|
|
Post by Snowy on Mar 4, 2006 19:56:43 GMT -6
I believe there should be the dp for every murderer. Murdering once is enough for me. There should be no second chances. In the case of serial killers the death sentence should be mandatory. Those people have proven they will murder and murder again. As much as I respect the family the law should supersede. Decisions like this should be based on more than family emotions. They should be based on the law and safety for society. I may not agree with the death penalty, but I totally agree with you about the one time being enough. It's too much, and lwop should be a certainty in any murder case in my opinion. Unless it's self-defense the taking of another life is not justifiable, ever. Not ten years, 20 years, 150 years. I feel the same way about rapists, especially child rapists. They should never be let into the free world again. That's one point I have never understood. It's okay to kill to defend oneself but we should never do nothing but lock up a murderer for a person who couldn't defend theirself. Can a little child defend themselves against a vile murderer? Yet no one thinks a person should be put to death for killing a child that couldn't defend theirself. Not every person can apply self defense. Why shouldn't a person be put to death for murdering the defenseless? After all it's okay for a person who could defend theirself to kill a murderer. One of the main purposes of the dp is to protect future victims in society. |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 2:58:08 GMT -6
I understand your point, but I don't think you understand mine.
You said one of the main purposes of the dp is to protect society - well, wouldn't lwop do the same? I'm not trying to persuade you to change your opinion on the dp. You also said that "no one thinks a person should be put to death for killing a child that couldn't defend theirself." - Lets clarify that. Just because I don't -believe- in the dp doesn't mean I don't think it's deserved. Every anti has their reason for believing the way they do. I'm not the average anti that has the common belief that every dr inmate is innocent. In fact, it's quite the contrary. I'm also not an anti who goes around screaming that the inmate is being inhumanely treated or whining because they are in solitary confinement. I have my reasons for believing the way I do and I stated them in a previous post. There is only one person on dr that I believe is innocent out of all the dr inmates I've read about and he's been on dr for about 23 years. Anyway, you seem to be implying that I'm making excuses for crimes committed and I'm not. I'll leave that part to the other anti's, the anti's that believe that the sole purpose of taxing is for comfortable room and board provided to the inmate in either a state or federal facility as they travel their road to 'rehabilitation'.
|
|
|
|
Post by nydesha on Mar 5, 2006 4:27:10 GMT -6
Well, I'm an anti, but a controversial one it seems since a fellow anti labled me as a pro 'in sheeps clothing' - But here's my reason for being against the death penalty: The thought of the possibility of an innocent man being killed is heartbreaking. Second, God gave us life and only He should take it away and three, (the most controversial among anti's) What gives the convict the right to take the easy way out by death? They should sit their lasting days in total seclusion and confinement after having lost all of their dignity as the aftermath of many years of violation of privacy. Your argument against capital punishment is about the best I've seen so far. Joe, those arguments against DP are basically used of all ANTIS. No extraordinary arguments. The first is used by amnesty international (non-religious) and all ANTI-DP-organizations I know. The second argument is used by religious groups such as Sant'Egidio. The third is debatable, but all active Antis I know use it to argue against executions of serial killers and child molesters. In my eyes the third argument is only a loophole, the only way out, you're missing the "no inhuman treatment-arguments" and the "might be innocent-argument". Why it's a loophole? As it's debatable if LWOP is the crueler punishment than DP and as the LWOP has some lacks (in my eyes). |
|
|
|
Post by nydesha on Mar 5, 2006 4:36:58 GMT -6
P.S. As for me I agree with the first and the second argument. The third argument I might use in times when some legal loopholes are filled in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 5, 2006 11:29:26 GMT -6
I understand your point, but I don't think you understand mine. You said one of the main purposes of the dp is to protect society - well, wouldn't lwop do the same? No, for a wide variety of reasons. But the reality can be seen by comparing the murder rates of Texas and Michigan over the last 30 years. But your position on this doesn't matter because those who do scream and whine are the ones who establish policy. As a result, no unexecuted murderer will ever be justly treated. QED |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 11:49:33 GMT -6
Your argument against capital punishment is about the best I've seen so far. Joe, those arguments against DP are basically used of all ANTIS. No extraordinary arguments. The first is used by amnesty international (non-religious) and all ANTI-DP-organizations I know. The second argument is used by religious groups such as Sant'Egidio. The third is debatable, but all active Antis I know use it to argue against executions of serial killers and child molesters. In my eyes the third argument is only a loophole, the only way out, you're missing the "no inhuman treatment-arguments" and the "might be innocent-argument". Why it's a loophole? As it's debatable if LWOP is the crueler punishment than DP and as the LWOP has some lacks (in my eyes). I'm curious what anti sites you visit. Because I don't know many anti's, actually any that shares the same opinion as me of the DP. In fact, I'm pretty much hated in the anti population because of my reasons for being against the DP. The main arguments I hear among the anti community is the argument of racial bias, 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind' blah blah blah, other civilized countries doesn't support the DP, most inmates can't afford proper representation, corruption in the justice system, rehabilitation issues, etc. My opinions are very, very different. Racial bias has been around since the creation of mankind and it always will. An eye for an eye issue, in Exodus 21:12 says; Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. The argument of other countries not having the DP is like a broken record. It's one of my most hated arguments. The way I see it, even though I don't believe in the DP, as a Christian the Bible says to honor your government. Every country has their own form of government, so if someone doesn't agree with the U.S. government and another country seems to be more just in their sanctions, move. As for proper representation, while it's true that most offenders charged with a crime as serious as murder can't afford the best of representation, but if you're guilty, you're guilty and even O.J.'s defense attorney's wouldn't be of much help, unless, of course, you're O.J. Corruption in the justice system is just like racial bias. It's always been here and always will. After all, it is humans that run the justice system. Rehabilitation is the weakest of all anti dp argument imo. Who cares if they can be rehabilitated? They still comitted the crime and though they may be sorry now, in most cases it isn't remorse for the victims, rather remorse in having been caught. Either way, they took a life and they should spend the rest of theirs paying for it. |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 12:05:52 GMT -6
Joe, those arguments against DP are basically used of all ANTIS. No extraordinary arguments. The first is used by amnesty international (non-religious) and all ANTI-DP-organizations I know. The second argument is used by religious groups such as Sant'Egidio. The third is debatable, but all active Antis I know use it to argue against executions of serial killers and child molesters. In my eyes the third argument is only a loophole, the only way out, you're missing the "no inhuman treatment-arguments" and the "might be innocent-argument". Why it's a loophole? As it's debatable if LWOP is the crueler punishment than DP and as the LWOP has some lacks (in my eyes). I'm curious what anti sites you visit. Because I don't know many anti's, actually any that shares the same opinion as me of the DP. In fact, I'm pretty much hated in the anti population because of my reasons for being against the DP. The main arguments I hear among the anti community is the argument of racial bias, 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind' blah blah blah, other civilized countries doesn't support the DP, most inmates can't afford proper representation, corruption in the justice system, rehabilitation issues, etc. My opinions are very, very different. Racial bias has been around since the creation of mankind and it always will. An eye for an eye issue, in Exodus 21:12 says; Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. The argument of other countries not having the DP is like a broken record. It's one of my most hated arguments. The way I see it, even though I don't believe in the DP, as a Christian the Bible says to honor your government. Every country has their own form of government, so if someone doesn't agree with the U.S. government and another country seems to be more just in their sanctions, move. As for proper representation, while it's true that most offenders charged with a crime as serious as murder can't afford the best of representation, but if you're guilty, you're guilty and even O.J.'s defense attorney's wouldn't be of much help, unless, of course, you're O.J. Corruption in the justice system is just like racial bias. It's always been here and always will. After all, it is humans that run the justice system. Rehabilitation is the weakest of all anti dp argument imo. Who cares if they can be rehabilitated? They still comitted the crime and though they may be sorry now, in most cases it isn't remorse for the victims, rather remorse in having been caught. Either way, they took a life and they should spend the rest of theirs paying for it. Adding to this post I'd like to ask that you guys not put me in the same category as the average anti, because my beliefs are very very different and it's shameful to be associated with most anti's. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 5, 2006 12:07:56 GMT -6
Your argument against capital punishment is about the best I've seen so far. Joe, those arguments against DP are basically used of all ANTIS. No extraordinary arguments. The first is used by amnesty international (non-religious) and all ANTI-DP-organizations I know. The second argument is used by religious groups such as Sant'Egidio. The third is debatable, but all active Antis I know use it to argue against executions of serial killers and child molesters. In my eyes the third argument is only a loophole, the only way out, you're missing the "no inhuman treatment-arguments" and the "might be innocent-argument". Why it's a loophole? As it's debatable if LWOP is the crueler punishment than DP and as the LWOP has some lacks (in my eyes). As an ex-anti myself, I can assure you Jennaleigh27's argument is more grounded in reason than most I've read, including those made by murdererphile antis posting here, in the print media, on other boards and by dubious organizations like the ACLU and AI. In my opinion, the murderers-are-people-too types will never be persuasive in this country. The United States has a long, defensible history of capital punishment and only recently has lost its moral focus. I believe that can be rectified, and I'm doing my part toward that goal of correction. The pursuit of justice isn't cheap, but it's worth it. The slain deserve nothing less than our best effort, no matter what it costs. That goes for anyone killed in cold blood, whether it's a child, a senior citizen, a homeless person or even a felon doing time for something less than murder. LWOP is a fraud insincerely offered as a tenable substitute for capital punishment. All the anti arguments are disproved, refuted, discredited and, by now, laughable. All you people have left is: executions are icky and that the Europeans don't execute, so we shouldn't either, as if Americans care one whit about European jurisprudence. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 5, 2006 12:25:28 GMT -6
Adding to this post I'd like to ask that you guys not put me in the same category as the average anti, because my beliefs are very very different and it's shameful to be associated with most anti's. I don't, if it means anything to you, Jenna. |
|
|
|
Post by Snowy on Mar 5, 2006 13:06:13 GMT -6
I understand your point, but I don't think you understand mine. You said one of the main purposes of the dp is to protect society - well, wouldn't lwop do the same? I'm not trying to persuade you to change your opinion on the dp. You also said that "no one thinks a person should be put to death for killing a child that couldn't defend theirself." - Lets clarify that. Just because I don't -believe- in the dp doesn't mean I don't think it's deserved. Every anti has their reason for believing the way they do. I'm not the average anti that has the common belief that every dr inmate is innocent. In fact, it's quite the contrary. I'm also not an anti who goes around screaming that the inmate is being inhumanely treated or whining because they are in solitary confinement. I have my reasons for believing the way I do and I stated them in a previous post. There is only one person on dr that I believe is innocent out of all the dr inmates I've read about and he's been on dr for about 23 years. Anyway, you seem to be implying that I'm making excuses for crimes committed and I'm not. I'll leave that part to the other anti's, the anti's that believe that the sole purpose of taxing is for comfortable room and board provided to the inmate in either a state or federal facility as they travel their road to 'rehabilitation'. I'm sorry if you think I'm implying I didn't mean to come across that way. I was only going by your statement in your previous post when you said, "unless it's self-defense taking another life is not justifiable," and you did say that. I just pointed out that not every person can defend themselves. Even the BTK killer murdered a family who were pretty good in martial arts. You asked if LWOP could do the same in my opinion, not really. I believe once the dp is removed so in time will LWOP. I believe the dp keeps the LWOP alive. One thing when people are in the general prison population escape is much easier. Let me share with you a little story. There was a woman who stabbed her 3 year old daughter to death with a toy airplane. First she wasn't charged with 1st degree murder so she wasn't eligible for the dp. If you or I would have had stabbed her daughter to death we may have been charged with with 1st degree murder because they probably would have considered it premeditated. I doubt if that made her death less painful. The mother was given LWOP. Eventually the governor signed a paper reducing her sentence to 100 years. She is now eligible for parole. She hasn't been let out yet but probablyeventually will be. I know some will think that's nice if she if reformed her daughter, however, will always remain dead. |
|
|
|
Post by LEGAL EAGLE on Mar 5, 2006 13:09:32 GMT -6
(03-03) 06:46 PST San Francisco (AP) --
A large majority of Californians continue to support the death penalty, but fewer believe it is fair and flawless, according to a Field Poll released Friday.
Roughly 63 percent of 500 adults polled by telephone in February favored capital punishment, according to the Field Poll. The same percentage supported it in 2000, though that number was down from about 74 percent of California adults contacted in 1997.
The poll also found that about 48 percent believe the death penalty is fair and error-free. Two years ago, the poll found 58 percent of respondents held the same view.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they favored lethal injection over the gas chamber — California's other method of execution. In 1992, the Field Poll found that 68 percent favored lethal injection.
In California, local prosecutors can seek the death penalty when a murder is committed with another felony, such as rape, robbery or kidnapping. Murdering a police officer or killing more than one person are also capital crimes.
California has the nation's largest death row with about 650 prisoners.
The poll has an error rating of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, the poll said.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 13:11:03 GMT -6
Joseph -
I couldn't agree with you more on "The slain deserve nothing less than our best effort, no matter what it costs. That goes for anyone killed in cold blood, whether it's a child, a senior citizen, a homeless person or even a felon doing time for something less than murder." Murder is murder no matter who it was or why it was committed. I also agree that the anti's are being laughed at for the disputes against the death penalty, but I think if the anti's would get their priorities straight and quit protesting the dp for TWISTED, (yes anti's I said twisted) reasons and give legitimate and validated reasons as to why they oppose the dp, then maybe someone may actually listen. In protesting the dp we (anti's in general) can't keep claiming that every, or even a small fraction of death row inmates are innocent because it is just simply not true. For example, what lead to my heated debate on the CCADP site; another member of that board insistantly claimed innocence on behalf of one of her 'dear penpal friends' on dr that was executed last year. When I questioned his innocence and pointed out obvious factors she got very upset because her claim for innocence was based on the ignorant 'he didn't pull the trigger' factor. She then told me to do my research on his case. I did, and I found that it may be questionable who actually pulled the trigger but what wasn't questionable is that the death of an innocent man resulted from acts of the three accused. They admittingly said their intentions were to rob the victim for drug money. Also, her 'dear penpal friend' was offered a plea deal of 40 years, but turned that down. So, apparently he thought he was above punishment of any kind, and that, in turn, bought him the death penalty. Yet, she maintains he was the victim, also using the defense that he was taken away from his daughter whom he loved so much, his mother who he loved so much, etc. But, what she fails to defend is that the murder victim has family too. Arguments such as hers is what makes our arguments laughable and as long as there are ludicrous objections to the DP like those of her, then that's exactly what they'll always be, laughable.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 13:14:58 GMT -6
Adding to this post I'd like to ask that you guys not put me in the same category as the average anti, because my beliefs are very very different and it's shameful to be associated with most anti's. I don't, if it means anything to you, Jenna. Yes, it does. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 13:27:51 GMT -6
Snowy - Yes I did say not justifiable unless it's self- defense and here's my reasoning for that. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful taking of a life. So, in self-defense cases it is not considered murder. However, I understand what you're saying in every murder situation, especially children and the elderly. I also understand what you're saying about being in the general prison population and I don't support being in the general prison population even if LWOP becomes an option in all murder convictions. I'm very satisfied with them sitting their days and nights in solitary confinement, as they deserve nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 5, 2006 13:42:10 GMT -6
Joseph - I couldn't agree with you more on The slain deserve nothing less than our best effort, no matter what it costs. That goes for anyone killed in cold blood, whether it's a child, a senior citizen, a homeless person or even a felon doing time for something less than murder. Murder is murder no matter who it was or why it was committed. I also agree that the anti's are being laughed at for the disputes against the death penalty, but I think if the anti's would get their priorities straight and quit protesting the dp for TWISTED, (yes anti's I said twisted) reasons and give legitimate and validated reasons as to why they oppose the dp, then maybe someone may actually listen. In protesting the dp we (anti's in general) can't keep claiming that every, or even a small fraction of death row inmates are innocent because it is just simply not true. For example, what lead to my heated debate on the CCADP site; another member of that board insistantly claimed innocence on behalf of one of her 'dear penpal friends' on dr that was executed last year. When I questioned his innocence and pointed out obvious factors she got very upset because her claim for innocence was based on the ignorant 'he didn't pull the trigger' factor. She then told me to do my research on his case. I did, and I found that it may be questionable who actually pulled the trigger but what wasn't questionable is that the death of an innocent man resulted from acts of the three accused. They admittingly said their intentions were to rob the victim for drug money. Also, her 'dear penpal friend' was offered a plea deal of 40 years, but turned that down. So, apparently he thought he was above punishment of any kind, and that, in turn, bought him the death penalty. Yet, she maintains he was the victim, also using the defense that he was taken away from his daughter whom he loved so much, his mother who he loved so much, etc. But, what she fails to defend is that the murder victim has family too. Arguments such as hers is what makes our arguments laughable and as long as there are ludicrous objections to the DP like those of her, then that's exactly what they'll always be, laughable. Nice post, Jennaleigh27. You've got some good points here. You're not the first anti to question the logic and motivations of the radicals using the issue to advance a leftist agenda. I might support permanent immurement of murderers if that truly was the official, credible alternative. However, what is being offered by the socialists is LWOP-until-LWOP-as-a-legal-punishment-is-defeated-too. Until these cloth-eared do-gooders are silenced in the abolitionist "movement," more reasoned arguments against capital punishment won't get the attention they would otherwise receive. |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 14:27:48 GMT -6
Someone please clue me in on who this Dennis guy is and what his motive is for being here. I can't respond to his posts on the other threads until I'm a member, but he's the kind of proclaimed anti that is embarassing to me. I'd like him to share with us where the supposed wealth of him or his family has anything rellevantly to do with anything discussed on this board or any other capital punishment board. His arrogance toward victims families is a disgrace. I'd suggest him posting on forbes.com if he's so rich. If I had to guess I'd say he's probably a released convicted felon who gets their kicks off watching the suffering of others, as no other sane, respectable human being would post such ignorant self-centered banterings. THAT really *deleted* me off. Lets all sat it together now.. f-r-e-a-k.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snowy on Mar 5, 2006 17:02:12 GMT -6
Snowy - Yes I did say not justifiable unless it's self- defense and here's my reasoning for that. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful taking of a life. So, in self-defense cases it is not considered murder. However, I understand what you're saying in every murder situation, especially children and the elderly. I also understand what you're saying about being in the general prison population and I don't support being in the general prison population even if LWOP becomes an option in all murder convictions. I'm very satisfied with them sitting their days and nights in solitary confinement, as they deserve nothing more. When would self-denfense be unjustifible? I know what murder is by definition and to me that does not include the dp. Like I said we know serial killers are willing to murder again and again and again and again. |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 17:48:28 GMT -6
Snowy - Yes I did say not justifiable unless it's self- defense and here's my reasoning for that. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful taking of a life. So, in self-defense cases it is not considered murder. However, I understand what you're saying in every murder situation, especially children and the elderly. I also understand what you're saying about being in the general prison population and I don't support being in the general prison population even if LWOP becomes an option in all murder convictions. I'm very satisfied with them sitting their days and nights in solitary confinement, as they deserve nothing more. When would self-denfense be unjustifible? I know what murder is by definition and to me that does not include the dp. Like I said we know serial killers are willing to murder again and again and again and again. I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying self-defense is unjustifiable. I was actually saying the opposite, that it is the only justifiable taking of another life. And by definition, you're exactly right that the dp is not murder. It's legalized, therefore making it lawful. Also, I never disputed that murderers are willing to kill again. Maybe you're misunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you. Please clarify? |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 18:08:55 GMT -6
I just read a post on and it's as follows: "Some States have shown that you do not have to keep people locked up like animals to maintain security. Those who use it and those who excuse it are as bad as each other." This is a prime example of the ignorance of other anti's that infuriates me. That totally offends me as an anti. That whole over-dramatic statement is nothing less than a contradiction of the person who posted it. Think about it ANTI'S.. Murderers = those who use it. Bandwagon Anti's = those who excuse it. Do you people not see that you're doing nothing but equalling yourselves to the accused that YOU'RE defending?  |
|
|
|
Post by Snowy on Mar 5, 2006 18:55:29 GMT -6
When would self-denfense be unjustifible? I know what murder is by definition and to me that does not include the dp. Like I said we know serial killers are willing to murder again and again and again and again. I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying self-defense is unjustifiable. I was actually saying the opposite, that it is the only justifiable taking of another life. And by definition, you're exactly right that the dp is not murder. It's legalized, therefore making it lawful. Also, I never disputed that murderers are willing to kill again. Maybe you're misunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you. Please clarify? Well first of all I want you to know I like you and I always respect an reasonable anti. Even some antis who don't support the dp will admit it is not the same thing as murder. I believe in the end even though there are only a few executions per year it does save someone's life. So to me the dp is justifible. It may not be pleasant but some things that need to be done aren't always pleasant. Llike I said not everyone was able to defend themselves so I believe it is all right to execute a murderer on their behalf. |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 19:47:02 GMT -6
Oh, I see what you're saying now. I misunderstood you. I thought you were also saying that self-defense should also be punished by death. I respect your opinion as well, and if I seemed defensive or snotty it was not my intention and I apologize.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snowy on Mar 5, 2006 20:05:52 GMT -6
Oh, I see what you're saying now. I misunderstood you. I thought you were also saying that self-defense should also be punished by death. I respect your opinion as well, and if I seemed defensive or snotty it was not my intention and I apologize. I never viewed you as being snotty. I think it was just like you said we were misunderstanding each other.   |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 5, 2006 22:21:29 GMT -6
Thanks snowy. I guess I am somewhat defensive, being I am an anti on a pro board I was a little leary of the feedback as I know many victims families post here. That's the one thing that scares me is the chance that I might offend someone in that situation - it certainly is not my intention. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up!  |
|
|
|
Post by Wickedlyamoral on Mar 6, 2006 15:29:38 GMT -6
As pro's I'd like to know what you guys think about plea agreements if you don't mind sharing. Many capital punishment worthy (under the law) escape DR by plea agreements. Take Charles Cullen for example. nurse serial killer. His number of victims could be in the 40's. As part of a plea agreement, he agreed to help identify additional victims. He was sentenced to 11 life sentences, which wouldn't make him eligible for parole until he has served 397 years. I'm just curious what you guys think about plea agreements to avoid the death penalty. He knew he could live and the families get the body returned for burial. Seems like an unfair trade to a degree....But instead of being an unknown in a shallow grave, their loved ones can grieve them and the resting place is more befitting. Just cannot agree on allowing such a slimy person to live, but then I find it better for MVS's to be able to honor the lost loved one. |
|
|
|
Post by Wickedlyamoral on Mar 6, 2006 15:35:38 GMT -6
Someone please clue me in on who this Dennis guy is and what his motive is for being here. I can't respond to his posts on the other threads until I'm a member, but he's the kind of proclaimed anti that is embarassing to me. I'd like him to share with us where the supposed wealth of him or his family has anything rellevantly to do with anything discussed on this board or any other capital punishment board. His arrogance toward victims families is a disgrace. I'd suggest him posting on forbes.com if he's so rich. If I had to guess I'd say he's probably a released convicted felon who gets their kicks off watching the suffering of others, as no other sane, respectable human being would post such ignorant self-centered banterings. THAT really *deleted* me off. Lets all sat it together now.. f-r-e-a-k. Dennis is just clueless. He appears to be posting simply for the sake of shock. Look at his ridiculous options...Kill 20 before a LWOP or DP? He just posts absurdities. He have no real point to his posts or anything of value. I excuse him as another nuisance. |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 6, 2006 17:19:16 GMT -6
Someone please clue me in on who this Dennis guy is and what his motive is for being here. I can't respond to his posts on the other threads until I'm a member, but he's the kind of proclaimed anti that is embarassing to me. I'd like him to share with us where the supposed wealth of him or his family has anything rellevantly to do with anything discussed on this board or any other capital punishment board. His arrogance toward victims families is a disgrace. I'd suggest him posting on forbes.com if he's so rich. If I had to guess I'd say he's probably a released convicted felon who gets their kicks off watching the suffering of others, as no other sane, respectable human being would post such ignorant self-centered banterings. THAT really *deleted* me off. Lets all sat it together now.. f-r-e-a-k. Dennis is just clueless. He appears to be posting simply for the sake of shock. Look at his ridiculous options...Kill 20 before a LWOP or DP? He just posts absurdities. He have no real point to his posts or anything of value. I excuse him as another nuisance. I would suggest he read the story of Amy Sue Seitz's. The sheer torture and mutilation - one of many horrific stories of not just murder, but torture and of a child at that. People like Dennis should be required to add their name to a list, requiring them to house the criminals they want released, upon their release. I think their views would change quickly. If I were a pro people like Theodore Frank would be first in line. And forget lethal injection, how about old-school stoning. |
|
|
|
Post by Snowy on Mar 6, 2006 17:32:28 GMT -6
Dennis is just clueless. He appears to be posting simply for the sake of shock. Look at his ridiculous options...Kill 20 before a LWOP or DP? He just posts absurdities. He have no real point to his posts or anything of value. I excuse him as another nuisance. I would suggest he read the story of Amy Sue Seitz's. The sheer torture and mutilation - one of many horrific stories of not just murder, but torture and of a child at that. People like Dennis should be required to add their name to a list, requiring them to house the criminals they want released, upon their release. I think their views would change quickly. If I were a pro people like Theodore Frank would be first in line. And forget lethal injection, how about old-school stoning. I also think Dennis should be willing to take at least 19 murderers to live with him since he's willing to let a person murder at least 20 before at least getting LWOP. I guess at 20 he figures they'll murder again. |
|
|
|
Post by man on Mar 6, 2006 20:32:59 GMT -6
we should get the guillotine back into effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by nydesha on Mar 7, 2006 6:54:43 GMT -6
Joe, those arguments against DP are basically used of all ANTIS. No extraordinary arguments. The first is used by amnesty international (non-religious) and all ANTI-DP-organizations I know. The second argument is used by religious groups such as Sant'Egidio. The third is debatable, but all active Antis I know use it to argue against executions of serial killers and child molesters. In my eyes the third argument is only a loophole, the only way out, you're missing the "no inhuman treatment-arguments" and the "might be innocent-argument". Why it's a loophole? As it's debatable if LWOP is the crueler punishment than DP and as the LWOP has some lacks (in my eyes). I'm curious what anti sites you visit. Because I don't know many anti's, actually any that shares the same opinion as me of the DP. In fact, I'm pretty much hated in the anti population because of my reasons for being against the DP. The main arguments I hear among the anti community is the argument of racial bias, 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind' blah blah blah, other civilized countries doesn't support the DP, most inmates can't afford proper representation, corruption in the justice system, rehabilitation issues, etc. My opinions are very, very different. Racial bias has been around since the creation of mankind and it always will. An eye for an eye issue, in Exodus 21:12 says; Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. The argument of other countries not having the DP is like a broken record. It's one of my most hated arguments. The way I see it, even though I don't believe in the DP, as a Christian the Bible says to honor your government. Every country has their own form of government, so if someone doesn't agree with the U.S. government and another country seems to be more just in their sanctions, move. As for proper representation, while it's true that most offenders charged with a crime as serious as murder can't afford the best of representation, but if you're guilty, you're guilty and even O.J.'s defense attorney's wouldn't be of much help, unless, of course, you're O.J. Corruption in the justice system is just like racial bias. It's always been here and always will. After all, it is humans that run the justice system. Rehabilitation is the weakest of all anti dp argument imo. Who cares if they can be rehabilitated? They still comitted the crime and though they may be sorry now, in most cases it isn't remorse for the victims, rather remorse in having been caught. Either way, they took a life and they should spend the rest of theirs paying for it. hm, I don't think that you are a special anti. you have the same arguments as most Antis have. I don't see any difference. but if you don't like to be called Anti, naturally I'll call you PRO. Either way PRO sounds better. |
|
|
|
Post by jennaleigh27 on Mar 7, 2006 10:31:24 GMT -6
First of all, I don't recall claiming to be special nor do I think I am. Try rereading the posts and maybe then you might just understand. You're actually the kind of anti I'm referring to so you've just proven my point. If it makes you feel better to call me a pro, so be it. It won't be the first time. I've read your posts and I've found none of them striking. Your logic is twisted too. Especially the one about we should teach our children the true worth of life, etc. Ha, this is reality and your arguments are weak.
|
|
