MuffDiver 0 #51 December 13, 2006 QuoteSodomized with an umbrella, eh? I think the death penalty is just a BIT extreme. I was hazed worse than this pladging a fraternity. I agree that death would be a little extreme, but I can't imagine your hazing would come anywhere close to this... ...even if it did you deserve it for pledging, you might have even enjoyed it. __________________________________________________ Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #52 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteI was hazed worse than this pladging a fraternityNo, you weren't. This was horrific; there was a lot of doubt about whether he was going to live in the beginning, and if he did, how much brain damage there would be from the stomping. I also think the death penalty is excessive, but this was a truly awful beating/stomping, for the most arbitrary and fuck-you-my-momentary-feelings-are-what-matters kinds of rationale. And particularly the main perpetrator really should be isolated from society, for society's protection. He's shown an escalating pattern over the years. Wendy W. I don't remember you standing beside me in that basement...... Well, but then again, I WAS blindfolded........ -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #53 December 13, 2006 Quote1- Law isn't justice. It the supposed to be the closest approximation of it that you can find (California excluded.) Law is just a set of standards based on whatever the arbitrary sentiment is at the time to ensure that people are dealt with in a consistent - though not necessarily fair - manner. Hence, a guy can cut a girl's arms off, rape and mug her, and get only a 14 year sentence. Back then, that was the going rate for those crimes. We do things a little differently now. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #54 December 13, 2006 QuoteOnly execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #55 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteOnly execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. This is merely the inability for me to express in words my thoughts in such a way that the standard evidence used for conviction differentiates from what I consider overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. This is why I attempted to give examples such as a person is caught and apprehended in the act, person admits guilt, person caught on video, person is identified by multiple reliable witnesses, etc ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,548 #56 December 13, 2006 The first three maybe. In the case of witnesses, there have been multiple convictions of people based on witness testimony that has been shown to be wrong, either honestly, or coerced, or from self-interest or something. And in various phases of even the US's history, the definition of "reliable witness" has varied by race, gender, social status, place of birth, and plenty of other things. People can confess to things they didn't do as well. Really. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #57 December 13, 2006 QuoteThe first three maybe. In the case of witnesses, there have been multiple convictions of people based on witness testimony that has been shown to be wrong, either honestly, or coerced, or from self-interest or something. And in various phases of even the US's history, the definition of "reliable witness" has varied by race, gender, social status, place of birth, and plenty of other things. People can confess to things they didn't do as well. Really. Wendy W. Yes, I thought of those situations and was hesitant to use them examples. I was just trying to convey that there are situations where someone is found guilty and there are situations where someone is guilty. Does this make sense?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #58 December 13, 2006 QuoteOnly execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. (Person is caught and apprehended in the act, person admits guilt, person caught on video, person is identified by multiple reliable witnesses, etc...) That's supposed to be the way it works now....but it doesn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #59 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOnly execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. This is merely the inability for me to express in words my thoughts in such a way that the standard evidence used for conviction differentiates from what I consider overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. This is why I attempted to give examples such as a person is caught and apprehended in the act, person admits guilt, person caught on video, person is identified by multiple reliable witnesses, etc ... So now you'd have a system where the punishment for someone found guilty depended on the qualilty of the evidence rather than the seriousness of the crime. I don't think that's a good idea at all. Capital punishment is impossible to administer fairly, and errors cannot be corrected. Therefore it should not be administered at all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #60 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuote Until about a year ago we executed 16 & 17 YO's..... Us and like 6 other nations..... People's Republic of China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. As my mother said, you are known by the company you keep. Yep, kinda throws a black eye to to all that land of liberty stuff...... like other things from this commercial nation, great advertising skews the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #61 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow would you feel if the victim were 2 years old but still lived? Feel? I "feel" like these adults should rot for a while. If it were MY two year old, I "feel" that I would want to kill them by a penectomy followed by asphyxiation through use of the severed member down their throats. NEvertheless, I "think" that the most severe crime - murder - should be dealt the harshest penalty. PEople have tried to convince me that lesser offenses like assault, rape, using racial epithets and voting Republican are all crimes worthy of death. I think only one crime is worthy of it. THat's all I'm saying. QuoteNEvertheless, I "think" that the most severe crime - murder - should be dealt the harshest penalty. What's that, being tied down having, "The View" piped in 24/7? QuoteI think only one crime is worthy of it. The problem is that overzealous states apply this to crimes that aren't, rendering innocent people murdered by the stae, esp with jackass governors like Bush signing EVERY death warrant before him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #62 December 14, 2006 QuoteNEvertheless, I "think" that the most severe crime - murder - should be dealt the harshest penalty. PEople have tried to convince me that lesser offenses like assault, rape, using racial epithets and voting Republican are all crimes worthy of death. I think only one crime is worthy of it. THat's all I'm saying. Quote Hey lawrocket, I'm just curious as to what your opinion is on my first post in here about the cost of putting these guys up fr a lifetime versus what we will gain from it. I was just trying to put in a different perspective out of "they did wrong, hang em". I am on the fence on this one, I don't think we should waste the money for a lifetime of care, but am not sure as to whether they should be executed. Costs more to execute than to feed/house for a lifetime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #63 December 14, 2006 QuoteThe societal cost of killing people for lesser crimes is far more than the "societal cost" of keeping them imprisoned. Hell, good arguments exist for the position that the societal cost of killing people at all for any crime is higher that the "societal cost" of prison. QuoteHell, good arguments exist for the position that the societal cost of killing people at all for any crime is higher that the "societal cost" of prison. Exactly, even if we kill Bundy (we did) for his crimes, we still teach that killing as a reaction/evenge is a good thing. Little Johnny grows up with that. Where do ya think the OK city Murray building bomber McVey got his ideas about collateral damage and revenge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #64 December 14, 2006 QuoteLawrence Singleton. He bludgeoned, raped (in every possible way), cut off the arms of a 15 yo girl, and left her for dead. (no arms, no finger prints) She lived. Not murder. He got 14 years and served half. His next contribution to society was coming to Florida to live with his sister. (California should have to keep who it releases.) For a reason that I can't remember, a deputy walked up to the door of his residence and noticed that he had blood dripping down his shirt and a dead prostitute in the living room. (Of course, that is the only one that is known.) He didn't get out of prison here. Not execting and letting scum out are different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #65 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteI am on the fence on this one, I don't think we should waste the money for a lifetime of care, but am not sure as to whether they should be executed. Well, let's make a list of some other groups that are an economic drain on society... Retards Homeless Bums Old People Anti-social children Welfare mothers Illegal immigrants Sure could save some money if we just got rid of the problem groups... Don;t forget cops and lawyers.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #66 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am on the fence on this one, I don't think we should waste the money for a lifetime of care, but am not sure as to whether they should be executed. Well, let's make a list of some other groups that are an economic drain on society... Retards Homeless Bums Old People Anti-social children Welfare mothers Illegal immigrants Sure could save some money if we just got rid of the problem groups... You are equating the impact of the elderly on society with the impact of murderers ? Lacking all reason. Big problems, little problems. Big problems get big solutions, little problems get other solutions. There probably won't be executions for speeding if it is not excessive. QuoteYou are equating the impact of the elderly on society with the impact of murderers ? Lacking all reason. The FISCAL impact - pure reasoning. QuoteBig problems, little problems. Big problems get big solutions, little problems get other solutions. As an absolute? Yea right. Some non-problems get big solutions and some huge problems get no solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #67 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteWell, let's make a list of some other groups that are an economic drain on society... Retards Homeless Bums Old People Anti-social children Welfare mothers Illegal immigrants Sure could save some money if we just got rid of the problem groups... My advice to you ... don't get old. My solution.... Soilent Green Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #68 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy don't we just execute both of them and give the food and shelter to someone else in the world that needs it? Becuase we can't help but to execute innocent people by, "mistake." Yes, we can. We have and we do execute and jail innocent people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #69 December 14, 2006 Yea, the Bacce case did away with formal quotas, but they use differnt language, Affirmative Action, to exact the same thing. QuoteA couple of years ago, we had a pinko Supreme Court ... I believe that's, "Nazi" as the so-called pinkocourt went out with Warren. The Regan courts are 7-2 Nazi. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #70 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteSlippery slopes? Haven't we seen far too many of them? No, because the slippery slope arguement is a bad arguement. According to the slippery slope arguement we shouldn't do anything because it may lead to something else. Don't punish murderers or else we may punish people who think about murdering in the future. Don't punish rapists or else we may punish people who think about sex with another person without their permission in the future. PS: To those with the ability to use logic and reasoning the slope is not that slippery. (The problem is that people in a position of authority who are creating or changing the laws are not always using logic and reasoning and may have alterior motives causing them to slide farther.) QuoteDon't punish murderers or else we may punish people who think about murdering in the future. Deterrence, what a great utopian concept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #71 December 14, 2006 QuoteSodomized with an umbrella, eh? I think the death penalty is just a BIT extreme. I was hazed worse than this pladging a fraternity. Thank you sir, may I have another? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #72 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy don't we just execute both of them and give the food and shelter to someone else in the world that needs it? Becuase we can't help but to execute innocent people by, "mistake." Yes, we can. If there is a way to have a death penalty without risking killing innocents, why hasn't it ever been tried? Please, tell the world the secret! Even so-called unscrupulous countries like USSR/Russia ahve realized there is no way to not kill innocent people to enact revenge on the adjudged guilty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #73 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteOnly execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. That's been my arg for years - more injustice in punishing an innocent person than in letting a guilty one go free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #74 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOnly execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. That's been my arg for years - more injustice in punishing an innocent person than in letting a guilty one go free. My point to the thread wasn't to try and determine a fool proof method for executing those found guilty of some crimes. (I do realize that there are many complications with what I suggested and with almost any other alternative.) It was to point out that we use finite resources on individuals who will spend the majority of their lives in a prison cell."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #75 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe societal cost of killing people for lesser crimes is far more than the "societal cost" of keeping them imprisoned. Hell, good arguments exist for the position that the societal cost of killing people at all for any crime is higher that the "societal cost" of prison. QuoteHell, good arguments exist for the position that the societal cost of killing people at all for any crime is higher that the "societal cost" of prison. Exactly, even if we kill Bundy (we did) for his crimes, we still teach that killing as a reaction/evenge is a good thing. Little Johnny grows up with that. Where do ya think the OK city Murray building bomber McVey got his ideas about collateral damage and revenge? OK then you let Ted bundy or similar date your sister. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lucky... 0 #63 December 14, 2006 QuoteThe societal cost of killing people for lesser crimes is far more than the "societal cost" of keeping them imprisoned. Hell, good arguments exist for the position that the societal cost of killing people at all for any crime is higher that the "societal cost" of prison. QuoteHell, good arguments exist for the position that the societal cost of killing people at all for any crime is higher that the "societal cost" of prison. Exactly, even if we kill Bundy (we did) for his crimes, we still teach that killing as a reaction/evenge is a good thing. Little Johnny grows up with that. Where do ya think the OK city Murray building bomber McVey got his ideas about collateral damage and revenge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #64 December 14, 2006 QuoteLawrence Singleton. He bludgeoned, raped (in every possible way), cut off the arms of a 15 yo girl, and left her for dead. (no arms, no finger prints) She lived. Not murder. He got 14 years and served half. His next contribution to society was coming to Florida to live with his sister. (California should have to keep who it releases.) For a reason that I can't remember, a deputy walked up to the door of his residence and noticed that he had blood dripping down his shirt and a dead prostitute in the living room. (Of course, that is the only one that is known.) He didn't get out of prison here. Not execting and letting scum out are different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #65 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteI am on the fence on this one, I don't think we should waste the money for a lifetime of care, but am not sure as to whether they should be executed. Well, let's make a list of some other groups that are an economic drain on society... Retards Homeless Bums Old People Anti-social children Welfare mothers Illegal immigrants Sure could save some money if we just got rid of the problem groups... Don;t forget cops and lawyers.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #66 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am on the fence on this one, I don't think we should waste the money for a lifetime of care, but am not sure as to whether they should be executed. Well, let's make a list of some other groups that are an economic drain on society... Retards Homeless Bums Old People Anti-social children Welfare mothers Illegal immigrants Sure could save some money if we just got rid of the problem groups... You are equating the impact of the elderly on society with the impact of murderers ? Lacking all reason. Big problems, little problems. Big problems get big solutions, little problems get other solutions. There probably won't be executions for speeding if it is not excessive. QuoteYou are equating the impact of the elderly on society with the impact of murderers ? Lacking all reason. The FISCAL impact - pure reasoning. QuoteBig problems, little problems. Big problems get big solutions, little problems get other solutions. As an absolute? Yea right. Some non-problems get big solutions and some huge problems get no solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteWell, let's make a list of some other groups that are an economic drain on society... Retards Homeless Bums Old People Anti-social children Welfare mothers Illegal immigrants Sure could save some money if we just got rid of the problem groups... My advice to you ... don't get old. My solution.... Soilent Green Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #68 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy don't we just execute both of them and give the food and shelter to someone else in the world that needs it? Becuase we can't help but to execute innocent people by, "mistake." Yes, we can. We have and we do execute and jail innocent people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #69 December 14, 2006 Yea, the Bacce case did away with formal quotas, but they use differnt language, Affirmative Action, to exact the same thing. QuoteA couple of years ago, we had a pinko Supreme Court ... I believe that's, "Nazi" as the so-called pinkocourt went out with Warren. The Regan courts are 7-2 Nazi. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #70 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteSlippery slopes? Haven't we seen far too many of them? No, because the slippery slope arguement is a bad arguement. According to the slippery slope arguement we shouldn't do anything because it may lead to something else. Don't punish murderers or else we may punish people who think about murdering in the future. Don't punish rapists or else we may punish people who think about sex with another person without their permission in the future. PS: To those with the ability to use logic and reasoning the slope is not that slippery. (The problem is that people in a position of authority who are creating or changing the laws are not always using logic and reasoning and may have alterior motives causing them to slide farther.) QuoteDon't punish murderers or else we may punish people who think about murdering in the future. Deterrence, what a great utopian concept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #71 December 14, 2006 QuoteSodomized with an umbrella, eh? I think the death penalty is just a BIT extreme. I was hazed worse than this pladging a fraternity. Thank you sir, may I have another? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #72 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy don't we just execute both of them and give the food and shelter to someone else in the world that needs it? Becuase we can't help but to execute innocent people by, "mistake." Yes, we can. If there is a way to have a death penalty without risking killing innocents, why hasn't it ever been tried? Please, tell the world the secret! Even so-called unscrupulous countries like USSR/Russia ahve realized there is no way to not kill innocent people to enact revenge on the adjudged guilty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #73 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteOnly execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. That's been my arg for years - more injustice in punishing an innocent person than in letting a guilty one go free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #74 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOnly execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. That's been my arg for years - more injustice in punishing an innocent person than in letting a guilty one go free. My point to the thread wasn't to try and determine a fool proof method for executing those found guilty of some crimes. (I do realize that there are many complications with what I suggested and with almost any other alternative.) It was to point out that we use finite resources on individuals who will spend the majority of their lives in a prison cell."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #75 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe societal cost of killing people for lesser crimes is far more than the "societal cost" of keeping them imprisoned. Hell, good arguments exist for the position that the societal cost of killing people at all for any crime is higher that the "societal cost" of prison. QuoteHell, good arguments exist for the position that the societal cost of killing people at all for any crime is higher that the "societal cost" of prison. Exactly, even if we kill Bundy (we did) for his crimes, we still teach that killing as a reaction/evenge is a good thing. Little Johnny grows up with that. Where do ya think the OK city Murray building bomber McVey got his ideas about collateral damage and revenge? OK then you let Ted bundy or similar date your sister. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
