Sir William
New member
of killers. I truly support the death penalty. There it is. A single issue and a single candidate.
I am giving my vote to a killer.........
- Thread starter Sir William
- Start date
- Status
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I thought you meant Ted Kennedy...
The irrational fear of innocents being wrongfully executed would result in Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and Wayne Williams all sharing a duplex down by the sorority house or over by the elementary school. Can't we all just get along, after all...serial killers need love and understanding, too.
Someone's straglinging, Lord. Kumbaya....
Someone's straglinging, Lord. Kumbaya....
Yeah, I guess life in prison is down by the sorority house. 
Gburner, you're the sort of person that would call for the elimination of juries because they are "soft on crime".
Innocents being executed isn't a fear, it's a fact, proven over and over. I just asked how much of that is considered acceptable.
What sort of risk to your own hide is acceptable to make sure that convicted criminals are killed, rather than incarcerated? Simple question.
Gburner, you're the sort of person that would call for the elimination of juries because they are "soft on crime".Innocents being executed isn't a fear, it's a fact, proven over and over. I just asked how much of that is considered acceptable.
What sort of risk to your own hide is acceptable to make sure that convicted criminals are killed, rather than incarcerated? Simple question.
Last edited:
At least the first two admitted to their killings. If they were innocent, they're morons. It was their choice to lie when they knew there life was on the line. While they might not deserve it, they certainly had the opportunity to avoid guaranteeing that they'd get the death penalty.
We should execute criminals who admit to killing people. There are plenty of them, and they don't care about dying, just getting notariety. They get their 15 minutes and we get to kill them. Everyone wins, except the victims of course, and relatives of the victims who at least get some sort of closure.
Admitted murderers probably show up in the criminal justice system faster than we could execute them, anyway. Until they're all dead, there's no reason to even think of executing people who have not admitted guilt.
The same question could be asked for any function of civilization. How many innocent lives are you willing to have lost to:
protect this nation?
explore space?
expand medical knowledge?
push technological limits?
enhance transportation efficiency?
and on and on...
I will stipulate that there are people in jail for crimes they did not commit. I will further stipulate that on the rare occasion some are executed. We bend over backwards in this country to provide fair access to and representation in the justice system to everyone. With advances in technology there should be fewer and fewer of these already isolated cases. I think that it is irrational to expect perfection in an imperfect world.
BTW...its been my considerable life experience that EVERYONE in jail is 'innocent'. How many serial killers do you want in your neighborhood to avoid the unavoidable?
protect this nation?
explore space?
expand medical knowledge?
push technological limits?
enhance transportation efficiency?
and on and on...
I will stipulate that there are people in jail for crimes they did not commit. I will further stipulate that on the rare occasion some are executed. We bend over backwards in this country to provide fair access to and representation in the justice system to everyone. With advances in technology there should be fewer and fewer of these already isolated cases. I think that it is irrational to expect perfection in an imperfect world.
BTW...its been my considerable life experience that EVERYONE in jail is 'innocent'. How many serial killers do you want in your neighborhood to avoid the unavoidable?
G,
The analogy to space exploration or medicine doesn't hold up. Whether someone spends a lifetime in jail or is executed, they still are off the streets - there is no net gain (apparently you're not aware of this, as you keep making it sound like Dahmer would be driving an ice cream truck today).
You can't even make a financial argument since the average time spent on death row and the cost per execution are very close to the total cost of life imprisonment.
There is no data to suggest that the death penalty is a crime deterrent.
Ultimately, the only function of exection is vengeance, which is a bit of a bummer when it turns out the person wasn't even guilty of a crime, as has happened so frequently.
I'd be down with killing admitted killers. It's not the morality of killing such people that bothers me; it is the inability to right an injustice should 'we the people' execute an innocent law abiding citizen, like you and me.
What do you tell the family of someone the state unjustly kills? What benefit justifies that death?
"Don't feel too bad ma'am. The death penalty frees up more prison space."
Or how about:
"We needed venegence to feel better."
Talk about touchy-feely.
The analogy to space exploration or medicine doesn't hold up. Whether someone spends a lifetime in jail or is executed, they still are off the streets - there is no net gain (apparently you're not aware of this, as you keep making it sound like Dahmer would be driving an ice cream truck today).
You can't even make a financial argument since the average time spent on death row and the cost per execution are very close to the total cost of life imprisonment.
There is no data to suggest that the death penalty is a crime deterrent.
Ultimately, the only function of exection is vengeance, which is a bit of a bummer when it turns out the person wasn't even guilty of a crime, as has happened so frequently.
I'd be down with killing admitted killers. It's not the morality of killing such people that bothers me; it is the inability to right an injustice should 'we the people' execute an innocent law abiding citizen, like you and me.
What do you tell the family of someone the state unjustly kills? What benefit justifies that death?
"Don't feel too bad ma'am. The death penalty frees up more prison space."
Or how about:
"We needed venegence to feel better."
Talk about touchy-feely.
Danindetroit
New member
Handy the death penalty doesn't kill people, overzealous prosecuters who feel that you are guilty if you have motive, and oppurtunity, kill people.
There is not evidence that Scott peterson killed his wife, I don't follow these shams of court cases but on headline news it pops up. They say they found a hair on his boat which his wife never visited. They use he same evidence that you pick up fiber evidence from places you go and deposit some fiber their. Conclusion these hairs could have been on Scott when he went to his boat. I find my wife's hair on my clothes all of the time.
That Kennedy was convicted of killing that moxley girl because her mother was sobbing in court the whole time. What is even scarier is that the police can withold charging you with a crime when you are a minor charge you when youare an adult and give you a harsher crime that is absurd. He could of at most I think seved 6 years at a juvenile facility. He should have got 6 years in an adult prison.
The problem is not the death penalaty is is the justice system when cops worry more about clearing a case and getting a suspect, and the DA cares more about their win % than if a person did the crime or didn't do it.
Remeber this quote somebody should remember the author "I would rather see 100 guilty men go free than to see 1 innocent man convicted of a crime."
Circumstantial evidence can lead you to believe anything the DA wants you to believe, it just can't prove that the person actually commited the crime.
There is not evidence that Scott peterson killed his wife, I don't follow these shams of court cases but on headline news it pops up. They say they found a hair on his boat which his wife never visited. They use he same evidence that you pick up fiber evidence from places you go and deposit some fiber their. Conclusion these hairs could have been on Scott when he went to his boat. I find my wife's hair on my clothes all of the time.
That Kennedy was convicted of killing that moxley girl because her mother was sobbing in court the whole time. What is even scarier is that the police can withold charging you with a crime when you are a minor charge you when youare an adult and give you a harsher crime that is absurd. He could of at most I think seved 6 years at a juvenile facility. He should have got 6 years in an adult prison.
The problem is not the death penalaty is is the justice system when cops worry more about clearing a case and getting a suspect, and the DA cares more about their win % than if a person did the crime or didn't do it.
Remeber this quote somebody should remember the author "I would rather see 100 guilty men go free than to see 1 innocent man convicted of a crime."
Circumstantial evidence can lead you to believe anything the DA wants you to believe, it just can't prove that the person actually commited the crime.
I am for the death penalty. It is possible that once in a while someone is convicted wrongfully, but that is the way our system of "justice" is. There are many who should be covicted that are not.
When one is convicted by a jury of peers that is the best we can do. If he is convicted of a crime for which the death penalty is an option, then give him death.
Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Jerry
When one is convicted by a jury of peers that is the best we can do. If he is convicted of a crime for which the death penalty is an option, then give him death.
Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Jerry
Double Naught Spy
New member
Single issue voters scare me.
Danindetroit
New member
I am for the death penalty in cases that really warrant it. I can't name the things that warrant it. I don't folow all of the cases out there but it can be used to make a person guilty of a crime to admit to it and plead to life in jail it can also kill a person who is going to attack, kill, or rape a correction officer. Life in jail in MI means exactly that not one possibility of parole. I am opposed to the miranda ruling of the supreme court, and the fact that everyone gets an attorney. It is a very hard problem of innocent people going to jail. Most attorney's these days prep a client on how to look in court how to sit what expression to have on their face. Somebody a lot smarter than me needs to figure out how to fix the legal system. People have been sent up for 20 years in MI and then had their case overturned. The jury should have more knowledge of science and the prosecutors should use it more. This has been going on for a long time remember, Sacco & Vanzetti, and Leopold and Loeb. Bad things happen to regular people and bad people sometimes don't get exactly what they deserve, I don't bang my head on the wall, I can't help it that a friend of mine, who cuts he elderly neighbors lawn for free and shovels his snow for free gets a condition at 18 that causes him to get reoccurring non cancerous tumors in his brain that kills him 2 years later.
To Jerry M.
Matt. 7:1-5 Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
I am an atheist but I can spout words out of an old book also.
Double naught I am voting for Bush because of gun rights basically. I think he is taking away are freedoms with Gov databases and homeland security, but I don't think Kerry will do anything that different.
To Jerry M.
Matt. 7:1-5 Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
I am an atheist but I can spout words out of an old book also.
Double naught I am voting for Bush because of gun rights basically. I think he is taking away are freedoms with Gov databases and homeland security, but I don't think Kerry will do anything that different.
johndavid400
New member
I think that they should put convicts that have committed serious felonies such as murder or rape... in solitary confinement for their entire term. Would you committ a crime if you knew that you were going to be sitting in a cell alone for the next 25 years? I would make them take showers one at a time, eat meals in their cells... the works. I just don't see how prison is supposed to re-habilitate someone when they are constantly getting beaten up and raped by other men!
But I don't agree with the death penalty. No man (or men) has the right to take the life of another man... not even the almighty government :barf: .
Put them in solitary leave them there to think about what they have done.
I wouldn't trust most of these DA's with a dog I didn't like! Most of them are in it for one reason and that is to convict... not to bring justice, just convict and make a name for themselves! If they can get their conviction rates up, they have succeeded in life. Half of the people that they convict in court could be innocent and they wouldn't care one bit. That is not justice and they will get what they deserve.
Why is it that if I were to protect myself against a thug that was trying to kill my family, I would probably end up with some power happy prosecutor trying to convict me of 1st degree murder and put me in prison for life? If we could trust them to back off of a case if they suspected the defendant to be innocent, our justice system might actually work.
But I don't agree with the death penalty. No man (or men) has the right to take the life of another man... not even the almighty government :barf: .
Put them in solitary leave them there to think about what they have done.
I wouldn't trust most of these DA's with a dog I didn't like! Most of them are in it for one reason and that is to convict... not to bring justice, just convict and make a name for themselves! If they can get their conviction rates up, they have succeeded in life. Half of the people that they convict in court could be innocent and they wouldn't care one bit. That is not justice and they will get what they deserve.
Why is it that if I were to protect myself against a thug that was trying to kill my family, I would probably end up with some power happy prosecutor trying to convict me of 1st degree murder and put me in prison for life? If we could trust them to back off of a case if they suspected the defendant to be innocent, our justice system might actually work.
Might consider that in most situations, in capital cases there is a right to appeal to the court of last resort.
Part of recent constitutional precedents, so can be very, very expensive to have the state kill someone in that context.
In that sense, life sentences, as expensive as these might be, would still be more valid and cost effective.
Problem is, with overcrowding there is a certain pressure, to let people out prior to fully serving their term.
And, at times, yes evidence is fabricated or obtained under questionable circumstances. So mayhaps getting too quick to execute could be problematic.
How much serving time serves as an initial deterrent, is a bit hard to ascertain. More of a deterrent to the stable people than the emotionally/psychologically/physically whacked. So it could deter people from committing homocides in the commission of other events. But likely not much deterrent in such more spontaneous events. But all that said, usually by the time a con hits 50-60-70+, not much of a social problem in many cases.
And anyway, since SD is increasingly looked upon as a questionable defense (especially in some larger urban states)...maybe advocating state sponsored executions could be unintended trouble for the 2nd A.
Part of recent constitutional precedents, so can be very, very expensive to have the state kill someone in that context.
In that sense, life sentences, as expensive as these might be, would still be more valid and cost effective.
Problem is, with overcrowding there is a certain pressure, to let people out prior to fully serving their term.
And, at times, yes evidence is fabricated or obtained under questionable circumstances. So mayhaps getting too quick to execute could be problematic.
How much serving time serves as an initial deterrent, is a bit hard to ascertain. More of a deterrent to the stable people than the emotionally/psychologically/physically whacked. So it could deter people from committing homocides in the commission of other events. But likely not much deterrent in such more spontaneous events. But all that said, usually by the time a con hits 50-60-70+, not much of a social problem in many cases.
And anyway, since SD is increasingly looked upon as a questionable defense (especially in some larger urban states)...maybe advocating state sponsored executions could be unintended trouble for the 2nd A.
Danindetroit,
[Matt. 7:1-5 Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
I am an atheist but I can spout words out of an old book also.]
Yes you can spout, but it is obvious that you have no understanding of the words. I expect to be judged by the same standards that I make judgments. Those judgments, from God’s word, pertain to everyone including you and me.
For your information, the passage you quote does not prohibit making judgments, but it condemns those who do the same thing that they judge others for. Note that if one gets the speck out of his own eyes, he can then see clearly to get it out of the brother’s eye. That should have been obvious to you.
Since you are an atheist it is impossible for you to understand the things of God.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Jerry
[Matt. 7:1-5 Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
I am an atheist but I can spout words out of an old book also.]
Yes you can spout, but it is obvious that you have no understanding of the words. I expect to be judged by the same standards that I make judgments. Those judgments, from God’s word, pertain to everyone including you and me.
For your information, the passage you quote does not prohibit making judgments, but it condemns those who do the same thing that they judge others for. Note that if one gets the speck out of his own eyes, he can then see clearly to get it out of the brother’s eye. That should have been obvious to you.
Since you are an atheist it is impossible for you to understand the things of God.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Jerry
Danindetroit
New member
Is that last biblical quote the part that one of us doesn't understand? LOOK AT WHAT YOU SAID!!
You must be a great christian who favors innocents be put to death becasue the manner that they were put to death is correct.
I must be evil because I don't believe in one of your hundreds of sects. But I want innocent people to be free and not killed. Is it me, it could be me, but I think you have a serious logic problem.
I guess then that when you are accused of a crime you didn't commit and it is sensationalised and you get the death penalty, then you will be judged as you have judged others and want others to be judged. You say that you do not care about innocent people being killed. So get the log and half the forest out of your eye. I do not understand the words of a being that does not exist. I do not think that christion scholars believe that god wrote the bible. So I can understand the words of somebody who lived between 2000 and 5000 years ago.
- Status