Are you for or against capital punishment?
BartSimpson @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:20 pm
Yep.
themasta @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:21 pm
I've always wondered, why lethal injection? Seems a bullet or a noose is a lot cheaper and more humane, especially if someone is afraid of needles.
canucker @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:29 pm
I haven't read through this long post so excuse me...
But I voted undecided. Sometimes I say hell yeah, and other times I feel that capital punishment is too easy (especially with lethal injection). I know that if it involved one of my family members that got murdered, I say hang the guy (or girl).
Hester @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:33 pm
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
Robair Robair:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
David Milgaard wasn't even sentenced to death. He's not even in a justice system that has capital punishment.
That's right, lucky for him. Had it happened in Texas, he'd be dead. Disagree? He was convicted of being a rapist and murderer.I don't want the innocents dead- just the ones guilty of it. Not my problem if some jackass lawyer and dumbass jury mucks it up.
Oh, is that too cruel for your tender eyes to read? Oh, well.
You have my sincerest condolences for your father. My father died when I was young as well, but from cancer. I'm certain that everyone here, reading this forum, is understanding and sensitive to your feelings and situation.
Having said that, how would you feel if the jackass lawyers and dumbass jury mucked it up and let him go free? Or if the lawyers or jury were the ones to put you to death? While we do feel for you, killing this guy might let you sleep better at night, but it wont bring your father back. And what if was the wrong guy?
I can't imagine forgiving the bastard, but killing him doesn't make things better, or right, or even.
Hester @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:37 pm
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
Twister Twister:
technically wasn't Hawaii set into being a state after hostilities were over. The were a US protectorate weren't they at that time.. much like Guam, Midway etc.. So technically just becuase they had a base there doesn't mean it was on thier soil. Last attack on US soil would have been Santa Ana and his drive north to the Alamo... but was terxas a state then... hmmm can't remember...
Nope, Pancho Villa in Columbus, NM. 1916.
Can't forget the USS Cole, 12 Oct 2000. Step on a warship you are stepping on a nation's soil.
norad @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:39 pm
$1:
I just saw a video clip recently, can't remember where, but this convicted child molester was being taken through a building, escorted by cops, and the father of the child was waiting by a payphone. As soon as the pedophile walked by, the father turned around, pulled out a gun, and shot him straight through the head.
The father was never convicted
The father was never convicted
Yes, I watched that too. That was a long time ago - 10, 15 years? Somewhere around there.
Capital punishment for politicians and politicians' friends that steal our money; I'd love to see Gagliano, Coffin, Martin, the whole frigging lot swinging from a tree!
The Paul Bernardo's and Clifford Olsen's definitely! But, David Milgaard is the reason why there must be checks and balances in place. Just think if hanging was still law in Canada. Who would 'pay' for killing Milgaard?
So, I'm on the fence with this one. On the one hand, I would like to see it reinstated in Canada. On the other, there are corrupt sons of bitches in the justice system that will do anything, including sending an innocent man to death row, to advance their careers.
Constantinople @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:40 pm
Hester Hester:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
Robair Robair:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
David Milgaard wasn't even sentenced to death. He's not even in a justice system that has capital punishment.
That's right, lucky for him. Had it happened in Texas, he'd be dead. Disagree? He was convicted of being a rapist and murderer.I don't want the innocents dead- just the ones guilty of it. Not my problem if some jackass lawyer and dumbass jury mucks it up.
Oh, is that too cruel for your tender eyes to read? Oh, well.
You have my sincerest condolences for your father. My father died when I was young as well, but from cancer. I'm certain that everyone here, reading this forum, is understanding and sensitive to your feelings and situation.
Having said that, how would you feel if the jackass lawyers and dumbass jury mucked it up and let him go free? Or if the lawyers or jury were the ones to put you to death? While we do feel for you, killing might let you sleep better at night, but it wont bring your father back. And what if was the wrong guy?
I can't imagine forgiving the bastard, but killing him doesn't make things better, or right, or even.
Sorry for your loss, Hester. I think I am done discussing life and death in this thread that I have created.
canucker @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:40 pm
The Wrongful Conviction of David Milgaard
Hester @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:43 pm
We could take the same angle on that as other forums: those who can't afford the high priced lawyers are the ones who are gonna die. If you can afford the best lawyers you'll be walking free.
We CAN'T leave this up to the courts and the lawyers. We can't let judges, juries, lawyers decide who lives and who dies.
Patrick_Ross @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:04 pm
themasta themasta:
I've always wondered, why lethal injection? Seems a bullet or a noose is a lot cheaper and more humane, especially if someone is afraid of needles.
What, like no one's afraid of bullets or nooses? It seems to me that fulls under "basic survival instinct".
Hester Hester:
We could take the same angle on that as other forums: those who can't afford the high priced lawyers are the ones who are gonna die. If you can afford the best lawyers you'll be walking free.
That's a good point. I think a lot of people would look at the O.J. Simpson case and argue that. Although, I'm not necessarily one of them.
twister @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:20 pm
Hester Hester:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
Twister Twister:
technically wasn't Hawaii set into being a state after hostilities were over. The were a US protectorate weren't they at that time.. much like Guam, Midway etc.. So technically just becuase they had a base there doesn't mean it was on thier soil. Last attack on US soil would have been Santa Ana and his drive north to the Alamo... but was terxas a state then... hmmm can't remember...
Nope, Pancho Villa in Columbus, NM. 1916.
Can't forget the USS Cole, 12 Oct 2000. Step on a warship you are stepping on a nation's soil.
What happened to the Cole and the sailors who died was terrible... But the 5 or so Al Queda operative who gave thier lives to Allah to become martyrs... they didn't step on board the Cole the denonated a small boat packed with explosives in close proximity... yes 1776 is correct in 1916 with pancho villa..... forgot about that.... conviently... although when did NM become a state... it was 1885 wasn't it?
Constantinople @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:21 pm
1912.
Hester @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:26 pm
Twister, not to nitpick... but if those planes that were flown into the WTC lifted off from Bermuda they would still be considered an attack on American soil. The attack on the Cole was an attack on American soil as well.
(I had forgotten that when I said there were no terrorist attacks on US soil between Pearl Harbour and 9/11.)
Does anyone consider Oklahoma City a terrorist attack?
twister @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:41 pm
Hester Hester:
Twister, not to nitpick... but if those planes that were flown into the WTC lifted off from Bermuda they would still be considered an attack on American soil. The attack on the Cole was an attack on American soil as well.
(I had forgotten that when I said there were no terrorist attacks on US soil between Pearl Harbour and 9/11.)
Does anyone consider Oklahoma City a terrorist attack?
(I had forgotten that when I said there were no terrorist attacks on US soil between Pearl Harbour and 9/11.)
Does anyone consider Oklahoma City a terrorist attack?
World trade center the terrorists boarded the plane at Logan airport in BOSTON unless boston has moved geographically to the south 500 miles.
Timothy McViegh's bombing of the HR murrow building was an act precipatated by a group of men.. not just the one found guilty to attack the government of the United States. It was an act carried out by american citizens against thier government.... The attack on the cole was a terrorist attack yes in our definition... but Al Queda felt at the time they were at war and still are with the united states...
Was the bombing of pearl harbour a terrorist attack? or just the prelim of actions by the Japanese in thier expansion prelim to war since they declared war by accident 1 hour after the bombs started falling.. they were suppose to coordinate the declaration of war with the first bombs that dropped.. that was the plan..... The japanese war against the US and the british empire which by the way was fueled by the Japanese need for oil....
twister @ Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:48 pm
Twister Twister:
Hester Hester:
Twister, not to nitpick... but if those planes that were flown into the WTC lifted off from Bermuda they would still be considered an attack on American soil. The attack on the Cole was an attack on American soil as well.
(I had forgotten that when I said there were no terrorist attacks on US soil between Pearl Harbour and 9/11.)
Does anyone consider Oklahoma City a terrorist attack?
(I had forgotten that when I said there were no terrorist attacks on US soil between Pearl Harbour and 9/11.)
Does anyone consider Oklahoma City a terrorist attack?
World trade center the terrorists boarded the plane at Logan airport in BOSTON unless boston has moved geographically to the south 500 miles.
Timothy McViegh's bombing of the HR murrow building was an act precipatated by a group of men.. not just the one found guilty to attack the government of the United States. It was an act carried out by american citizens against thier government.... The attack on the cole was a terrorist attack yes in our definition... but Al Queda felt at the time they were at war and still are with the united states...
Was the bombing of pearl harbour a terrorist attack? or just the prelim of actions by the Japanese in thier expansion prelim to war since they declared war by accident 1 hour after the bombs started falling.. they were suppose to coordinate the declaration of war with the first bombs that dropped.. that was the plan..... The japanese war against the US and the british empire which by the way was fueled by the Japanese need for oil....
Sorry hester..... didn't see the if...... yes it would still be an attack against the US and every other country that had offices in that building. The attack on the Cole though in our terms.. a terrorist attack was proof to the US and other nations that deciet and terrorism can happen anywhere at any time... especially if you are in the US military service... you are a marked target where ever you are.... sad to say but the truth....