Thread: This one is seriously painful.

Originally Posted by Big Red

why spend the 30k plus a year, times 40 years (what is that, about 10mil) keeping them alive. that's just stupid.

In your opinion. From where I'm sitting money can be printed, and if punishment always comes down to cost, then the world we live in is a desperate place indeed.

Originally Posted by icedog

As much as I oppose capitol punishment, it seems that if there is to be a death penalty, they should be quick about it. Perhaps give judges guns, "Guilty as charged." BANG!, "Bailiff, mop the floor."

I like it!

Originally Posted by gregs656

So death row is good because it's easy and it's what they want.

I think I am sitting at completely the other end of the bench to you fella, same reasoning, different position.

nope, i think death row is bad. thats the point i was trying to make =)

ciao,
MisterDavid

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

I think your use of "hypocrite" is way off base. You are calling me a hypocrite based on my stance on the issue. This would imply (by definition) that I pretend to believe that capital punishment is appropriate in this case.

Unless I'm wrong, "hypocrisy" is favoring one side of an argument when it is convenient and opposing it when it's not.

I doubt anyone who shares my point of view could be appropriately labeled "hypocrite" when it all boiled down to making the call. Rest assured, I'd have my finger on the button / hand on the switch / finger on the trigger / etc for this guy and his partner.

No, a hypocrite is someone (for example) who tells others not to shave with a Mach 3, but then shaves with one himself. you shouldn't say "killing is evil, so lets kill all the murderers." you just become a murderer yourself. And "he did it first" doesn't wash with me. It's irrelevant. Often, in the killers mind, killing is the right thing to do at the time. i don't think we should make the same mistake.

once again, this has got to be the first forum ever where people talk about things like this, and have completely different views, yet don't start insulting mothers and what not. =)

Ciao, Misterdavid

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

To me a predator should be dispatched with the same remorselessness that they show their victims. A child molester such as the one in the OP is a predator and potentially a murderer. In past times execution would have solved that problem. Society in general has become more charitable. Unfortunately the predators among us have not.

The thing about this, and that really puts me off the death penalty:
Is the killing of murderers worth the murder of the innocents that got a wrongful conviction? Imo it's not.

For example, the birmingham six would have been lynched it the public had had its way. Instead they got life. 30 years later, guess what... they turn out to be innocent after all, and they were only convicted because the police / prosecutor were under public pressure to solve the case.

Even today, it happens.
Give child molestors or murderers life without parole for all I care. It is not possible to give back the lost year, but in case of error, at least it is still possible to right the wrongful conviction.

Alternatively, the executioners / prosecutor / judge / jury should be tried and executed for murder as well. That would make them think twice about reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

In a column some time ago Pat Buchanan wrote about the execution of the nazi spies who came ashore on US soil in WW2. He pointed out that such a penalty would not be demanded in today's world. He said that Americans in those days,"were made of sterner stuff." No wonder they are known as the "greatest generation."

Yeah...
In those days, white americans thought of black Americans as inferior n****rs who had no rights, and women were supposed to obediently serve their husbands and had no vote. Not sure that they were so much better.

Of course, given that this comes from 'Pitchfork Pat' Buchanan, this is probably how he would like America tobe today.

Originally Posted by MisterDavid

No, a hypocrite is someone . . .

'a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives'

Though, taking one side of an argument when it suits you and the other when it suits you is hypocrisy. I think it stands as a working definition.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Does the fact that they are surfacing more rapidly make the death penalty any less applicable? The man was previously convicted in the 70's for the same behavior.

The whole thing could have been avoided. I'm with Jimmy on this one.

Yep, I am too. Life has never been cheaper than it is right now here in the UK, with people being shot and stabbed for looking at someone the wrong way. And I`m not kidding! Hardly a day goes by without seeing another victim of gang violence or mugging.

I dont want to empathise with anyone who could take a life, or exploit and abuse a young child as in this sickening case. All I want to do is put the fear of god into them, so that some are put off committing these terrible crimes. And those that arent put off receive an appropriate punishment!

Originally Posted by Bruno

Yeah...
In those days, white americans thought of black Americans as inferior n****rs who had no rights, and women were supposed to obediently serve their husbands and had no vote. Not sure that they were so much better.

This is an absurdly broad generalization, frankly. While there's certainly no arguing that it was the case for more Americans then than now, I see the two points as unrelated. We're talking propensity to support capital punishment, not civil rights.

By your logic, does this mean that because I support the death penalty (possibly with the same vigor as an American from the era you identify) that I also think of blacks as n****rs and that women are supposed to obediently serve their husbands and not vote?

Absolutely not. Rest assured that your opinion about death penalty does not in any way make me think that you are a racist or anything else.

My comment was related to the fact that Pat Buchanan asserted that Americans of those days were 'better' than current day Americans.
Imo, Americans of those days were no better or worse than now, or at least not in a meaningful way.

Perhaps they didn't waffle over issues like death penalty, (if you consider that a plus) but otoh, the racism in those days was much more prevalent and outspoken, and women rights did not exist in any meaningful way.

Hence my conclusion that those Americans were no better than current day Americans. Of course, Pat Buchanan being who he is, he probably thinks they are, because he himself is a bigot whose ideals align much more with the racist / discriminatory mindaset that was the norm in those days.

In the first place I don't think that Pat Buchanan is a bigot. He is a conservative and in many ways my beliefs differ from his but I wouldn't hang that label on him. As far as the USA and racism, most of the Caucasian cultures have their legacy of injustice and bigotry. Witness the Belgian Congo and King Leopold II. The USA does not have the market cornered.

Matter of fact all peoples throughout history whether they were 'white' or 'people of color' have pursued policies against 'the other'. I think it is part of the human condition unfortunately. We are mammals with more intellect than the rest of the pack but not enough to love our neighbors as we do ourselves.