|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 17, 2016 8:21:25 GMT -6
let's execute those who kill through drunk driving. Same reasoning. That would be fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 17, 2016 16:01:15 GMT -6
let's execute those who kill through drunk driving. Same reasoning. That would be fine with me. Since you once advocated for murdering Julian Assange for the crime of publishing embarrassing diplomatic cables, I find nothing you say surprising.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 20, 2016 9:12:57 GMT -6
That would be fine with me. Since you once advocated for murdering Julian Assange for the crime of publishing embarrassing diplomatic cables, I find nothing you say surprising. [/quote] And yet my positions are defensible. Treason deserves the death penalty. So does murder via automobile.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 20, 2016 16:40:52 GMT -6
Since you once advocated for murdering Julian Assange for the crime of publishing embarrassing diplomatic cables, I find nothing you say surprising. And yet my positions are defensible. Let's see. But you didn't advocate for the death penalty, you advocated that the USA should murder him. You were very explicit. Maybe it's because back then you knew that Assange is Australian, and so you knew he couldn't be executed by the US for treason. I guess when you can't find a legal way to kill folks, you advocate murder. Deaths caused by inebriated operation of a vehicle, if accidental, don't count as murder, even if the perpetrator is a repeat offender who casually puts other people at risk every time he goes for a drink. That's because murder must be malicious and premeditated. But you know this Joe. You teach it to us all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 24, 2016 5:22:22 GMT -6
The bias in the death penalty is actually against white males. Then it should be ended, no? Or is a bias against white males ok? That is a strange conclusion. There is bias against whites in college admissions. Using your logic, the solution would be to eliminate collages. As a white male, I don't mind the bias in executions. I just want the false claims of anti-DP crusaders exposed.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 24, 2016 5:26:47 GMT -6
The important pros of the death penalty have been left out. What a surprise!! An important advantage of the death penalty is that it prevents murderers from killing again. Then let's execute those who kill through drunk driving. Same reasoning. Fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 24, 2016 5:33:20 GMT -6
Never heard of a drunk facing the DP. No matter how many casualties. Several years ago a drunk driver killed 32 people in a crash in Kentucky, near the Ohio border. Most were burned to death and many survivors were badly burned. Most of the dead and injured were children. The killer was later released on parole.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 24, 2016 11:12:02 GMT -6
you advocated that the USA should murder him. You were very explicit. I am not morally opposed to assassination in the defense of one's country. It wouldn't bother me if the U.S. had a contract on Assange. He's a vile, disgusting and dangerous human being. Deaths caused by inebriated operation of a vehicle, if accidental, don't count as murder Under California's Penal Code Sec. 187, they can. Read it.
|
|
|
Post by john - uk on Jun 25, 2016 6:30:27 GMT -6
The toll on people involved in the judicial process is higher when there is no death penalty for murder. That is because they still face the same negative consequences during the initial trial and then have to face it again at every parole hearing. As long as LWOP is an alternative, there's no parole hearings - and without the death penalty, you're free from the very real suffering the execution causes for those directly involved in it; guards, executioners and the friends and relatives of the inmate. We will often see LWOP offered as a plea bargain to avoid a possible death sentence. If you do away with the death penalty, what sentence will you then offer as part of a plea bargain?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 25, 2016 15:03:09 GMT -6
Then let's execute those who kill through drunk driving. Same reasoning. Fine with me. You're really going to follow Joe down that foolish hole? It isn't going so well for him.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 25, 2016 15:13:35 GMT -6
you advocated that the USA should murder him. You were very explicit. I am not morally opposed to assassination in the defense of one's country. It wouldn't bother me if the U.S. had a contract on Assange. He's a vile, disgusting and dangerous human being. No Joe. Pedophiles are vile, disgusting and dangerous, but you defend those against the DP. Publishers of classified diplomatic gossip, on the other hand are basically harmless, except that they embarrass politicians who aren't acting in the public interests. For such publishers, you abandon your laughably "strong stance" concerning the rule of law and prescribe murder without trial applied at the whim of the current incumbent. Some whacked out priorities, no doubt. Deaths caused by inebriated operation of a vehicle, if accidental, don't count as murder Under California's Penal Code Sec. 187, they can. That concerns fetuses you bonehead.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 25, 2016 15:16:41 GMT -6
As long as LWOP is an alternative, there's no parole hearings - and without the death penalty, you're free from the very real suffering the execution causes for those directly involved in it; guards, executioners and the friends and relatives of the inmate. We will often see LWOP offered as a plea bargain to avoid a possible death sentence. If you do away with the death penalty, what sentence will you then offer as part of a plea bargain? Plea bargaining should be illegal. If the defendant is innocent, it is basically a way of coercing a false confession out of fear of a greater penalty. If the defendant is guilty, it is basically a way of giving a scumbag an easier sentence than he deserves. Either way, justice suffers.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 27, 2016 9:23:13 GMT -6
Pedophiles are vile, disgusting and dangerous, but you defend those against the DP. They do not threaten the security of an entire country, nor do they commit acts of murder, else they would be defined as murderers, not as pedophiles. Publishers of classified diplomatic gossip, on the other hand are basically harmless, except that they embarrass politicians who aren't acting in the public interests. For such publishers, you abandon your laughably "strong stance" concerning the rule of law and prescribe murder without trial applied at the whim of the current incumbent. I assume Assange's revelations have proximately caused several deaths. It's not "diplomatic gossip." That concerns fetuses you bonehead. If you read California Penal Code Sections 187 et seq., you will see the definition of murder loosely defined as including the acts of drunken drivers. Pregnant mothers have also been prosecuted for murder when their drug habits result in the death of unborn children.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 27, 2016 12:11:07 GMT -6
Pedophiles are vile, disgusting and dangerous, but you defend those against the DP. They do not threaten the security of an entire country, No, but they do threaten the security of children. Most people regard protecting children as kinda important. Well you can assume whatever you like, of course. I'm more of an evidence man myself. Do you have any? Okay, so 187 is about fetuses. By "et seq." I take it you mean the part after 187? Couldn't find it. Could you quote what you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 27, 2016 15:52:37 GMT -6
You're really going to follow Joe down that foolish hole? It isn't going so well for him. That was your proposal. I am simply not objecting. That means that I am following you, not Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 27, 2016 16:26:16 GMT -6
Okay, so 187 is about fetuses. By "et seq." I take it you mean the part after 187? Section 187. (a) "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 27, 2016 16:45:22 GMT -6
You're really going to follow Joe down that foolish hole? It isn't going so well for him. That was your proposal. I am simply not objecting. That means that I am following you, not Joe. Then maybe you will follow me further. How about executing incompetent electricians whose faulty wiring jobs lead to people being killed? It would prevent further accidents of the same sort, so it is justified by the reasoning you have so far found agreeable.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 27, 2016 16:47:30 GMT -6
Okay, so 187 is about fetuses. By "et seq." I take it you mean the part after 187? Section 187. (a) "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." Do try to quote the whole thing Donnie. Here is 187 in total: "187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law."
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 27, 2016 16:57:54 GMT -6
Section 187. (a) "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." Do try to quote the whole thing Donnie. Here is 187 in total: "187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law." The key phrase is "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being". Putting in the rest doesn't change that fact in the slightest. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "or". As for a DUI homicide being charged under Section 187, you need to looke up "Watson Murder".
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 27, 2016 17:21:00 GMT -6
www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law. 188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite such awareness is included within the definition of malice. Thus a drunken driver who commits homicide can be prosecuted for murder.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 27, 2016 19:13:02 GMT -6
Do try to quote the whole thing Donnie. Here is 187 in total: "187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law." The key phrase is "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being". Putting in the rest doesn't change that fact in the slightest. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "or". I wasn't struggling with "or". I was struggling to find the part where it said anything about drunk driving. Very informative, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 27, 2016 19:18:33 GMT -6
It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. Do you support the DP (a) for all cases in which someone is killed by a drunken driver. (b) for only those cases in which the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. ?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 28, 2016 8:46:23 GMT -6
Do you support the DP (a) for all cases in which someone is killed by a drunken driver (b) for only those cases in which the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. Only someone with an abandoned or malignant heart would drink and drive, so I'd have them executed.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 28, 2016 12:35:12 GMT -6
Do you support the DP (a) for all cases in which someone is killed by a drunken driver (b) for only those cases in which the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. Only someone with an abandoned or malignant heart would drink and drive, Not if they just made a dopey decision while under the influence.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 28, 2016 12:57:28 GMT -6
Not if they just made a dopey decision while under the influence. Only someone with an abandoned or malignant heart would decide to BE under the influence. Hang them in the public square, draw, quarter and flay them alive.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 28, 2016 17:27:31 GMT -6
Not if they just made a dopey decision while under the influence. Only someone with an abandoned or malignant heart would decide to BE under the influence. Feed them to the Kraken!!
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 29, 2016 17:54:32 GMT -6
Not if they just made a dopey decision while under the influence. Only someone with an abandoned or malignant heart would decide to BE under the influence. Hang them in the public square, draw, quarter and flay them alive. The 8th Amendment might have something to say about that, but it seems that you only care about the laws you like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 8:29:57 GMT -6
Only someone with an abandoned or malignant heart would decide to BE under the influence. Hang them in the public square, draw, quarter and flay them alive. The 8th Amendment might have something to say about that, but it seems that you only care about the laws you like. I find it extremely amusing that a norsky (not an American norsky) gives a shyt about our laws and amendments. The 8th amendment if actually even noticed should go against all your very special murderers. Don't you think? Of course you don't think. You just lie, manipulate and love you a bunch of murderers.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 30, 2016 8:36:58 GMT -6
The 8th Amendment might have something to say about that, but it seems that you only care about the laws you like. I would repeal the Eighth Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 30, 2016 10:03:53 GMT -6
Only someone with an abandoned or malignant heart would decide to BE under the influence. Hang them in the public square, draw, quarter and flay them alive. The 8th Amendment might have something to say about that, but it seems that you only care about the laws you like. The 8th Amendment does not have anything to do with a malignant heart, while under the influence. Nor does it agree with flay them alive etc. The Amendment is NOT saying no DP to be used for those who murder, it does not allow for example, burn alive, blow up with bombs etc ... does not allow the DP for rape or kidnapping in itself. I would never agree with doing away with the 8th Amendment.
|
|