|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 30, 2014 3:25:49 GMT -6
Except for the 3rd(unfortunately), the death penalty may be described as both degrading to human dignity, inflicted in an arbitrary fashion and - perhaps most of all - patently unnecessary. Whether the courts will come to their senses and realise this, is a wholly different question. Still, where there's life there's hope Hey, SCUMPAL-you missed this in the Fifth Amendment. T'would seem, as usual, you're dumb as a post. "No person shall be held to answer for a CAPITAL, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It would seem that the Founders of our great nation both contemplated and specifically authorized the use of the death penalty. So why don't you just take off over to PTO and join the amen chorus of sob sisters over there? The fact that people made mistakes several hundred years ago, is hardly a reason to continue doing the same - and the U.S. is hardly a "great" nation...
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 29, 2014 12:12:31 GMT -6
Hopefully, the courts will stand firm on the 8th amendment - "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted". In Furman v. Georgia, the following four principles were used: -The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. -"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." (Furman v. Georgia temporarily suspended capital punishment for this reason.) -"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." -"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary. Except for the 3rd(unfortunately), the death penalty may be described as both degrading to human dignity, inflicted in an arbitrary fashion and - perhaps most of all - patently unnecessary. Whether the courts will come to their senses and realise this, is a wholly different question. Still, where there's life there's hope
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 28, 2014 6:04:09 GMT -6
Norway abolished the death penalty for civil crimes in 1902, but kept it for war crimes and the military code of justice until sometime in the 70s - thus explaining the post-war executions. The far-right party in parliament used to support a reintroduction for war crimes, but even they have eventually come to their senses.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 27, 2014 19:30:51 GMT -6
I guess you checked with every single MVS in Norway how they feel about all this. If you are going to say such things maybe you should check with each and every victim and their family and friends. That's right the victims are dead so they really can't say what they want to. That was taken away from them by the murderers that you think are such fine people. Once again scumpals such as yourself make up the facts to fit their very own agenda. Aren't you from Italy? to use the victims and their loved ones to save your murderers is DISGUSTING..
1: Why do you automatically reckon that MVS's support the death penalty? Those who wish for reconciliation and forgiveness rather than another death are consistently ignored, while those who lust for blood and revenge far too often ends up getting exactly what they wanted. No one gave you the right to speak on behalf of all MVS's - the fact that you can't fathom how some people are able to forgive rather than hate, says more than I guess you'll care to admit.
2: If you tell me which facts you believe I've made up, I'll be glad to find sources - as long as you can find a single Norwegian MVS who has pronounced a wish for the death penalty in this case. It's worth remembering that the youth at Utøya died because they believed in a free, decent, forgiving society - the only one who has consistently stated a wish for the death penalty is Breivik himself.
3: Italy...? Where do you get that from? I was born and raised just outside Oslo, and live close to the city centre - Bygdøy allé, if you're that curious.
4: Yes, the victims are dead - but that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to speak up on their behalf. The fact that you still have the gall to do this in a case which you're impressively ignorant about, says more about your sense of self-worth than anything else. Unless you know that those who died supported the death penalty, pretending to speak on their behalf is disgusting. If you really are an MVS yourself, I'd expect better.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 26, 2014 21:00:49 GMT -6
I would absolutely have to agree with you that the standard of living and arguably quality of society is much higher in the Scandinavian countries in comparison to the United States. But I feel no matter how idyllic a society is with it's generally low crime rates, there should be a 'worst case scenario' provision. I can distinctly think of one modern example where that progressive system of criminal justice has failed: Anders Breivik. Due to this system, Norwegian law could only impose a MAXIMUM of 21 years. Do you think that is fair? After the bombing and massacre in 2011, I'm sure a great many Norwegian people (especially the family of the victims) wished Norway had an emergency legal provision allowing the death penalty in the most extreme of circumstances. Though this is a common misunderstanding, that's no excuse. First of all, Breivik was sentenced to 21 years of detention with a minimum of 10 years - which is the most severe penalty in the Norwegian court system. This penalty will extended every 5 years, as long as the defendant is deemed a risk to society - this means that he is, essentially, sentenced to life with the option of parole. Though parole is an option, the sentence states that the society he wished to eradicate will still be here after 21 years - thus, he will still be dangerous. (The sentence(in Norwegian) may be found here . Besides, it's important to mention that the only one who publicly supported the death penalty was the defendant himself. The Norwegian death penalty was abolished for civil crimes in 1902, and for war crimes in 1979. As of now, no major political parties are trying to reinstate it - single politicians have stated support for it, but they're seldom taken seriously. Neither has those left behind - rather than to cry out for blood, they have chosen to remember those who fell and what they fought for. They died because they believed in a world of peace, forgiveness and solidarity - to use them in defense of killing is disgusting, to say the least. Next time, please check up on facts before writing.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 24, 2014 18:45:50 GMT -6
The deciding factor should be whether you'd allow yourself or your loved ones to go through it. On the other hand dearest fugly........ The deciding factor should be whether you'd allow yourself or loved ones to go through being murdered. I know you won't have anything to say about that. You never do. You just keep on typing the propaganda put out by all of your scumpal friends. You don't care one bit about the victims or the people that loved them. You just love your precious murderers. Aaaw... You're so cute when you're angry
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 22, 2014 11:05:32 GMT -6
Hello everyone, this is my first post. The primary catalyst for me joining this forum was all the public backlash that has resulted from the McGuire execution, and so I guess this is a convenient opportunity to express my view on the future of lethal injection and the future of the death penalty in this country. To state it up front, I am absolutely pro capital punishment for the worst of the worst that humanity has to offer. I have been in the opinion for many years that the use of lethal injection is a poor half measure, designed to satisfy both sides of the argument, the pro DP camp and anti. The result I feel is the universal opinion that it really satisfies neither. The anti folks will always be against the DP no matter what the method, and the pro side feels as if lethal injection is a 'soft option'. As a proponent of capital punishment, I strongly lean in the later category. Simply put, I feel as if LI has no value as a deterrent to violent criminals, of which that aspect has been one of the primary arguments of why there needs to be a death penalty in the first place. At the same time, despite my gut instinct to want to see these vicious disgusting people have meted out the same degree of pain and terror their victims experienced, I know that we as a civilized society must use constraint as the constitution prevents literal 'eye for an eye' punishments. So in short, the ideal method of punishment should be a balance between 'fear factor' and constitutionality. In my opinion, out of all the current legal methods, the electric chair and the gas chamber have that mix, but due to the numerous variables as those methods are applied, neither has proven predictable results. Oh, hi and welcome! Just a quick question: Lethal injection in the U.S. began with Texas in 1982(me thinks), and has eventually replaced earlier and more brutal methods of execution. As lethal injection has grown, the murder rate has sunk( thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides-1900-2010-2.jpg ). On what grounds do you assume more brutal methods would deter more murders?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 22, 2014 0:17:21 GMT -6
The deciding factor should be whether you'd allow yourself or your loved ones to go through it.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 21, 2014 14:44:05 GMT -6
The obvious solution would be to scrap the death penalty altogether If they - despite all common sense - insist on keeping it, the only factor worth considering is the importance of a quick, humane and painless death.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 12, 2014 18:26:26 GMT -6
Heck, I'm all for it! Just as long as the murder rate drops proportionally to zero over that same period. 25(2014), 15(2015), 7(2016)...Zero(2020). Good. The murder rate has nothing to do with the rate of executions - the murder rate of the U.S. compared to countries without the death penalty should be enough to crush the deterrence argument. And when that fails, what's left?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 12, 2014 18:20:11 GMT -6
She can't be found innocent by DNA testing. . In cases like this, it's worth remembering that guilt has to be proven - doubt is to the benefit of the inmate. The release of a guilty murderer is unfortunate, the execution of an innocent person is a tragedy. The fact that certain judges still fail to grasp this, is merely a sign of how *screwed* up the U.S. court is and always has been.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Dec 4, 2013 17:22:10 GMT -6
Pronouced dead at at 6:27 pm central time. Susan Canfields Husband & daughter were there. 6 executions are scheduled for the early months of 2014. As well as relatives of Jerry Martin - may they both rest in peace.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 16, 2013 17:03:45 GMT -6
Listen here, you @ss. If you have nothing intelligent to say, just shut up. Go swoon somewhere else. That could be said about most of the posts around here:P What still matters, though, is the fact that there are friends, relatives and others left behind by both murders and executions - and in many ways, they all go through the same. Even people on death row has parents, children, spouses and friends - murderers are more than their crimes, and that needs to be remembered. The fact that some people equate attention to the murderer with disrespect towards the victim, is their own problem. Besides, we all eventually end up in the same hell anyway:P
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 14, 2013 19:34:03 GMT -6
Requiescat in pace...
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 7, 2013 7:50:36 GMT -6
Requiescat in Pace...
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Sept 28, 2013 17:39:06 GMT -6
Requiescat in pace - may the victim of the murder and the victim of the execution both rest in peace.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Sept 6, 2013 17:10:40 GMT -6
And Matt - the Nobel Peace price has never been awarded by the Swedes; it has always been the domain of the Nobel Institute in Oslo. You might want to check your sources It doesn't matter who awards the prize. It is who nominates that matters. For example, in physics: www.nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/That's physics, not The Peace Prize. There is a difference, and(being a grown-up) you should check these things out before making unfounded statements.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Sept 6, 2013 5:16:19 GMT -6
You must live in a broom closet because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Your pal Obama signed the “National Defense Authorization Act” and thereby gave the military the power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge, or trial, for merely being under suspicion of having ties to terrorists. As for Obama being a conservative; you’re dreaming because no real conservative would ever so blatantly trample on the Constitutional Rights of the citizenry. Well said. Guantanamo Bay has detained people vaguely suspected of possibly being involved in terrorist acts for years. The fact that they're foreigners doesn't make this any less of a human rights disaster. To say that no conservative would do such a thing is therefore pure and utter *bullcrap*.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Sept 5, 2013 18:27:16 GMT -6
He's so screwed that he might as well go big. It would make no difference and that makes him super dangerous. Walking corpse. I think Obama is the super dangerous one to be concerned about, Snowden is side show. The only thing scary about Obama is that he's too conservative. Otherwise, he seems like a decent fellow - at least compared to his predecessor and his cabinet, who were(with all due respect) an utter disaster.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Sept 4, 2013 16:02:50 GMT -6
Who among you honestly believes that the U.S. Govt. would make this public if they had a choice? The public has a right to know when their government screws up, which they have in this case. He might be a traitor to the U.S., but he should be a hero to the rest of the world. And as long as his revelations hasn't caused any deaths, he can hardly be said to have damaged anything else than the U.S. reputation. And Matt - the Nobel Peace price has never been awarded by the Swedes; it has always been the domain of the Nobel Institute in Oslo. You might want to check your sources
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 21, 2013 19:17:45 GMT -6
A better alternative would be somebody who could visualize the fates of the murderers victims. It is quite difficult for me to imagine that one would have to be a sociopath to assist a murderer by providing him with a lethal injection. Unfortunately anyone who can visualize the humanity of murder victims can potentially see the humanity of murderers. I'm sure if you interviewed anyone who used to execute inmates, s/he will tell you that s/he remembered the victims when they pushed the buttons, and that it didn't make it any easier. The best-qualified people to be executioners are the ones already on death row. They'll do the work, go back to their cells, and not lose a minute's sleep over it. When the fact that they're killing another human being doesn't affect the executioners, that's a definite sign that they should stop and find a psychiatrist instead.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 21, 2013 6:38:33 GMT -6
I hate you! I know
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 8, 2013 5:48:42 GMT -6
Hell is probably filled up already, mostly by fundamentalist Christians.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 7, 2013 20:18:40 GMT -6
Requiescat in pace...
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 26, 2013 18:20:36 GMT -6
Unless you can back it up with sources, that's hardly a serious argument... And yes, no executed murderer killed again - but how many of those incarcerated for murder kills again? The extremely minor risk of a murderer killing again while behind bars is hardly worth the death penalty I meant to hit quote not that I like your complete gibberish. Where are your sources fugly? You expect everyone here to kiss your murderer loving butt. You won't answer any questions asked of you or bring proof of you being a MVS. Why would anyone want to answer your moronic questions? I would love to see that no one would even bother with you but you just like to push the buttons, so someone always will and I will always point out what a lying, manipulative nasty little troll you really are. Please, be a grown-up and keep to the subject instead of makin unfounded and irrelevant accusations. Whether people are mvs's, friends and relatives of the convict or anyone else id hardly relevant regarding their opinions on the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 26, 2013 14:11:06 GMT -6
Any citations for the "fact" that the death penalty significantly deters murders? Obviously the dead have no opportunity to murder another again inside or out. Having the DP on the books may work for some not to kill, any citations "facts" for that? I say, that does deter. Unless you can back it up with sources, that's hardly a serious argument... And yes, no executed murderer killed again - but how many of those incarcerated for murder kills again? The extremely minor risk of a murderer killing again while behind bars is hardly worth the death penalty
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 26, 2013 12:19:10 GMT -6
Any citations for the "fact" that the death penalty significantly deters murders?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 13, 2013 21:13:27 GMT -6
Then you need to have your bifocals adjusted and take another look at the Second Amendment. Gun ownership is a RIGHT; it is NOT a privilege like driving a car. Therefore, to compel the citizenry to register their firearms, as a condition of owning them, is an infringement on such Right. DO YOU GET IT NOW? "Shall not be infringed." DID THAT SINK IN? The important word in that amendment is well-regulated, not infringed... Besides - it's telling how those who needs guns the least(white, middle-aged men) are the one's who screams loudest about their "rights" being "denied"...
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 6, 2013 10:27:24 GMT -6
Discuss
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 5, 2013 6:11:10 GMT -6
Thank you for your replies. Certainly lots to think about. Untill such time I've come to a conclusion, I'd prefer them to die as they have lived and burn in hell thereafter. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. Hypocrisy, thy name is charon.
|
|