|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 8851
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:57 pm
MacDonaill MacDonaill: Jesus. Don't any of you think you are being just a bit hysterical? The death penalty for chrissakes?
It's not even a deterrent.
I would counter that statement by saying that the death penalty is 100% successfull as regards those to whom it is admistered!
It is NOT a tool of revenge. I couldn't agree more with this statement! ![Drink up [B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif)
|
Posts: 42160
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:29 pm
That it isn't an effective deterrent is BS. The rate of recidivism is 0%, which effectively lowers the stats.
|
Posts: 929
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:02 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog: That it isn't an effective deterrent is BS. The rate of recidivism is 0%, which effectively lowers the stats. Moron. It doesn't deter potential criminals from committing the most heinous crimes. Murder is committed for three reasons : 1. Profit, 2. Passon, 3. Compulsion. Profit murderers are always convinced they will not get caught, the possible consequences don't come into play. Murders of passion are not premeditated, they cannot be deterred. Compulsive murderers do it to appease an inner bloodthirst: they cannot stop themselves, and the possible consequences make no difference. Secondly, studies in the States have shown that putting someone to death ends up costing more than maintaining them in prison for life. Two wrongs don't make a right. And I've always been surprised by anti-government conservatives who so enthusiastically demand that the government should have the power to legally kill someone. Wealth distribution: forget about it. Bullet-to-head distribution: hell yeah!
|
hwacker
CKA Uber
Posts: 10896
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:45 am
MacDonaill MacDonaill: Secondly, studies in the States have shown that putting someone to death ends up costing more than maintaining them in prison for life. Wrong dipshit, $0.25 for a bullet in the head for a POS like this. It's just you leftie weenies that get in the way of a good killing. I'll bet you the mother would pull the trigger if given the chance.
|
Posts: 929
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:05 am
hwacker hwacker: MacDonaill MacDonaill: Secondly, studies in the States have shown that putting someone to death ends up costing more than maintaining them in prison for life. Wrong dipshit, $0.25 for a bullet in the head for a POS like this. It's just you leftie weenies that get in the way of a good killing. I'll bet you the mother would pull the trigger if given the chance. And this is exactly the discourse that prevents conservatives from getting majority governments. A bullet in the head? Welcome back Franco!
|
Posts: 8851
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:12 am
MacDonaill MacDonaill: hwacker hwacker: MacDonaill MacDonaill: Secondly, studies in the States have shown that putting someone to death ends up costing more than maintaining them in prison for life. Wrong dipshit, $0.25 for a bullet in the head for a POS like this. It's just you leftie weenies that get in the way of a good killing. I'll bet you the mother would pull the trigger if given the chance. And this is exactly the discourse that prevents conservatives from getting majority governments. A bullet in the head? Welcome back Franco! It would really be interesting to see what your views on this matter would be if someone you loved dearly was murdered!
|
Posts: 929
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:22 am
It's funny you should assume that someone dear to me has not been murdered or perhaps brutally and randomly attacked.
Think again asshole, I grew up in the States!
My cousin was murdered by his wife. My mum was brutally attacked as she was walking the dog one morning. Someone hit her on the back of the head with a blunt object and stole her belongings (maybe $30 in her pocket). She was expected to die. I went to where she lives expecting a funeral. She miraculously (doctors' words) recovered. They never found the guy.
At first I was angry and naturally I wanted revenge. But I never thought the State should carry out that revenge for me. Life in prison would have sufficed.
Morals are morals, and I am not about to compromise mine just because other people can be cruel.
|
Posts: 8851
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:33 am
MacDonaill MacDonaill: It's funny you should assume that someone dear to me has not been murdered or perhaps brutally and randomly attacked.
Think again asshole, I grew up in the States!
My cousin was murdered by his wife. My mum was brutally attacked as she was walking the dog one morning. Someone hit her on the back of the head with a blunt object and stole her belongings (maybe $30 in her pocket). She was expected to die. I went to where she lives expecting a funeral. She miraculously (doctors' words) recovered. They never found the guy.
At first I was angry and naturally I wanted revenge. But I never thought the State should carry out that revenge for me. Life in prison would have sufficed.
Morals are morals, and I am not about to compromise mine just because other people can be cruel. Unfortunately I have experienced quite similar situations. Perhaps I would be more willing to settle for 'life in prison' for the murderer of my brother and friends, if in fact 'life in prison meant ' life in prison!
|
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:50 am
Yogi Yogi: MacDonaill MacDonaill: It's funny you should assume that someone dear to me has not been murdered or perhaps brutally and randomly attacked.
Think again asshole, I grew up in the States!
My cousin was murdered by his wife. My mum was brutally attacked as she was walking the dog one morning. Someone hit her on the back of the head with a blunt object and stole her belongings (maybe $30 in her pocket). She was expected to die. I went to where she lives expecting a funeral. She miraculously (doctors' words) recovered. They never found the guy.
At first I was angry and naturally I wanted revenge. But I never thought the State should carry out that revenge for me. Life in prison would have sufficed.
Morals are morals, and I am not about to compromise mine just because other people can be cruel. Unfortunately I have experienced quite similar situations. Perhaps I would be more willing to settle for 'life in prison' for the murderer of my brother and friends, if in fact 'life in prison meant ' life in prison!Couldnt agree with this more. 'Life in prison' no chances for parole, no pc, no internet...just a cell and the knowledge that the scum will never see the free world again in this lifetime. **Editted due to my inability to post like a normal person 
Last edited by TattoodGirl on Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|
Posts: 8851
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:05 pm
If, in fact, a murderer was to be put in a cell with absolutely no comforts, a small slot for 'very basic nutrition to be passed to them, a hole in the floor in which they could relieve themselves, (or not), and that cell welded shut only to be opened and 'made ready' for the next prisoner upon their demise, I would definitely be in favor of the 'life in prison' concept. I don't think that it would be too long before 'all lifers' would be championing the death penalty!
|
snuggles61
Active Member
Posts: 323
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:14 pm
MacDonaill MacDonaill: Jesus. Don't any of you think you are being just a bit hysterical? The death penalty for chrissakes?
The death penalty is just a way for a bloodthirsty society to calm its own crime hysteria. It isn't justice, it's trying to make two wrongs a right. It's not even a deterrent. It's just plain folly.
I personally don't think the guy should get parole, but if he's at low risk to re-offend and he is put under strict conditions, what's the point in keeping him in prison? There are plenty of more dangerous and violent criminals to deal with then an old geezer who killed a child almost 30 years ago.
I feel sorry for the family too, but frankly it isn't up to them what happens. He did time in prison, probably got his o-ring pounded 24/7 for the last 28 years, and now he's on conditional day parole in another city, in another province.
The justice system is there to minimise the risk anti-social people pose to society. It is NOT a tool of revenge. Maybe the death penalty is a deterrent, maybe it's not but what it does do is give the people the sense of still being in control and what's been happening in Canada is the majority of the general population wants the death yet it is denied to us.
|
Posts: 929
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:39 pm
snuggles61 snuggles61: what's been happening in Canada is the majority of the general population wants the death yet it is denied to us. Whether or not a majority want the death penalty (which I find hard to believe), that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Civilised countries don't kill their own citizens, even for punishment.
|
Posts: 8851
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:21 pm
MacDonaill MacDonaill: [
Civilised countries don't kill their own citizens, even for punishment. By whose standards???
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:29 pm
Yogi Yogi: MacDonaill MacDonaill: [
Civilised countries don't kill their own citizens, even for punishment. By whose standards??? His.
|
Posts: 929
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:29 pm
Yogi Yogi: MacDonaill MacDonaill: [
Civilised countries don't kill their own citizens, even for punishment. By whose standards??? It has become the world standard. The US is the only Western country to still employ it (and many states have banned it). Look at the map. The blue countries have banned capital punishment.  Death penalty aside, I can't think of any non-blue country I would really want to live in (US included).
|
|
Page 5 of 7
|
[ 103 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests |
|
|