our soldiers before sending them off for some ridiculous reason.Who is "them"? All the people that go to war now signed up for it.Are you ok with them sending our young people to war?Putting people to death just doesn't seem like the right role I want of my government.I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying I don't see the connection.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I don't get this statement.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
How is locking them up for the rest of their lives any different? You are still taking their life away. You're just doing it in a different fashion. Life in prison seems like more of a punishment than just killing them. Life in prison would seem like torture almost.
This is why, for me, there are times, especially with terrorists, that I'd rather see them get life in prison. But for people who murder people in a crime, they have no place in our world. Just get rid of them. Save them the torture of jail and remove them from life.
Bull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
Says you. Maybe you should ask a family whose child has been murdered what their definition of deserved punishment is.Bull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
Not a good argument. If it were one of my children killed, I would certainly want to see the death penalty enforced as a punishment. Probably torture as well. But that is, justifiably, an emotional response. There is a reason we do not allow the grieving parents of murder victims to decide this. The law is supposed to be based on well thought out reason, and not immediate emotion.Says you. Maybe you should ask a family whose child has been murdered what their definition of deserved punishment is.Bull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
Isn't that what the 12 jurors and the judge do?Not a good argument. If it were one of my children killed, I would certainly want to see the death penalty enforced as a punishment. Probably torture as well. But that is, justifiably, an emotional response. There is a reason we do not allow the grieving parents of murder victims to decide this. The law is supposed to be based on well thought out reason, and not immediate emotion.Says you. Maybe you should ask a family whose child has been murdered what their definition of deserved punishment is.Bull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
Tim,Bull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25816116/supermax-inmate-held-solitary-confinement-30-years-losesBull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
This is what we would have to do with all convicts who we currently consider the death penalty for, in order to ensure the safety of others from them. If that isn't barbaric I don't know what is.According to the ruling, Silverstein "eats alone and has no face-to-face interaction with others unfettered by glass, bars, chains, or other restraints, and his contact with others is minimal, lasting only a minute or so.
Why should taxpayers be responsible for the continued feeding and housing of these animals.http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25816116/supermax-inmate-held-solitary-confinement-30-years-losesBull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
This is what we would have to do with all convicts who we currently consider the death penalty for, in order to ensure the safety of others from them. If that isn't barbaric I don't know what is.According to the ruling, Silverstein "eats alone and has no face-to-face interaction with others unfettered by glass, bars, chains, or other restraints, and his contact with others is minimal, lasting only a minute or so.
That's not true, Strike.Tim,Bull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
People who should have been executed but have been given life in prison have killed again. I'm not ok with that. It's a shame you can't respect other people's opinions as valid. I understand why people opposed to the death penalty are opposed to it, and I'm in favor of reforms. But, like on most topics, you have zero respect for other valid opinions if they differ from yours.
You realize that executions usually end up costing more than life in prison?Why should taxpayers be responsible for the continued feeding and housing of these animals.http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25816116/supermax-inmate-held-solitary-confinement-30-years-losesBull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
This is what we would have to do with all convicts who we currently consider the death penalty for, in order to ensure the safety of others from them. If that isn't barbaric I don't know what is.According to the ruling, Silverstein "eats alone and has no face-to-face interaction with others unfettered by glass, bars, chains, or other restraints, and his contact with others is minimal, lasting only a minute or so.
Batman, duh.some humans don't deserve to live. If the government isn't the one to decide who is?
Are we talking about during like July when all the major sports except baseball are on hiatus?Would the public be in favor of executions if they were all televised in prime time? What does that say about us a society, assuming the people tune in every friday night to see the weekly culling?
Nope every Friday night from 9-11. Or maybe two separate shows, an east cost show and a west coast show.Are we talking about during like July when all the major sports except baseball are on hiatus?Would the public be in favor of executions if they were all televised in prime time? What does that say about us a society, assuming the people tune in every friday night to see the weekly culling?
I'd watch. Even though I'm against the death penalty. Like most people, I'm a sucker for barbarism.Nope every Friday night from 9-11. Or maybe two separate shows, an east cost show and a west coast show.Are we talking about during like July when all the major sports except baseball are on hiatus?Would the public be in favor of executions if they were all televised in prime time? What does that say about us a society, assuming the people tune in every friday night to see the weekly culling?
Amazing. Tim chose to just ignore a post that shows what happens when you take someone who should be executed and give them life in prison instead. They kill more people. What a shock!!!http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25816116/supermax-inmate-held-solitary-confinement-30-years-losesBull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
This is what we would have to do with all convicts who we currently consider the death penalty for, in order to ensure the safety of others from them. If that isn't barbaric I don't know what is.According to the ruling, Silverstein "eats alone and has no face-to-face interaction with others unfettered by glass, bars, chains, or other restraints, and his contact with others is minimal, lasting only a minute or so.
This argument is so ####### lame. A PROPERLY run death sentence would cost far less than housing an inmate for the rest of their lives. Preemptive strike: Before someone also uses the lame 'innocent people have been executed', I am talking about the obviously guilty. There are boatloads of them sitting in prison.You realize that executions usually end up costing more than life in prison?Why should taxpayers be responsible for the continued feeding and housing of these animals.http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25816116/supermax-inmate-held-solitary-confinement-30-years-losesBull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.
This is what we would have to do with all convicts who we currently consider the death penalty for, in order to ensure the safety of others from them. If that isn't barbaric I don't know what is.According to the ruling, Silverstein "eats alone and has no face-to-face interaction with others unfettered by glass, bars, chains, or other restraints, and his contact with others is minimal, lasting only a minute or so.
IMO, it's because of a natural distrust of govt in general. Let's assume that the want for small govt is the expectation that the govt generally ####s #### up. Why do you want them getting involved in taking the lives of its citizens - legally.I don't understand why the death penalty is Big Government while life without parole is Small Government. They're both extremely severe penalties meted out by a criminal justice system that everybody except anarchists agrees is part of the legitimate scope of government.I cant think of anything more intrusive than Big Government ending the life of an individual.I don't get this statement.yet another example of republicans once again choosing big government over individuals.
I'm not a Rep. And the only thing I'm choosing is a just penalty to a waste of space.
Sad.Well, if we are being honest in here, and want to use the death penalty as a deterrent. Killing a few "innocent" people will still accomplish the task. The whole concept of it being better to set 100 guilty men free than send 1 innocent to prison, is vastly overrated. And as my momma always told me as she brought down the belt: "You might not have done this, but you did something."
Yeah.Well, if we are being honest in here, and want to use the death penalty as a deterrent. Killing a few "innocent" people will still accomplish the task. The whole concept of it being better to set 100 guilty men free than send 1 innocent to prison, is vastly overrated. And as my momma always told me as she brought down the belt: "You might not have done this, but you did something."
This is just about as good as any other argument for the death penalty.Well, if we are being honest in here, and want to use the death penalty as a deterrent. Killing a few "innocent" people will still accomplish the task. The whole concept of it being better to set 100 guilty men free than send 1 innocent to prison, is vastly overrated. And as my momma always told me as she brought down the belt: "You might not have done this, but you did something."
I laugh when I hear the deterrent argument. If it's a deterrent great. I don't really care whether it is or not though. To me, It's about accountability for one's actions and ensuring that a person who could commit such an act doesn't do so again.Yeah.Well, if we are being honest in here, and want to use the death penalty as a deterrent. Killing a few "innocent" people will still accomplish the task. The whole concept of it being better to set 100 guilty men free than send 1 innocent to prison, is vastly overrated. And as my momma always told me as she brought down the belt: "You might not have done this, but you did something."
Except it's been shown time and time again that it's not actually a deterrent.
( so those four innocents now die... Why?)
He brought up the taxpayer argument, I did not. Also, your "solution" is unconstitutional among other things.This argument is so ####### lame. A PROPERLY run death sentence would cost far less than housing an inmate for the rest of their lives. Preemptive strike: Before someone also uses the lame 'innocent people have been executed', I am talking about the obviously guilty. There are boatloads of them sitting in prison.We should send the bill for incarceration to those who oppose a murderers execution. A simple, 'does anyone object to this murderer's execution?' Anyone saying 'yes', gets sent the bill and we send the loser back to prison. The minute you can't pony up the $, we kill the loser. Then its totally on you. That would be so awesome.You realize that executions usually end up costing more than life in prison?Why should taxpayers be responsible for the continued feeding and housing of these animals.http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25816116/supermax-inmate-held-solitary-confinement-30-years-losesBull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
This is what we would have to do with all convicts who we currently consider the death penalty for, in order to ensure the safety of others from them. If that isn't barbaric I don't know what is.According to the ruling, Silverstein "eats alone and has no face-to-face interaction with others unfettered by glass, bars, chains, or other restraints, and his contact with others is minimal, lasting only a minute or so.
Since when do you care about the constitution?He brought up the taxpayer argument, I did not. Also, your "solution" is unconstitutional among other things.This argument is so ####### lame. A PROPERLY run death sentence would cost far less than housing an inmate for the rest of their lives. Preemptive strike: Before someone also uses the lame 'innocent people have been executed', I am talking about the obviously guilty. There are boatloads of them sitting in prison.We should send the bill for incarceration to those who oppose a murderers execution. A simple, 'does anyone object to this murderer's execution?' Anyone saying 'yes', gets sent the bill and we send the loser back to prison. The minute you can't pony up the $, we kill the loser. Then its totally on you. That would be so awesome.You realize that executions usually end up costing more than life in prison?Why should taxpayers be responsible for the continued feeding and housing of these animals.http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25816116/supermax-inmate-held-solitary-confinement-30-years-losesBull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
This is what we would have to do with all convicts who we currently consider the death penalty for, in order to ensure the safety of others from them. If that isn't barbaric I don't know what is.According to the ruling, Silverstein "eats alone and has no face-to-face interaction with others unfettered by glass, bars, chains, or other restraints, and his contact with others is minimal, lasting only a minute or so.
Make it a deterrent - if thats what you want. Make the executions public. Make the executions quick - 60 days from conviction. Introduce caning or whipping as part of the death sentence. Maybe 2 per day until the sentence is carried out.Yeah.Well, if we are being honest in here, and want to use the death penalty as a deterrent. Killing a few "innocent" people will still accomplish the task. The whole concept of it being better to set 100 guilty men free than send 1 innocent to prison, is vastly overrated. And as my momma always told me as she brought down the belt: "You might not have done this, but you did something."
Except it's been shown time and time again that it's not actually a deterrent.
( so those four innocents now die... Why?)
I ignored it because it's probably the weakest argument for the death penalty I have ever heard. There are, surely, other ways to prevent prison murders a little less drastic than state executions.Amazing. Tim chose to just ignore a post that shows what happens when you take someone who should be executed and give them life in prison instead. They kill more people. What a shock!!!http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25816116/supermax-inmate-held-solitary-confinement-30-years-losesBull####. It's pure entertainment. Even now. It's gratification for the public, which enjoys putting people to death. Don't tell me it's deserved punishment- life in prison without parole would be deserved punishment for any crime no matter how savage.The state putting people to death is barbaric, a throwback to savage times- and that's why we do it. Because we love barbarism, and this gives us a chance to be barbaric while keeping up the pretense that it's all about "justice". What a load of crap. So why have the pretense of humane lethal injection, appeals, etc.? Let's string em all up on the courthouse lawn, or at the county fair. Let's have a spectacle. Televise it for the masses. Might as well get maximum entertainment value.It's not. Entertainment value is a just a byproduct. Administering a deserved punishment is what it is "about."So long as we're admitting that it's all about entertainment value, I thought The Running Man was a good concept.
This is what we would have to do with all convicts who we currently consider the death penalty for, in order to ensure the safety of others from them. If that isn't barbaric I don't know what is.According to the ruling, Silverstein "eats alone and has no face-to-face interaction with others unfettered by glass, bars, chains, or other restraints, and his contact with others is minimal, lasting only a minute or so.
I suppose fascism and barbaric behavior do have their benefits.Make it a deterrent - if thats what you want. Make the executions public. Make the executions quick - 60 days from conviction. Introduce caning or whipping as part of the death sentence. Maybe 2 per day until the sentence is carried out.Yeah.Except it's been shown time and time again that it's not actually a deterrent.Well, if we are being honest in here, and want to use the death penalty as a deterrent. Killing a few "innocent" people will still accomplish the task. The whole concept of it being better to set 100 guilty men free than send 1 innocent to prison, is vastly overrated. And as my momma always told me as she brought down the belt: "You might not have done this, but you did something."
( so those four innocents now die... Why?)
That's fine in theory.I laugh when I hear the deterrent argument. If it's a deterrent great. I don't really care whether it is or not though. To me, It's about accountability for one's actions and ensuring that a person who could commit such an act doesn't do so again.Yeah.Except it's been shown time and time again that it's not actually a deterrent.Well, if we are being honest in here, and want to use the death penalty as a deterrent. Killing a few "innocent" people will still accomplish the task. The whole concept of it being better to set 100 guilty men free than send 1 innocent to prison, is vastly overrated. And as my momma always told me as she brought down the belt: "You might not have done this, but you did something."
( so those four innocents now die... Why?)