Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm against the death penalty not on moral grounds but because it's cheaper to keep someone alive. even with the overcrowding, feeding, etc. as mentioned before, lawyers fees are a ridiculous economic burden and we all benefit from not having to pay that.
now if a person admits what he did, then have at it but thats not even cut and dry (interrogation techniques, mental health issues, etc)
It should NOT be cheaper to keep them alive. Lawyers have made what should be an impossibility a lamented pill to swallow. I agree we shouldn't have to pay that. So let's change it. Take that tired argument off the table.
He probably doesn't. But it's not about whether he deserves to live - it's about whether a civilized society has the right to take the life of any citizen. I know that's awfully complex for the "kill 'em all!" crowd to comprehend, but it is what it is.
And if it were up to you, you would allow a rabid bear to kill every child in the schoolyard, because you--as a "civilized" liberal--don't think you (or anyone else) have the right to make a life and death decision about an intelligent creature that looks somewhat humanoid. Revise that: you'd support a "civilized" society that would have a law that nobody could do anything that might hurt the bear (which means it must be allowed to continue killing children, since you can't be sure of the correct dose of tranquilizer and trying to restrain it might cause it harm).
How can anyone seriously think it is civilized for a society to refuse to protect its citizenry from known, vicious sadistic murderers? It seems that once someone spins these idiotic catchwords and catchphrases ("no civilized society has the death penalty"), people are blind to what they are actually supporting: that more sadistic serial killers will go free, and each of them will torture and kill countless new innocent victims.
Face the facts: With no death penalty on the table, the murderer has ZERO incentive to take a plea deal and go to jail for a very long time (hopefully life). Instead, he will roll the dice in a system that is designed to free all but the most ridiculously, obviously guilty. And if that doesn't work, there's always some technicality. Or the "accidental" release (whoops--meant to send him to maximum security, but instead he goes on work release (and doesn't come back). Or the escape.
The result of ending the death penalty is that eventually, a number of known sadistic serial killers will go free--and pretty much every single one of them will continue killing, again and again.
Liberals who hate the death penalty fixate on the seemingly human face of the sadistic serial killer--but unfortunately, it won't be them tied up and tortured to death once the system releases said serial killer. It will be some nice 17-year old girl who doesn't understand that a seemingly nice guy may get off on torturing her to death--maybe your sister, or daughter, or granddaughter.
What kind of "civilized" society allows the needless horrific deaths of thousands of innocent citizens? And all because some liberals cannot stomach that a handful of the most sadistic sickos on the planet receive a humane and painless death?
This monster is set to be executed in Texas tomorrow. Read the case and give me your best argument of why this guy deserves to live after what he did to this young boy.
Because retribution for retribution's sake is irrational (it will not bring the victim back....) and there is little evidence (IIRC) that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.
He probably doesn't. But it's not about whether he deserves to live - it's about whether a civilized society has the right to take the life of any citizen. I know that's awfully complex for the "kill 'em all!" crowd to comprehend, but it is what it is.
Took the word right out of my mouth. I'm also concerned by the cost of death row and what it cost tax payers AND of course the possibility of executing an innocent person. Sure it's rare but how many guilty lives are worth killing one innocent for?
In the states where true monsters like Manson are in prison, they are there for life and aren't going to be let out.
And if it were up to you, you would allow a rabid bear to kill every child in the schoolyard, because you--as a "civilized" liberal--don't think you (or anyone else) have the right to make a life and death decision about an intelligent creature that looks somewhat humanoid. Revise that: you'd support a "civilized" society that would have a law that nobody could do anything that might hurt the bear (which means it must be allowed to continue killing children, since you can't be sure of the correct dose of tranquilizer and trying to restrain it might cause it harm).
How can anyone seriously think it is civilized for a society to refuse to protect its citizenry from known, vicious sadistic murderers? It seems that once someone spins these idiotic catchwords and catchphrases ("no civilized society has the death penalty"), people are blind to what they are actually supporting: that more sadistic serial killers will go free, and each of them will torture and kill countless new innocent victims.
Face the facts: With no death penalty on the table, the murderer has ZERO incentive to take a plea deal and go to jail for a very long time (hopefully life). Instead, he will roll the dice in a system that is designed to free all but the most ridiculously, obviously guilty. And if that doesn't work, there's always some technicality. Or the "accidental" release (whoops--meant to send him to maximum security, but instead he goes on work release (and doesn't come back). Or the escape.
The result of ending the death penalty is that eventually, a number of known sadistic serial killers will go free--and pretty much every single one of them will continue killing, again and again.
Liberals who hate the death penalty fixate on the seemingly human face of the sadistic serial killer--but unfortunately, it won't be them tied up and tortured to death once the system releases said serial killer. It will be some nice 17-year old girl who doesn't understand that a seemingly nice guy may get off on torturing her to death--maybe your sister, or daughter, or granddaughter.
What kind of "civilized" society allows the needless horrific deaths of thousands of innocent citizens? And all because some liberals cannot stomach that a handful of the most sadistic sickos on the planet receive a humane and painless death?
I just want to post a part of your quote that I find interseting:
Quote:
but unfortunately, it won't be them[liberal] tied up and tortured to death once the system releases said serial killer
Remarkable person you are...
But there's a big problem. You're confusing stopping someone in the act of killing and killing someone who has been detained. You're attempting to say the person you responded to would say that no one should stop a serial killer in the act of killing because they have rights. He was not advocating this, and I really never hear people advocate for this. This is a lie on your part. Your argument is so fragile that you have to exaggerate hyperbole, and yes, I meant that. You're exaggerating your own exaggeration. Is that really how desperate you are?
The idea is that once a killer has been detained, we should have a justice system ethical enough and a prison system efficient enough to keep that person from causing harm. You want to keep society safe; how about a working justice system? Currently, it's not a great system. No argument there. But the simple truth is that most felons, we can't justify killing. The threat the represent is too small and the flaws in our justice system are just as problematic for the overwhelming majority of felons who would not come close to qualifying for capital punishment. So, we need to fix out justice system. In doing so, we'd have a system that can be trusted to keep criminals incarcerated for the necessary amount of time and would be keeping us safe, thus nullifying your need, as your proposed it, to have a death penalty to keep society safe.
Because retribution for retribution's sake is irrational (it will not bring the victim back....) and there is little evidence (IIRC) that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.
I know, I know, super hypothetical. But if we could have the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, etc. before us right now you still would be against the death penalty? You really think as evil as they were they deserve to live a life where they get to be fed, watered, access to TV, video games, etc.?
I know, I know, super hypothetical. But if we could have the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, etc. before us right now you still would be against the death penalty? You really think as evil as they were they deserve to live a life where they get to be fed, watered, access to TV, video games, etc.?
You appear to be one of these people who think issues are all either/or. At least for me, it's not. There are rare instances where I think the death penalty is appropriate. Hitler and Pol Pot...sure. But genocide is a little different than most capital crimes.
I know, I know, super hypothetical. But if we could have the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, etc. before us right now you still would be against the death penalty? You really think as evil as they were they deserve to live a life where they get to be fed, watered, access to TV, video games, etc.?
During the VN era folks tried the CO excuse to no avail. Michael Dukakis stepped on himself when asked what he'd do if Kitty was a victim. Too many wimps here at C-D try to rationalize the quantity of victims as somehow being a determinant in whether the death penalty is applicable. That is unmitigated rubbish. Never do they argue that up to a certain number, no death penalty and above that, it's fine. Mikey proved the hypocrisy of that. In that case, it was not the number of victims, but just WHO the victim was. It's very easy to be forgiving when it is not YOUR friend/relation who is the victim ... different ball game when it's played on the home field.
I've said it before, and I stand by my words ... I SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY ... even if the perp is one of my family members. A real CO is opposed to all killing, even if the victim is family. Anyone who makes some silly comment about the number/type of victims being the criteria for the death penalty is a hypocrite of the first magnitude. Your question is anything but "super hypothetical" ... it is rock solid true.
El Nox
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
