lawrocket 3 #76 December 10, 2004 QuoteI realize you don't want to admit that, but when, let's say Bush ignores the entire death warrant but the signature block, that means execution presented by the county to the governor will not be scrutinized, hence a fair investigation/trial is not neccessary. You fail to understand that the County's involvement with this fundamentally ceases at the trial court level. Why not look at ome examples of that from the site: 1) The first three executions were federal. Tried by some lowly US attorney. 2) Miguel Flores - appealed through the state and federal courts all the way to the US Supreme. Review outside of the counties. 3) Oliver Cruz - the US Supreme Court allowed the Execution to proceed. 4) Brian Roberson - appealed to the US Supreme Court. 5) Jessy Carlos San Miguel - the writing on him points to a statement of error that Bush said on June 6, 2000, where he said, "As I understand the facts, there is no question that the man did the crime. It's the penalty phase that needs to be examined. I think the system is working." He also said, "What the attorney general is saying is, 'Let's make sure we review all cases to make sure that everybody in this case gets a fair hearing.'" So, what we see is that review is being made by courts nationwide, and Bush stating that the attorney general is reviewing these matters. So your point is therefore disproven, is it not? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #77 December 10, 2004 QuoteOk, 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..... Where do you get this shit. Stay on topic MAN! I spoke only of killing Faye. An INDIVIDUAL! I did not call them a "bastard", something I have no knowlage of. Nothing about mass killing of innocents which is something you added to the convesation. Do NOT compare me to anyone else. BTW, you are sensationalizing what I have to say. You don't happen to be in media do you?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #78 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuote 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. Facts? The green river serial murderer was doing jhis thing for 20 years when they finally caught the dude thru DNA evidence he had killed between 45-50 women. The county siad no way where they going to make a plea bargain but then they started adding u the numbers of the cost of all the trials, 4-5 defence attorneys etc. The county (king county) Wa state accepted a guilty plea as long as the bad guy showed where he had dumped the bodies that hadn't been found. If a peron can kill 40+ people and get life due to the cost of prosecution (The county said they were going to have to raise property taxes for all the trials) then why souldn't al the other bad people get "life w/o parole". BTW the GReen river dude Mr Gary Ridgeway had a "issue" the first night in prison. He complained to a guard that his blankee had a hole in it. The guard fixed it by telling Ridgeway to stick his toe in it. Prision is not a nice place. Life in prision is a long time. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #79 December 10, 2004 QuoteWhy 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 Same with putting her away for life. Why kill her, what added benefit is there to killing her? QuoteYou scare me. You talk about killing someone bringing an emotional response? Whoa. If some one killed my son, I would have an emotional response to that yes. You scare me if you would not have an emotional response in that situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #80 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuote 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. Right, and I didn't summarily discount it, I fully addressed the circa from which it was written and explained why I think it doesn't contemporarily fit whatsoever. "Theodore Roosevelt Advocates Americanism, 1915" This was a cite from Theodore Roosevelt from 1915, which, as I explained, was a time of war to say the very least. Then you start to understand the protocol of the government and general social climate in the early 1900's and you understand why I think it's not applicable to us now. Furthermore, he was a Republican too, whatever that's worth. The main point with the cite was that Teddy Roosevelt didn't like name hyphenations denoting origin and thought it created divide. I refuted that by saying with the protocol of America with women not even having the right to vote, that I find the cite obsolete by today's standard. Now, if you wanted to be intellectual, you would argue why Roosevelt's statements are contemporarily valid and that they do apply, hence name-origin hyphens should not be used, just as Roosevelt stated. In that post I wrote: That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote, and slavery was just abolished 52 years prior, even though forms of it were still in place for some decades later. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment or having seperate public restrooms and fountains, that kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. So to think that in the middle of a major world war, and with civil rights meaning linchings were the soup de jour, I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me. Points I use to support: 1. That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. 2. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote. 3. Slavery was just abolished 52 years prior 4. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment 5. Having separate public restrooms and fountains 6. That kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. 7. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. THEREFORE.... "I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me. Do you see how critical thinking works? If you would like, I can provide cites for each piece of the supporting claims I've made. Now give me your one-liner response instead of answer each point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #81 December 10, 2004 QuoteMaybe 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. You my friend, are the one defending the position that it is cheaper to kill them. Where is your proof? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #82 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf 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. Ok, I'm realizing I've been had here .... You learned it in High School? I've been had - you're screwing with me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #83 December 10, 2004 QuoteSame with putting her away for life. Why kill her, what added benefit is there to killing her? See below. QuoteShe will NEVER have the opportunity to do this again. QuoteIf some one killed my son, I would have an emotional response to that yes. You scare me if you would not have an emotional response in that situation. I don't have one.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #84 December 10, 2004 Quote right that should have been inherent and inalienable There is no such thing.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #85 December 10, 2004 Quote But I also support the death penalty for the convicted. I agree with the comment on removing the criminal from the public permanently. I just think it is a waste of everyone's money if they stay in prison for life anyway. Eye for an Eye sounds good to me. What about if that inmate was jailed and forced to work his ass off for the rest of his life. The money he would be making would be to cover his expenses (no work= no food. If he dies for not eating, it would be suicide) and the rest to repay the family of his victim. It would be much cheaper for the taxpayer that normal life term or execution, victims would get compensations, and (very important) if it is found later that he was innocent, the state can attempt to compensate him. Everybody wins. Would you ban death penalty under this terms? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #86 December 10, 2004 QuoteSee below. That doesn't answer the question. There is anotehr way of acheiving her never doing that again, without killing her. So, what added benefit has killing her? QuoteI don't have one. A son, or an emotional reaction to that situation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #87 December 10, 2004 QuoteThere is anotehr way of acheiving her never doing that again, without killing her. Can you be sure of that. Of course there has never been a murder in prison, no one has ever escaped, and there is no such thing as parole. Death is final. (So far anyway.) QuoteA son, or an emotional reaction to that situation? A son.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #88 December 10, 2004 QuoteBecause we are making cogent arguments rather than simple one-liners. Being verbose does not make one right. Much of the semantic content of this website is null. Are those that post alot any more right than one that posts infrequently? Ron has made a somple point. Others have clouded the conversation with rhetoric, and assumption.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #89 December 10, 2004 QuoteCan you be sure of that. yes QuoteA son. Ok, insert your own favourite loved on. Now tell me you would not have an emotional reaction. So, to summarize, you would pick the certainty of death over the uncertainty of the judicial system? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #90 December 10, 2004 QuoteDo you see how critical thinking works? If you would like, I can provide cites for each piece of the supporting claims I've made. Now give me your one-liner response instead of answer each point. Just cause you can justify your opinion based on personal feelings doen NOT change anything. The Constitution is over 200 years old...So I guess its not something you credit either? Facts are facts no matter how old they are, or what war the were before. Some critical thinking"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
diablopilot 2 #91 December 10, 2004 Quoteyes Prove it. QuoteOk, insert your own favourite loved on. Now tell me you would not have an emotional reaction. Certianly would. Would my emotions cause me to go out and murdur the person responsible? No. I have control. QuoteSo, to summarize, you would pick the certainty of death over the uncertainty of the judicial system? No. Because I still have fait in a system that is breaking down. Silly, but I believe.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #92 December 10, 2004 QuoteOk, I'm realizing I've been had here .... You learned it in High School? I've been had - you're screwing with me you are not the only one that went to college. But I learned this in High School."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
diablopilot 2 #93 December 10, 2004 QuoteWhat about if that inmate was jailed and forced to work his ass off for the rest of his life. The money he would be making would be to cover his expenses (no work= no food. If he dies for not eating, it would be suicide) and the rest to repay the family of his victim. It would be much cheaper for the taxpayer that normal life term or execution, victims would get compensations, and (very important) if it is found later that he was innocent, the state can attempt to compensate him. Everybody wins. I like it. But you'd never get those that believe in "fairnes" and harshness" to suport it. QuoteWould you ban death penalty under this terms? No.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #94 December 10, 2004 QuoteWhat about if that inmate was jailed and forced to work his ass off for the rest of his life. I have no problem with it. However, liberals would never let you do that. QuoteThe money he would be making would be to cover his expenses (no work= no food. If he dies for not eating, it would be suicide) and the rest to repay the family of his victim. The liberals would never let you do that."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
SkyDekker 1,465 #95 December 10, 2004 QuoteProve it. Don't let him/her interact with other people. QuoteCertianly would. Would my emotions cause me to go out and murdur the person responsible? No. I have control. Good, but has no bearing on what I said. I refered to a feeling of revenge after the murderer was put to death. Not me going out and killing that person myself. QuoteNo. Because I still have fait in a system that is breaking down. Silly, but I believe. You admit that the system is breaking down. You don't have a problem with possibly killing an innocent man or woman? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #96 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe 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. And you're willing to concede and condone that innocent people are intentionally killed by the state until the justice system is infallible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #97 December 10, 2004 QuoteFacts are facts no matter how old they are, or what war the were before. I am still waiting for those facts that support your opinion. I don't even care how old they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #98 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat about if that inmate was jailed and forced to work his ass off for the rest of his life. I have no problem with it. However, liberals would never let you do that. QuoteThe money he would be making would be to cover his expenses (no work= no food. If he dies for not eating, it would be suicide) and the rest to repay the family of his victim. The liberals would never let you do that. Careful with those generalizations. I fully support putting prisoners to work. And I don't mean telemarketing and bill collection. I'm talking manual labor in a field. Liberals generally don't have a problem with that. Again, you're seeing only black and white. What liberals generally have a problem with are the cruel and hazardous conditions of chain gangs in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #99 December 10, 2004 QuoteDon't let him/her interact with other people. Boy, that sound humane.You still haven't proved it BTW. QuoteI refered to a feeling of revenge after the murderer was put to death. a) revenge would not be an applicable emotive response AFTER the murder was put to death. b) I don't feel revenge. Ever. Really.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #100 December 10, 2004 QuoteBoy, that sound humane.You still haven't proved it BTW. Wasn't meant to sound humane If a person has no interaction with another human, it will be hard to commit murder. Quoteb) I don't feel revenge. Ever. Really. Good for you, I doubt it is true for every body. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
