The Death Penalty

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

"I'm happy the prick is gone." Yeeaaahhh. It's not revenge at all. Gleeful revenge, no less.

I don't know why people confuse being against the death penalty with caring about murderers (who aren't mentally ill or mentally disabled of course. Many on death row are one or both of those things). That isn't the case at all. It's about how the government conducts itself and its motives. I actually don't give a shit if 30 loves the murder of murderers. I care when a government kills people out of spite though. And I care much much more when doing so trumps keeping innocent people from being murdered by said government. Forget about the death of one innocent person. Simply one innocent person spending any time on death row is reason enough for the death penalty to be banned.

And I don't care if you wish to council and support the poor poor murderer of a child or if you think that 'prick' is too strong a term.

So you are just choosing to completely ignore my statement in the very post you just copied that says I don't in any way feel like this? That's irritating as hell, but okay.
The strength of the word prick has nothing to do with anything.

he simply cannot understand, as you mentioned, that being against the death penalty does not equate in any shape or form to sympathy for the "poor poor murderers". it's laughable.

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

Which point? Because both are not correct.

The overwhelming majority of cases I have read about where parents' children have been murdered by some sadistic bastard... they are happy to see the killer put to death. There are some that aren't comforted at all by such an act, but they are not 'many' compared to the alternative.

The other point you can't have one way. You can't say 'capital punishment' is revenge... and then say 'imprisonment isn't revenge'. Both are counter measures to a crime. Further... saying 'imprisoning someone safeguards society' might be true, however capital punishment safeguards society as well... and safeguards those in prison (inmates and guards). Sooo... it's actually a more effective safeguard when you wish to argue on those grounds.

again and again and again....imprisonment is not revenge. it is the absolute least that needs to be done to protect society. if we could put them all on an island without being behind bars and let them roam about that island without possibility of escape, I'd be for that too.

putting a man to death just isn't necessary to protect society.

again and again and again... the death penalty is not revenge. it is the appropriate form of justice, in this case, to deal with a sick bastard that mutilated a child. And then tried to use the lame defence that he wa shearing voices and he was mentally ill (despite the fact that he had an accomplice).

he hacked his limb off. scalped him. drank his blood while the 12 year old boy was still alive and pleading for his life. he then tried to bury him in a shallow grave to cove rup his obscenity. he can die. internet, books, a fan club, hot meals, clean bedding, and someone doing his laundry for him is too good for such a heinous act. if you think it is... that's your problem- I'm happy the prick is gone.

if we could all just live nicely with each other and not kill people's kids, I'd be for that.

it being the appropriate form of justice is your opinion, not fact. you continue to confuse the two.

no, actually, it's not my problem. it's a societal problem that so many think like you do. we will never evolve as a peaceful species so long as people continue to think that this is an appropriate form of justice. the death of someone, anyone, making you happy is what I define as sick, to be honest with you.

you don't see the parallels between the murderer who takes pleasure in the death of someone and a bystander who takes pleasure in the death of someone?

pdalowsky

To be honest, whilst we don't agree on the subject , I've always admired how 30 conducts himself on this thread.

HughFreakingDillon

pdalowsky said:

To be honest, whilst we don't agree on the subject , I've always admired how 30 conducts himself on this thread.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

"I'm happy the prick is gone." Yeeaaahhh. It's not revenge at all. Gleeful revenge, no less.

I don't know why people confuse being against the death penalty with caring about murderers (who aren't mentally ill or mentally disabled of course. Many on death row are one or both of those things). That isn't the case at all. It's about how the government conducts itself and its motives. I actually don't give a shit if 30 loves the murder of murderers. I care when a government kills people out of spite though. And I care much much more when doing so trumps keeping innocent people from being murdered by said government. Forget about the death of one innocent person. Simply one innocent person spending any time on death row is reason enough for the death penalty to be banned.

And I don't care if you wish to council and support the poor poor murderer of a child or if you think that 'prick' is too strong a term.

So you are just choosing to completely ignore my statement in the very post you just copied that says I don't in any way feel like this? That's irritating as hell, but okay.
The strength of the word prick has nothing to do with anything.

he simply cannot understand, as you mentioned, that being against the death penalty does not equate in any shape or form to sympathy for the "poor poor murderers". it's laughable.

Lol. Typical.

Soul says I actually don't give a shit if 30 loves the murder of murderers... and Yeeaaahhh. It's not revenge at all. Gleeful revenge, no less. .

When I fling a bit of mud (hyperbole) back... some opponents can't deal with it. They get their feelings hurt a little.

Let me try and break this down for you: If someone essentially calls me a fiendish ghoul for approving of the execution of a f**king freak that mutilated a 12 year old child... then I think it's reasonable to call them a poor poor murderer sympathizer if I'm so inclined.

That's what's laughable, man. The double standard that you can't even recognize- so blinded by your value set that a different one just simply cannot exist.

Keep loving the murderers, man... and I'll keep frothing at the mouth- orgasming every time one is put down.

F**king goofy.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

Which point? Because both are not correct.

The overwhelming majority of cases I have read about where parents' children have been murdered by some sadistic bastard... they are happy to see the killer put to death. There are some that aren't comforted at all by such an act, but they are not 'many' compared to the alternative.

The other point you can't have one way. You can't say 'capital punishment' is revenge... and then say 'imprisonment isn't revenge'. Both are counter measures to a crime. Further... saying 'imprisoning someone safeguards society' might be true, however capital punishment safeguards society as well... and safeguards those in prison (inmates and guards). Sooo... it's actually a more effective safeguard when you wish to argue on those grounds.

again and again and again....imprisonment is not revenge. it is the absolute least that needs to be done to protect society. if we could put them all on an island without being behind bars and let them roam about that island without possibility of escape, I'd be for that too.

putting a man to death just isn't necessary to protect society.

again and again and again... the death penalty is not revenge. it is the appropriate form of justice, in this case, to deal with a sick bastard that mutilated a child. And then tried to use the lame defence that he wa shearing voices and he was mentally ill (despite the fact that he had an accomplice).

he hacked his limb off. scalped him. drank his blood while the 12 year old boy was still alive and pleading for his life. he then tried to bury him in a shallow grave to cove rup his obscenity. he can die. internet, books, a fan club, hot meals, clean bedding, and someone doing his laundry for him is too good for such a heinous act. if you think it is... that's your problem- I'm happy the prick is gone.

if we could all just live nicely with each other and not kill people's kids, I'd be for that.

it being the appropriate form of justice is your opinion, not fact. you continue to confuse the two.

no, actually, it's not my problem. it's a societal problem that so many think like you do. we will never evolve as a peaceful species so long as people continue to think that this is an appropriate form of justice. the death of someone, anyone, making you happy is what I define as sick, to be honest with you.

you don't see the parallels between the murderer who takes pleasure in the death of someone and a bystander who takes pleasure in the death of someone?

There you go again. Who's taking 'pleasure' in any of this? I expressed I was happy that justice was served.

I would have preferred that that shithead never pleasured himself killing that child. Given he did... well f**k... now what? You'd like to clothe and feed him. I'm not there with you.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pdalowsky said:

To be honest, whilst we don't agree on the subject , I've always admired how 30 conducts himself on this thread.

Cheers.

But I'm about to go sideways to be honest.

PJ_Soul

pdalowsky said:

To be honest, whilst we don't agree on the subject , I've always admired how 30 conducts himself on this thread.

I would generally agree, but I think he seems to be purposefully ignoring comments right now and supplanting baseless falsehoods in their place, which isn't super awesome.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

pdalowsky said:

To be honest, whilst we don't agree on the subject , I've always admired how 30 conducts himself on this thread.

I would generally agree, but I think he seems to be purposefully ignoring comments right now and supplanting baseless falsehoods in their place, which isn't super awesome.

To the contrary... I'd say it was you earlier that essentially dismissed a post as making no sense when it actually made much sense and directly countered two points you tried to make.

I don't feel I've ignored any comments. I've even acknowledged that the fact an innocent person could wrongfully be executed is reason to pause when considering the DP.

If there is a specific comment you are wishing me to speak to... could you do so again and I'll address it.

And if you could also clarify what you mean by baseless falsehoods... I'd be curious to know specifically what you are directing such a comment at.

PJ_Soul

Sigh. I'm over it, but I am talking about this comment: "And I don't care if you wish to council and support the poor poor murderer of a child or if you think that 'prick' is too strong a term."

Which you posted right after I said that I have no sympathy at all for murderers (who aren't mentally disabled or ill).

FWIW, saying that something makes no sense isn't dismissing it. If I'd expanded I would have just been repeating myself.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Sigh. I'm over it, but I am talking about this comment: "And I don't care if you wish to council and support the poor poor murderer of a child or if you think that 'prick' is too strong a term."

Which you posted right after I said that I have no sympathy at all for murderers (who aren't mentally disabled or ill).

FWIW, saying that something makes no sense isn't dismissing it. If I'd expanded I would have just been repeating myself.

Well sigh all you want. Don't chew off more than you can bite.

I did say that. As mentioned, I responded in kind with that comment to your comment where you mocked me (falsely quoting me) saying: "Yeeaaahhh. It's not revenge at all. Gleeful revenge, no less" (followed by a goofy emoticon for emphasis and another comment about me loving to murder murderers).

You took a few cheap shots Callen style and then, not liking my response (which was in kind)... you said later to PD: "I would generally agree, but I think he seems to be purposefully ignoring comments right now and supplanting baseless falsehoods in their place, which isn't super awesome."

I'm still wondering which comments I never responded to (there have been none). And, which should be very clear right now, my 'baseless' comments that you illustrated were in direct response to your cheap shots.

PJ_Soul

Lmao. That wasn't chewing more than I can bite. That was "you're just not saying anything new or interesting" boredom.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Lmao. That wasn't chewing more than I can bite. That was "you're just not saying anything new or interesting" boredom.

MmmHmm. Got it.

callen

Going back to pro or con this murderer did this in state that executes more than any other. So not really a deterrent.

Oh love the heated debates. Passion.

PJ_Soul

Is it being a deterrent even on the table anymore? It was determined that the death penalty didn't act as one years and years and years ago.

callen

PJ_Soul said:

Is it being a deterrent even on the table anymore? It was determined that the death penalty didn't act as one years and years and years ago.

Sure we know this but it's still used by the pro side. And just building on my opinion there is no benefit from death penalty but this vengeance thing. Which is being currently debated.

Oh TB this is number 22.

PJ_Soul

callen said:

PJ_Soul said:

Is it being a deterrent even on the table anymore? It was determined that the death penalty didn't act as one years and years and years ago.

Sure we know this but it's still used by the pro side. And just building on my opinion there is no benefit from death penalty but this vengeance thing. Which is being currently debated.

Oh TB this is number 22.

I just didn't realize that the pro side still even used this completely defunct argument...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

It has been established that neither side can use the 'deterrent' argument.

The DP is hardly ever used and therefore, whether it would be an effective deterrent or not is impossible to gauge. It's a moot point.

Edit: what can be said is that a prison sentence most certainly is not a deterrent.

PJ_Soul

It's not a moot point. The death penalty isn't a deterrent. That's it. It's a fact.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

It's not a moot point. The death penalty isn't a deterrent. That's it. It's a fact.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Do some research other than spouting off. Even Wolf- the most eloquent and informed opponent of the DP in this thread- conceded what I just said.

If the DP is used in 0.00005 percent of homicides... exactly how can you establish as a fact that it is ineffective as a deterrent?

I'm not saying we do it... but if it was on the table for all murders and monitored trends after such a move... then we would know for certain (factually) if it was a deterrent or not.