The Death Penalty Rapes us All

[chaz wyman]

Execution.

So what is your point?

So you think one example of a failure is a reason to support execution?
What about all the people executed that were not responsible for the crime they committed?

What about those innocent people killed by the state, and the other ones that will be killed by the state if CP is brought back?

[chaz wyman]

reasonvemotion wrote:
Preferrably one without Gary Ridgway free and attending rehabilitation sessions.

UK wrote:
But he's not is he?

If the mob have their way................Ticktock, ticktock, ticktock.

PS

Ridgway would have got the death penalty, except he had a good lawyer and took a plea bargain, in exchange to give further names of more victims and where they could be located.

An argument against CP is not an argument for letting criminals go free.
You are creating a strawman.

[chaz wyman]

Of course, just a quick bullet through the head with no chance to appeal. I'm pretty sure it's not as 'efficient' as you seem to think

as i've stated before, i strongly believe in the notion that "accused are innocent until proven guilty" and yes,i also believe in appeals.

There is no appeal from death.
So, no, you do not believe in appeals in this case

[reasonvemotion]

What about those innocent people killed by the state, and the other ones that will be killed by the state if CP is brought back?

Those innocent people and the others. Sounds like quite a few. Care to name them

[Bernard]

I recall the case of Wesley Dodds from 20 odd years ago. Terrible stuff done to kids, and of course the guy had similar done to him as a child. He wanted execution. He said that he would only kill again. His time was up, and execution was what he had been inexorably moving toward.

You can look at some cases and see that the criminal has still life to live - Martyn Bryant the Tasmanian mass murderer- I mean, he was too much an idiot still to be able to die, if you know what I'm saying. All things have their time and fate can't be forced or delayed against the nature of the circumstances of these criminals .

In a country without execution, that goal (of being executed) doesn't exist for the would be slayer; instead they will often decide just to end it for themselves, and often during the crime. This seems to happen just as often in countries with execution and long death row. It would be interesting to see how many of these types of crimes end with the murderer murdering themselves in countries like China where execution is swift.

Its a very hard social system, and mostly inhuman, so if you want to attack it you have to expect to be whacked like a bug. The genuine peacemakers of any age have never been in charge, nor ever had aspirations to be so as I see it.

The death penalty doesn't rape as all, but it is a sad thing that it's there and that it won't be going away overnight.

[reasonvemotion]

they can be artists of all different kinds, they can even be computer programmers, market analysts, mathematicians, guitar players, whatever!

Ha..... treat them with tenderness. Whatever, indeed.

[johngalthasspoken]

It is often the case they are smart: so, why don't we take advantage of their smartness? They don't have to be released out of prison. And being in prison doesn't mean they can't be productive for themselves and society at large, it's not like they are brain-dead or anything! Smart serial killers can be used to catch other serial killers, they can be artists of all different kinds, they can even be computer programmers, market analysts, mathematicians, guitar players, whatever! There's a lot you can do inside a cell, especially in our present day state of technology.

If there ever existed a dumb serial killer, then I'm quite sure that since the majority of jobs in this world are for less progressively intelligent people then surely there are things for that person to do as well. If the person cannot be trusted then give the person a task which makes it hard to not complete. If the person does not want to do anything then you'll just have to try, and if you can't even then (which I find unlikely you should be so hard at getting to and even less unlikely that you do not succeed in the end), you'll just have to do the best out of it. What do you do when your child refuses to do entirely what you say? Refuses to eat... anything. You'll just have to be patient. To loose hope is the last one should loose. Optimism is the word.

How can anyone be this naive? i mean,this is absolute PC lunacy.
VOT, you seem like a pretty smart guy, but i'm gonna call bullshit on this.

[Atthet]

Do you want to know what really "rapes us all". It's when a militant, Zionist, pro-Israel man like Andrew Breivik can slaughter dozens of children with an automatic weapon, mowing them down, and this man has a "right to life". Now that, my friends, is rape.
Now that we've been raped, we just need to wait until next Friday night, when daddy comes home drunk, to visit his little daughters in their bedrooms again, late at night. Because nobody is stopping this.

Stopping this would mean executing this mother fucker. Ending the rape means murdering a murderer.

[The Voice of Time]

johnny you just want to squeeze the profit-margin out of people to be left with no value in the end. I want people to be happy, there's no higher gain in the world. That's where our divide lay, it got nothing to do with smartness least you think of smartness as being efficiency for your cause only.

[chaz wyman]

Do you want to know what really "rapes us all". It's when a militant, Zionist, pro-Israel man like Andrew Breivik can slaughter dozens of children with an automatic weapon, mowing them down, and this man has a "right to life". Now that, my friends, is rape.
Now that we've been raped, we just need to wait until next Friday night, when daddy comes home drunk, to visit his little daughters in their bedrooms again, late at night. Because nobody is stopping this.

Stopping this would mean executing this mother fucker. Ending the rape means murdering a murderer.

Explain how you get to decide who has and who has not the right to live?

Explain how killing improves the situation.

[chaz wyman]

What about those innocent people killed by the state, and the other ones that will be killed by the state if CP is brought back?

Those innocent people and the others. Sounds like quite a few. Care to name them

I cannot begin to list the number of people who have been gaoled by mistake. DO you think those on death row are immune from miscarriages of justice?
The dead tell no tales and their cases are not often looked at, but there are many suspect cases.

Derek Bentley was put to death by telling his friend to let the policeman have the gun; "Let him have it Chris!"
Instead of following his advice the boy killed the policeman, and Chris (who was over the age of consent), despite being in police custody at that moment swung for the crime. It was not until many years had passed that he was pardoned.

Sean Hodgson served 27 years for the murder ofd Teresa de Simone, all the time pleading his innocence, until DNA evidence completely exonerated him. If the Death Penalty had been in force then, you would not be reading this; he'd be dead and forgotten.

The Birmingham 7 and the Guildford 4 spent decades in gaol for terrorism, until the forensic evidence they were convicted on was shown to be false. had the death penalty been in force then you would not be reading about this; they would be dead and forgotten.

... the Maguire family

You can find some more if you wish.
How many do you need?

[Atthet]

Explain how you get to decide who has and who has not the right to live?

Explain how killing improves the situation.

Because I am morally superior to genetic feces, and I have mastered the art of Justice, dolling out who ought to live and who ought to die. If somebody doesn't do this, then who will? You? Should "right to life" be universal? I guess even the likes of Hitler should never be prosecuted, is that what you're saying? You're saying that if somebody kills millions of Jews, God's Chosen Ones, then he shouldn't face retribution?
That's exactly what you're saying, chaz.

Killing improves the situation by immediately removing the genes and existence of a mass murderer. Criminals need to be stopped before they breed. Crime is genetic. The sins of the father are passed on to his children. Rapists beget rapists.

[ForgedinHell]

Explain how you get to decide who has and who has not the right to live?

Explain how killing improves the situation.

Because I am morally superior to genetic feces, and I have mastered the art of Justice, dolling out who ought to live and who ought to die. If somebody doesn't do this, then who will? You? Should "right to life" be universal? I guess even the likes of Hitler should never be prosecuted, is that what you're saying? You're saying that if somebody kills millions of Jews, God's Chosen Ones, then he shouldn't face retribution?
That's exactly what you're saying, chaz.

Killing improves the situation by immediately removing the genes and existence of a mass murderer. Criminals need to be stopped before they breed. Crime is genetic. The sins of the father are passed on to his children. Rapists beget rapists.

Hitler's suicide did nothing to make the Jews feel better. The death penalty for the nazis, that did nothing to make the Jews feel better. Do you think the Jews go around saying that it is okay that babies were tossed into fires, and millions were murdered for the crime of being born, because the leaders who did these things, they got theirs? The very idea is laughable.

The nazis were among the first to employ the death penalty, quite widely, until it got to the point, in a very short time, that they could publish in the daily papers the use of the death penalty based solely on police command, without a trial, and the average German thought that was great, because it was getting rid of the criminals.

[chaz wyman]

Explain how you get to decide who has and who has not the right to live?

Explain how killing improves the situation.

Because I am morally superior to genetic feces, and I have mastered the art of Justice, dolling out who ought to live and who ought to die. If somebody doesn't do this, then who will? You? Should "right to life" be universal? I guess even the likes of Hitler should never be prosecuted, is that what you're saying? You're saying that if somebody kills millions of Jews, God's Chosen Ones, then he shouldn't face retribution?
That's exactly what you're saying, chaz.

Killing improves the situation by immediately removing the genes and existence of a mass murderer. Criminals need to be stopped before they breed. Crime is genetic. The sins of the father are passed on to his children. Rapists beget rapists.

You must think people are fools to fall far your pathetic strawman - chances are that you don't even know you are doing it.
No where sis I suggest I was against "prosecution", in fact I more than imply it as a necessary tool of jurisprudence. The argument is about capital punishment, not prosecution. Hitler and other people just like you are likely prospects of punishment. His views of racial superiority are not dissimilar to his. Both of you need to be separated from society.

There are no absolute rights, including the right you are assuming to take another life. And you justify that by saying you have superior genes!!

Prison removes criminals from society. You still have not said why you think killing is so important to you.
There is no gene for crime. If I made milk drinking illegal then are you saying that only black people would carry on drinking it because they have a crime gene?
And when Matin Luther King broke the laws of segregation in the South I suppose you think that was because he had those black crime genes? And when the Jews were made illegal by Hitler - was that because they had the criminal gene? Or was it because of "superior" idiots like you and Hitler?

[reasonvemotion]

For serial killers...... there is no cure only prevention. The death penalty.

You choose to ignore I stated "serial killers". To be a serial killer there has to be a series of killings. Nothing nebulous about that, not a single case has been convicted without the evidence of multiple bodies.

Concerning the crimes of others you have given as an example, does not apply to this.