This Is Why I Favor the Death Penalty.

[Boxlicker101]

http://cbs13.com/local/elk.grove.shooting.2.1651159.html

The suspect is a piece of garbage and doesn't deserve to go on living any longer than necessary. Once he is convicted, if he is, he should be hanged from a tree outside the courthouse.

 

[JackLuis]

Cheaper in the long run.

 

[Pure]

thanks box.
i love it when a person makes a claim and gives a reference which refutes the claim

the murdered man's daughter, in your aiticle, said she was leaning strongly leaning toward the fellow, preserving his life.:;


As Tanneria [daughter of victism] wait now to see what the jury will decide, she has thought on the fate of her father's killer.

"Part of me wants the death penalty, but most of me wants him to sit in jail for the rest of his life think, remember everyday, just like we'll have for the rest of our lives," says Tanneria

 

[geronimo_appleby]

http://cbs13.com/local/elk.grove.shooting.2.1651159.html

The suspect is a piece of garbage and doesn't deserve to go on living any longer than necessary. Once he is convicted, if he is, he should be hanged from a tree outside the courthouse.

y'think there's a chance of putting JBJ in the frame?

just for the grin outside the courthouse you unnerstan'.

 

[Boxlicker101]

thanks box.
i love it when a person makes a claim and gives a reference which refutes the claim

the murdered man's daughter, in your aiticle, said she was leaning strongly leaning toward the fellow, preserving his life.:;


As Tanneria [daughter of victism] wait now to see what the jury will decide, she has thought on the fate of her father's killer.

"Part of me wants the death penalty, but most of me wants him to sit in jail for the rest of his life think, remember everyday, just like we'll have for the rest of our lives," says Tanneria

I'm a little puzzled as to what you mean. I do like the idea of having this garbage rot in prison and get fucked in the ass every day for the rest of his worthless life, but I would still rather see him hanged by an old rope in a public place. I believe it would make a better deterrant. The victim's daughter is also a bit conflicted, but she leans more toward the rotting in prison idea. I wouldn't call that "preserving his life" since it is just a way of drawing the slime's suffering out for a longer time.

 

[DeeZire]

I wouldn't call that "preserving his life" since it is just a way of drawing the slime's suffering out for a longer time.

Of course you wouldn't call it that, because according to Box-Logic, preserving someone's life is not the same as not killing them - it's different. Yep, you're absolutely right Box. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You know, Box, you take an interest in horrific crimes and their punishment that an unbiased observer might say is unhealthy.

Your passion is evident when you write of your hope for these men to be "fucked in the ass every day"; it's almost as if you want to fuck their ass yourself, because then your secret desire to fuck men's asses would be justified in their case, due to their heinous crimes. That's an understandable psychological reaction, in some cases, at least in hindsight. Of course, I'm not a professional, and this is just my opinion, which I'm free to express on a public message board.

But, here is the thing: some men like getting fucked in the ass, at least enough to trade off the experience with another similarly-inclined man. I've known enough of these people to say, with little hesitation, that their attractions, if unusual, don't pose any threat to me as a heterosexual. In fact, many of their day-to-day attitudes reflect a hard-won understanding of what it means to be different in a world that demands conformity. These attitudes enrich my life, because there are many times that I don't fit in with peoples' expectations either. This leads me to believe that, if you can find someone you're sexually compatible with, regardless of their so-called 'kinks', you're ahead of the game. So, don't judge ass-fuckers too harshly. They seem to do plenty of that themselves.

 

[Liar]

http://cbs13.com/local/elk.grove.shooting.2.1651159.html

The suspect is a piece of garbage and doesn't deserve to go on living any longer than necessary. Once he is convicted, if he is, he should be hanged from a tree outside the courthouse.

Translation: Because it satisfies your emotional need for revenge.

Well, at least you're honest, and don't throw us some bullshit about deterrence.

 

[brightangel]

First of all... I don't think the ass-fucking lecture is justified. Another clear example of someone trying to hijack a thread.

I think the death penalty is useful. The U.S. government spends somewhere around $37 billion dollars a year on prisons. Prisoners are fed well, get exercise, TV and sometimes internet, they can sometimes take classes and graduate (from prison) with a degree to enter the "real world" as a changed person.

That's all fine and dandy but, I think people who are addicted to meth (like the guy in question is/was), and who kill more than one person aren't likely to "recover". So, should tax payers have to support them for the rest of their lives?

Consider this: there are thousands of children who go hungry every night (in the U.S.), but you're willing to pay for a drug-addict murder's dinner instead, because you think he deserves to rot in prison and have to think about his actions for the rest of his life?! hahhaa... he's not going to think about it. He's going to have a care-free existence, building birdhouses, getting buff, and yes... maybe getting fucked in the ass. But, I hear after a while it's enjoyable.

Public hangings seemed to work back in the day. There certainly were a lot less murders and a lot more productive members of society... although fear of government is bad for society too. Everything is a catch 22.

Anywho </rant>

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
That's all fine and dandy but, I think people who are addicted to meth (like the guy in question is/was), and who kill more than one person aren't likely to "recover". So, should tax payers have to support them for the rest of their lives? [...]

I guess not. Better just kill them all. And why stop with meth addicts? I can come up with a lot of people who I'd like to just off 'cuz they're just too expensive for me to care about. Fuckin' drains on society, man. Kill 'em. Kill 'em all.

There's a lecture, little girl.

 

[brightangel]

I guess not. Better just kill them all. And why stop with meth addicts? I can come up with a lot of people who I'd like to just off 'cuz they're just too expensive for me to care about. Fuckin' drains on society, man. Kill 'em. Kill 'em all.

There's a lecture, little girl.

awwww don't be angry. haha that little red emoticon scares the crap out of me.

I don't mean we should kill people. But I think something needs to be done to solve the money-suck that is the prison system. It's obviously not working and there are a gazillion other places where the money could be spent. That's all I meant.

 

[brightangel]

There's a lecture, little girl.

Also, I kind of resent that... I'm not little. Judging people's intellect based on age is a mistake.

 

[LaRocha]

The victims of crimes don't get to decide penalties in courts of law. It should be irrelevant what the victims want, but the judge will often hear from both the families of the guilty and victim. If our criminal court system was honest, boxlicker's opinion should be as relevant as the victim's family(that is as irrelevant.) Civil Court's for person to person victimization and subjective penalties.

I don't believe that it costs less money to kill someone either. I'd like to see the cost of life in prison compared to 20 years of appeals and then death.

 

[rgraham666]

To be angered by evil is to partake of it, stupid. - Phrases of Import and Salvation, Chapter IX, The Book of Universal Truths and Other Humorous Anecdotes

 

[Boxlicker101]

The victims of crimes don't get to decide penalties in courts of law. It should be irrelevant what the victims want, but the judge will often hear from both the families of the guilty and victim. If our criminal court system was honest, boxlicker's opinion should be as relevant as the victim's family(that is as irrelevant.) Civil Court's for person to person victimization and subjective penalties.

I don't believe that it costs less money to kill someone either. I'd like to see the cost of life in prison compared to 20 years of appeals and then death.

Actually, the victims of crimes do have something to say about a penalty. Murder victims, obviously do not, but friends and family of the victim appear in court during the penalty phase andf express their opinions of what the loss means, They don't make the ultimate decision, but they do have input.

Survivors of violent crimes also have something to say at a penalty phase. Thed describe what a rape or assault has done to them, and judges take such things into consideration before passing sentencing.

Keeping somebody on Death Row for, let's say a year, obviously costs something. I have nothing against allowing appeals, if there is new evidence or a Constitutional violation, but sometimes it gets ridiculous, especially when one of Governor Moonbeam's appointees is on the bench.

 

[LaRocha]

Actually, the victims of crimes do have something to say about a penalty. Murder victims, obviously do not, but friends and family of the victim appear in court during the penalty phase andf express their opinions of what the loss means, They don't make the ultimate decision, but they do have input.

Survivors of violent crimes also have something to say at a penalty phase. Thed describe what a rape or assault has done to them, and judges take such things into consideration before passing sentencing.

Keeping somebody on Death Row for, let's say a year, obviously costs I have nothing against allowing appeals, if there is new evidence or a Constitutional violation, but sometimes it gets ridiculous, especially when one of Governor Moonbeam's appointees is on the bench.

That's what I said. But they shouldn't have any influence over the penalty portion of the blind justice program, as penalties aren't revenge. Criminal justice is supposed to work like clockwork. A crime is committed and recognized as a crime, the perp is apprehended, plead and/or trial, acquittal or penalty. It's all drawn out, judge has to make sure punishment fits crime, jury makes sure the defendant has been defined correctly by the prosecution.

 

[Liar]

That's what I said. But they shouldn't have any influence over the penalty portion of the blind justice program, as penalties aren't revenge. Criminal justice is supposed to work like clockwork. A crime is committed and recognized as a crime, the perp is apprehended, plead and/or trial, acquittal or penalty. It's all drawn out, judge has to make sure punishment fits crime, jury makes sure the defendant has been defined correctly by the prosecution.

This brings up an interresting thought. The ideal for the criminal justice system is to be that clockwork, so that emotion, prejudice and bias don't compromise the correctness of the outcome. In other words, in order to work proprly, the system must be dispassionate.

But at the same time, I hear people say that you can't have a too technocratic justice system, that it's a judge's job to apply the rules with common sense and empaty for the human beings involved, both victims or accused.

Can the justice system be dispassionate and empathetic at the same time?

 

[rgraham666]

It's not an either/or proposition. A balance can be struck.

 

[stephen55]

Execution is cheap...getting there is expensive...

The victims of crimes don't get to decide penalties in courts of law. It should be irrelevant what the victims want, but the judge will often hear from both the families of the guilty and victim. If our criminal court system was honest, boxlicker's opinion should be as relevant as the victim's family(that is as irrelevant.) Civil Court's for person to person victimization and subjective penalties.

I don't believe that it costs less money to kill someone either. I'd like to see the cost of life in prison compared to 20 years of appeals and then death.

On a different thread I mentioned that the cost of the death penalty exceeds the cost of life imprisonment.

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html

Condemned prisoners spend years or even decades on Death Row (very expensive) and go through a very long process of appeals (also very expensive) before actually being executed or having their sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

Before Florida executed Ted Bundy, it spent over $5 million on his various appeals, three stays of execution and keeping him on Death Row for nine years.

People have and will argue that condemned prisoners should be executed soon after sentencing, as in China and a few other places. However, if you allow the state to deny a condemned prison the right to appeal and all other avenues available under the law, then you no longer have a justice system. You have an injustice system. In a real justice system, everyone gets equal protection and due process.

You can get a good idea of how well a country handles it's justice system by looking at how that system treats the lowest of the low and the worst of the worst.

By allowing Bundy every opportunity for due process, Florida was simply upholding the true meaning of justice. If Florida wants to save money, all they have to do is get rid of the death sentence.

 

[PoppingTom]

The death penalty only works, if people absolutely don't want to die. I'm not sure this is the case in a lot of executions.

The most prominent example to me is Timothy McVeigh.

 

[stephen55]

The death penalty only works, if people absolutely don't want to die. I'm not sure this is the case in a lot of executions.

The most prominent example to me is Timothy McVeigh.

If you're saying that the death penalty works by making a potential murderer think twice (if I murder someone, I will lose my own valued life in an execution), then I don't agree. There has never been any good evidence that the existence of a death penalty deters murderers.

If you mean that executing someone who would have rather lived, for example Ted Bundy, is a better result than executing someone who doesn't care to go on living, say Timothy McVeigh, then I'm not sure I understand your point.

The death penalty works when the condemned prisoner dies. Any thoughts on the prisoner's part about wanting to carry on living or not living, ends with the execution.

If forcing a murderer to live out life in prison rather than granting the wish to die, is the ultimate penalty to impose...then end the death penalty, save money and really stick it to those murderers.

 

[rgraham666]

I'll reiterate my reasons for opposing the death penalty yet again.

1. You can't bring the dead back to life. So, by my standards, if the nation executes someone who is innocent of the crime they were convicted of all of us are accomplices to first degree murder.

2. The death penalty is not carried out fairly. Very few middle class or higher white men are executed. Death Row has a high disproportion of minorities sitting on it.

3. Capital punishment is most often a political tool. In most places with capital punishment you are more likely to be executed for 'dissent' than murder. Also, point 2 shows how political capital punishment is.

 

[PoppingTom]

If you're saying that the death penalty works by making a potential murderer think twice (if I murder someone, I will lose my own valued life in an execution), then I don't agree. There has never been any good evidence that the existence of a death penalty deters murderers.

I wanted to say that it's nearly impossible that death penalty will not be exploited by possible suicidal society haters. And that's what a lot of death rowers are. The moment they're in Death Row, they're out of responsibility for their act and their life.

If forcing a murderer to live out life in prison rather than granting the wish to die, is the ultimate penalty to impose...then end the death penalty, save money and really stick it to those murderers.

That was my point.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I'll reiterate my reasons for opposing the death penalty yet again.

1. You can't bring the dead back to life. So, by my standards, if the nation executes someone who is innocent of the crime they were convicted of all of us are accomplices to first degree murder.

2. The death penalty is not carried out fairly. Very few middle class or higher white men are executed. Death Row has a high disproportion of minorities sitting on it.

3. Capital punishment is most often a political tool. In most places with capital punishment you are more likely to be executed for 'dissent' than murder. Also, point 2 shows how political capital punishment is.

So by your theory in number 1, if the government takes money from you by force and doesn't use it wisely or they don't use it all and don't give it back to you, they are guilty of Felony theft. And all of Congress are accomplices. Bullshit.

As for number 2, this is bullshit.

And number 3 is even more bullshit

 

[PoppingTom]

So by your theory in number 1,.... Bullshit.

As for number 2, this is bullshit.

And number 3 is even more bullshit

You talk a lot of bullshit, Zeb!