Should America annex Canada? The unDead thread
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 63 Next
Robair @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:05 pm
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
I never said that was right, I was saying that I think the death penalty is right for people that there is no way to rehabilitate, such as people who plot to kill people and enjoy killing people, such as ted bundy. You people really don't listen to me. Where did I say anything about the death penalty for people who kill out of passion or what not. I never said it is right for innocent people to be killed or anything, just that my view on the death penalty is it's good for getting rid of people who can't be rehabilitated or people who commit terrible crimes such as serial killers, and that it's better to kill those people than pay for them to be in prison their whole life. Go ahead and speak your hippy, killing people is wrong talk, but im not a christian, and I think people who kill mass numbers of people and would just get life in prison should be killed.
Here's hoping you, Johnny, are the next innocent to sit on death row. Don't thingk it could happen? Neither did the other innocents the US has put to death.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:09 pm
Robair Robair:
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
I never said that was right, I was saying that I think the death penalty is right for people that there is no way to rehabilitate, such as people who plot to kill people and enjoy killing people, such as ted bundy. You people really don't listen to me. Where did I say anything about the death penalty for people who kill out of passion or what not. I never said it is right for innocent people to be killed or anything, just that my view on the death penalty is it's good for getting rid of people who can't be rehabilitated or people who commit terrible crimes such as serial killers, and that it's better to kill those people than pay for them to be in prison their whole life. Go ahead and speak your hippy, killing people is wrong talk, but im not a christian, and I think people who kill mass numbers of people and would just get life in prison should be killed.
Here's hoping you, Johnny, are the next innocent to sit on death row. Don't thingk it could happen? Neither did the other innocents the US has put to death.
It's called badluck, I mean I could go outside and die tomarrow. I'm a soft determinist, so I believe that everything happened somewhat for a cause and an effect. Those innocents were in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like someone who gets in a car wreck, and unfortunitly they died, but that doesn't mean that other people like terrorist or serial killers shouldn't be killed.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:11 pm
Of course I would be scared to die if I did, but everyone dies sometime, and it's more of a fear of the unknown, but after im dead there's nothing I can do about it, and it's better to just accept it.
Robair @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:12 pm
Hopeless
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
I could go outside and die tomarrow. .
Don't teas me.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:12 pm
Robair Robair:
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
I never said that was right, I was saying that I think the death penalty is right for people that there is no way to rehabilitate, such as people who plot to kill people and enjoy killing people, such as ted bundy. You people really don't listen to me. Where did I say anything about the death penalty for people who kill out of passion or what not. I never said it is right for innocent people to be killed or anything, just that my view on the death penalty is it's good for getting rid of people who can't be rehabilitated or people who commit terrible crimes such as serial killers, and that it's better to kill those people than pay for them to be in prison their whole life. Go ahead and speak your hippy, killing people is wrong talk, but im not a christian, and I think people who kill mass numbers of people and would just get life in prison should be killed.
Here's hoping you, Johnny, are the next innocent to sit on death row. Don't thingk it could happen? Neither did the other innocents the US has put to death.
Hmm, Canadians don't believe in the death penalty, yet you hope that I face the death penalty because my opinion that serial killers and terrorist should be killed....
Robair @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:36 pm
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
Hmm, Canadians don't believe in the death penalty, yet you hope that I face the death penalty because my opinion that serial killers and terrorist should be killed....
A defender of the death penalty wrongly put to death. Call it karma, call it irony, call it justice. Hell, call it good television!
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:45 pm
Robair Robair:
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
Hmm, Canadians don't believe in the death penalty, yet you hope that I face the death penalty because my opinion that serial killers and terrorist should be killed....
A defender of the death penalty wrongly put to death. Call it karma, call it irony, call it justice. Hell, call it good television!
Yep, ill die like socrates for my beliefs...
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:48 pm
You are completely ignoring what I said about it being alright for the death penalty for proven killers. If someone is put to death who is innocent, it is not the death penaltys fault, but the people who imply it, just like guns don't kill people, people kill people. What you are saying is that someone like Osama or Ted Bundy should live on the tax payers money, right? That is justice? I say kill them, and let me keep my money.
Robair @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:50 pm
Any system can condem an innocent man. Lucky for David Millgard, he was Canadian. Spent 20 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Had he been a Texan, he'd be dead.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:51 pm
You need to think reasonable here, cause keeping every proven serial killer alive, people like Osama bin laden, at the expense of the people they kill, just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Everyone knows that Ted Bundy commited the murders, and he even admitted it after some years, yet you say no death penalty, and keep him in prison his whole life, at the expense of everyone else, to face the same fate, and yet soak up money from the people he injured?
othello @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:52 pm
Interesting where this thread has gone...
As I recall, prisoners on death row typically cost as much, if not more, than prisoners who are incarcerated for life. This is a result largely of the lengthy and complex appeal process associated with the death penalty, which is not implemented for life sentence cases.
It is easy to point to people who should face the death penalty. There are many that I think we would all agree the world would be better off without. However, in the States, the death penalty is not a tool used once or twice a year for the worst of the worst, in which there is absolutely no doubt. It is used routinely, in fact it is required of the DA to pursue a death sentence in certain types of cases. This increases the risk of the death of an innocent person. How does one assess the value of that one person's life at the hands of the state to the potential, but unproven, impact that the death penalty would have on reducing crime.
The simple fact is that the death penalty has not been shown to prevent heinous crimes. So, you aren't saving money and you aren't preventing crime, but you are creating the risk of executing an innocent person. The death penalty, in that light, is retribution. That is all. And a willingness to risk the death of innocent people in order to obtain that retribution.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:57 pm
othello othello:
Interesting where this thread has gone...
As I recall, prisoners on death row typically cost as much, if not more, than prisoners who are incarcerated for life. This is a result largely of the lengthy and complex appeal process associated with the death penalty, which is not implemented for life sentence cases.
It is easy to point to people who should face the death penalty. There are many that I think we would all agree the world would be better off without. However, in the States, the death penalty is not a tool used once or twice a year for the worst of the worst, in which there is absolutely no doubt. It is used routinely, in fact it is required of the DA to pursue a death sentence in certain types of cases. This increases the risk of the death of an innocent person. How does one assess the value of that one person's life at the hands of the state to the potential, but unproven, impact that the death penalty would have on reducing crime.
The simple fact is that the death penalty has not been shown to prevent heinous crimes. So, you aren't saving money and you aren't preventing crime, but you are creating the risk of executing an innocent person. The death penalty, in that light, is retribution. That is all. And a willingness to risk the death of innocent people in order to obtain that retribution.
As I recall, prisoners on death row typically cost as much, if not more, than prisoners who are incarcerated for life. This is a result largely of the lengthy and complex appeal process associated with the death penalty, which is not implemented for life sentence cases.
It is easy to point to people who should face the death penalty. There are many that I think we would all agree the world would be better off without. However, in the States, the death penalty is not a tool used once or twice a year for the worst of the worst, in which there is absolutely no doubt. It is used routinely, in fact it is required of the DA to pursue a death sentence in certain types of cases. This increases the risk of the death of an innocent person. How does one assess the value of that one person's life at the hands of the state to the potential, but unproven, impact that the death penalty would have on reducing crime.
The simple fact is that the death penalty has not been shown to prevent heinous crimes. So, you aren't saving money and you aren't preventing crime, but you are creating the risk of executing an innocent person. The death penalty, in that light, is retribution. That is all. And a willingness to risk the death of innocent people in order to obtain that retribution.
I think that the death penalty should be given for the worst crimes, because some people are without rehabilitation.
I think it does prevent crimes, but there's no way to show facts that it does, cause who wants to admit if they think about killing people? I myself have the idea every now and then, I just flirt with it, but that fact that I could get caught and put to death prevents me from doing so.
It's not a simple fact that it doesn't prevent crimes, because no one can see into the future or read minds to know if someone is going to commit a crime.
The cost doesn't mean much, because in my mind that could be eliminated if they would just go ahead and kill them. We are talking about the death penalty, and not the messed up process that people use at present. I think they should have the death penalty where if someone is shown to have killed someone, we take them outside, get the guns ready, and fire. All you have to pay for is the court cost, and the bullets.
The presidents haircut cost a 1000$ but that doesn't make it right. The cost and the ridiculous appeals and time someone has to spend in jail, such as Ted Bundy, could be eliminated with my idea, so if we take that part of your arguement away, then why would it be wrong? If the person is a proven killer, send him to the firing line.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Robair Robair:
Any system can condem an innocent man. Lucky for David Millgard, he was Canadian. Spent 20 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Had he been a Texan, he'd be dead.
I think I would rather get the death penalty than spend 20 years in prison...
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:00 pm
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
othello othello:
Interesting where this thread has gone...
As I recall, prisoners on death row typically cost as much, if not more, than prisoners who are incarcerated for life. This is a result largely of the lengthy and complex appeal process associated with the death penalty, which is not implemented for life sentence cases.
It is easy to point to people who should face the death penalty. There are many that I think we would all agree the world would be better off without. However, in the States, the death penalty is not a tool used once or twice a year for the worst of the worst, in which there is absolutely no doubt. It is used routinely, in fact it is required of the DA to pursue a death sentence in certain types of cases. This increases the risk of the death of an innocent person. How does one assess the value of that one person's life at the hands of the state to the potential, but unproven, impact that the death penalty would have on reducing crime.
The simple fact is that the death penalty has not been shown to prevent heinous crimes. So, you aren't saving money and you aren't preventing crime, but you are creating the risk of executing an innocent person. The death penalty, in that light, is retribution. That is all. And a willingness to risk the death of innocent people in order to obtain that retribution.
As I recall, prisoners on death row typically cost as much, if not more, than prisoners who are incarcerated for life. This is a result largely of the lengthy and complex appeal process associated with the death penalty, which is not implemented for life sentence cases.
It is easy to point to people who should face the death penalty. There are many that I think we would all agree the world would be better off without. However, in the States, the death penalty is not a tool used once or twice a year for the worst of the worst, in which there is absolutely no doubt. It is used routinely, in fact it is required of the DA to pursue a death sentence in certain types of cases. This increases the risk of the death of an innocent person. How does one assess the value of that one person's life at the hands of the state to the potential, but unproven, impact that the death penalty would have on reducing crime.
The simple fact is that the death penalty has not been shown to prevent heinous crimes. So, you aren't saving money and you aren't preventing crime, but you are creating the risk of executing an innocent person. The death penalty, in that light, is retribution. That is all. And a willingness to risk the death of innocent people in order to obtain that retribution.
I think that the death penalty should be given for the worst crimes, because some people are without rehabilitation.
I think it does prevent crimes, but there's no way to show facts that it does, cause who wants to admit if they think about killing people? I myself have the idea every now and then, I just flirt with it, but that fact that I could get caught and put to death prevents me from doing so.
It's not a simple fact that it doesn't prevent crimes, because no one can see into the future or read minds to know if someone is going to commit a crime.
The cost doesn't mean much, because in my mind that could be eliminated if they would just go ahead and kill them. We are talking about the death penalty, and not the messed up process that people use at present. I think they should have the death penalty where if someone is shown to have killed someone, we take them outside, get the guns ready, and fire. All you have to pay for is the court cost, and the bullets.
The presidents haircut cost a 1000$ but that doesn't make it right. The cost and the ridiculous appeals and time someone has to spend in jail, such as Ted Bundy, could be eliminated with my idea, so if we take that part of your arguement away, then why would it be wrong? If the person is a proven killer, send him to the firing line.
Once someone murders your family, you can say how terrible the death penalty is and make sure that person has a great time in prison on your paycheck.
othello @ Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:38 pm
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
I think that the death penalty should be given for the worst crimes, because some people are without rehabilitation.
I think it does prevent crimes, but there's no way to show facts that it does, cause who wants to admit if they think about killing people? I myself have the idea every now and then, I just flirt with it, but that fact that I could get caught and put to death prevents me from doing so.
It's not a simple fact that it doesn't prevent crimes, because no one can see into the future or read minds to know if someone is going to commit a crime.
The cost doesn't mean much, because in my mind that could be eliminated if they would just go ahead and kill them. We are talking about the death penalty, and not the messed up process that people use at present. I think they should have the death penalty where if someone is shown to have killed someone, we take them outside, get the guns ready, and fire. All you have to pay for is the court cost, and the bullets.
The presidents haircut cost a 1000$ but that doesn't make it right. The cost and the ridiculous appeals and time someone has to spend in jail, such as Ted Bundy, could be eliminated with my idea, so if we take that part of your arguement away, then why would it be wrong? If the person is a proven killer, send him to the firing line.
I think it does prevent crimes, but there's no way to show facts that it does, cause who wants to admit if they think about killing people? I myself have the idea every now and then, I just flirt with it, but that fact that I could get caught and put to death prevents me from doing so.
It's not a simple fact that it doesn't prevent crimes, because no one can see into the future or read minds to know if someone is going to commit a crime.
The cost doesn't mean much, because in my mind that could be eliminated if they would just go ahead and kill them. We are talking about the death penalty, and not the messed up process that people use at present. I think they should have the death penalty where if someone is shown to have killed someone, we take them outside, get the guns ready, and fire. All you have to pay for is the court cost, and the bullets.
The presidents haircut cost a 1000$ but that doesn't make it right. The cost and the ridiculous appeals and time someone has to spend in jail, such as Ted Bundy, could be eliminated with my idea, so if we take that part of your arguement away, then why would it be wrong? If the person is a proven killer, send him to the firing line.
If you only apply the death penalty to the worst of criminals committing the absolute worst of crimes, than any potential (yet unproven) preventative effect for more typically murders would be lost, wouldn't it? (By the way, the proof would be in the crime statistics for jurisdictions that either implement or retract the death penalty, not in asking people if they plan to kill someone).
But, if you extend the death penalty to be more inclusive, than you also increase the risk of killing an innocent person. And then, in order to save money, you eliminate the lengthy appeal process, you further increase that risk significantly.
So, again...you either have no preventative benefit (so it's still predominantly a retribution measure), or you attempt to increase preventative effect by being more inclusive in the crimes for which the death penalty (but this hasn't had any proven benefit) and the only way to get a cost savings is to increase the risk that an innocent person is killed.
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 63 Next