Ron 10 #51 December 10, 2004 Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Informed...Yes. It costs more than most Americans make to keep a guy in prison each year. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To me an informed response would take into account that it costs even more to maintain the death penalty. Got facts? Cause if you are gonna claim that the appeals cost bunches...We would have the appeals anyway."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #52 December 10, 2004 QuoteOkay, call me stupid, but what is a neo-con?? Neo = new con = conservative See, the neo-con agenda differs from the fiscal-con agenda of old, hence the new defintion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #53 December 10, 2004 QuoteI'm not running from the issue. And, I will go as far to say I agree with you on the flawed nature of our criminal justice system. Do I have the magic answer to fix it? No. I do. It's like the old joke. Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this. The doc responds, "Don't do that". When we execute people and some of them happen to be innocent, there's an easy solution to remedy that. Stop executing people. There is NO reason for it except revenge. Some people seem to think it's more expensive to keep them in jail. Even though that's not true, let's assume for a minute it is. Are you people really that greedy and heartless that you would rather risk killing innocent people than pay a few extra dollars a year in taxes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #54 December 10, 2004 QuoteBecause we are making cogent arguments rather than simple one-liners No, you just spout propaganda and call people names."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #55 December 10, 2004 QuoteRon, if any of us come off smarter than thou, sorry, just answer the points. I have, but that would mean you would have to read more than you are and educate yourself...Which we have seen you don't do. And when someone does show you something, you discount it since you don't like it. Some critical thinking skills ya got there."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #56 December 10, 2004 QuoteI want to see the figures of what it costs per year for an inmate vs. the cost of execution. I don't know, so thats why I am asking. I have seen the figures before on here somewhere, with a valid link, but don't remember the exact numbers. I could have sworn it was more to imprison them. Please "Inform me" Excuse my spelling please I can research it, but the average is about the cost is twice to execute versus life imprisonment. The reason is two-fold: max security death row prisons cost more to operate and the appeals cost lots. The only other options are: 1. Repeal the DP 2. Execute at a higher rate with less/no appeals, but the 'accidental' murder rate would soar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #57 December 10, 2004 QuoteSee this, and tell me there is a better solution. I don't see any added gratification in killing her. I would feel gratification that she got caught, that the justice system worked and that she will spend the rest of her life in jail. Which I am sure her fellow inmates will not make the most pleasant of environments. I don't get any further gratification from another person being killed. There will always be circumstances that I can think of that would trigger an emotional response from me along the lines of kill the fucker. When I think about those outbursts though is that it comes down to getting satisfaction out of a killing. Which makes me shutter, because it makes me no better than Karla Faye. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #58 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo I don't have to pay for his/her damn living in prison for 40 years. Forget the chair, and lethal injection too.... too expensive! I say use a $0.38 bullet to the head....done! Ahh yes another informed response. See this, and tell me there is a better solution. So you're saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too. You sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #59 December 10, 2004 QuoteGot facts? Cause if you are gonna claim that the appeals cost bunches...We would have the appeals anyway. Well, it is your justice system, odd you would ask a simple Canadian for an explanation of it. The appeals process with the death penalty is significantly different from the appeals process after a life sentence without the posibility of parole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #60 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteLet's see, the neo-con execution lovers critique me about: 1. Posting a site and making it so they have to a. open another browser b. cut-n-paste the website onto the new addy block c. hit, "enter" 2. Saying that I thought it was about 100 years ago when the US last killed one of its own for refusing to kill the enemy after a draft, when it was 60 years. Irony is that their own neo-con buddy stated it was 50 years and was wrong, but there was no mention of that. I've figured it out; these neo-cons spend a lot of time watching The Price is Right, and they don't like people going over the estimate, even if they're wrong, be wrong in a mitigated fashion, hence conservative. Hey neo-cons, it sure beats addressing the substantive issues, huh? I've written all along - the neo-con agenda is indefensable, so they divert to other irrelevant issues. Thanks for not letting me down, American neo-con. You mean like when you totaly discounted something from a former President that proved you wrong based on the fact you just didn't like it? HUH? What are you talking about. Be a little more comprehensive. These 1-liners aren't helping resolve the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sabr190 0 #61 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteOkay, call me stupid, but what is a neo-con?? Neo = new con = conservative See, the neo-con agenda differs from the fiscal-con agenda of old, hence the new defintion. Ahhh.............I see "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one" - rehmwa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #62 December 10, 2004 QuoteWell, it is your justice system, odd you would ask a simple Canadian for an explanation of it. The appeals process with the death penalty is significantly different from the appeals process after a life sentence without the posibility of parole. Well you claim to know more, so I would like to see the "facts" you are using. I have an opinion, if I am trying to tell you about mine, I provide facts. You need to bring facts not opinions. So it is your resposability to provid facts to support your argument, not mine."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #63 December 10, 2004 I'm not running from the issue. And, I will go as far to say I agree with you on the flawed nature of our criminal justice system. Do I have the magic answer to fix it? No. Ok, it's flawed, now what? We can't just keep running in circles saying it's flawed; there needs to be a resolve. There are murderers that need to be removed from society forever. It would be nice to not have to pay for them, but the only other option is to execute them. Ok, let's look at any or all issues that stem from that. Could we have an infallable system? probably not. Is it worth it to rid the earth of scum so much that we ourselves become the murderers? I entered college calling cap pun a neccesary evil, now I realize it's unneccessary, hence no longer evil. We can rid ourselves of all of it and there will be no more accidental killings, no more appeals that run for 25 years, no more accusation of governmental murder, no more examples of killing for our kids to see...... It's a win, win, win, win situation, except for the revenge mongers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #64 December 10, 2004 QuoteSo you're saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too. You sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after. What did I say about putting words in my mouth? The natural world does not persist in defending "culls".---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #65 December 10, 2004 The only facts I've seen you present on this topic are that there are bad people who should be punished, and death is a reasonable punishment for those people. I don't think anyone here is denying that. The topic you still haven't addressed, though, is how to stop innocent people from being executed. How do you do that? Or do you think it's a reasonable risk based on your perceived benefit of the executing those who deserve it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #66 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'm not running from the issue. And, I will go as far to say I agree with you on the flawed nature of our criminal justice system. Do I have the magic answer to fix it? No. I do. It's like the old joke. Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this. The doc responds, "Don't do that". When we execute people and some of them happen to be innocent, there's an easy solution to remedy that. Stop executing people. There is NO reason for it except revenge. Some people seem to think it's more expensive to keep them in jail. Even though that's not true, let's assume for a minute it is. Are you people really that greedy and heartless that you would rather risk killing innocent people than pay a few extra dollars a year in taxes? Right, an considerring we've deficit spent for most of the last 24 years, it isn't a penny out of our pockets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 December 10, 2004 QuoteWell you claim to know more, so I would like to see the "facts" you are using. I have an opinion, if I am trying to tell you about mine, I provide facts. You need to bring facts not opinions. So it is your resposability to provid facts to support your argument, not mine. actually, I publicly stated to know less than posters here....... I don't live a court room. When some one with a different opinion comes along about an issue that is important to me, I go out and do some more research. I don't say, I am right and until you prove otherwise you are wrong. If I have to provide facts regarding your own judicial process, then i would suggest going through high school again, or working towards making high school better, since it should have been covered during those years. In the spirit of your post: The opinion of the death penatly costing less was brought forward first, hence that opinion needs to be supported by facts first. If that is your opinion, I would suggest checking your facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #68 December 10, 2004 QuoteWhat did I say about putting words in my mouth? The natural world does not persist in defending "culls". Good, then put words in your own mouth and respond to my answer of your question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #69 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteRon, if any of us come off smarter than thou, sorry, just answer the points. I have, but that would mean you would have to read more than you are and educate yourself...Which we have seen you don't do. And when someone does show you something, you discount it since you don't like it. Some critical thinking skills ya got there. I have, but that would mean you would have to read more than you are and educate yourself...Which we have seen you don't do. No, you have avoided all specific issues. I read plenty and cite my sources. There are pages of stuff I've written that you've ignored. And when someone does show you something, you discount it since you don't like it. If I disagree with it I refute it via logic and cite fact. OK, so where's the beef? What has someone shown me that I have discounted unfairly or without support? Please post. Your arguments are of teh Ad Hominem variety, please, answer some points. Do you want me to go back and cite them again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #70 December 10, 2004 Quote Hey neo-cons, it sure beats addressing the substantive issues, huh? I've written all along - the neo-con agenda is indefensable, so they divert to other irrelevant issues. Thanks for not letting me down, American neo-con. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You mean like when you totaly discounted something from a former President that proved you wrong based on the fact you just didn't like it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HUH? What are you talking about. Be a little more comprehensive. These 1-liners aren't helping resolve the issue. Reference this post when you ignore a cite "just cause" QuoteI hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1381251#1381251 Thats pretty bad when you can just discount a cite since you just don't like it. Just like you are doing here."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #71 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteGot facts? Cause if you are gonna claim that the appeals cost bunches...We would have the appeals anyway. Well, it is your justice system, odd you would ask a simple Canadian for an explanation of it. Hahaha, ya, first someone asked you to make Canada a penal country by taking our cinvicted murderers, now they're asking you to explain in full detail the system of another country. Funny thing is, I bet few to no Americans can cite any politicians from Canada or even start to explain how the system works up there. There are a lot of 'Americancentric' attitudes here. The appeals process with the death penalty is significantly different from the appeals process after a life sentence without the posibility of parole. Yep, and all the way down the line, the less severe the charge/conviction, the fewer the avenues to appeal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #72 December 10, 2004 QuoteI don't see any added gratification in killing her. Why do you seek gratification? I don't. I seek the culling of a major defective. She will NEVER have the opportunity to do this again? Isn't that enough? QuoteI don't get any further gratification from another person being killed. Nor do I. That would be sick, just like her. QuoteThere will always be circumstances that I can think of that would trigger an emotional response from me along the lines of kill the fucker. When I think about those outbursts though is that it comes down to getting satisfaction out of a killing. You scare me. You talk about killing someone bringing an emotional response? Whoa.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #73 December 10, 2004 QuoteThe topic you still haven't addressed, though, is how to stop innocent people from being executed. The justice system. The continuing improvement of the system."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #74 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo you're saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too. You sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after. What did I say about putting words in my mouth? The natural world does not persist in defending "culls". Ok, sonce you are unwilling to just answer, then let me formally ask you in the form of a question. 1. So are you saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too? 2.If so, you sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after. REACTION..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #75 December 10, 2004 QuoteIf I have to provide facts regarding your own judicial process, then i would suggest going through high school again, or working towards making high school better, since it should have been covered during those years. Maybe you should know the system before you slam it? Trust me, I know they system. I learned it in HS. You didn't. Until you have proof to support your claims, don't bother trying to convince me."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
