|
Post by oslooskar on Nov 22, 2017 17:21:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 25, 2017 6:18:05 GMT -6
... or they could just repeal the whole thing? The lengths people are willing to go to keep killing people is scary, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 25, 2017 9:15:50 GMT -6
Yeah, even to the rape & murder of babies. The lengths they will go to murder,as many as possible now days too. Crazy & scary.
We need to get serious & not wait 20-30 years to execute them.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Dec 3, 2017 21:17:09 GMT -6
Police evidence lockers must have large amounts of morphine, heroin and fentanyl. A hotshot of one of these would be painless and cause death in under 60 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Dec 9, 2017 18:02:52 GMT -6
Painless method? Have there been many complaints?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Dec 13, 2017 19:16:46 GMT -6
If there are, they will have to file the complaints with a higher power. The higher power will look thru the complaints of the actual victims for sure.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 3, 2018 2:20:51 GMT -6
Strap grenades to their heads. Will destroy the brain before it has chance to process any pain signals.
But it won't happen because the sight of blood shames pros. Maybe they are not fully reconciled to what it is they support.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jan 4, 2018 12:20:52 GMT -6
Blood shames pros? Not hardly. Of course the 8th amendment might find grenades a bit "unusual". That wouldnt be pros fault.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 5, 2018 0:58:47 GMT -6
Blood shames pros? Not hardly. Of course the 8th amendment might find grenades a bit "unusual". If that were the logic applied by the SCOTUS, you could never change the death penalty protocol.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 5, 2018 9:39:10 GMT -6
Blood? Talk about bloody crime scenes. That is blood shame.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 5, 2018 15:35:24 GMT -6
Strap grenades to their heads. Will destroy the brain before it has chance to process any pain signals. But it won't happen because the sight of blood shames pros. Maybe they are not fully reconciled to what it is they support. I'm reconciled. Dead is dead.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jan 5, 2018 15:44:41 GMT -6
Blood shames pros? Not hardly. Of course the 8th amendment might find grenades a bit "unusual". If that were the logic applied by the SCOTUS, you could never change the death penalty protocol. what "protocol" do you think needs changing?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 5, 2018 16:12:29 GMT -6
If that were the logic applied by the SCOTUS, you could never change the death penalty protocol. what "protocol" do you think needs changing? I think the whole thing should be abandoned. However, that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that you can't be interpreting the meaning of "unusual" correctly, or else every change of DP protocol in history was unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 5, 2018 16:18:45 GMT -6
Opinion polls show most people in the USA to be pros, and yet those same people, in their capacity as judges, prosecutors, jurors and governors, are almost always unable to pass and enact the ultimate sentence. Why? Why do so many enjoy claiming that they are pro, yet not nearly so many are able to follow through when it matters? Strap grenades to their heads. Will destroy the brain before it has chance to process any pain signals. But it won't happen because the sight of blood shames pros. Maybe they are not fully reconciled to what it is they support. I'm reconciled. So you claim. Forgive me for being skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jan 5, 2018 19:32:48 GMT -6
what "protocol" do you think needs changing? I think the whole thing should be abandoned. However, that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that you can't be interpreting the meaning of "unusual" correctly, or else every change of DP protocol in history was unconstitutional.  well since the entire reason SCOTUS exists is "interpretation", calling their rulings unconstitutional seems out of place by anyone but fellow SCOTUS members. so was Furhman unconstitutional or the ruling that over turned it? Important to appoint the right justices, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 6, 2018 17:30:14 GMT -6
well since the entire reason SCOTUS exists is "interpretation", calling their rulings unconstitutional seems out of place by anyone but fellow SCOTUS members. If one believes that then he would have to be dumb enough to believe that SCOTUS members are more capable of interpreting the English language than each and every single one of us.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jan 6, 2018 21:16:12 GMT -6
well since the entire reason SCOTUS exists is "interpretation", calling their rulings unconstitutional seems out of place by anyone but fellow SCOTUS members. If one believes that then he would have to be dumb enough to believe that SCOTUS members are more capable of interpreting the English language than each and every single one of us. didn't say their interpretations were always correct, I said their interpretations were final until revisited by SCOTUS again. Rulings made, rulings overturned.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 6, 2018 22:30:31 GMT -6
I said their interpretations were final until revisited by SCOTUS again. No, you said, "calling their rulings unconstitutional seems out of place by anyone but fellow SCOTUS members."
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jan 6, 2018 22:59:36 GMT -6
I said their interpretations were final until revisited by SCOTUS again. No, you said, "calling their rulings unconstitutional seems out of place by anyone but fellow SCOTUS members." yup, when it gets revisited by SCOTUS. you and I can call it "unconstitutional" till the cows come home buuut until another SCOTUS calls it such, it remains as is. So since you and I don't get to vote on rulings, it remains important that we do vote for people (hope) will appoint good justices. No?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 7, 2018 9:16:56 GMT -6
No, you said, "calling their rulings unconstitutional seems out of place by anyone but fellow SCOTUS members." yup, when it gets revisited by SCOTUS. So since you and I don't get to vote on rulings, it remains important that we do vote for people (hope) will appoint good justices. No? Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 7, 2018 23:07:58 GMT -6
yup, when it gets revisited by SCOTUS. you and I can call it "unconstitutional" till the cows come home buuut until another SCOTUS calls it such, it remains as is. So since you and I don't get to vote on rulings, it remains important that we do vote for people (hope) will appoint good justices. No? Like most Strawman arguments nobody is going to dispute that! The problem for you is that in your initial statement you made no such clarification. So what you're doing right now is simply backtracking. And I must confess, I find it most amusing.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 8, 2018 14:32:00 GMT -6
I think the whole thing should be abandoned. However, that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that you can't be interpreting the meaning of "unusual" correctly, or else every change of DP protocol in history was unconstitutional. well since the entire reason SCOTUS exists is "interpretation", calling their rulings unconstitutional I said that IF you are right then all those rulings were unconstitutional. I never said you were right.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 8, 2018 14:36:03 GMT -6
I think the whole thing should be abandoned. However, that wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that you can't be interpreting the meaning of "unusual" correctly, or else every change of DP protocol in history was unconstitutional. well since the entire reason SCOTUS exists is "interpretation", calling their rulings unconstitutional seems out of place by anyone but fellow SCOTUS members. so was Furhman unconstitutional or the ruling that over turned it? Important to appoint the right justices, don't you think? Here. Let me rephrase the point. Do you think that the first time lethal injection was used, it was used unconstitutionally, on account of it being an unusual punishment at that time?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jan 8, 2018 16:10:13 GMT -6
well I suppose I didn't clarify it to your liking is because things that are blindingly obvious don't require it. I suppose one reason you two guys are easily amused might be because your easily confused. happy new year
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 8, 2018 18:36:38 GMT -6
well I suppose I didn't clarify it to your liking is because things that are blindingly obvious don't require it. I suppose one reason you two guys are easily amused might be because your easily confused. happy new year I did not say I was amused. Did someone tell a joke? If you could tell me in what way you think I am confused, I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jan 8, 2018 20:28:27 GMT -6
well I suppose I didn't clarify it to your liking is because things that are blindingly obvious don't require it. I suppose one reason you two guys are easily amused might be because your easily confused. happy new year I did not say I was amused. Did someone tell a joke? If you could tell me in what way you think I am confused, I would appreciate it. no, you didn't say you were amused, that was somebody else. I think your rather weird twist trying to tie lethal injection to taping a grenade to someones head qualifies you as confusing. you're welcome
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 8, 2018 22:24:10 GMT -6
I did not say I was amused. Did someone tell a joke? If you could tell me in what way you think I am confused, I would appreciate it. no, you didn't say you were amused, that was somebody else. I think your rather weird twist trying to tie lethal injection to taping a grenade to someones head qualifies you as confusing. you're welcome If we were to tie grenades to the POS's head, the supremes would probably find it unconstitutional, you're right. But why? Because it's cruel? Hell no. The guy's brain would be soup before it could process pain signals. Because it's unusual? Well, sure. But it's no more unusual than LI was when it was first introduced. So that can't be the reason either. The answer is "because it's bloody" and neither pros, antis nor anyone else can abide the thought that, in the name of justice, we create such a mess of a human being. And even though that is not a legitimate constitutional reason per se, that doesn't matter. The supremes will simply contort their reasoning until they get the "acceptable" result. If you find this confusing, I invite you to raise your game.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 9, 2018 15:13:24 GMT -6
Forgive me for being skeptical. I do not. Your skepticism about my belief in the death penalty has no foundation. I've never wavered in the 13 years I've been here.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 9, 2018 15:24:49 GMT -6
Forgive me for being skeptical. I do not. Your skepticism about my belief in the death penalty has no foundation. I've never wavered in the 13 years I've been here. Neither did the Reverend Agave, and yet it was hard to believe he was for real.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 9, 2018 17:30:31 GMT -6
I do not. Your skepticism about my belief in the death penalty has no foundation. I've never wavered in the 13 years I've been here. Neither did the Reverend Agave, and yet it was hard to believe he was for real. One thing we agree on Bernard, about the Rev. Same here. I have thought's on that too. Was he "clowning around to make pros's look like fools?
|
|