Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#579409 Dec 29, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of those were reported in that article as escapees, so it was hardly that they were let out, and usually people are not executed in the USA for many years after the sentence so execution would only have prevented their subsequent crimes if it had happened immediately on sentencing. It that were to happen as does in some countries, then many innocent people will also be executed.
The system is sick also. When a known killer, such as OJ Simpson, walks free from his murder trial, when everyone and his grandmother knew he is guilty, but then ordered to pay money to the victims' families in a subsequent civil trial, that has to be a complete breakdown of the judicial system.
If the guy did not murder, as found in the murder trial, then how could he have to pay for those he murdered? He was the murderer, otherwise, he would have walked from the second civil trial also. Fortunately they misused the system again and gave him an excessive sentence on a later minor offence.
Actually I was hoping, at the time, that he was innocent, because he was a likeable character, at least in his movies. I didn't know him as a football player, though he played for a team only 1/2 hour from me, because I don't follow football.
As usual you miss the point. I do not filter my links to bolster ,y argument I present facts. The facts were that many were released, some were escapees, but all were murderers that repeated their offenses when they were out of prison. Had each of them been executed none of them would have murdered again.
I am firmly against the extended dragged out process after a person is condemned. There should be 1 appeal and of course procedurals review and then get it over with. Max time 2 years from sentence to burial.
As to PJ it just shows you do not understand the US Justice system at all regardless of how much you try to hint to the contraray.
In a criminal case the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did the crime. That is a high standard to maintain. In a civil suite the complainent must prove by a prponderance of the evidence that is is most likely the way they say it is. That is one of the built in safety nets of the US justice system to prevent people being sent to jail unjustly.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#579410 Dec 29, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
MAFIA? LOL
what kind of off the wall publications are you reading.
sounds like some communist college term paper....
my point is that AMERICA fights wars because they are serving a purpose, to maintain world peace.
if at all possible
you know sometimes i think it would be a good thing if the draft was reinstated and these LIBERAL anti-american young folks had to go find out what it costs to have freedom and safety.
Many of the wars going on in foreign countries, that the USA doesn't officially get involved in, are actually partially started by the USA. One example of USA involvement is the assassination of the first democratically elected leader of the former Belgian Congo. That particular one has been officially publicized though many go on that we never hear of.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#579411 Dec 29, 2012
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>You are a fool if you think that fighting wars has ANYTHING to do with peace. It's only about generating money.
Very true, and even though most intelligent people know that, it doesn't seem to stop people from going to wars.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#579412 Dec 29, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
My ex-wife suggested making bullets cost $5,000 apiece. They can keep their guns, but they'd have to get a mortgage to do any serious damage. I think it's a pretty good suggestion.
Chris Rock did a bit on that:

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#579413 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
First, facts can be fluff as well, I didn't say they were not facts, just irrelevant to your point.
Second, terrorism is the rule or push political change by use of threats, look at the word, it says what it is right there. So yes, threatening a person with death if they don't behave is terrorism.
Your final assertion, that's because to religious people life is meaningless, lacking value in life you see nothing wrong with ending it sooner. Unless you are not religious in which case you still have issues if that's what you would really wish..... and I wasn't going to bring it up at all, you did.
You seem to be under the impression I am against the death penalty, I am not, I just want it used more responsibly and not used as a threat the way many use it now. But my reasons are psychological, not based on "feelings," when you tell a child not to do something, what is their first reaction? That trait doesn't fade as adults, most just learn to suppress it. It is actually part of the instinctual "fight or flight" response to threats, the superior appears as a threat, and what they say not to do becomes the fight response.
No sorry but there was no fluff. I present the facts not just those that bolster my point although even for the ones that excaped it still proves my point. Had they been put to death they would not have killed again.
It is not terrorism. It is punishment. No one is trying to change anyones behavior we are simply educating them as to the possible repercussions of their actions. By your standard speeding tickets are terroism.
Religion has nothing to do with it. That is a complete fabrication on your part as you are anti-religion. In my opinion it is worse to stay in a cage for years than it is to just get it over with. Holding someoen on death row where they get 1 hour per day outside their cell for 10 or more years is worse than just getting it done within a reasonable time.
As to the fight or flight thing, don't think so. Kids adapt because they learn to weigh the results and costs and pick what is best for their well being. That is not a threat that is life.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579414 Dec 29, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>More like , the less likely the will commit unnecessary violence, period.
And the more likely they will know how to avoid it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#579415 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
No sorry but there was no fluff. I present the facts not just those that bolster my point although even for the ones that excaped it still proves my point. Had they been put to death they would not have killed again.
It is not terrorism. It is punishment. No one is trying to change anyones behavior we are simply educating them as to the possible repercussions of their actions. By your standard speeding tickets are terroism.
Religion has nothing to do with it. That is a complete fabrication on your part as you are anti-religion. In my opinion it is worse to stay in a cage for years than it is to just get it over with. Holding someoen on death row where they get 1 hour per day outside their cell for 10 or more years is worse than just getting it done within a reasonable time.
As to the fight or flight thing, don't think so. Kids adapt because they learn to weigh the results and costs and pick what is best for their well being. That is not a threat that is life.
Now you resemble a troll, sorry I bought into your trolling as serious discussion.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579416 Dec 29, 2012
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong chicken.
But since you brought it up, have you ever seen someone actually kill a chicken? Not on a farm but industrialized? They put the live chicken upside down in a large funnel and their heads stick out the bottom. Then they cut it off and let the blood drain out, and then they throw in in a pile of other dead chickens. You don't even want to know how they kill pigs for pork :p
Yes, I've seen some horrible youtube images.

My grandpa killed a chicken in front of me when I was 6. I went vegetarian after that. She was a sweet little red hen. Very friendly for a chicken.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579417 Dec 29, 2012
Silent Majority wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove their is'nt...
Goddammit!

That's the second time in two days we get our asses handed to us by this impeccable logic.

I hope nobody else finds out about it.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579418 Dec 29, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true, and even though most intelligent people know that, it doesn't seem to stop people from going to wars.
Sadly :(

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#579419 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
No fluff just facts.
1. I and as far as I know never said that, "All criminals will be repeat offenders of the same crime" as you claim. That being said you can not deny that many do commit the same crime over and again including murder.
2. What terrorism? No one is advicating terroism. A trial, judgement by a jury of your peers and sentencing. That is not terrorism that is our justice system.
3. No one is advocating killing all those charged with murder. See item 2 above as there is a process that must be followed.
What I am advocating is a person found guilty of first degree capitol murder should not be let out of jail they should be put to death. Now notice the key words there, First Degree, Capitol, and found guilty.
I always hear about so called trumped up charges but the evidence is very thin when looking at the numbers. Does it happen, maybe. Did it happen in the past yes but not to the extent that some would have us believe. May not guilty people possibly be put to death, maybe. Will carrying out the sentence handed down in a timely manner prevent any possibility of that person murdering someone again, you bet it will!
Now prior to the usual come back about, "You would feel different if it were you" thing sorry but I wouldn't. If I were somehow wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death I would want it done fast. Don't leave my on death row for years. Let my family sue if I am proved not guilty later.
Bottom line is the only way to ensure that a murderer never murders again is to end his or her life.
Ending a person's life would ensure that no criminal ever offended again and would ease or eliminate the crowding in prisons. I think I read a couple months back that the USA has the highest per capita numbers of prisoners in the world. Actually I did read it and here is another source:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per...

Would you advocate that all criminals, regardless of the crime, be immediately executed?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579420 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You suggested that harsher punishment does not prevent recidivism when, in fact, it does.
There are too many murderers who don't do their entire life sentence and get out only to murder again. Execution would have prevented that. Being babied while they are incarcerated does not remove their baser enjoyment at murdering other people. Once a killer, always a killer.
That doesn't bode well for our soldiers.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579421 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>My grandpa killed a chicken in front of me when I was 6.
Sorry you had to see that. In some ways that is like child abuse. Glad you went vegetarian but you still need your Omega-3 fatty acids :)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579422 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Choking someone is fairly easy.
Not really.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#579423 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but it still doesn't hold water. Are there people that are racists? Hell yes there are on every side of the issue. Notice that the only ones that ever get the publicity are the so called White Supremacists. No one ever metions the NBPP, or other such groups. That is what makes the whole argument lame.
You bring up 1 guy and somehow expect that to justify your claim that it is rampant in the US? Now that is Lame.
Considering whites far outnumber all other groups in the USA, I kind of think that the impact of white racism has a major impact as well. I particularly object to white supremacist because they embarrass and offend me as a fellow white person.

If one is Black or one is a Native American, then racism against Whites though not an admirable characteristic has some rationale behind why it happens. If I was a member of either of those groups I think I would find it rather difficult to really look at whites as objectively as I can as a white.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579424 Dec 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
There are several good arguments for why this matter is everybody's business. Here's one:
Kids need to be able to develop a natural conscience before it is poisoned by Christian doctrine, which quite clearly stunts its natural development. The Christians here are continually asking us why we don't go on killing rampages or rape people without a god belief. What does that tell you?
It tells you that they don't know what we know - the reason why, which is what an inner moral compass feels like, and how it can determine behavior.
Furthermore, it shows that the Christian doesn't care about the consequences of his actions to others, just to himself. He doesn't know why not to harm others if he won't be punished.
Do we really want to live among such people? Aren't we all at risk if they suddenly lose their faith or rebel against their god? That makes what your church does to developing children everybody's business. It means that he have a interest in seeing that the church not teach them ethics until they are mature so that they will know why not to rape and murder even in the absence of retributive torture. Does that make sense?
The same is true for the reasoning faculty, which tells us how it is out there. Christians learn to disesteem evidence, reason and critical thought, and to trust faith instead. They tend to be scientifically illiterate and to distrust scientists, which also puts the rest of us at risk, especially if the scientists are climate scientists.
We depend on our neighbors to have a 21st century understanding of our world, not the seventh century version, and to use it to make intelligent decisions. Thus, we need to educate children unimpeded by the church until a capacity for critical thought and reasonable judgment emerges, perhaps at age twenty-one, when we trust them to drink.
Then the church can have those that are interested.
Of course, the church would object, and the reason is clear: it's much harder to capture minds that can think clearly and that know right from wrong using the a bible than it is to capture the innocent and vulnerable.
Does that sound reasonable?
Infinitely.

“Bringing the Paranoia !!”

Since: Oct 11

MY hometown is YOUR Hometown

#579425 Dec 29, 2012
unbelievable.

judging by the # of posts some of you have you either:

a) have NO job
b) have NO life
c) are a TOTAL looooser
d) all of the above

the answer is "D" folks lmbo!

just sad...

p.s.

some of you really need to take your pic down because you are making some of us sick O_o

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579426 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>He said he wanted to kill more than he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/europ...
I've seen interviews where prisoners said they couldn't wait to get out to kill someone, one guy had AIDS and he said he looked forward to infecting anybody and everybody that he could because he was so full of rage about having it himself that he wanted as many other people to get it and suffer from it too. His victims were still strangers in his mind....not anybody who had ever wronged him in any way.
That doesn't cover being choked from behind by someone twice your size while lying down on a flat surface.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#579427 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, right. Moron.
I've been choked before and it seemed a breeze for the guy doing it.
what encouragement did you give?

the same as you do here?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579428 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
The comment was that guns had only one purpose to kill people. Not true.
As to your comment about killing animals, well duh genius! How else are we gonna eat them? Let me guess you are one of those that says us people that eat meat should buy it in the store where no animals were hurt to get it.
The sole purpose of assault weapons is to kill people.

That's kind of why they're called ASSAULT weapons.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min atemcowboy 559,518
Who would like Darwins Theory of Evolution take... (Dec '10) 7 min Just Think 48,262
Kokopelli's Place, too (Jan '08) 16 min geko 23,972
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 20 min Rick in Kansas 265,153
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 27 min Classic 1,901
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 30 min lil whispers 605,025
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 30 min NEWS-FLASH 175,652
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 55 min Jac 441,774
More from around the web