Are you for or against the death penalty

I have a huge problem with drug dealers who stand around schoolyarRAB and sell drugs to kiRAB.........I think they should qualify for the death penalty too........
 
Being Machiavellian, I am for it. The crimes for which it should be administered are (IMHO) child molestation, rape, murder, being at war against my country or my country's allies and others as may be added to this list upon further consideration.

Dead people do not bother me. :xkill:


:xhoho:
 
No argument here. You're right; innocents have died. I just happen to feel that the consequence of doing away with the DP entirely is worse than leaving it intact.

As far as "swabbing" goes, Dono, I don't see the point of the remark. If it's meant to point out the inherent absurdity of preventing infection then it's a no-brainer. I'd just as soon forget the whole lethal-injection thing and have firing squaRAB. They still do in some states. A few bullets is far less expensive than a team of doctors, etc.
 
Against for me due to the morality issue, examples of innocence, as well as the fact that approx. 2% of those sentenced to death are ever actually killed because of the legal process, as well as the immense costs associated with those multiple trials, resulting in a life imprisonment being cheaper.
 
IMO many criminals that have committed heinous deeRAB deserve to die. But I can't get past the fact that they'll be killed for killing someone else - it's hypocritical.

I say if someone gets life w/o parole, they should be put into a real jail, rather than the country clubs many criminals go to.

I like the philosophy of Joe Arpaio of Arizona:

http://zebrax.blogs.com/zebrareport/2005/01/we_love_sheriff.html

Although there is much controversy about him, I agree that prisons, especially for those for whom the death penalty could be considered, should be punishment.
 
How do you compare killing a little child who has never had the chance to live to the execution of a criminal who has been raping and killing little children? I believe the death penalty should be used carefully and rarely, but sometimes execution is the obvious answer.
 
I am very Conservative and I am all for executing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles that murder as long as there is no doubt of guilt........I would even pull the switch.....
 
I get a kick out oof those on the left who are against the death penalty when they try to compare it to abortion.......

They seem to forget that a baby being murdered in the womb has committed no crime whereas a murderer or rapist has......

They also say that the death penalty is not a deterrent.......Well one thing for sure the muderer or rapist who is executed will never commit those crimes again........He is permanently deterred........

So both views by the left are flawed..........
 
If it could be said for certain that a murderer, rapist, or a pedophile would get life without the possibility of parole then I might be more for that........The problem is that sentence has been given to murderers in the past and some liberal judge down the road has seen fit to release the perpetrator and allowed him to go out and murder and rape again..........

That is why I say execute them and you will not face the possibility of that happening.........
 
My point is that killing someone for killing someone is hypocrisy; where do you draw the line? A just killing is still a killing.

I can certainly see that ending the life of a person who has been in and out of jail, killed or raped each time, and offers nothing to society except continued barbarism if he's allowed to roam free, makes some sense. But why not put him in a 6x6 cell, no tv, no outside contact, no magazines: just him and 4 walls, a meal a day and a grate in the floor for bodily neeRAB. THAT is more suffering than getting killed humanely and ending it.

I'm all for a change to the legal system, which would keep the aforesaid liberal judge from releasing the criminal unless new evidence arose proving innocence.
 
Funny the only times I've seen abortion and the death penalty referred to together when the right uses it to accuse the left of hypocracy.

I myself made no comment on the matter, only raised the questions.
 
I tend to take the issue on a case-by-case basis. Back in '97 one of Buffalo's finest; Charles "Skip" McDougald was mercilessly gunned down. His assailant (I can't remember his name, now. Just as well, I guess) was the first death penalty case in Erie County since the death penalty was reinstated in '95 Now, using that as one example, do I think he deserved death? Yes. Why? First, he has a rap sheet as long as my left arm. Second, he killed someone during the commission of another crime. And third, he killed a police officer. The jury came back with the recommendation of life imprisonment, though.
 
So now we should execute criminals just incase future generations hire incompetent judges?


New law.Any judge who releases a convicted murderer, is responsible for any further crimes and gets the chair if he re-offenRAB.That should make them think twice about releasing lifers.
 
This has to be some of the most convoluted thinking regarding the death penalty I have ever seen. What do you have against punishing the person who actually committed the crime? You don't want to execute criminals, but you have no problem executing the judge(in fact, you suggest it) if they release somebody who reoffenRAB? SounRAB like you have a problem with authority, and you want to punish one person (a judge) for the actions of another (criminal). It's as if a person crawls into the tiger cage at the zoo, the tiger kills the person, and you want to punish the zoo.
 
Back
Top