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.
For the sake of argument let's say I would. I can in theory see me stealing food to feed my family if things turned bad and I had to feed them. Should I take up the position that theft should be O.K.?
I can picture someone like Jeffrey Dahmer suffering in how he died more than anything the state could have done to him. I'm not so sure it wasn't harder on him to be alive.
Torturing someone to death and stealing food too keep you and your family alive are no where close to being in the same ball park.
Oh, well. To each their own opinion. I tend to feel more for the victim then the criminal though, that's just me...
I guess you missed the point. Just because I can see me doing something wrong for some reason doesn't make it right. The argument fails.
I don't feel bad for what happened to Dahmer. It happened because of choices he made.
I did, but just like you am not willing to change my point of view. I am and always will be for the death penalty, for someone that is beyond a doubt guilty for people like Dahmer, Lansza , I-57 killer...etc.
The lengths some will go to justify their beliefs. {rolling eyes}
its not going to lengths its the truth sir.
Sounds like you are ordering their killing.
The law is not me. These two do not deserve life they have proved that they are still harming even from behind max security. Death is the only suitable option for people like them. Unless you want to take them in?
Some crimes are at the state level, some are at the federal level. A good argument could be made that killing someone is the ultimate denying them of their civil rights, and it should be a federal crime. And I find the Federal Government no less competent than the state governments (this isn't saying too much about the feds. I just don't see the states being any better.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
See, this is the liberal position. Handing over everything to the federal government. Not that they can do much of anything right.
Sort of like how the federal government didn't know that the Syrian rebels were Isis and wanted to fund them? Competence like that?
These two do not deserve life they have proved that they are still harming even from behind max security. Death is the only suitable option for people like them. Unless you want to take them in?
Sorry to burst your bubble but you have to allow more than one appeal because they are various Courts in the hierarchy.
well not according to what is being said right now here in AR, not to mention there are ways to change the sytem. There can be a simple appeal, like what happens when a person is about to be executed. Just reviews by the governor or whomever. I am talking about lenghty appeals that take weeks, months or years to evern prepare. Excutions could be handled in a way that would reduce the cost.
I agree, and it would be very feasible if States would stop prosecuting people for petty drugs crimes.
This post has nothing to do with people being prosecuted for what you call petty drug charges. If you are referring to people being locks up for smoking pot, give us an example. That just doesn't happen. People get locked up for selling it especially to minors or for robbing a liquor store to pay for the pot, but they do not get sentents to time in prison for smoking it or possessing it. this a cop out by those who want all drugs legalized.
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.