Imagine if all that care and concern for the innocent went into pursuing a good abortion policy! Such as 13 weeks is the time line.....you got 13 weeks of pro choice, BUT after that its MURDER1! I would be for that policy! That would save millions of babies, plus continue to give the mother her choice. Ill take it!
As far as death penalty....all you population control buffs should be for death and abortion!
I support the death penalty because if it were taken away completely.....criminals would take it to another level in all forms!
really. hmmm.......tell me how the criminals have taken over everywhere else in the world that doesn't have the death penalty?
Exactly. Have criminals taken over where there is no death penalty? No, they haven't. Does the death penalty work as a deterrent? No, it doesn't. Do areas with no death penalty have lower crime rates? Yes, they do. Teaching people that violence is a solution only breeds more violence.
I've already provided the stats, and the relevant quotes from various studies on the subject here in this thread. Maybe people should read back a few pages before spouting their nonsense.
wow, you really know your stuff. it is a known FACT that exhausting all appeals and processes in order to serve due process before murdering them costs the system more than keeping them locked up without using added resources of the courts.
What doesn't get taken into account...actually conveniently left out is people who are sent to prison for life terms will also exhaust those same legal appeals and processes as well. For the rest of their miserable lives they will abuse the judicial system until they die. And quite frankly you just can't put a monetary value on the closure itprovides to the victims families and the deterrent in serves in society.
No they don't use/exhaust the same legal appeals.
But conveniently the appeals they can and do use are left out of the discussion. Also the continued and denied "parole hearings" are left out. Also the medical care gets left out....medical care they seek just because they can. A person that should be dead as a criminal is given better medical care in prison than people who obey the laws and can't afford proper care. Why the fuck should a prisoner with a life sentence be treated for any medical condition? Blows my mind. We as a society have determined that certain scum should never return to general population with life sentences...yet we pay to make sure they live and "suffer"? We put pets down that are suffering. We put wild animals down that pose a threat and describe it as being "humane". Mind blowing in my opinion.
"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
...In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson recently said his longtime support of capital punishment was wavering — and belt-tightening was one the reasons. As the state tries to plug a $450 million budget shortfall with cuts to schools and environmental agencies, a bill to end executions has already passed the House as a cost-saving measure.
"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
...In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson recently said his longtime support of capital punishment was wavering — and belt-tightening was one the reasons. As the state tries to plug a $450 million budget shortfall with cuts to schools and environmental agencies, a bill to end executions has already passed the House as a cost-saving measure.
Mindless propaganda. Try exploring their own and their parties political agendas. Looks good for them to say they did away with capital punishment come re-election time. McCartin ended up dying a senile old man who I'm not even sure he knew what the hell he was saying before he died.
Mindless propaganda. Try exploring their own and their parties political agendas. Looks good for them to say they did away with capital punishment come re-election time. McCartin ended up dying a senile old man who I'm not even sure he knew what the hell he was saying before he died.
In other words, you can't accept the truth even when it stares you in the face.
Mindless propaganda. Try exploring their own and their parties political agendas. Looks good for them to say they did away with capital punishment come re-election time. McCartin ended up dying a senile old man who I'm not even sure he knew what the hell he was saying before he died.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-glo ... 73345.html
According to The Legislative Analyst's Office, a nonpartisan government agency, Prop 34 will save the state $130 million every year. A comprehensive five-year study by Federal Judge Arthur Alarcón (who is pro-death penalty) and Loyola Law Professor Paula Mitchell (who is not) showed the state has spent $4 billion on the death penalty since 1978. They've just updated that report to show that California is on track to spend $5 to $7 billion, over and above the cost of a sentence of life in prison without parole, between now and 2050. Five to seven billion dollars!
It's staggering to realize that with all those billions spent, California has executed only 13 inmates since 1978, at a cost of about $307 million per execution.
California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.
...Executing all of the people currently on death row, or waiting for them to die there of other causes, will cost California an estimated $4 billion more than if they had been sentenced to die in prison of disease, injury, or old age.
...
A study done by the Sacramento Bee (March 28, 1988) suggests that California would save $90 million per year if it were to abolish the death penalty.
$78 million of these expenses are occurred at the trial level and would not be reduced by shortening appeals.'
Mindless propaganda. Try exploring their own and their parties political agendas. Looks good for them to say they did away with capital punishment come re-election time. McCartin ended up dying a senile old man who I'm not even sure he knew what the hell he was saying before he died.
In other words, you can't accept the truth even when it stares you in the face.
Cause it's not truth. As long as those "articles" keep all costs of housing inmates confined to life imprisonment out of the "studies" they are far from accurate.
Nothing better than a taxpayer paying for 15 years of cancer treatment to some scumbag in prison for life...oh yeah those situations are left out. Nothing better than paying for HIV positive prisoner with a life sentence having his care paid for. But those situations seem to be not included. It's so awesome to know that diabetic prisoner with a life sentence getting their insulin to keep them alive...for what? WHo knows. Just don't put it in the the "study".
:fp:
First of all, how many of the DP convicted prisoners have diabetes, cancer and HIV?and you really think they're getting the best, expensive treatment around? These treatments cost regular people an arm and a leg at the hospital for various reasons. I doubt it's the same in prison.
It's well documented that the costs far outweigh life in prison. Most or the prisoners convicted of DP sit In jail for dozens if years and still have the same medical treatments if they had life terms because they're often not executed for 20+ years because of the expensive and time consuming appeals that they are granted. And why do they get all those appeals? Because we're playing God and deciding to kill someone based on often flawed an biased evidence. And there have been mistakes where innocents were killed. ONE single mistake and this system is fuckity flawed.
Cause it's not truth. As long as those "articles" keep all costs of housing inmates confined to life imprisonment out of the "studies" they are far from accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... 27s_Office
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), located in Sacramento, California, has been providing fiscal and policy advice to the California Legislature for more than 70 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analysis of the state budget. The office serves as the "eyes and ears" for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner.
...More generally, the office is a staff resource to all legislators. The LAO also performs the following functions:
Budget "Control." The LAO reviews requests by the administration to make changes to the budget after it is enacted. These reviews are used primarily by members of the JLBC and the fiscal committees.
Special Reports. Throughout the year, the office prepares special reports on the state budget and topics of interest to the Legislature.
Initiatives and Ballot Measures. The office estimates the fiscal effect on state and local government of all proposed initiatives (prior to circulation) and prepares analyses of all measures that qualify for the statewide ballot.
Forecasting. The LAO forecasts the state revenues and expenditures.
So you don't think that $90 million a year could be better spent on the people of California than in bumping off some prisoner?
Theoretically it could be spent better … but you would have to eliminate the existing government from the equation.
I do believe it is wasted money. Until my Trebuchet / Volcano Pit model is implemented, the current system is ineffective and a waste of court time and taxpayer money.
So you don't think that $90 million a year could be better spent on the people of California than in bumping off some prisoner?
Theoretically it could be spent better … but you would have to eliminate the existing government from the equation.
I do believe it is wasted money. Until my Trebuchet / Volcano Pit model is implemented, the current system is ineffective and a waste of court time and taxpayer money.
Notice I changed my post? The amount that would be saved annually would be $130 million.
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/stude ... ment1b.htm
'...some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively.'
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm
'...some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively.'
I personally don't understand how anyone can dispute this.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm
'...some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively.'
I personally don't understand how anyone can dispute this.
There is a contradiction in this piece. Ignoring other, much more significant variables that contribute to crime, Bowers implies that states which employ the death penalty increase the likelihood for further violence. I'm not sure how he comes to this conclusion? Then, he suggests (accurately in my mind) that "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
How can someone suggest the death penalty will 'increase the likelihood of violence' and then state that murders are committed in moments of passion or anger?
Further... I'm not exactly sure how society is brutalized by the death penalty. I would suggest that society is brutalized by savage murderers committing unspeakable crimes.
Cause it's not truth. As long as those "articles" keep all costs of housing inmates confined to life imprisonment out of the "studies" they are far from accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... 27s_Office
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), located in Sacramento, California, has been providing fiscal and policy advice to the California Legislature for more than 70 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analysis of the state budget. The office serves as the "eyes and ears" for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner.
...More generally, the office is a staff resource to all legislators. The LAO also performs the following functions:
Budget "Control." The LAO reviews requests by the administration to make changes to the budget after it is enacted. These reviews are used primarily by members of the JLBC and the fiscal committees.
Special Reports. Throughout the year, the office prepares special reports on the state budget and topics of interest to the Legislature.
Initiatives and Ballot Measures. The office estimates the fiscal effect on state and local government of all proposed initiatives (prior to circulation) and prepares analyses of all measures that qualify for the statewide ballot.
Forecasting. The LAO forecasts the state revenues and expenditures.
There is a contradiction in this piece. Ignoring other, much more significant variables that contribute to crime, Bowers implies that states which employ the death penalty increase the likelihood for further violence. I'm not sure how he comes to this conclusion? Then, he suggests (accurately in my mind) that "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
How can someone suggest the death penalty will 'increase the likelihood of violence' and then state that murders are committed in moments of passion or anger?
Further... I'm not exactly sure how society is brutalized by the death penalty. I would suggest that society is brutalized by savage murderers committing unspeakable crimes.
This is how someone might begin disputing this.
Why do you keep editing the quotes that you comment on?
This is what you quoted: "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
And this is the actual sentence: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
Cause it's not truth. As long as those "articles" keep all costs of housing inmates confined to life imprisonment out of the "studies" they are far from accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... 27s_Office
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), located in Sacramento, California, has been providing fiscal and policy advice to the California Legislature for more than 70 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analysis of the state budget. The office serves as the "eyes and ears" for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner.
...More generally, the office is a staff resource to all legislators. The LAO also performs the following functions:
Budget "Control." The LAO reviews requests by the administration to make changes to the budget after it is enacted. These reviews are used primarily by members of the JLBC and the fiscal committees.
Special Reports. Throughout the year, the office prepares special reports on the state budget and topics of interest to the Legislature.
Initiatives and Ballot Measures. The office estimates the fiscal effect on state and local government of all proposed initiatives (prior to circulation) and prepares analyses of all measures that qualify for the statewide ballot.
Forecasting. The LAO forecasts the state revenues and expenditures.
There is a contradiction in this piece. Ignoring other, much more significant variables that contribute to crime, Bowers implies that states which employ the death penalty increase the likelihood for further violence. I'm not sure how he comes to this conclusion? Then, he suggests (accurately in my mind) that "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
How can someone suggest the death penalty will 'increase the likelihood of violence' and then state that murders are committed in moments of passion or anger?
Further... I'm not exactly sure how society is brutalized by the death penalty. I would suggest that society is brutalized by savage murderers committing unspeakable crimes.
This is how someone might begin disputing this.
Why do you keep editing the quotes that you comment on?
This is what you quoted: "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
And this is the actual sentence: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
Seriously? You wish to hold me to APA formatting on AMT? Fair enough. I should have written my post as follows:
" ( . . . ) murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
instead of:
"murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
It is not as if my omission left critical text that completely altered the significance of the passage I referred to. The term frequently could have easily been tossed in there and my point would still remain intact: the passage you cut and pasted was eloquent... but lacked true substance.
You have asked a question of me regarding my writing habits on this forum. I have one for you: why don't you summarize the massive pieces you paste all the time and provide the link to the piece afterwards (for anyone seeking clarification)? Speaking for myself, when I come to this forum, I would much prefer to read someone's original thoughts... even if they have been influenced through someone else's idea (hence, the submission of the link afterwards to give some credit to the source that supports your developed idea).
" ( . . . ) murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
instead of:
"murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
No, you should have written as follows, and as it was originally stated: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
...the costs associated with capital punishment really have no place in this argument. Cost efficiency is not a point that should be debated when deciding on a course of action that might mean taking someone's life. This debate should be centered on morality: is it right or is it wrong?
You can read back through this thread to see my answer to your question.
Comments
Exactly. Have criminals taken over where there is no death penalty? No, they haven't. Does the death penalty work as a deterrent? No, it doesn't. Do areas with no death penalty have lower crime rates? Yes, they do. Teaching people that violence is a solution only breeds more violence.
I've already provided the stats, and the relevant quotes from various studies on the subject here in this thread. Maybe people should read back a few pages before spouting their nonsense.
But conveniently the appeals they can and do use are left out of the discussion. Also the continued and denied "parole hearings" are left out. Also the medical care gets left out....medical care they seek just because they can. A person that should be dead as a criminal is given better medical care in prison than people who obey the laws and can't afford proper care. Why the fuck should a prisoner with a life sentence be treated for any medical condition? Blows my mind. We as a society have determined that certain scum should never return to general population with life sentences...yet we pay to make sure they live and "suffer"? We put pets down that are suffering. We put wild animals down that pose a threat and describe it as being "humane". Mind blowing in my opinion.
Very simple. Add up the costs of keeping these prisoners that isn't documented or taken into account in these "anti death penalty" articles.
What anti-death penalty articles might these be? You're just making shit up now.
Was 'The hanging judge of Orange County" anti-death penalty?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nat ... cute_N.htm
"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
...In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson recently said his longtime support of capital punishment was wavering — and belt-tightening was one the reasons. As the state tries to plug a $450 million budget shortfall with cuts to schools and environmental agencies, a bill to end executions has already passed the House as a cost-saving measure.
Mindless propaganda. Try exploring their own and their parties political agendas. Looks good for them to say they did away with capital punishment come re-election time. McCartin ended up dying a senile old man who I'm not even sure he knew what the hell he was saying before he died.
In other words, you can't accept the truth even when it stares you in the face.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-glo ... 73345.html
According to The Legislative Analyst's Office, a nonpartisan government agency, Prop 34 will save the state $130 million every year. A comprehensive five-year study by Federal Judge Arthur Alarcón (who is pro-death penalty) and Loyola Law Professor Paula Mitchell (who is not) showed the state has spent $4 billion on the death penalty since 1978. They've just updated that report to show that California is on track to spend $5 to $7 billion, over and above the cost of a sentence of life in prison without parole, between now and 2050. Five to seven billion dollars!
It's staggering to realize that with all those billions spent, California has executed only 13 inmates since 1978, at a cost of about $307 million per execution.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-575 ... h-penalty/
'The Legislative Analyst has said ending the death penalty would save the state $130 million annually.'
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
'California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.
California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.
...Executing all of the people currently on death row, or waiting for them to die there of other causes, will cost California an estimated $4 billion more than if they had been sentenced to die in prison of disease, injury, or old age.
...
A study done by the Sacramento Bee (March 28, 1988) suggests that California would save $90 million per year if it were to abolish the death penalty.
$78 million of these expenses are occurred at the trial level and would not be reduced by shortening appeals.'
Cause it's not truth. As long as those "articles" keep all costs of housing inmates confined to life imprisonment out of the "studies" they are far from accurate.
Nothing better than a taxpayer paying for 15 years of cancer treatment to some scumbag in prison for life...oh yeah those situations are left out. Nothing better than paying for HIV positive prisoner with a life sentence having his care paid for. But those situations seem to be not included. It's so awesome to know that diabetic prisoner with a life sentence getting their insulin to keep them alive...for what? WHo knows. Just don't put it in the the "study".
First of all, how many of the DP convicted prisoners have diabetes, cancer and HIV?and you really think they're getting the best, expensive treatment around? These treatments cost regular people an arm and a leg at the hospital for various reasons. I doubt it's the same in prison.
It's well documented that the costs far outweigh life in prison. Most or the prisoners convicted of DP sit In jail for dozens if years and still have the same medical treatments if they had life terms because they're often not executed for 20+ years because of the expensive and time consuming appeals that they are granted. And why do they get all those appeals? Because we're playing God and deciding to kill someone based on often flawed an biased evidence. And there have been mistakes where innocents were killed. ONE single mistake and this system is fuckity flawed.
Why don't you just admit that you're wrong?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-glo ... 73345.html
According to The Legislative Analyst's Office, a nonpartisan government agency, Prop 34 will save the state $130 million every year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... 27s_Office
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), located in Sacramento, California, has been providing fiscal and policy advice to the California Legislature for more than 70 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analysis of the state budget. The office serves as the "eyes and ears" for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner.
...More generally, the office is a staff resource to all legislators. The LAO also performs the following functions:
Budget "Control." The LAO reviews requests by the administration to make changes to the budget after it is enacted. These reviews are used primarily by members of the JLBC and the fiscal committees.
Special Reports. Throughout the year, the office prepares special reports on the state budget and topics of interest to the Legislature.
Initiatives and Ballot Measures. The office estimates the fiscal effect on state and local government of all proposed initiatives (prior to circulation) and prepares analyses of all measures that qualify for the statewide ballot.
Forecasting. The LAO forecasts the state revenues and expenditures.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
A study done by the Sacramento Bee (March 28, 1988) suggests that California would save $90 million per year if it were to abolish the death penalty.
$78 million of these expenses are occurred at the trial level and would not be reduced by shortening appeals.
$130 million is chump change, is it? And black is white, and up is down, as far it suits you to be so.
Do you not think that $130 million every year could be better spent on the people of California than in bumping off some prisoner?
Or am I asking the wrong person here? :think: Kind of like asking a Creationist to teach me something about paleontology.
I do believe it is wasted money. Until my Trebuchet / Volcano Pit model is implemented, the current system is ineffective and a waste of court time and taxpayer money.
Notice I changed my post? The amount that would be saved annually would be $130 million.
'...some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty. The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively.'
I personally don't understand how anyone can dispute this.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
There is a contradiction in this piece. Ignoring other, much more significant variables that contribute to crime, Bowers implies that states which employ the death penalty increase the likelihood for further violence. I'm not sure how he comes to this conclusion? Then, he suggests (accurately in my mind) that "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
How can someone suggest the death penalty will 'increase the likelihood of violence' and then state that murders are committed in moments of passion or anger?
Further... I'm not exactly sure how society is brutalized by the death penalty. I would suggest that society is brutalized by savage murderers committing unspeakable crimes.
This is how someone might begin disputing this.
Because I'm not wwong, that's why.
Why do you keep editing the quotes that you comment on?
This is what you quoted: "murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
And this is the actual sentence: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
Yes you are, as I've proven above.
Seriously? You wish to hold me to APA formatting on AMT? Fair enough. I should have written my post as follows:
" ( . . . ) murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
instead of:
"murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
It is not as if my omission left critical text that completely altered the significance of the passage I referred to. The term frequently could have easily been tossed in there and my point would still remain intact: the passage you cut and pasted was eloquent... but lacked true substance.
You have asked a question of me regarding my writing habits on this forum. I have one for you: why don't you summarize the massive pieces you paste all the time and provide the link to the piece afterwards (for anyone seeking clarification)? Speaking for myself, when I come to this forum, I would much prefer to read someone's original thoughts... even if they have been influenced through someone else's idea (hence, the submission of the link afterwards to give some credit to the source that supports your developed idea).
Sure you have. Keep believing that.
Although Oblahblah politically says he doesn't support the death penalty he basically did just that. No trial or jury either. His comments about it.
'It was deep-seated satisfaction'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Bush.html
Political bullshit.
So it's for vengeance, not for a deterrent?
It has nothing to do with belief. You are wrong. Period.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, then go ahead and provide it.
But I know you don't. Though you just aren't capable of admitting you're wrong, and so just keep on stirring the pot anyway.
No, you should have written as follows, and as it was originally stated: "Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively."
i sincerely hope anger such as yours can be sustained when someone you love kills someone and you face a lifetime without them.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You can read back through this thread to see my answer to your question.