grizzaholic wrote:Personally, I don't give two fucks. You get the death penalty, you die. SIMPLE. But bunny huggers like you wouldn't let that fly.89Hen wrote: So you'd be in favor of giving a severly diabled person the chair.
Wow. We learned two things here... one, don't look to grizza for compassion or thoughtful discourse and two, he doesn't know me very well... come to think of that, I'm glad for number two.
Then why did you ask the question like you wanted me to backtrack?89Hen wrote:grizzaholic wrote:
Personally, I don't give two fucks. You get the death penalty, you die. SIMPLE. But bunny huggers like you wouldn't let that fly.
In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Daily News, Don Heller (pictured), a Republican, former prosecutor, and the author of the 1978 ballot initiative that reinstated California's death penalty, voiced his support for replacing the death penalty with life without parole. "It makes no sense to prop up such a failed system," he wrote. He urged California voters to support a new ballot initiative that would abolish the state's death penalty, citing the system's "staggering" costs and the risk of executing the innocent. In discussing the failures of the initiative he authored over 30 years ago, he said, "I never contemplated the staggering cost of implementing the death penalty: more than $4 billion to date and approximately $185 million projected per year in ongoing costs." He said he also did not think about the chance that an innocent person could be executed: "I am convinced that at least one innocent person may have been executed under the current death penalty law. It was not my intent nor do I believe that of the voters who overwhelmingly enacted the death penalty law in 1978. We did not consider that horrific possibility." Heller emphasized that he is not "soft on crime," but that "life without parole protects public safety better than a death sentence."
Saving oxygen for those that deserve it. I also think that there are people that will never and could never be reformed and can't be trusted even with assholes in jail. The Norway terrorist (won't use his name as it is what he wants) knew it wasn't an option for him so he didn't think very hard about what he was going to do. It can be a deterant but not always.89Hen wrote:I guess here's the second question... what is the benefit of capital punishment?
I was asking about a seriously mentally challenged person, not somebody claiming temporary insanity.grizzaholic wrote:Then why did you ask the question like you wanted me to backtrack?89Hen wrote:
We all know that I would never sit down at a table with you, how is that news?
I am sick and tired of all of this "oh the guy was temporarily insane, she has a learning disability, the guy didn't know what he was doing" If the rules have to change and go WAY WAY to the other direction to get people to quit being such pantywastes then, so be it.
The problem is that it's not a deterant the way we use it. I'm against it, but if we're going to have it, it should be slow, painful and televised.GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:Saving oxygen for those that deserve it. I also think that there are people that will never and could never be reformed and can't be trusted even with assholes in jail. The Norway terrorist (won't use his name as it is what he wants) knew it wasn't an option for him so he didn't think very hard about what he was going to do. It can be a deterant but not always.89Hen wrote:I guess here's the second question... what is the benefit of capital punishment?
Doesn't matter.89Hen wrote:I was asking about a seriously mentally challenged person, not somebody claiming temporary insanity.grizzaholic wrote:
Then why did you ask the question like you wanted me to backtrack?
We all know that I would never sit down at a table with you, how is that news?
I am sick and tired of all of this "oh the guy was temporarily insane, she has a learning disability, the guy didn't know what he was doing" If the rules have to change and go WAY WAY to the other direction to get people to quit being such pantywastes then, so be it.
BTW, I'd sit down with anyone here.
Death would almost be to easy for someone like that.93henfan wrote:This piece of human excrement murdered no one, and deserves the death penalty more than most on death row do. If I were allowed, I would take great pleasure in torturing him and then killing him. This is not internet message board BS. I would take requests from victims' families and carry out their wishes with a smile on my face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Bradley
A fine example of someone that should meet their maker sooner rather than later.BlueHen86 wrote:The problem is that it's not a deterant the way we use it. I'm against it, but if we're going to have it, it should be slow, painful and televised.GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:
Saving oxygen for those that deserve it. I also think that there are people that will never and could never be reformed and can't be trusted even with assholes in jail. The Norway terrorist (won't use his name as it is what he wants) knew it wasn't an option for him so he didn't think very hard about what he was going to do. It can be a deterant but not always.
BlueHen86 wrote:The problem is that it's not a deterant the way we use it. I'm against it, but if we're going to have it, it should be slow, painful and televised.GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:
Saving oxygen for those that deserve it. I also think that there are people that will never and could never be reformed and can't be trusted even with assholes in jail. The Norway terrorist (won't use his name as it is what he wants) knew it wasn't an option for him so he didn't think very hard about what he was going to do. It can be a deterant but not always.
The first really isn't a benefit and the deterant theory can't really be proved.GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:Saving oxygen for those that deserve it. I also think that there are people that will never and could never be reformed and can't be trusted even with assholes in jail. The Norway terrorist (won't use his name as it is what he wants) knew it wasn't an option for him so he didn't think very hard about what he was going to do. It can be a deterant but not always.89Hen wrote:I guess here's the second question... what is the benefit of capital punishment?
It can't be dis-proved either.89Hen wrote:The first really isn't a benefit and the deterant theory can't really be proved.GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:
Saving oxygen for those that deserve it. I also think that there are people that will never and could never be reformed and can't be trusted even with assholes in jail. The Norway terrorist (won't use his name as it is what he wants) knew it wasn't an option for him so he didn't think very hard about what he was going to do. It can be a deterant but not always.
The oxygen thing can be expanded to lots of resources but is mostly just a smart ass answer from me. If you asked me a year ago I would have said yes faster than I could type it, but today... probably not.93henfan wrote:89, would you support the death penalty for a murderer caught on video committing the act, assuming a fairly quick trial and execution that would save the state hundreds of thousands of dollars over a life sentence?
What changed?89Hen wrote:If you asked me a year ago I would have said yes faster than I could type it, but today... probably not.93henfan wrote:89, would you support the death penalty for a murderer caught on video committing the act, assuming a fairly quick trial and execution that would save the state hundreds of thousands of dollars over a life sentence?
Not exactly sure. It just doesn't feel right any more.travelinman67 wrote:What changed?89Hen wrote: If you asked me a year ago I would have said yes faster than I could type it, but today... probably not.
The oxygen thing is not that bad of an answer. Think about all the resources spent on accomodating scumbags which would be better spent on children.GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:It can't be dis-proved either.89Hen wrote: The first really isn't a benefit and the deterant theory can't really be proved.
I respectfully disagree. Juries are properly entrusted with the life- death decision, and defendants are protected if the required vote is unanimity or a supermajority. In Delaware, IIRC, there 's a statute allowing judges to make the decision if the non- unanimous jury vote is at a certain level. It's rarely used. There 's no evidence that judges are better able to evaluate the required " aggravating factors" than a jury. I'm for the death penalty.BlueHen86 wrote:The standard to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt". If we're going to have the death penalty the standard should be beyond any doubt. I also wouldn't trust the decision to a typical jury. Let the jury decide on guilt or innocence, but let a panel of judges review the evidence and make the decision on whether or not to execute.AZGrizFan wrote:I'm for it in the case of egregious crimes where the perp was caught red-handed (i.e., Jeffrey Dahlmer types)...you know, if a guy gets into a shootout with 6 cops and kills 3 before he's wounded and taken into custody...cops burst in on a guy caught in the act of sexually molesting a little girl...that sort of thing. In that scenario there should be a very limited appeals process and the execution should be timely. In my opinon, the 20+ year appeals process is cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself.
grizzaholic wrote:89Hen wrote: So you'd be in favor of giving a severly diabled person the chair.
