|
Post by oslooskar on Nov 11, 2017 0:27:40 GMT -6
So for you to tell me to leave the country because I don't respect the constitution by writing my opinion contrary to yours is a lack of respect of the constitution on your part. As if I demanded your immediate exile from the United States for expressing an opinion contrary to my own. Seriously, stop being such a drama queen.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Nov 1, 2017 17:12:45 GMT -6
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual.” newsok.com/article/4744679 Chief Justice John Roberts is absolutely correct! And therefore you're back at square one because taking 35 fricken minutes to kill someone is NOT an "inescapable consequence of death" when a bullet in the back of the head would do the job in an instant and be completely painless. If some deaths take longer than others, well, so be it. On the contrary, we have an Eighth Amendment in this great nation of ours and if you can't respect it then go live in some other country. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Simplistic but true. Yes, it's simplistic but true. It's also a straw man argument and not relevant to what we are discussing here
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 30, 2017 11:46:41 GMT -6
If it was intentional to cause pain & suffering I would agree. Only then would it be criminal & sadistic. Where in the Eighth Amendment does it allow for the infliction of unintentional pain and suffering? If we followed your guideline we could burn the condemned at the stake and simply claim that it was not our intention to inflict pain and suffering upon the condemned but merely to dispose of him as efficiently as possible.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 29, 2017 21:28:53 GMT -6
To you who believe that lethal injection is cruel and unusual, I would say that the murders committed by the killers take more time and was way more painful than the drugs to be used to execute them. Even if that's true it's completely irrelevant and not a valid reason for allowing an execution to be carried out if it's cruel and unusual. After all, we use our Constitution as our guideline, not the criminal and sadistic acts of the condemned.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 23, 2017 0:05:25 GMT -6
35 minutes to kill the murderer doesn’t bother me a bit. Tiny Mercer put that poor waitress through hours of torture and suffering. I have no sympathy for the pain and suffering of the executed!!, It's not about what bothers or doesn't bother you or where your sympathies lie. We have a Constitution in this country and it needs to be upheld. In other words, if we're going to knock somebody off then we need to knock them off and that means NOT turning an execution into a Roman Holiday.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 22, 2017 12:18:23 GMT -6
GOOD GRIEF! The actual execution took thirty-five minutes to carry out. Seriously, if that is not cruel and unusual punishment then I really and truly don't know what is. Why can't they simply render the condemned unconscious and then shoot them in the back of the head?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 15, 2017 21:53:43 GMT -6
so why would we not support the UN ban on execution of homosexuals? As I understand it, and I may be wrong, we did not support the ban because it called for an end to all executions. Also, no one is going to support a ban on the execution of homosexuals. The ban was in reference to the executions of homosexuals for engaging in homosexual sex, not for murder.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 1, 2017 22:13:53 GMT -6
I did not know that she had died. And I must confess that I am very relieved that she won't have another job babysitting.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Sept 28, 2017 1:44:33 GMT -6
This SICK, SICK SOB just needs to be beaten to death with a rubber hose. Summary of Incident On 09/26/1986, in Harris County, Texas, Shore kidnapped a fifteen year old white female and strangled her to death with a cord. Shore then dumped the victim's body behind a Ninfa's Restaurant. On 04/16/1992 in Harris County, Texas, Shore kidnapped a twenty-one year old Hispanic female, sexually assaulted her and strangled her to death with a cord. Shore then dumped the victim's body behind a Dairy Queen Restaurant. On 10/19/1993, Shore entered the home of a fourteen year old female, bound and sexually assaulted her, and strangled her to death. Shore then fled the scene on foot. On 08/07/1994, Shore kidnapped and sexually assaulted a nine year old female causing her death. Shore then dumped the victim's body behind an abandoned commercial building. On 07/06/1995, Shore kidnapped a sixteen year old Hispanic female and sexually assaulted her causing her death. Shore then dumped the victim's body in a field. So why is this guy still breathing?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Aug 1, 2017 22:31:26 GMT -6
They think they won't get caught. If they thought otherwise, they wouldn't commit the crime. Correct, but on the other hand we don't know how many were deterred by the possibility of being caught and executed.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 28, 2017 17:38:07 GMT -6
I can't understand why this slimeball wasn't worm food more than twenty years ago.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 28, 2017 11:41:50 GMT -6
NO, the United States is NOT a democracy and it was never intended to be. The United States is a Constitutional Republic.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 20, 2017 22:54:21 GMT -6
Hanging
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 15, 2017 19:43:02 GMT -6
We are not bound by the Hague Convention. I made reference to Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Convention to disprove your statement that, "The Nazis violated no international laws.". After all, Germany was, in fact, a signatory to such convention.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 14, 2017 23:14:10 GMT -6
anyone who kills for any other reason than self defense or food relinquishes their human rights and needs to be executed. So if I murder someone it's okay just as long as I eat them..........right?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 14, 2017 23:09:30 GMT -6
My point remains there is no recognized standard, and there will never be a recognized standard, supporting a "crime against humanity." Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Convention states, "Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. "
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 13, 2017 17:13:55 GMT -6
No, you stated that, "the United States has never been prosecuted for war crimes, nor has any of its employees." I therefore proved such allegation wrong by making reference to the case of American airmen who were tried and executed by the Japanese for alleged war crimes. However, getting back to your initial claim that one who tortures cannot be considered a criminal, if there are no laws against torture, is sheer bunk. There were no laws against torture in German concentration camps but the individuals engaging in it were still considered criminals at their trial in Nuremberg.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 12, 2017 12:06:37 GMT -6
In reality, the United States has never been prosecuted for war crimes, nor has any of its employees. Even if that was true, and it's NOT, it would not negate my argument because the United States is only one country. And do be advised that a large number of American Airmen were prosecuted and executed by the Japanese during World War II for what the Japanese considered to be war crimes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_Airmen%27s_Act
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 10, 2017 14:12:25 GMT -6
If behavior is not regarded as criminal, under the law, then the behavior is not per se criminal. You can regard torture as "shameful," but it isn't criminal until the state defines it as criminal. Your argument does not hold any water because the behavior of Nazi war criminals was most likely not regarded as criminal under the laws of the Third Reich but such criminals were still hanged nonetheless. Also, after the war in the former Yugoslavia was over there was an international tribunal set up to prosecute those who had committed war crimes during that conflict. So essentially what you're doing is telling me the way things should be in theory, whereas, I am telling you the way things actually are in reality.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 6, 2017 1:09:53 GMT -6
Under the definition of "criminal," someone who hasn't committed a crime under the law can't be described as a criminal. Sure they can if their actions are characteristic of criminal behavior. This is from the American heritage dictionary; see three B "Characteristic of a criminal." crim·i·nal (krĭmə-nəl) Share: adj. 1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse. 2. Relating to the administration of penal law. 3. a. Guilty of crime. b. Characteristic of a criminal. 4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent. n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 4, 2017 15:35:47 GMT -6
The Nuremberg "principles" have no weight in U.S. law, and the Nuremberg trials were a sham. Totally irrelevant! The Nuremberg Principles had no weight in the Third Reich either but those Nazi concentration camp guards who were convicted of torturing inmates were still classified as criminals. And even if those individuals committing acts of legalized torture in the U.S. are not subject to criminal prosecution in this country they may very well be classified as criminals by those in other countries. Unfortunately you assume that they are not criminals just because they have immunity from prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 1, 2017 21:57:44 GMT -6
People who torture are criminals. Not if the torture is legal. That's what is known as the "Nuremberg Defense". Unfortunately for those Nazi war criminals there was something known as the Nuremberg Principles which fundamentally dictate that you're responsible for your own actions. Bottom-line; those murdering sadistic war criminals still ended up being hanged.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 12, 2017 12:02:00 GMT -6
A friend of mine sent me a link to a case in Texas involving a man by the name of Jeff Baron who seems to be the victim of judicial theft and intimidation. Does anyone have any up to date information on this case? www.lawexaminer.com/article/baron-story
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 10, 2017 20:34:47 GMT -6
This is pretty graphic so be forewarned before viewing it.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 18, 2017 16:11:21 GMT -6
No one who was accorded due process and legally and constitutionally convicted is wrongfully imprisoned Nonsense! Look up the word "Wrongfully" in your dictionary. Criminal justice isn't about absolute truth, and never should be. Okay, Phillips, I'll take the bait. Please tell us in your very own words why that is so?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 17, 2017 12:29:29 GMT -6
The "wrongfully" imprisoned shouldn't be compensated anyway. I am interested in justice for the law-abiding, not for criminals. Phillips, you need to look up the definition of the word “JUSTICE” because you have it backwards. You believe in justice for the convicted criminal but you obviously do not believe in justice for the law-abiding who were wrongfully imprisoned.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 8, 2017 21:53:33 GMT -6
I'm sure that anti-DPers are absolutely overjoyed seeing as Delaware just abolished the death penalty also. It may die in some states, but not in all states. The death of the death penalty is not far off.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 8, 2017 21:48:48 GMT -6
There's no justice in killing some poor schmo who didn't do anything while the real killer runs free, and that is certainly no way to protect the public. If the law says otherwise, then the law is an a$$. And if you say otherwise, then you aren't genuinely interested in punishing murder. You just want a procedure that assigns blame and ends with somebody being legally poisoned. Glad to see that you're finally making sense.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 20, 2016 23:50:07 GMT -6
The question is: How long before the last execution? There never will be a last execution. Of course there will! The death penalty's days are numbered.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 12, 2016 17:14:43 GMT -6
If I find anything else that may add to this or change what I posted, coming from a reputable source, I will post it here. Thanks! That would be greatly appreciated.
|
|