Pat's Thoughts Volume 55: The death penalty should be abolished

The death penalty in the US is the legal the murder of a US citizen by government officials. The way it is handled is also incredibly stupid. If someone is put on death row, why would you sentence them to death while they're still in their 20's or 30's? If you insist on putting a person to death, it should be done when they're in their 60's or 70's after they've served many years and are close to death because of natural causes.

I also find it funny how many conservatives call abortion murder, which isn't proven or true, but strongly support the murder of a human being. Regardless of what he or she is done, the death penalty is proven murder and you support that. Sentence people to life, not death. Cheers. -Pat

You know what I find funny, how the libs will have no problem killing an innocent life before it starts. But if that same life has the opportunity of living, grows to adulthood and becomes a murdering SOB, that is when you decide to fight for it's life,

Ok, let the next round begin! :p


Don Cardi

I see a woman in the night
With a baby in her hand
Under an old street light
Near a garbage can
Now she puts the kid away,
and she's gone to get a hit
She hates her life,
and what she's done to it
There's one more kid
that will never go to school
Never get to fall in love,
never get to be cool. - Neil Young

Different scenario, although I agree on the final lines when it comes to abortion, but a debate on this is the last thing I wanna get into considering these debates don't go anywhere except the loss of respect for each other.

I really can't say I have a solid opinion on the death penalty. I always thought life in a small cell was worse then a quick death of all things.

On a lighter note, why do they swab their arm with alcohol during the lethal injection?

Oh Daigo and Patrick, how so far off the trail to the Promise Land you both are...

I never like the argument against Death Penalty in the idea of that its "cruelty". Fuck, I think its a easy way out for some evil bastards out there that should instead live in a Siberian-esque existence for every agonizing day for the rest of their lives. Fuck, maybe we could resurrect the Nazis and the former KGB electroid-testicle punishing deadmen so we would make good use of them in some way.

If anything, I can guarantee that if a certain scenario happens, many people will be turned off from the Death Penalty.....as in, an innocent person gets executed for a crime he/she didn't commit.

Not realistic, eh? Just look at the UK....

If anything, notice how the Federal government in the courts have slowly cut the fatty-edges of the Death Penalty over the last few years. Especially that the Supreme Court struck down the legality of executing someone that is truely legally "insane", or mentally retarded, or juveniles under the age of 18.

Think about that for a moment.

I'm against it, for reasons stated here many times before

1) It's not applied equally across the board. People who can afford better lawyers do better.

2) Too damn many mistakes.

If both of them problems could somehow be corrected, I'd have no objection to it.

I agree just for those two specific reasons.

EDIT: Otherwise, I'm all for it.

Why kill an unborn child and spare a convicted murderer?

I agree as well.

Who read about the Death Row inmate in Texas who's lawyer slept throughout the vast majority of his trial?

It's all part of the experience, DV!

Man, I LOVE that song!

The Doc

Ok, here's a question.

When Usama Bin laden is caught, should he receive the death penalty? Or should he receive life in prison?


Don Cardi

One of the major problems with death penalty is that you might get the wrong person and when you discover that he or she is innocent it might be too late.

First off, he'll never be caught. Second, if he were to get caught, he should receive life in prison.

First off, he'll never be caught. Second, if he were to get caught, he should receive life in prison. [/b][/quote]The man has admitted that he is responsible for taking thousands of innocent lives. When he is caught, why should the taxpayers of this country pay to support such an admitted cold blooded mass murdrer of innocent people? Why should we pay for him to live in this country, get fed three meals a day, and provide him with a place to sleep at night?

Wouldn't that money be better used towards helping the poverty stricken people of our country instead of supporting a mass murderer?


Don Cardi


Don Cardi

As much as you and I know that Bin Laden is a killer and is a bastard, he's still a human being and if he's going to go under the court of law in America, he should go under it just like any normal American goes under it. Now if he were to go to court in Afghanistan, than it'd be different story.

Let me understand this. If he is going to go on trial in a court of law in America, he should get life in prison and not the death penalty. But if he goes on trial in Afghanastan, then that is a different story? So no one should get the death penalty here in the USA, but it's ok if they get it in a foreign country?

BTW, his being a human being is a matter of opinion. ANd in my opinion, he is an piece of shit.


Don Cardi

The evidence would be overwhelmingly against him.

Let me understand this. If he is going to go on trial in a court of law in America, he should get life in prison and not the death penalty. But if he goes on trial in Afghanastan, then that is a different story? So no one should get the death penalty here in the USA, but it's ok if they get it in a foreign country?

BTW, his being a human being is a matter of opinion. ANd in my opinion, he is an piece of shit.


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]No, it's not ok for him or anyone to die anywhere. What I'm saying is: I don't know how the law and courts work in Afghanistan. For all I know, they don't have courts over there or give people a chance to prove innocence.

Plaw, I agree to a point. Yes, I'm sure that there are people who have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. It may have been because of the social inequities in our legal system. However, I do believe that with the advances in forensics, I'm not so sure that's a valid argument any longer.

I support the death penalty. I know that it won't bring the victims back. However, it will guarantee that there will be no more victims in the future. And with prison overcrowding, a "life" sentence rarely is.

They now do have courts over there, they established them again when we helped them get their country back from Taliban rule. But that's besides the point.

Ok, so you feel that it is not ok for anyone to be sentenced to death anywhere. Fair enough. But you did not answer the second part of my question :

Would you rather use the money to pay for and support him for the rest of his life in a jail cell, fully knowing that he is guilty for thousands of deaths? Or would it be better to sentence him to death and use that money to help the poverty stricken of this country?


Don Cardi

You are either in favor of the death penalty or against it.

Once you begin to apply it selectively, that means you're for it.

I am for the death penalty.


However, in the case of Bin Laden, I am against it. The reason that I am against it is because I believe that if you kill him, he will be a Martyr ( sic ) in the eyes of his fanatic followers. In this case I would rather he be put into a prison for the rest of his life. That would be more harmful to him and his followers than the death that they so seem to look forward to and wish for. Actually instead of sending him to his 72 virgins, life in prison for him would be like sending a virgin to 72 inmates.


Don Cardi

DC--So now you finally want to help the poor in this country? With our President, I'm sure that money wouldn't be used for our poor people. We'd give it to churches and our soldiers so they can have toothbrushes and hair gel.

I'll provide the

You conveniently avoided the question. I never said thatI think the money should be used to help the poor. I just posed a question and asked if you thought that money that may be used to support Bin Laden for life in prison would be better off used to help the poor.

Besides Pat, again, you shoot from the hip because you have absolutely no idea what I may or what I may not do when it comes to helping the poor. Again, you make a statement wihtout having a clue.

So please just answer the question and try not to avoid it by taking a shot at me or the president. He has nothing to do whatsoever with this issue.

Now F**k Bin Laden, and F**k the death penalty. I have to go and watch my NFL GIANTS!

Don Cardi

If he is tried in the US under US laws and put to life in prison, than the money obviously isn't going to go to the poor. Would I like it to? Yes. Would I be happy if we could just put him in a cell and treat him like a prisoner during the Holocaust? Yes. But if we allowed that, than we'd be just as inhumane as him.

Umm...maybe because it would cost the American government billions each year to sustain these criminals? As it is, it already costs the taxpayers this much in appeals.

I mean, you wouldn't be getting any money to poor people who you seem to identify yourself with.

Duh...huh...let's see....

A baby is conceived and goes through the 9 month gestation period and is born.

A baby is conceived and is either chemically poison, physically vaccum-sucked from the womb, or has its head slashed by a pair of scissors and it's brain crushed by forceps.

Not much of a grey area there, I'd say that's infanticide.

Damn straight!

Oh, yes. I see the logic here.

Let's not kill the murdering child rapist. Sentance him to life!

But hell yes, it's a womans choice, kill that wholly innocent little baby! It is evil! Sentence THAT to death!



Oh, you're right. That's why we should just let a 20 year old convicted murderer live out his entire life in prison, since, after all, the money couldn't be put to better use...

Then again, we should really have a president who gives money to baby-killers and trial lawyers. :rolleyes:

Oh-fucking-well. I'd really care.

Regards,
Double-J

Judeo-Christian priciples (aka, The Ten Commandments) state: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

"An eye for an eye" is quite fulfilling as revenge, but, whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"?

But, given that, I am also in the middle on this issue.

If someone I loved was murdered, of course I'd personally want the perp to die a most miserable and suffering death! But we're still talking about taking lives here. Even the biggest scum of the earth. The other side of me (the logical side) realizes that it takes thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars to keep someone alive on death row for years and years.

Someone brought up abortion, which is a separate issue. So I'll just quickly say: I'm not for abortion, but, I do respect a woman's right to choose. I'd never choose it myself, but, I'm not a woman. However - I believe that such innocent lives are taken every single day -- some of those lives could have been the potential to cure cancer and AIDS or create world peace, we don't know -- but at the same time, the proponents of (practically) infanticide are also campaigning to save the lives of mass murderers and the rest of the scum of the earth?? The same who've wanted us to leave Sadam in power to commit more genocide on his people??

Crazy.

If I had the answer, I'd provide it. But I don't -- no one does. We just have personal opinions. And that's mine.

double-j i would be a little more sensitive to the fact that there could be people here who have had to make that tough choice...there are easier ways to state a point without sounded like a prick.

I believe that's the purpose of his post.

Out of control. The insensativity thats been displayed in the content of some of these posts is just ridiculous.


Don Cardi

Uhuh.

Really, I'm sorry but the Death Penalty is an expensive cop-out for some evil prisoners out of painful life-sentneces that some folks will not address for no reason I see so far.

Notice in the statistics that the rate of executions nation-wise has slowed down over the years.

Besides, is it really proven that the death penalty actually deters crime? I mean in logic, it would seem to, but does it really?

Finally, someone said that with technology now, the likelyhood of an innocent being executed for a crime he/she didn't commit is nill.

Thing is, the "present" state of the art technology of the last few decades and even a century ago, people thought they had a perfect system or best of the best format that keeps such a mistake from occuring...from finger-printing to DNA to advanced-DNA testing. However, don't ever think DNA is the final road-stop on the road to justice.

Fact is, criminals always find a way around new technology and eventually that technology has to be updated by the justice system. Remember those "secured" $100 bills that the Department of Treasury released years back, of which supposedly were fool-proof against counterfeiting? Thing is, some computer-genuises were able to bypass all those security fail-safe measures...and thus the Department had to re-release new bills that are superior, but I wonder when they will be cracked as well.

Then again, Australia now has "Plastic" money that supposedly fool-proof, but who knows...

Peace by with all of youse.

Respect Life - simple concept, conception to death.

Ironic
Liberals - Abortion, Yes. Death Penalty, No.
Conservatives - Abortion, No. Death Penalty, Yes.

Is the murder of one person less of a crime than the murder of one thousand?

Prison sentences are really not a deterrent to crime. I firmly believe that a murderer does NOT commit the crime thinking about getting caught and the possible sentence.

The death penalty is an idea whose time has gone.

Besides, is it really proven that the death penalty actually deters crime? I mean in logic, it would seem to, but does it really?

I guess not. I remember when George Carlin discussed this by saying how the crime rate would slow if we started bringing back crucifixions, burning at the stake, boiling in oil, and catapulting into walls. :p

The woman conceived it, and let it grow inside her. IT is not yet alive, it is a foetus. It is no human, capable of thinking or feeling. If the foetus is not wanted by the mother then she has the right to kill it. A mother having a child she didn't wanted is not a nice situation, fot both. It's not evil.

But abortion is not the subject.

About death-penalty: The USA is always so big about freedom. The land of the free, both parties have a liberal economic point of view, everything is about freedom.
Now, the most painful thing about being in prison is the lack of freedom. It's something normal people can't even imagine, how hard it is not to be free.
Many prisoners with a lifelong sentence, would prefer a quick death above staying for decades in prison.

Abortion is not the subject, life is. You may have to do some research on this topic. Many premature fetus are born and are alive. Thinking and feeling? A fetus can do that too. When humans set the criteria for what is "Life" that's when we get in trouble. A new born can't fend for itself, if left alone it will die, it is dependent on it's mother...the same as an unborn fetus. When an elderly person has Alzheimer's we don't know what feelings or thoughts that person has - should we kill them? We tread on dangerous ground when we, as humans, choose or decide when life begins and ends; when feeling and thoughts begin and end. There is no danger when we use conception as the beginning of life. Setting arbitrary parameters is dangerous. Hitler set his parameters for life; no Jews, no Poles, no priests, no crippled, no mentally handicapped.

The death penalty huh? I say,"To Each His Own."

comparing abortions and hitler is not the best example by far.

and i think in the end, its up the the female who's pregnant. its understandable that everyone has their own opinion...but to try and force it upon anyone else is wrong, and to make people feel guilty, or lebel them as murderers is wrong.

while men can have an opinion on whether a girl has an abortion, it is up to her...and i think that should be respected by all.

The woman conceived it, and let it grow inside her. IT is not yet alive, it is a foetus. It is no human, capable of thinking or feeling. If the foetus is not wanted by the mother then she has the right to kill it. A mother having a child she didn't wanted is not a nice situation, fot both. It's not evil.

But abortion is not the subject.

[/b][/quote]Marycas has already done a fine job of showing you the fallacy of your point, but I'll add to that. How can you say that a fetus isn't alive? Cellular respiration, which is the basis of all life, is carried out from the moment of conception. It is a living organism that carries out ALL basic life functions.

Also, you talk about how a woman "conceives" the child but it takes two, a man and a woman. There's only been one case of "immaculate" conception in history (and, they crucified him)

If your argument was true, then why are their such things as "premature" babies? Wouldn't they just be inhuman, by your argument?

You're awful quick to chastize the US about freedoms, but apparently in your mind it is okay for a woman to kill her own child.

GOD FORBID, we kill a convicted murderer. But kill the child, after all, that is unwanted! :rolleyes:

Why? I consider all abortionists murderers. Save for maybe the case where a mother is in undeniable medical danger. But otherwise, it is infanticide, and I have absolutely zero sympathy for that person.

Duh...I didn't know prison was supposed to be "fun." :rolleyes:

BTW - what if that person had raped your wife and killed your children? Do you think he deserves more freedom?

Not necessarily. Both Hitler's final solution and the practice of abortion is killing, relentlessly brutal execution.

So wait, then it's okay to force death upon a child though, right? Obviously, because they don't have a voice... :rolleyes:

And I disagree.

Best,
Double-J

But if this beast impregnated your wife, you would want to force her to bear that child, wouldn't you?

Do two wrongs make a right? After all, the child is half my wife. Should I kill it then? Would THAT be justice?

And knowing what your wife went through, that she was raped by this filthy animal, who then murdered her children and left her to live with that agony, you would demand that she carry his child? You would leave her no choice?

i guess double j descided to appoint himself as moral god. and he has descided to label people who have tough descisions to make. the worst part is he's making comments on something he's probably never been through, or probably has never helped a friend in this situation...because if he had he would be a litte more sympathetic to the psychological and emotional damage that occurs when a person descides to terminate a pregnancy. did you ever stop to think that maybe a girl of 15 who gets pregnant would be better off with the abortion...i mean, i come from a portugese family who would throw out the daughter if such a thing where to happen to her. or how about the way society treats a young pregnant, unmarried girl? the girl becomes an outcast, facing a cruel world alone. this is what i have seen, the experiances some of my friends have been through...do not think you can judge people without being in their shoes.

I haven't served the U.S., that discredits my comments?

its one thing to have an opinion, its another to pass judgement down on people and label them, and make them feel like scum. is that what life is about? is that what being an american is about?

He is giving his position on the subject, very simple. In his opinion, abortionsists are murderers, that is HIS position.

that is insensitive, and there are better ways to state your opinion then mislabeling people...while i respect his position and not agree with abortion...i think its a dick thing to say calling people murderers. i bet most people's tunes change when put in the position of having to make that choice.

JJ, you gotta add "Pee-Pee" to your sig. :p

Absolutely not.


Don Cardi

I can't stand too solid on the issue because of the reasons you've stated (especially the first). If the practice was consistant with all murderers, I would be for it.

Shame on me! I'm expressing my honest, frank, politically incorrect opinion!

But heaven (and hell) forbid we condemn the infanticidal murderers who perpetrate this infamia every day.

Sorry if my harshness doesn't appease you, but I refuse to accept in any way the murder of babies. That's all.

So, to justify the act of rape itself, she should kill her child? Will that make the pain go away?

Leaving her no choice? Putting this into the individualistic setting once again. I find that when you are married, you are a FAMILY. Not just one individual.

And I'm sure that if the justice system didn't take care of the bastard, I would have to go Bronson-esque.

Anyways, back to the original point - so because of the origins of a child, does that mean it should be killed? What if even we gave it up for adoption? I still think that would be better than murdering the child which is wholly innocent and did nothing wrong whatsoever.

No. I simply call a spade a spade, and a murder, murder.

Oh, believe me, I have a friend who works for an abortion clinic that is no longer my friend because of that.

Hey, did you ever stop to think maybe the baby who we're pretending isn't alive ISN'T better off dead? Oh yes, murder the child, that solves everything!

Oh, yes. It's so bad that apparently it's discouraging the millions of unwed pregnant mothers out there. Forgive me for not crying a tear for the many who decide to shack up with random guys and end up with 4 different kids by 4 different fathers.

Of course I can judge them, especially when their irresponsible actions result in someones death. By your logic, we shouldn't judge a murderer because, after all, we don't know what he was going through when he decided to blow up, say, the Oklahoma Federal Building! :rolleyes:

Is killing your children, and denying them their rights what America is about?

And how would you know, anyways? I mean, you talk about not judging people unless you're in their situation, but you're Canadian...by your logic, you shouldn't even have a say in this subject.

Regards,
Double-J

DoubleJ I think that you cross a line when you try to tell a woman who carries the baby what decision she should make. That is her body and she is the one carrying that baby so she knows how she is feeling. No one should tell her what to do if they are for or against abortion. She should decide.


DS

Amazing how this became yet another abortion debate.

And you're surprised Plaw?


Don Cardi

Double J,
Yes, when you are a family, then you do decide things as a family, as a unit. However, if your wife was raped and your children murdered, and you've decided to Charles Bronson this guy's ass, then you don't have much of a family unit any longer, do you?

Yes, you do decide things as a family. However, as DS correctly pointed out, you and your family are not the ones who will have to carry this child for nine months, the child of a man who destroyed everything of value to you and your wife.

However, since this is quite patently the most absurd discussion (I would never even consider it as a debate since it has gone into the realm of Ridiculous Land), that will be the last comment from me regarding this particular scenario.

i agree, in the end we should respect the descision of the female who does what she wants with HER body. and this topic concerns americans and canadians alike.

This would be a valid argument if she was doing something to herself, but she's not...she's killing another human being, her own child, which is an act of murder, plain and simple!

Then what about the Death Penalty?

Oh sure, make excuses, but as you say...."an act of murder, plain and simple!"

c'mon, am I wrong?

so this is back again? well double j obviously you don't know much about human anatomy to say that she isn't doing anything to herself. brush up on biology my friend. the fact is that its inside of her...so in truth, the doctors are doing it to her! second...unless you have some proof that life starts at conception(which according to science it does not) then obviously its not murder.

For someone who tells me to look at biology, I'd check up on that yourself.

1.) She isn't doing anything to herself...the doctors are doing it to her???

WHO IS LETTING THEM KILL HER BABY? SHE IS! :rolleyes:

2.) Telling someone who has taken upper level anatomy and biology to brush up is a tad insulting.

Last time I checked, cellular respiration, the process that is synonymous with life, is carried out from the second conception occurs. The zygote divides, absorbs, excretes, and respirates, all of which are parts of the basic life functions.

If you had a clue, you'd realize science does suggest that life begins at conception. It isn't as if some dead cellular mass has the ability to grow (she'd have a rather nasty case of peritinitis if that was the case), there is a reason the cells are dividing and growing.

So, go open up a textbook, or get a clue. Whichever you prefer.

So are you saying that a wholly innocent life deserves to be killed, but a convicted murderer who has no chance of being rehabilitated and would kill again should be saved? Some kind of convoluted morality, methinks.

No, I'm just saying that you need to choose your wording more wisely next time...me, I'm for all-out legal murder. What about you buddy?

As long as it isn't infanticide, why not? I mean, after all, I'm ready to go SOCOM on some people at this point.

infanticide...whatever. well obviously we must be getting different opinions from different scientists becase from what i've read and heard, they do not state life starting at conception. also to go off and say that killing a cell is wrong, so i guess that goes for ever time you scrach your arm, you are killing living breathing cells my friend...cells that do produce other cells. or hey, while we are at it, when you cut your hair.

Funny, because every course, lecture, etc. I've ever taken has stated that the basic element of life revolves around cellular respiration.

I didn't say killing a cell was wrong - however, killing an organism, in this case, an innocent child, is abhorrent. A cell is just a part that makes up a whole. The zygote that divides eventually into the fetus carries out all life functions, is sentient, and is living.

Cutting your hair isn't killing living cells, since not only are the top layers of your epidermis (skin) dead cells that slough off normally, but your hair, fingernails, etc. are all dead, so your argument is invalid.

It doesn't take an idiot to realize that there is a living organism created at conception. The problem is that many rationalize it as something that either isn't alive until birth (which is fundamentally wrong), or various other arguments that rationalize the legalized infanticide of innocent lives.

What about ants? They're organisms. Should I be put away for stepping on an ant?

If you put that much value on the life of an ant (do we know if an ant is sentient?), like some religions do (in India, if I recall), I suppose you could make an argument.

However, in this case, I'm making the argument for human life, wholly innocent human life, extinguished for convenience and rationalized through indifference.

I just find it amusing how conservatives always switch the topic of the death penalty to abortions.

"I'm pro-life. Oh, he was found guilty? To the chair!"

im tired of this, continue being judgemental and narrow minded. im done with this topic.

Oh, wait...you mean, like those liberals, who are never hypocritical..."I believe in the unalienable rights of the individual (unless you are unborn)! I believe in rehabilitation (as long as the criminals aren't in my neighborhood)!"

How about that, actually? Pat, you don't want these people to go the chair, and you want abortions...what if we created a rehab/halfway house next door to you, and had a fetus mass grave in your front yard...would that suit you?

talk about taking it to the extreme! im sorry, how old are you?

Oh, I dunno. I find using surgical scissors to cut spinal cords, and vacuums to siphon out undeveloped brains, and forceps to crush little skulls to be pretty extreme.

But apparently for some here, those are just "women's rights."

What is with this idea that all these fetuses are innocent? I mean, where do murderers and criminals come from?

Hell DoubleJ, if you could have aborted Hitler, you wouldn't. You would let that "innocent" live.

Besides, why is it we worry about not ending a life, but as soon as it comes out of the womb, interest is lost. C'mon, you all know I'm right.

Unlike people on both sides, I'm honest. I don't care about the rights of criminals or these bunch of growing-bunch of cells in a tummy, I mean they get more attention and emotion than the rest of us, that is for sure.

ronnierocketago...i agree with you. that is the most honest and possibly the closest thing we can come to truth in this whole gawddamn thread.

Personally, I'm a big supporter of the Culture of Life

No War
No Abortion
No Death Penalty
No Euthanasia.

Plain and simple.

And I have to disagree with you Ronnie: I don't believe people are born evil (unless you are the son of Satan, but that's another topic altogether) but are conditioned to fall into the dark side because of the enviorement around them.

I agree.

Last time I checked, I didn't know, other than original sin, a fetus could do anything wrong. I mean, I don't see any fetuses on the corner of MLK Boulevard selling crack, do you? :rolleyes:

Of course not, I wouldn't kill any innocent child. As Don Andrew and EB said, environment plays a large part in what a person is. Granted, Hitler obviously had some mental issues, but what if he was adopted and sent to Costa Rica or some other far-away land from Germany? Do you think he still would've killed Jews?

Not really. I'm very much interested in education, for one. Also, I'm also concerned about the number of deadbeat parents we have in this country, as well as the number of people who don't support their children, be it financially, emotionally, etc.

I didn't realize I was being dishonest, apparently since we all disagree, we are dishonest! :rolleyes:

That notwithstanding, is it the governments priority to take care of your ass, or don't you think you should be expected to at least become a decent, productive member of society?