the death penalty

Hugh Freaking Dillon

ok, then, explain if you would be so kind. you really think that animals have consious thought about who they are going to kill and why? do they seek out revenge?

Godfather. wrote:

Paul David wrote:

that's not for "no reason". that's instinct and protecting their own. my point was animals don't kill others out of some emotional response to something, as humans do. they have no consious thought process in their heads that says "I don't like this lion, I'm gonna off him".

ajedigecko wrote:

speaking of primates killing for "no reasons".......when you get time, look into the process of male lions eliminating the blood line of the previous pride leader.

I disagree.

Godfather.

ed243421

wolfy
what we are saying is
if you take a life
yours will be taken
simple as that
why can't you get your head around that?
we can live by that rule
why can't you?
we do not want to execute the suspects we are 99.9% sure about
we want the absolute guilty
caught in the act
or on video
or full confession
or any murder without any doubt
we do not think that just anyone convicted of murder should be executed
only the easy ones
how do you feel about euthanasia?
is that murder?
if you say executing a murderer is murder
can't i say sending a kidnapper to jail for 20 years is kidnapping?
we feel we are right in saying we want the absolute guilty to die
we feel you are wrong in saying that you do not believe the absolute guilty should die because that would also be murder
we feel if you take a life, you have lost all the rights to yours
but tell me, what rights do you feel a confessing murderer has?
i assume that you've accepted the facts that
if you smoke cigarettes, you might die
if you drink alcohol, you might die
if you drive fast, you might die
if you cross the street, you might die
but if you murder someone, you should not die?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

seriously, dude.............I've tried for 80 pages or so to get them to answer this. They won't. EVER. Trust me.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

redrock

WTF is all this poncy, affected supposedly 'poetic' discourse on these threads? New fad? I find it very tiresome. **ends little rant - observation - does not warrant any response**

Hugh Freaking Dillon

ed243421 wrote:

wolfy
what we are saying is
if you take a life
yours will be taken
simple as that
why can't you get your head around that?

because IT'S NOT ANYONE'S RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO LIVES OR DIES. SIMPLE AS THAT. WHY CAN'T YOU GET YOUR HEAD AROUND THAT?

ed243421 wrote:

we can live by that rule
why can't you?
we do not want to execute the suspects we are 99.9% sure about
we want the absolute guilty
caught in the act
or on video
or full confession
or any murder without any doubt
we do not think that just anyone convicted of murder should be executed
only the easy ones

so is it vengeance for you? who decides which murderers die and which ones live? because 100% certainty can certainly be subjective.

ed243421 wrote:

how do you feel about euthanasia?
is that murder?
if you say executing a murderer is murder
can't i say sending a kidnapper to jail for 20 years is kidnapping?

for animals or for humans?

sending a kidnapper to jail is for the protection of society. it's the very least that has to be done. you want to do the MOST.

ed243421

Paul David wrote:

seriously, dude.............I've tried for 80 pages or so to get them to answer this. They won't. EVER. Trust me.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

any dictionary defines murder as:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

executing a murderer is not unlawful.

ed243421

Paul David wrote:

ed243421 wrote:

wolfy
what we are saying is
if you take a life
yours will be taken
simple as that
why can't you get your head around that?

because IT'S NOT ANYONE'S RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO LIVES OR DIES. SIMPLE AS THAT. WHY CAN'T YOU GET YOUR HEAD AROUND THAT?

murderers decide who lives and dies every day.
you ok with that?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

depends on the laws of that jursidiction. the first line of any definition is this:

-kill intentionally and with premeditation

two points. both are applicable to execution.

ed243421 wrote:

Paul David wrote:

seriously, dude.............I've tried for 80 pages or so to get them to answer this. They won't. EVER. Trust me.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

any dictionary defines murder as:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

executing a murderer is not unlawful.

JonnyPistachio

OnTheEdge wrote:

Because it's a silly question. Think outside the box! When a person intentionaly beats, rapes and murders someone, they have decided their own fate, and law, created by man, shall carry out that fate.

I'd really like you to take your own advice on this and try to think outside of the box. Do you have an anwser for the innocent people who are executed?
I Used to be pro-death penalty, and so was Paul David. and Cincybearcat had said he has a hard time deciding how he feels about it. These are people that have seen it from both sides. Maybe give it a try and just ask yourself just once if the system is flawed enough to execute inoocent people, then maybe it is bad?

OnTheEdge wrote:

Wolf, are you trying to convince me that I am wrong? Because it will never happen. I understand that you think my veiw is pathetic and I feel vise versa. No one will ever change my veiw on this. The only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it takes too long. While spending too much tax dollars with their sorry no good asses sitting in prison. For 100% cases, execution should be carried out within a week. For cases where they may be any doubt what-so-ever, the death penalty should not be considered.

If you came across my other post on the amount of death row inmates that have been exonerated and let off because of mistakes, you might think twice about executing people within a week. Thats exaclty why it does not happen, because it has too many flaws. It is EXTREMELY RARE to have 100% cases. if they foloowed your logic, we'd have about 1/3 of the victims of the govt who are innocent.

I'm not trying to change anyones view on this, and I completely understand that you want 100% guilty off this earth, I just ask that people be aware of the flaws in the system and not to be hypocritical when dreaming up a perfect system that only executes 100% guilty because it almost never happens.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

nope. not in the least.

ed243421 wrote:

murderers decide who lives and dies every day.
you ok with that?

JonnyPistachio

ed243421 wrote:

Paul David wrote:

seriously, dude.............I've tried for 80 pages or so to get them to answer this. They won't. EVER. Trust me.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

any dictionary defines murder as:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

executing a murderer is not unlawful.

That is not true -- depends on what country or state you are in.

gimmesometruth27

it is amazing how many catchers in the rye we have in this thread. either that or they feel they are avengers and vigilantes...i love it when people who have no dog in the fight speak the loudest....

ajedigecko

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is amazing how many catchers in the rye we have in this thread. either that or they feel they are avengers and vigilantes...i love it when people who have no dog in the fight speak the loudest....

as a taxpaying citizen and registered voter..........i would say i have a dog in the fight.

chadwick

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is amazing how many catchers in the rye we have in this thread. either that or they feel they are avengers and vigilantes...i love it when people who have no dog in the fight speak the loudest....

like yourself, yes/no?
you are a loud speaker of your views... and thank you for that
i am very pleased and grateful we can all say what's on our minds

chadwick

ajedigecko wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is amazing how many catchers in the rye we have in this thread. either that or they feel they are avengers and vigilantes...i love it when people who have no dog in the fight speak the loudest....

as a taxpaying citizen and registered voter..........i would say i have a dog in the fight.

word

gimmesometruth27

ajedigecko wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is amazing how many catchers in the rye we have in this thread. either that or they feel they are avengers and vigilantes...i love it when people who have no dog in the fight speak the loudest....

as a taxpaying citizen and registered voter..........i would say i have a dog in the fight.

yes, especially when it COSTS MORE TO EXECUTE A PRISONER THAN IT DOES TO KEEP THEM ALIVE....if you were so concerned about your tax dollars maybe you should investigate that, because it seems like an awful waste of tax money to execute people...

gimmesometruth27

chadwick wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is amazing how many catchers in the rye we have in this thread. either that or they feel they are avengers and vigilantes...i love it when people who have no dog in the fight speak the loudest....

like yourself, yes/no?
you are a loud speaker of your views... and thank you for that
i am very pleased and grateful we can all say what's on our minds

no i am not speaking loudly, because people like you would not listen anyway. i would not waste my breath on people like you.

Godfather.

my dog got killed by another dog for no darn good reason at all

Godfather.

chadwick

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

chadwick wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is amazing how many catchers in the rye we have in this thread. either that or they feel they are avengers and vigilantes...i love it when people who have no dog in the fight speak the loudest....

like yourself, yes/no?
you are a loud speaker of your views... and thank you for that
i am very pleased and grateful we can all say what's on our minds

no i am not speaking loudly, because people like you would not listen anyway. i would not waste my breath on people like you.

wow

ajedigecko

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ajedigecko wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is amazing how many catchers in the rye we have in this thread. either that or they feel they are avengers and vigilantes...i love it when people who have no dog in the fight speak the loudest....

as a taxpaying citizen and registered voter..........i would say i have a dog in the fight.

yes, especially when it COSTS MORE TO EXECUTE A PRISONER THAN IT DOES TO KEEP THEM ALIVE....if you were so concerned about your tax dollars maybe you should investigate that, because it seems like an awful waste of tax money to execute people...

that is where your mistake occurs.....your assumption that i care about how expensive it is to eliminate things.