Originally posted by Joe FistFirst off, how can you be so heartless? You care about the homeless and money more than peoples' souls? Secondly, why should you pay for a homeless shelter? It's not your fault they didn't stay in school, or are too lazy to get a job.
I could careless if Scott Peterson or any other murderer is "sorry" for what they did. It's over all much more cost effective, if anything, to exterminate this vermin. It kills me (no pun intended) how we are so damn concerned about being humane to the subhuman.
BLReid is dead on. Where is the humanity in the deaths of both Lacy Peterson and her un ...[text shortened]... I am concerned) is going to him rotting in a cell for the next 40+ years I say that's a waste.
-reagan
Originally posted by Joe FistIt's a bit silly to draw any more than probabilistic conclusions about someone's worth to society from a single action. In any case, from a pragmatic point of view, imprisoning someone for life costs society less in money and dissension than executing them does.
I honestly do not see the relevence in dissecting the title of the lawsuit. Let me define myself clearly: If the death penalty stops crimes from happening (which I know it does not) that's a bonus. If it gives some comfort to the families of the victim (which I do care about but how can it really?) that's also a bonus. The Scott Petersons of the world ...[text shortened]... o exist? Please spare me the notion of rehabilitating him too? Who cares? He is not worth it!
What I was saying before is that the feelings of the victims family are of no consequence; what's at issue is that murder is illegal and punishment exists soleley to give weight to those words. THe Hrothgarian translates to:
''Blood feuds are barbaric but equal justice is the way of good people.''
Originally posted by TheSkipperWell through the red tape system we have now of endless appeals is a drain on the system, so in that sense, yes there is a hole.
I wonder how many time this must be said before people start hearing it.
It costs WAY more to put a prisoner to death (due to all the appeals) than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.
Kinda shoots holes in your argument, dosen't it?
TheSkipper
Hey I have no problem in shoving this guy into the general population of prison. Let the animals deal with him just like Jeffrey Dalmer was dealt with.
Originally posted by Joe FistThat really seems to be the best way and a lot more painful than the little needle prick of lethal injection. A broomstick up the ass might just do it.
Well through the red tape system we have now of endless appeals is a drain on the system, so in that sense, yes there is a hole.
Hey I have no problem in shoving this guy into the general population of prison. Let the animals deal with him just like Jeffrey Dalmer was dealt with.
Originally posted by gameover9How am I heartless? I didn't decide to murder a woman who was expecting. In fact, like I imagine most sane people, when life's challenges get in the way, I never consider "murder" as an option. As far my stance on the shelter, let me see if I understand what you are saying: You think its much more worthwhile to have a convicted murderer spend the rest of their days in jail at our expense then to give to a person who say lost everything in an earthquake or whatever situation?
First off, how can you be so heartless? You care about the homeless and money more than peoples' souls? Secondly, why should you pay for a homeless shelter? It's not your fault they didn't stay in school, or are too lazy to get a job.
-reagan
"It's not your fault they didn't stay in school, or are too lazy to get a job"? And you are calling me "heartless"? Nice way to generalize all people who have fallen on hard times in their lives. Hopefully it will never happen to you.
Originally posted by royalchickenIt's silly to draw a conclusion? He murdered his wife and child. He's a murderer. Call me silly then.
It's a bit silly to draw any more than probabilistic conclusions about someone's worth to society from a single action. In any case, from a pragmatic point of view, imprisoning someone for life costs society less in money and dissension than executing them does.
What I was saying before is that the feelings of the victims family are of no conseque ...[text shortened]... an translates to:
''Blood feuds are barbaric but equal justice is the way of good people.''
Yes I know the appeal process for executions is a HUGE drain on resources but, that needs massive reform as well. If there wasn't the massive ability to appeal, the drain would go away. I'm not arguing there are serious defects in the system but some of these vermin will actually be living better than some retired citizens on their social security.
As I said before, if it is any comfort to the family of the victim to have this person executed then that is a bonus. My want for the execution of murderers is not based in revenge. Where I live, we occasionaly have mountain lion attacks where the lion may kill a bike rider or runner or someone. There is an all points bulletin put out and if the lion is found, it is exterminated. Scott Peterson is lower than the animal. Why do we give one iota of a damn to what his rights are? Why do we bend over backwards to make sure the most vile of people are treated the most fairly once convicted of their crime?
Originally posted by Joe FistLet me get this straight. You are *NOT* in favor of extensive appeals before we KILL SOMEONE!? Look, Scott Peterson was convicted and then sentenced by 12 people to stupid to get out of jury duty, I would hope he gets to have a few more days in court before we KILL him.
Yes I know the appeal process for executions is a HUGE drain on resources but, that needs massive reform as well. If there wasn't the massive ability to appeal, the drain would go away. I'm not arguing there are serious defects in the system but some of these vermin will actually be living better than some retired citizens on their social security.
Besides, our court system is imperfect. Until it is perfect it is uncontionable to sentence anyone to the ultimate punishment. It really is that simple.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperOf course I believe in the ability to appeal several times but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I also agree that in some cases (OJ's trial and Rodney King's comes to mind) the sharpest crayons in the pack are not always called to jury duty.
Let me get this straight. You are *NOT* in favor of extensive appeals before we KILL SOMEONE!? Look, Scott Peterson was convicted and then sentenced by 12 people to stupid to get out of jury duty, I would hope he gets to have a few more days in court before we KILL him.
Besides, our court system is imperfect. Until it is perfect it is uncontionable to sentence anyone to the ultimate punishment. It really is that simple.
TheSkipper
I am not claiming to have all the answers but I am claiming that having a convicted murderer spend all of his days in jail is insane. How conclusive do you need the evidence to be before you convict someone? For better or for worse, our legal system for the most part works. It will never be "perfect" like anything else in this life and there will always be innocent men wrongfully accused put to death. Keep in mind this is in no way the majority of what happens. In our society we are given a fair trial by our peers. They render a decision and we have to right to appeal. If the appeal fails we are forced to deal with the conclusion.
Originally posted by gameover9So what's the difference between Scott Peterson's soul and Sadam Hussein's?
Let him think about it for the rest of his life. The only reason that would maybe make the death penalty right would be for example somone like Sadam Hussein if found guilty could not possibly be kept in a secure prison and there was a high risk of excape.
-reagan
Originally posted by Joe FistHoe do you know you got the right mountain lion?
It's silly to draw a conclusion? He murdered his wife and child. He's a murderer. Call me silly then.
Yes I know the appeal process for executions is a HUGE drain on resources but, that needs massive reform as well. If there wasn't the massive ability to appeal, the drain would go away. I'm not arguing there are serious defects in the system but ...[text shortened]... to make sure the most vile of people are treated the most fairly once convicted of their crime?
Originally posted by mrrowieThat is an excellent point. We don't know for sure. We go by the assumption that there are not many lions in the area and when an attack occurs and one is in the vicinity of the attack, they are the culprit.
Hoe do you know you got the right mountain lion?
Scott Peterson had much more resources at his disposal to prove or disprove his case. After an extensive trial, he was convicted and found guilty. He has the right to appeal and he should if he beliefs himself to be innocent. Hopefully the appeals won't gone on forever and won't cost the taxpayer a great deal of money but I know it will.
When the appeal process is done and if the same conclusion is drawn to, he deserves to die.
Originally posted by TheSkipperSo eliminate the appeals...no more cost...good night Scott.
I wonder how many time this must be said before people start hearing it.
It costs WAY more to put a prisoner to death (due to all the appeals) than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.
Kinda shoots holes in your argument, dosen't it?
TheSkipper
If you couldn't detect the humor in that last post, well, too bad. Of course there should be an appelate process, but it has gotten out of control. That does not justify an argument against the death penalty, however. A look needs to be taken at why the appelate system costs as much as it does (ahem, lawers?), and an attempt should be made to streamline the process. I wish I had more time to dedicate to this thread, but Joe Fist is carrying the banner just fine. Death to Scott Peterson, and all others of his kind. (only because this society finds torture so distasteful). And to answer a question put to me earlier...I don't know of anyone who was ever put in prison for speeding (it's a civil offense, not criminal). But as Joe Fist already said, that was way off topic, and attempting to generalize like that is really a pathetic tactic to try to use to justify your "bleeding heart" stance on capitol punishment. Have a cup of coffee (or whatever you drink) and get over it. Besides, we all know the reality that it will be years, if ever, before Mr. Peterson ceases to come down for breakfast at the hands of the State.
Have you ever heard these words from the Bible? "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or the parable of the servant who owes a lot of money to his master, and forgives him the debt. The servant then goes out and finds a man that owes him not nearly as much but has him put in jail. The master finds out about this and has him handed over to the torturers until he pays back all of it.
If you want mercy, render mercy.
As far my stance on the shelter, let me see if I understand what you are saying: You think its much more worthwhile to have a convicted murderer spend the rest of their days in jail at our expense then to give to a person who say lost everything in an earthquake or whatever situation?
That’s not what I’m saying, but at least they’re still alive. I think it’s great to support a homeless shelter. Your going to pay taxes anyway for one thing or another and like one poster said, it will cost more to give the death penalty.
"It's not your fault they didn't stay in school, or are too lazy to get a job"? And you are calling me "heartless"? Nice way to generalize all people who have fallen on hard times in their lives. Hopefully it will never happen to you.
Ok, I did stereotype there and I’m sorry.
So what's the difference between Scott Peterson's soul and Sadam Hussein's?
I would guess both would be a good reason for the death penalty if there was not a secure place to put them.
-reagan
Originally posted by gameover9
Have you ever heard these words from the Bible? "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or the parable of the servant who owes a lot of money to his master, and forgives him the debt. The servant then goes out and finds a man that owes him not nearly as much but has him put in jail. The master finds out about this and has him handed over to the torturers until he pays back all of it.
If you want mercy, render mercy.
Yes I have been exposed to the Bible far beyond my intentions. To be quite honest, I don't understand the point you are attempting to make? So Scott Peterson should be shown mercy? Sure. Let's show him the same mercy he showed his wife and unborn child. If my neighbor is a convicted murderer, I'm going to have a hard time "loving" them.