[ReluctantGardenStater]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

If you have "no problem" imposing the "ultimate penalty" on any living person in any circumstances, than I think you have some serious retrospection to do... You should always have qualms about taking a life-- even if you reasonably decide that its appropriate under the circumstances.

I think this flagrantly dismissive attitude towards life-- assuming its not bloodlust-- is disturbing. No question, there are evil people. There are people who have done unthinkable, heinous things. I'm just not so cavalier to believe that the ultimate penalty should be delved out lightly.

Texas has killed innocent men in the name of sustaining the death penalty. I'm sure those juries were as sure as you are about the ultimate penalty.

Believe as you wish, but I have no qualms or retrospection to deal with when concerning the execution of men who raped and burned children alive. You find that disturbing. I find it disturbing that someone wants me to pay for the shelter, nutrition, and healthcare of men who rape 11 year-olds and burn them in their beds.

There are car accidents every day. We should abandon all modes of transportation without a 100% safety record. Everything else is a "dismissive attitude toward life"

No, life is life, and it is filled with unpleasantness. You will never eliminate death or conflict. Those are the stakes when you play the game. And when you choose to murder children after sexually assaulting them, you forfeit any right whatsoever to ask for my support or protection.

I'm not a Christian zealot; I'm a pragmatist. And if we can order men into Iraq, Libya, and Uganda, we can certainly execute those who have consciously committed the indefensible. Anything else would be a societal failure.

[blakesq]

yet i bet mlassoff is fully suportive of abortion rights.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

If you have "no problem" imposing the "ultimate penalty" on any living person in any circumstances, than I think you have some serious retrospection to do... You should always have qualms about taking a life-- even if you reasonably decide that its appropriate under the circumstances.

I think this flagrantly dismissive attitude towards life-- assuming its not bloodlust-- is disturbing. No question, there are evil people. There are people who have done unthinkable, heinous things. I'm just not so cavalier to believe that the ultimate penalty should be delved out lightly.

Texas has killed innocent men in the name of sustaining the death penalty. I'm sure those juries were as sure as you are about the ultimate penalty.

[ReluctantGardenStater]

Originally Posted by blakesq

yet i bet mlassoff is fully suportive of abortion rights.

My favorite of his comments is about delving out the penalty "lightly".

When in history has it been considered a "light" offense to torture and rape children? This country is going beyond common sense.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

yet i bet mlassoff is fully suportive of abortion rights.

Are we betting on political caricatures? I won't disrespect you by betting that you're a jingoistic ignoramus. Don't insult me by assuming my beliefs fit in to some neat caricature you've developed in your mind with RushGlenn's help.

Yes. I am also not anti-death penalty. I just want to encourage reflection instead of bloodlust and avoid knee-jerk reactions with something as serious as allowing the state to take a life. (While we're pointing out perceived ironies, you're all about small government right?) There are serious problems with the death penalty in this country that must be addressed. Those problems should give pause-- One might be less caviler and more deliberative considering:

(A) Texas has executed at least one (and very, very likely more) man who was later proven innocent.

(B) The Death penalty seems to be disproportionately issued to racial minorities -- even when sentenced for the same crimes as whites

(C) The cost of the death penalty and length of time it takes are absurd-- far more than life in prison

(D) The Death Penalty is not a deterrent to crime. Period.

So, perhaps, with this in mind a dispassionate approach is the more wise path. Anyone can get incensed about the Pettit case. It is one of the most horrific things I have ever heard about and find the perpetrators to be reprehensible wastes of human skin. But I don't think we can base our entire thinking about capital punishment on this one case, can we.

So I am curious-- Where do we actually disagree? Or is it because you perceive me as a liberal that I am automatically wrong? You DISAGREE that caution is warranted? Really?

As far as abortion goes-- I am against it in most cases. I also don't believe I am in a position to make that decision for women.

Thanks for playing.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater

My favorite of his comments is about delving out the penalty "lightly".

When in history has it been considered a "light" offense to torture and rape children? This country is going beyond common sense.

That doesn't even make sense. Who takes child abuse lightly? I think you can take the crime seriously without wanting to delve out capital sentences like they do in China...

No matter how angry you are are about the crime, it's frankly irrelevant. Perhaps what you consider "common sense" isn't the best path-- Decisions made via emotion instead of intellect rarely are.

[ReluctantGardenStater]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

That doesn't even make sense. Who takes child abuse lightly? I think you can take the crime seriously without wanting to delve out capital sentences like they do in China...

No matter how angry you are are about the crime, it's frankly irrelevant. Perhaps what you consider "common sense" isn't the best path-- Decisions made via emotion instead of intellect rarely are.

It is wrong because it is performed in China? I would personally prefer the Chinese justice system to the "enlightened" European, such as the Danish system, where sixteen years is the maximum sentence for murder and televisions and playstations are allowed in the cells of even the worst offenders.

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not "angry" about the crime. I don't know the people involved (if we're referring to the Connecticut home invasion case), and so, while I find it disgusting and ridiculous like most people, I have no more personal anger or stake in the matter than with a tsunami in Indonesia or earthquake in Japan.

Mine is a pragmatic decision, that the appeals process can be severely curtailed and it will be quite more sensible to execute by firing squad or hanging those who have chosen to commit extreme crimes against the peace. Thus general society will not pay their way (shelter, nutrition, healthcare, etc.) for life, and there is zero recidivism rate.

And no, I feel NO qualms, none whatsoever, about carrying out such a sentence. Not a second thought.

You can criticize my common sense all you wish. I will never agree with the
(so-called) "common sense" of "every life is precious" idealist zealots and those who want to ask me to pay the way for child rapists and murderers.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater

It is wrong because it is performed in China? I would personally prefer the Chinese justice system to the "enlightened" European, such as the Danish system, where sixteen years is the maximum sentence for murder and televisions and playstations are allowed in the cells of even the worst offenders.

Reading comprehension is your friend. I did not say it's wrong because it's performed in China. However, the way it is performed in China (and Texas) for that matter is wrong. You don't seem to care about the possibility (and now the fact) that innocent men have been executed.

I'm not "angry"

Right... As evidence by the following:

And no, I feel NO qualms, none whatsoever, about carrying out such a sentence. Not a second thought.

I will never agree with the
(so-called) "common sense" of "every life is precious" idealist zealots and those who want to ask me to pay the way for child rapists and murderers.

[blakesq]

Ha, resorting to name calling? How typical.

So lets get this straight, you think it is wrong for society to execute convicted murderers/rapist-murderers, but you think its fine for society to allow the kiling of unborn babies (hence your statement "I also don't believe I am in a position to make that decision for women"). The inconsistency is profound.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Are we betting on political caricatures? I won't disrespect you by betting that you're a jingoistic ignoramus. Don't insult me by assuming my beliefs fit in to some neat caricature you've developed in your mind with RushGlenn's help.

Yes. I am also not anti-death penalty. I just want to encourage reflection instead of bloodlust and avoid knee-jerk reactions with something as serious as allowing the state to take a life. (While we're pointing out perceived ironies, you're all about small government right?) There are serious problems with the death penalty in this country that must be addressed. Those problems should give pause-- One might be less caviler and more deliberative considering:

(A) Texas has executed at least one (and very, very likely more) man who was later proven innocent.

(B) The Death penalty seems to be disproportionately issued to racial minorities -- even when sentenced for the same crimes as whites

(C) The cost of the death penalty and length of time it takes are absurd-- far more than life in prison

(D) The Death Penalty is not a deterrent to crime. Period.

So, perhaps, with this in mind a dispassionate approach is the more wise path. Anyone can get incensed about the Pettit case. It is one of the most horrific things I have ever heard about and find the perpetrators to be reprehensible wastes of human skin. But I don't think we can base our entire thinking about capital punishment on this one case, can we.

So I am curious-- Where do we actually disagree? Or is it because you perceive me as a liberal that I am automatically wrong? You DISAGREE that caution is warranted? Really?

As far as abortion goes-- I am against it in most cases. I also don't believe I am in a position to make that decision for women.

Thanks for playing.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by blakesq

Ha, resorting to name calling? How typical.

So lets get this straight, you think it is wrong for society to execute convicted murderers/rapist-murderers, but you think its fine for society to allow the kiling of unborn babies (hence your statement "I also don't believe I am in a position to make that decision for women"). The inconsistency is profound.

How can you say that all the convictions are 100% accurate and those "unborn babies" are 100% going to be innocent members of society? Maybe arbortion is just pre-emptive exucutions. /s

[JayCT]

Lets keep this debate civil. JayCT, Moderator