Death Penalty

The US is the only advanced country in the western world that still uses the death penalty.

 

Paradox much?

 

The people of the UK were never allowed to vote, but it is finally being brought to Parliament for discussion..waste of time, the UNELECTED people in the EU would not permit anything they disapprove of !

The UK was NOT PERMITTED to vote for the Lisbon Treaty which outlined the powers of the EU either !

There was an old TV show called "Yes, Minister"

In which the Minister stated...

"Ah , yes, there is "Democracy, "

...and then there is "British Democracy"

BRILLANT !!!

 

Umm..What?

 

Done in a very stiff upper lip britishway..

Basically,

not all "Democracies" are that Democratic

or, some are more Democratic than others

hope that has cleared things up a bit !

 

Hah Yeah it did.

Thank You

 

Re-read post #2. I stll believe it. Bleeding heart liberals like you who are more interested in helping criminals rather than saving lives and serving justice will not agree.

 

Now, how did Members of Parliament get into that position if the U.K. was not permitted to vote?

Seems to me it's similar to the way a President is chosen - by caucus voting that practically eliminates personal voting.

 

Crazy How with 32 votes this thing is split down the Middle

 

An other option would have been nice.

Capital punishment does not work as any sort of deterrent in the current judicial and penal systems.

I have no moral dilemma regarding capital punishmet.

However, I believe a far better deterrent, in a much larger scale with far better results, would be simply to make prisons actually prisons again.

6 am to 6pm, shackled and working on roadways etc. Back to cells, eat, some down time for a few hours. Rinse and repeat for the full term, be it 5 yrs, 10 yrs or 25 yrs.

Good behavior, would be rewarded with getting done at 2pm vs 6pm. Or an easy day of laundry detail etc. Not good behavior gets you out back in the system of law abiding citizens early.

That is a deterrent. That will produce the desired effect of criminally minded individuals, to not want to return to prison, because it is mind numbingly horrible.

At first it would be a financial burden on the system for the increase of retained individuals, not being vetted back out throught the parole, (get out to repeat current system), but financial gains would be made elsewhere in the system, less parole officers, freed up judicial/court rooms, minor infrastructure maintenance cost reductions, less waste of PD resources of re-arresting the career criminals.

So why execute? Make prison really a prison, and let the deterrent, be the deterrent.

 

about the American West. A group strung up a man they thought was a criminal. Later, in talking to the man's wife, the leader of the group said "Yesterday, we hung your husband for a horse thief. Today, we found out he didn't do it. I guess the joke's on us."

If someone is guilty and stays in prison, he's still in the slammer. If later found to have been innocent, he can be released and, at least partially, compensated. If someone is guilty and executed, he's dead. If later found to have been innocent, if the joke's on us, it isn't a joke. You can always tell his family that you're sorry, but this does little good to the person executed.

We should get rid of the death penalty.

Now, watch all the macho-men start screaming about bleeding heart liberals.

 

Because in his thread "Hypocrisy of Do-Gooders" he let me see who he really was so I question his motive in everything he says.

I've already made it clear that my belief in the death penalty doesn't automatically apply to all murders and it never did. I've also made it clear that my argument for death vs life is focused strictly on the rape, torture, and murders of the very essence of innocence that embody all children everywhere and where guilt was not an issue.

I gave two examples of actual monsters that have admitted killing children for pleasure, shown where the children were buried, and gave graphic details of the method used in torturing them to death that only they would have known. Add those accurate confessions to the bodily fluids found on the young victims and you have the right person beyond any shadow of doubt. The trials aren't about whether they were guilty or not, but more about why they shouldn't be put to death.

With that said, and because that human/inhuman line was crossed, the only two choices for the specific examples I gave are life without parole or death and I chose death soley for vengeance for the deaths of those kids and this is coming from someone who catches flies in the house and lets them go outside. I don't kill anything.

So, now I have to ask everyone. Knowing how Jessica Lunsford died would you have wanted to keep her killer alive if she were your only daughter? If you feel this is an appeal to emotion, just don't answer.

Bee

 

I'm not sure the death penalty is necessary. From what little I've read, it you put these scum in with the general prison population, they will not have a good time. Those who are not necessarily killed outright will wish they had been. I also understand that the prison authorities, when such things happen, leap, positively LEAP, into inaction in investigating either the death or the wedding.

 

You're able to ascertain who I really am by reading a dozen or so posts I've made on an internet forum? Your powers of perception are truly incredible.

 

Without hesitation, the answer is yes. I would prefer my daughters killer be kept alive, so he can spend the rest of life remembering what he did, and regretting it.

Do you know how Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman died? While Ian Huntley might be the most vile person alive, he doesn't deserve to die. Rather, he deserves to sit in prison for the rest of his pathetic life and rot.

 

Of course Parliament is permitted to vote !

However they have not respected the will of the people by not ALLOWING the UK to vote one the Lisbon Treaty !!!

( which Ireland had to do twice,
seems they voted the wrong way the first time..
don't you just LOVE that kind of Democracy?)

In the same vein, the will of the people has not been taken into consideration re : The death penalty,to be permitted in extreme cases, death of a child or police officer.

Democracy, twisted, which does NOT reflect the will of the people!

 

I've recently changed my view on this. Federally, we don't need it & shouldn't have it. I can't imagine a time that someone would break a capital federal law without breaking a capital state law at the same time (I'm sure someone will point out a few, please).

Intrastate, I wouldn't support anything less than public executions. We have cleaned the process up so much it's hardly more unpleasant than taking out the garbage, and far more removed from daily life. If we as a society believe a person deserves to die at the hand of the state, then we as a society should be willing, or even forced, to face the consequences of such a decision.

 

I firmly believe that 90% of the people who oppose the death penalty live under the naive assumption that no one will ever harm them or anyone they love. So they are able to view it in a detached and arrogant manner from a phony moral pedistal that allows them to look down on those who seek honest justice as "uncivilized." And the ones who aren't looking to play moral one-upmanship are simply too weak to do the right thing.

Personally, I think the fact that America is the last major civilized country that still uses the death penalty speaks volumes about why we've been the superpower that we've been. Because as hard as the liberal left weenies have been desperately trying to castrate this country, at least for now we still have the balls to stand up and do what's right. We're not afraid to be different. We don't have that desire for conformity and acceptance that makes us throw our values out the window in order to be liked by the rest of the world. .....well, okay the liberals are really concerned with being liked, but the rest of us don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Perception has nothing to do with it. I was able to determine that by your thread just like others did. I may not be able to see a poster's physical makeup, mannerisms, or emotional features as I would face to face, but none the less, whether a person writes a letter, blogs, or posts on a forum, what is said tends to be a fairly accurate reflection of that person. In fact, a forum post tends to reveal more of the inner component of a person's personality than a typical face to face conversation between people who don't know each other.

What I didn't expect from you was the arrogance from someone who claimed to be a med student. Active med students are taught early on that compassion and genuine concern for others are more of a requirement rather than a beneficial quality for an effective doctor/patient relationship. You made and arrogant post about poor people, then told us you were a med student with aspirations of helping the poor. What part of that post was the truth.

Thanks for the honesty.

I didn't know about the Soham murders so I read about it but what those girls went through on that day pales in comparison to what Jessica Lunsford went through for those three days but I find myself believing the severity of the crime doesn't really matter here does it. In the example I gave there was no doubt who the killer was and since I don't like putting words in other peoples mouths I will only make the assumption that based on your comment you believe the person who murdered Holly, and yet another Jessica, was guilty without doubt and we both agree that they need to be removed from society so they can't kill another child.

If that's true then you should have stopped there because by continuing you've shown me that you want revenge too. You want him to rot in prison for his crime and I want him to die because he isn't worth what I'm going to say next.

I've already said that revenge for the murdered girls is what drives me but there is another element to consider. He could still indirectly kill an innocent person while in prison because our constitution guarantees every prisoner, no matter what the crime, to adequate medical care which includes expensive drugs and the right to have his name added to the UNOS transplant waiting list.

Without going into medical details on how it's determined who gets pushed up the transplant list I can tell you that ethically he would have the same chance as you or me. He could get a transplant while the person next in line has to hope that the next one will be there in time... and the bill will be paid for by the taxpayers.

Again, with me, it's still payback for those girls.

Bee

 

As long as crooked cops and prosicutors continue to use the death penalty continues to kill innosent people it should be abolished. Let the crooks rot in jail.

 

What evidence supports that view, and how did you come up with the figure of 90%?

 

I didn't make a post about poor people per se. I made a post about leftist hypocrites who use poor people as a political weapon in arguments with conservatives and libertarians.

The only one being arrogant is you, with your bold and baseless assumptions about my character and concern for the poor. I'm the kind of person who'd give you the shirt off my back if you asked.

 

It'll never work. Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder and Janet Napalitano would still walk free.

 

Why do so many individuals make their polls unanswerable? I am referring to the insinuated bias that assumes a generality of opinion among divisions of people that could possibly answer the question. I have my own reasons to answer a "yes" or "no" question that fall outside of your childish assumptions.

 

No, I wouldn't have, because at that time we didn't have the technology to support an execution. But now we have fingerprint technology and DNA technology that allow us to conclusively prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.