[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I assume most of you are for rehabilitating sexual offenders and bringing them back into the neighborhoods they are from right?

Sending a Peidophile to prison is a death sentence in the sense that prison inmates have a very sacred code as far as people who offend children go. Even scum of the earth has their limits of what they will take.

I'm currently taking bets how long you're going to ignore the idea of "without parole" and keep posting this horse-sh*t.

Since it's impossible to imprison people in your world (they all just get out somehow according to you), I would suggest that you save your precious money that you're so sensative about spending and just empower everyone so that when they spot a crime being committed, they can carry out the perfunctory execution and save us all the trouble. We're all carrying guns anyway, might as well put them to good use.

And you've clearly got some rage issues that manifest themselves in a truly sadistic and bloodthirsty imagination. If I were a member of the Christian Right I'd say it was because of video games and hollywood. If I were Ca$h i might suggest it was religious zealotry.

Since I'm neither of those I'll probably just go with the pragmatic explanation that you're simply a complete and utter primitive.

[daimoni]

.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Hinson:

Third, for those saying that it's nothing but revenge, you miss four points: (1) all punishment involves revenge--the death penalty is not a special case here, (2) the death penalty also removes all possibility of the criminal committing what is (in my overhauled idea) an incredibly horrid crime again humanity, (3) it is clearly an act of justice (it is a just thing to make one sacrifice his life when he has acted in the most hideous way against life itself), and (4) if it is somewhat swiftly carried out, it could do some service as a deterrent.

Punishment is NOT revenge, the whole idea is to give the prisoner a sense of guilt and remorse. If he is criminally insane, there is no point punishing him simply because he doesn't feel the guilt. It's like torturing him, since he doesn't know what he did wrong and why it is happening to him. Capital punishment doesn't really give the prisoner the chance to experience guilt and remorse so he won't do it again (I know it sounds idealistic).

No government has the right to take life, afterall, THOU SHALL NOT KILL. Does it say THOU SHALL ONLY KILL IF THEY KILL? A lot of you guys are christians here, I simply don't understand how you can support such barbaric punishments.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
And the death penalty is more effective to life without parole because once their dead, technicalities don't matter anymore.

That's true. The problem is:

(1) "Technicalities" pertain to the conviction phase, not the penalty phase, so they aren't germane, but I've said this before and you are either too dense or too stubborn to absorb it;

(2) You appear to regard innocence as a mere technicality.

Again, I have no interest in coddling murderers, nor do I think it's merely a matter of raising them right or rehabilitating them. I'm not necessarily even opposed to capital punishment per se. I'm just opposed to executing innocent people, and as long as that risk is present I will oppose capital punishment.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:


"without possibility of parole" doesn't cover medical reasons. It happens. Face it. Your precious justice system is the fraud I have accused it of being for years. Nothing more than a boat load of BS to please "middle to upper class white guy"



In France Maurice Papon (NAZI convicted of Crimes against Humanity) was released for health reasons. For those who are at least a little culturally literate considering it was the major headline for a week.

Yes, but he committed the crimes ages ago. He is way to old serve his sentence. It is really pointless making him serve this sentence, he does no harm being on the streets. He'll probably die in a few days anyway.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I assume most of you are for rehabilitating sexual offenders and bringing them back into the neighborhoods they are from right?

Sending a Peidophile to prison is a death sentence in the sense that prison inmates have a very sacred code as far as people who offend children go. Even scum of the earth has their limits of what they will take.

hm...well, does that mean I can just assume that in your spare time you sacrifice small children to demons and drink their blood in your custom-built nazi dungeon? I can't? oh well.

You obviously are grasping at straws here, and I've already outlined the points, I'm not going to go over them, except to say what you have threatened here and insinuated against people who merely disagree with you is bizarre and abhorrent.
You want our families at risk and assume we approve of sexual predators. You make this leap from (in my case at any rate) of merely making the suggestion that life without parole accomplishes the same benefit to society that the death penalty does.

The rest you're just fabricating out of some bizarre desperation. If you cannot rationally discuss the issue, then at least push your assertions into an amusing direction, instead of an abhorrent one.

[daimoni]

.

[macvillage.net]

If you want these people to have a chance at getting back out and harming you families, that's ok...


... as long as they can get near mine, the electric chair is a wonderful tool.


The only way you can ensure a criminal doesn't get out for some stupid techicality.


Life without parole means just that, no parole... doesn't mean you can appeal for 40 years, and higher as many lawyers as you want to find a technicality. That is a clear difference.

And nobody is perfect, so there will always be a technicality.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
If you want these people to have a chance at getting back out and harming you families, that's ok...


... as long as they can get near mine, the electric chair is a wonderful tool.


The only way you can ensure a criminal doesn't get out for some stupid techicality.


Life without parole means just that, no parole... doesn't mean you can appeal for 40 years, and higher as many lawyers as you want to find a technicality. That is a clear difference.

And nobody is perfect, so there will always be a technicality.

you appear to be presuming that all judicial mistakes will be one-sided. To you, its a bad thing and 100% chance that a guilty man will go free, but you do not seem to accept anything but a 0% chance that an innocent man will be executed.
Please, try to be more amusing.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I assume most of you are for rehabilitating sexual offenders and bringing them back into the neighborhoods they are from right?

So in your manichean world view, you're in favor of either coddling criminals and treating them like guests at a resort or just putting a bullet in their f_cking heads, eh? Well, it's easier than thinking.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
And nobody is perfect, so there will always be a technicality.

Assistant DA: "Hey boss! Remember that rapist we put away last year? His lawyer got an order for a DNA test. Uhh, turns out he didn't do it."

DA: "#$%!%& technicalities!!"

OK, I'm getting as silly as you now, so this will be my last post here.

[Face Ache]

BRING BACK CRUCIFICTION I SAY!!!

My trip through Texas.

Any misguided fools here arguing against the death penalty from a pro-life POV?

[Bushleaguer]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
BRING BACK CRUCIFICTION I SAY!!!

My trip through Texas.

Any misguided fools here arguing against the death penalty from a pro-life POV?

I'm not sure if I or my views on CP fit into the pro-life point of view. I vehemently oppose it because I think we should be raising our children to respect life. This is impossible while our society continues to use the death penalty. I am also opposed to abortion because I don't think it should be used as a "way out" for young mothers, which it often is. I feel it is very tragic. But CP and abortion are not solutions to the social disease that causes murder and unwanted pregnancy. They are simply bandaids that do more to harm society and prevent it from moving in a progressive direction.

So my POV is not "don't do it because it's a life".. I feel the way I do because I respect life and I am also not a hypocrite.. If you say you respect life and you are also in favor of the death penalty then you are either lying and you don't respect life or you are a hypocrite.. It's pretty simple.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Bushleaguer:
So my POV is not "don't do it because it's a life".. I feel the way I do because I respect life and I am also not a hypocrite.. If you say you respect life and you are also in favor of the death penalty then you are either lying and you don't respect life or you are a hypocrite.. It's pretty simple.

You sound like the type they describe on the telly as "the victim..."

You might respect life but some people don't. Some people don't respect anything or anyone. At what point do you stop respecting their right to life and start defending your own or your families? Where do you stand on guns? When they are coming in through your window what are you going to do? Respect life or try to perform some quick capital punishment on their asses? Or just disarm them and perform a nifty judo hold until the constabulary arrive?

I've discussed murder with a murderer* and there was no remorse there. I was expecting excuses but he said (pretty much verbatim) "I was pissed (drunk) and I was kicking garage doors and this guy came out of his house and tried to stop me so I stabbed him through the heart with a screwdriver I pinched out of a car". I asked him if he felt sorry and he said "I feel sorry for his Mrs and kid but he shouldn't have tried to stop me, ay?"**

I could flick the switch on him.

Another "friend" stabbed his brother 17 times and left his body in an abandoned house for three months through summer. His parents wanted the death penalty.***

In jail these killers get TV. That's pretty harsh but I say NOT HARSH ENOUGH! I say if they are obviously guilty then EXECUTE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE! Life's too short for us decent folk as it is, without wasting time trying to rehabilitate unsalvagable rejects.

* Never visit a murderer in a maximum security jail when you're really, really stoned. It's a bummer.

** He's out now and breeding. Maybe living near you. Have a nice day.

*** This guy will be out soon. I wouldn't want to be his parents.

[Bushleaguer]

Originally posted by Face Ache:


You sound like the type they describe on the telly as "the victim..."

You might respect life but some people don't. Some people don't respect anything or anyone. At what point do you stop respecting their right to life and start defending your own or your families? Where do you stand on guns? When they are coming in through your window what are you going to do? Respect life or try to perform some quick capital punishment on their asses? Or just disarm them and perform a nifty judo hold until the constabulary arrive?

I've discussed murder with a murderer* and there was no remorse there. I was expecting excuses but he said (pretty much verbatim) "I was pissed (drunk) and I was kicking garage doors and this guy came out of his house and tried to stop me so I stabbed him through the heart with a screwdriver I pinched out of a car". I asked him if he felt sorry and he said "I feel sorry for his Mrs and kid but he shouldn't have tried to stop me, ay?"**

I could flick the switch on him.

Another "friend" stabbed his brother 17 times and left his body in an abandoned house for three months through summer. His parents wanted the death penalty.***

In jail these killers get TV. That's pretty harsh but I say NOT HARSH ENOUGH! I say if they are obviously guilty then EXECUTE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE! Life's too short for us decent folk as it is, without wasting time trying to rehabilitate unsalvagable rejects.

* Never visit a murderer in a maximum security jail when you're really, really stoned. It's a bummer.

** He's out now and breeding. Maybe living near you. Have a nice day.

*** This guy will be out soon. I wouldn't want to be his parents.

This is getting a bit too philosophical, and it's getting late... I read over your post, and I'm still trying to soak it in. The scare tactics of those in favor of the death penalty demonstrated in this thread are really turning me off, but I will answer your question because it is interesting..

There has to be a distinction between crimes of passion and pre-meditated murder. If a burglar came into my house, where my children were I would do everything to defend them. In a dangerous moment, I will exact cruel punishment on a human, the same I would on a bear or cougar, to defend myself and my family. Perhaps I wouldn't have to kill him, but just disable him. Funny you should mention Judo, because that is an excellent form of defence. This is survival, and also a crime of passion.

Capital punishment is after the fact, and is pre-meditated murder. It has nothing at all to do with punishment, and everything to do with murder. It's savage and the government is no better than a common criminal. But we already knew that.

Where do I stand on guns? Well we lived for thousands of years without them, I don't see why they are so important. But if you need to get your rocks off, do it in a safe environment.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Face Ache:


You might respect life but some people don't. Some people don't respect anything or anyone. At what point do you stop respecting their right to life and start defending your own or your families? arrive?

As undoubtedly horrific as these stories are, they are still no excuse for the death penalty IMO.

If we, the moral majority, don't respect life then why should people without morals? By every execution we admit our failure to come up with a better solution.

It's the old adage to take care that by fighting monsters one doesn't turn into one.

[zigzag]

I agree with FaceAche that some people are born socio/psychopaths and are irredeemable. I used to think it was just a matter of raising them right, but experience has taught me otherwise.

This is partly why my objection to CP is not absolute. I think there are situations where it's appropriate, and IMO it doesn't really matter whether you call it "justice", "revenge", or "punishment" - it's all three, and I see no point in pretending otherwise. My objection to it stems mostly from the fact that experience has also taught me how fallible the criminal justice system is, and I can't accept the risk of executing innocent people. Life w/o parole seems to me to be the best alternative, as long as it's enforced. It keeps them out of the way, is cheaper, and satisfies the large number of people who are absolutely opposed to CP. It satisfies all of the criteria put forth in Lerkfish's list.

It's been argued that an innocent person might not consider life in prison to be any better than execution, but I'd say that that's a chance worth taking in light of the number of people who are freed on new evidence.

On the expense issue: it's true that if you only count the execution, CP is cheaper than life imprisonment. It's the protracted legal process that makes CP more expensive. But, knowing how fallible the criminal justice system is, I would not want to live in a country that didn't provide such safeguards. Even with all of the expensive legal safeguards that we have in place, innocent people still get convicted and executed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:It's been argued that an innocent person might not consider life in prison to be any better than execution, but I'd say that that's a chance worth taking in light of the number of people who are freed on new evidence.

On the expense issue: it's true that if you only count the execution, CP is cheaper than life imprisonment. It's the protracted legal process that makes CP more expensive. But, knowing how fallible the criminal justice system is, I would not want to live in a country that didn't provide such safeguards. Even with all of the expensive legal safeguards that we have in place, innocent people still get convicted and executed. [/B]

Interesting point. Do people sentenced to life imprisonment get the same degree of safeguards as people sentenced to death? Practically, I mean. I'm sure that on paper the procedural safeguards are the same, but I wonder if they truly are in reality.

I ask because it strikes me that if death penalty cases are more expensive than life imprisonment cases mostly because of legal expenses, then there is a good possibility that there are fewer appeals because the procedural scrutiny is lower. That's disturbing.

It seems to me that we should be equally concerned about false conviction if we are talking about life without the possibility of parole. That's a punishment that would also be unjust if you apply it to an innocent person. A common argument against the death penalty is that it is cheaper than life imprisonment. Let's hope that isn't because we are more comfortable locking innocent people away for the rest of their lives than executing them.

[El Pre$idente]

Capital Punishment is as barbaric as stoning. We live in democratic technological era and therefore should democratically use technology to punish the guilty. And here is how!

We put murderers and people who **** your grandmother's corpse on a subscriber only Reality TV show where the viewers can daily press 'Select' on their remote controls to choose what the prisoner goes through on a daily basis. Punishment ranges from eating sh-it for breakfast to doing 1000 pushups. All the while, the prisoner will be kept in a highly secure lockup and have tools available by which they may commit suicide. They will be humiliated by a democratic audience and their own death will be on their own hands.

It's like gameshows in The Running Man!

We should also have a camera in the Oval Office and every leader's rooms and command them around. We are Big Brother.

[denim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just a step back for a second: I can't believe that people are discussing the death penalty so calmly and rationally. This is the Lounge, right? Have I stepped into a parallel universe?

So, happier now?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Interesting point. Do people sentenced to life imprisonment get the same degree of safeguards as people sentenced to death? Practically, I mean. I'm sure that on paper the procedural safeguards are the same, but I wonder if they truly are in reality.

I ask because it strikes me that if death penalty cases are more expensive than life imprisonment cases mostly because of legal expenses, then there is a good possibility that there are fewer appeals because the procedural scrutiny is lower. That's disturbing.

It seems to me that we should be equally concerned about false conviction if we are talking about life without the possibility of parole. That's a punishment that would also be unjust if you apply it to an innocent person. A common argument against the death penalty is that it is cheaper than life imprisonment. Let's hope that isn't because we are more comfortable locking innocent people away for the rest of their lives than executing them.

I have no problem with what you just said, in that we should be equally concerned about false imprisonment of anyone, whether on death row or not. The only reason it comes up in discussion of CP is that once they're executed, opportunity to redress the false imprisonment is gone. If someone is in for life falsely, and its proven, they can then reenter society (or whatever is determined at that point). Its irrevocable nature of a mistake with capital punishment that causes false imprisonment to be a key point. However, falsely imprisoning anyone is something to be avoided, so I agree with that part of your post.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Interesting point. Do people sentenced to life imprisonment get the same degree of safeguards as people sentenced to death? Practically, I mean. I'm sure that on paper the procedural safeguards are the same, but I wonder if they truly are in reality.

I ask because it strikes me that if death penalty cases are more expensive than life imprisonment cases mostly because of legal expenses, then there is a good possibility that there are fewer appeals because the procedural scrutiny is lower. That's disturbing.

It seems to me that we should be equally concerned about false conviction if we are talking about life without the possibility of parole. That's a punishment that would also be unjust if you apply it to an innocent person. A common argument against the death penalty is that it is cheaper than life imprisonment. Let's hope that isn't because we are more comfortable locking innocent people away for the rest of their lives than executing them.

Agreed, and a good point. For better or worse, though, it seems that we instinctively regard death as such an extreme measure that we implement additional safeguards.

Another reason to simply abandon it - I can accept that it's appropriate in some cases, but is it really worth all the trouble? My state, for example, doesn't use it, and despite having a large conservative population and a very conservative state government, there has been no call to implement it. Nobody I know sits around saying "Gee, this would be a much safer state if we had the death penalty!" or "I'm moving to Texas because it has the death penalty!" It's not even an issue. Life imprisonment seems to be a perfectly adequate solution.

Also, it does seem that even lifers can get legal help if they're persistent enough. You may recall the thread I started a few weeks ago on this very subject - a lifer in my state was freed after many years based on DNA work sponsored by The Innocence Project.

[denim]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
Capital Punishment is as barbaric as stoning.

Oh, I forgot one! Thanks.

Let's see, what else? You want technology, let's try the following. Without an appropriate suit, put 'em out an airlock

• in space
• way under water

Or, in general the old tried-and-true, including various methods from cruxificion to those used by the Spanish Inquisition:

• variations on starving
• variations on dehydration
• variations on suffocation
• body piercing (say, by a sword or bullets)
• variations on vivisection
• variations on crushing
• variations on burning
• variations on exploiting miscellaneous fears, such as Room 101 (correct room number? It's been a while since I read 1984)

It's all been done before. All you can do is come up with more variations. Note that I count "burying alive" as a "variation on suffocation", and such.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
Capital Punishment is as barbaric as stoning. We live in democratic technological era and therefore should democratically use technology to punish the guilty. And here is how!

We put murderers and people who **** your grandmother's corpse on a subscriber only Reality TV show where the viewers can daily press 'Select' on their remote controls to choose what the prisoner goes through on a daily basis. Punishment ranges from eating sh-it for breakfast to doing 1000 pushups. All the while, the prisoner will be kept in a highly secure lockup and have tools available by which they may commit suicide. They will be humiliated by a democratic audience and their own death will be on their own hands.

It's like gameshows in The Running Man!

We should also have a camera in the Oval Office and every leader's rooms and command them around. We are Big Brother.

I think I could settle for this (provided that it is basic cable and not PPV).

And as long as there is no way out once you get in but solid proof that you didn't commit the crime. DNA mistake should get you out

BUT NO TECHICALITIES! NO CHANCES OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN SOLID PROOF OF INOCENCE.

DNA is offical. Nothing to argue. But these BS technicalities that invalidate the entire trial, even though they make no difference as far as guilt goes are rediculus.



I especially like the cameras in leaders rooms. Should also have cameras in the CEO's office of large companies! Lets see those suitcases full of cash being given to Martha Stewart.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That sounds like a good argument in favor of capital punishment.

What about those that are convicted, but innocent. You cannot revoke capital punishment.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
DNA is offical. Nothing to argue.

You're overstating the validity of DNA evidence. Like every other forensic tool, it can be misread, mislaid, or mistaken. It might have a higher accuacy rate, but the same things that can happen to a piece of non-DNA evidence can also happen to DNA evidence (lost or mislabeled samples, contaminated crime scenes or samples, willful fabrication of evidence by the coroner to get a conviction, etc, etc.)

Don't forget there was actually DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson case that was successfully defeated by a superior legal defense by mere verbal argument.

[typoon]

I support the Death Penalty As someone said previous if you kill someone then you forfeit your right to live. Nobody seemed to mention that in countries like Singapore and other countries like that where there is public Caning crime is MUCH less. Why? Is it because people see it and are afraid? or is it a different mentality than it is here in the states? I would be in favor of public punishment for criminals.

Another question to those tho think life without parole is good. Why should someone who has killed people be allowed to get 3 square meals a day? have the ability to work out in a gym? Have the ability to watch TV? WE the people pay for these things that Prisoners have. If they kill somone and go to prison it should NOT be a pleasant place to be. I'm sure that in many cases it isn't now but criminals should not be allowed any luxuries in prison. The person they killed will NEVER have the ability to do any of these things again. They will never be able to possibly have a family, make something of themselves in society, be able to enjoy the many things we all enjoy. There life is over while the scum that killed them is alloed to live. They are allowed to breathe air, they have the opportunity to get an education, and if they get the chance to get out of prison. If they make it a place that people don't want to end up then maybe crime might be less. Or we could do what they do in those other countries.

[fxbezak]

oh most definitly. Capital punishment is not used enough. If we got rid of all the people waiting on death row, we could really clear up a lot of space and save some $$ in tax dollars.

Can we use capital punishment for bad drivers too? I didnt see that as part of the poll

[daimoni]

.

[typoon]

Originally posted by daimoni:



Despite what you may see in movies, prison is NOT a fun place to be. In many cases, and especially in the new, so-called 'SuperPrisons'... it is a hell worse than death. There is no 'enjoy' going on there. You're lucky to get out of your cell, and luckier still to ever see the sky outside. Three meals a day? Have you seen real prison food? Not appetizing. And if you didn't know, you have to work in prison too. Yes, you even have to pay for your own clothes.

I'm sure it is not a fun place. But you get liberals who tell you that prisoners need more rights or should have rights. I for one don't agree with this one bit. You commit a crime and you have given up any rights that a free person has. I've never heard of these "super Prisons" Good I'm glad that there is something like that. Prison food may not be appetizing but they still get to eat something some people don't even get. I'm all for stricter prisons and making it a place people do not want to end up. But if you kill somone you should not be allowed to live either.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by typoon:
I support the Death Penalty As someone said previous if you kill someone then you forfeit your right to live. Nobody seemed to mention that in countries like Singapore and other countries like that where there is public Caning crime is MUCH less. Why? Is it because people see it and are afraid? or is it a different mentality than it is here in the states? I would be in favor of public punishment for criminals.

Another question to those tho think life without parole is good. Why should someone who has killed people be allowed to get 3 square meals a day? have the ability to work out in a gym? Have the ability to watch TV? WE the people pay for these things that Prisoners have. If they kill somone and go to prison it should NOT be a pleasant place to be. I'm sure that in many cases it isn't now but criminals should not be allowed any luxuries in prison. The person they killed will NEVER have the ability to do any of these things again. They will never be able to possibly have a family, make something of themselves in society, be able to enjoy the many things we all enjoy. There life is over while the scum that killed them is alloed to live. They are allowed to breathe air, they have the opportunity to get an education, and if they get the chance to get out of prison. If they make it a place that people don't want to end up then maybe crime might be less. Or we could do what they do in those other countries.

this goes back again into my contention that many who support the death penalty do so for reasons of vengeance, not because there is any intrinsic societal benefit.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


this goes back again into my contention that many who support the death penalty do so for reasons of vengeance, not because there is any intrinsic societal benefit.

My question to you. what social benefit to having these people around?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by typoon:


My question to you. what social benefit to having these people around?

As I've stated previously, if the purpose is to eliminate these people from society, life without parole accomplishes the same benefit.

However, if instead you consider it a societal benefit to execute people for the sheer prurient thrill of it, then knock yourself out. But I would argue that does not benefit society to allow some to be vicarious murderers to satisfy their own primal need for vengeance.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by typoon:


I'm sure it is not a fun place. But you get liberals who tell you that prisoners need more rights or should have rights. I for one don't agree with this one bit. You commit a crime and you have given up any rights that a free person has. I've never heard of these "super Prisons" Good I'm glad that there is something like that. Prison food may not be appetizing but they still get to eat something some people don't even get. I'm all for stricter prisons and making it a place people do not want to end up. But if you kill somone you should not be allowed to live either.

Not to mention prisoners get better medical covererage than you or I.

Even surgery is 100% covered!


The only thing they deserve is to sit down in the dentists chair:



It's sickening considering how hard many elderly people work, and they have to cut their heart medication in half... and these inmates get it free.


Fry them, and help those who were a benefit to society for 50 years.

Children starving, old people suffering...

But the only thing that matters to most is the murderers and rapists!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


As I've stated previously, if the purpose is to eliminate these people from society, life without parole accomplishes the same benefit.

Why is there no such thing as "life without appeals?"

Or:

"life without more than 1 appeal"?


Life means you just hang with lawyers until they spring you out.


Ask your neighbor where he lived before he moved in?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


As I've stated previously, if the purpose is to eliminate these people from society, life without parole accomplishes the same benefit.

However, if instead you consider it a societal benefit to execute people for the sheer prurient thrill of it, then knock yourself out. But I would argue that does not benefit society to allow some to be vicarious murderers to satisfy their own primal need for vengeance.

No executing people for the pure thrill of it doesn't amuse me. I just feel if someone kills a bunch of people they should not be allowed the same rights as you or I.

What does life without parole accomplish? It accomplishes to suck more tax money from the people, it allows these people to live even if it maybe in a horrid place. It allows them health benefits when many regular folks don't have it.

I would rather my tax money go to helping the poor in this country instead of supporting some criminal who may have killed a bunch of people.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am against it. Having said that, I am also against abortion for the very same reasons.

Agreed.