Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 34.38%
  • No

    20 62.50%
  • Other (please explain in a post below)

    1 3.13%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 108
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Bill James, as in the sabermetrics guy?
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Quotes are nice and all, but they don't really shed any light on this.

    Killing is necessary if someone's life is in danger. Once that threat is removed, once they are locked in a cage, never again to breathe free air, what's the point?

    Again, I ask: Where is the benefit to society in killing someone?
    While completely valid, this question isn't getting to the heart of the difference in opinions here.

    The question is, do you feel that some crimes are serious enough that the only suitable punishment is death?

    For much of the country, the answer to this question is yes. And they choose to live under laws knowing that, should they ever commit such a crime, they would suffer that smae punishment.

    People have a right to choose the laws they will abide, and to choose the punishments for breaking those laws. People know (or are responsible to know) what the punishment is for committing heinous crimes.

    More importantly, we do not have a right to tell others how they will live. That is imposing morality. And we can't have that argument both ways.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    While completely valid, this question isn't getting to the heart of the difference in opinions here.

    The question is, do you feel that some crimes are serious enough that the only suitable punishment is death?

    For much of the country, the answer to this question is yes. And they choose to live under laws knowing that, should they ever commit such a crime, they would suffer that smae punishment.

    People have a right to choose the laws they will abide, and to choose the punishments for breaking those laws. People know (or are responsible to know) what the punishment is for committing heinous crimes.

    More importantly, we do not have a right to tell others how they will live. That is imposing morality. And we can't have that argument both ways.
    I'm honestly at a loss to understand how not killing people is "telling others how they will live."
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    I'm honestly at a loss to understand how not killing people is "telling others how they will live."
    While I personally agree with you re: the death penalty, I could see where people who believe life starts at conception would (or should) agree with you.

    BOOM! Did that just blow you mind Nate?

    ***Note; this is not an attempt to derail this thread. So dbronc, if you wnat to delete this for being off topic, I would understand.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Bill James, as in the sabermetrics guy?
    Yes its about 1000 pages

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,338
    vCash
    1500
    I have a different take and it is one of the areas where I differ from most Progressive, and even frankly most of my own ideas regarding life.

    1st, prison I reserve for one type of crime.
    Violence.
    Thats it.
    anything else, I feel is an inappropriate response to the behaviour.
    Now, as Patsfan submitted, some crimes are too heinous to suffer.
    Mind you, I dont believe in EVIL.
    There is only well, and Ill.

    While I sympathize with the struggles of the "unwell", Im afraid as a pragmatist, I cannot justify the caged for life solution, some illness is beyond my compassion.
    If you rape and murder a child...I cannot rationalize the value of your life comparitive to your crime.
    I know that is unkind, but IDC.
    Ill never forget that mother who left her two boys in the backseat of the car as she allowed it to sink in a lake ,so she could pursue the interest of a man.
    She watched her own boys, banging on the back window screaming for her help as the car went under,....I wish, wish, wish I could get my hands on that Bi$.ch,Id do the same Goddamn thing to her!

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,839
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    While I personally agree with you re: the death penalty, I could see where people who believe life starts at conception would (or should) agree with you.

    BOOM! Did that just blow you mind Nate?

    ***Note; this is not an attempt to derail this thread. So dbronc, if you wnat to delete this for being off topic, I would understand.
    This is the argument I have tried to make but failed in the abortion thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,558
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    Alright, I was confused as to what your point was. Yes, I definitely will agree that the disparity between races in applications of the death penalty is huge. I wasn't thinking about race when I was considering the application of trhe law, but rather the balance between the application of federal vs. state law.

    I think though, that the issue of race and law enforcement is much, much larger than the application of the death penalty. We could take this far beyond the context of this discussion, and into how and why minorities end up in the criminal justice system in the first place. But that is for another thread.
    Given that we have only one irreversible sentence, and it's being applied in a disgustingly biased way even with our current safeguards, it's for this thread. The history of our death penalty, as applied, demonstrates that we cannot consistently apply it in an unbiased way. While that may be true of lots of other punishments, the death penalty is the only one where those injustices are necessarily permanent.

    States, at least some of them, do not fairly apply the death penalty. That much will become crystal clear to anyone who looks at the statistics I linked above. For those arguing it's a state issue, what do you think of their biased use of the ultimate penalty? Should their clear abuse be reined in by the federal government, as it was with many segregation and other Jim Crow laws?

    Arguments for the death penalty rest on a faulty premise. That premise is that the justice system can infallibly render a correct, final and irrevocable judgment. We have demonstrated time and again that it can't, yet we leave the ultimate decision in its hands when we need not do so.
    "There are many reasons the U.S. shouldn’t go to war with the Islamic State — and the best one may be because that is exactly what they want us to do." -- Dan Froomkin

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,839
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    Given that we have only one irreversible sentence, and it's being applied in a disgustingly biased way even with our current safeguards, it's for this thread. The history of our death penalty, as applied, demonstrates that we cannot consistently apply it in an unbiased way. While that may be true of lots of other punishments, the death penalty is the only one where those injustices are necessarily permanent.

    States, at least some of them, do not fairly apply the death penalty. That much will become crystal clear to anyone who looks at the statistics I linked above. For those arguing it's a state issue, what do you think of their biased use of the ultimate penalty? Should their clear abuse be reined in by the federal government, as it was with many segregation and other Jim Crow laws?
    .
    I actually don't buy this argument. Either it is OK to kill someone for committing murder or it's not. If it's OK, if it's just to kill for killing then who cares if it's unequal in practice. This argument shouldn't lead to the abolition of the death penalty, just the increase of it's use.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    Given that we have only one irreversible sentence, and it's being applied in a disgustingly biased way even with our current safeguards, it's for this thread. The history of our death penalty, as applied, demonstrates that we cannot consistently apply it in an unbiased way. While that may be true of lots of other punishments, the death penalty is the only one where those injustices are necessarily permanent.

    States, at least some of them, do not fairly apply the death penalty. That much will become crystal clear to anyone who looks at the statistics I linked above. For those arguing it's a state issue, what do you think of their biased use of the ultimate penalty? Should their clear abuse be reined in by the federal government, as it was with many segregation and other Jim Crow laws?

    Arguments for the death penalty rest on a faulty premise. That premise is that the justice system can infallibly render a correct, final and irrevocable judgment. We have demonstrated time and again that it can't, yet we leave the ultimate decision in its hands when we need not do so.
    While i respectfully disagree with your perspective on whether states should be able to make thisd determination, I'll agree with you in ho we would each approach the issue.


    The system I would like to support would not have a death penalty. It would put people in prison without possibility for parole (that means there is a 100% chance they will never take in another free breath of air again) for heinous crimes (rape, murder, child molestation, torture, etc.

    I would have a different system for less aggregous violent crimes, where the sentance would be broken into two segments where inmates would earn their way to the subsequent phase. The first being punishment, which would be more like a boot camp than anything. The next phase would involve transitioning into rehabilitation, to inlcude skills development, being a productive citizen, and finding a job. I beleive this transition needs to take place so that inmates are positioned to re-enter society and be productive.

    Lastly, I would take non violent crimes and make their punishment based on community service.

    That's just me though.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,839
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    While i respectfully disagree with your perspective on whether states should be able to make thisd determination, I'll agree with you in ho we would each approach the issue.


    The system I would like to support would not have a death penalty. It would put people in prison without possibility for parole (that means there is a 100% chance they will never take in another free breath of air again) for heinous crimes (rape, murder, child molestation, torture, etc.

    I would have a different system for less aggregous violent crimes, where the sentance would be broken into two segments where inmates would earn their way to the subsequent phase. The first being punishment, which would be more like a boot camp than anything. The next phase would involve transitioning into rehabilitation, to inlcude skills development, being a productive citizen, and finding a job. I beleive this transition needs to take place so that inmates are positioned to re-enter society and be productive.

    Lastly, I would take non violent crimes and make their punishment based on community service.

    That's just me though.
    sounds brilliant. I would like to add that financial punishments for non violent crimes should be indexed to wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,966
    vCash
    1490
    Murdering kills innocent people. So murder is illegal.
    The death penalty kills innocent people. So it should be illegal.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Murdering kills innocent people. So murder is illegal.
    The death penalty kills innocent people. So it should be illegal.
    Huh? I don't think I understand your point. We are killing murderer's not innocent people? Or you talking about the extremely rare but has probably happened death penalty of someone that was innocent?
    Therefore he doesn't exist
    So poof...vamoose son of a b itch

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,644
    vCash
    5471

    ewing

    I am against the death penalty. I see the function of jails as keeping us safe, deterring, and rehabilitating. I don't see taking another life as a something that is needed a accomplishment those goals. I don't think it helps in anyway
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,966
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    Huh? I don't think I understand your point. We are killing murderer's not innocent people? Or you talking about the extremely rare but has probably happened death penalty of someone that was innocent?
    It's not probably, it HAS happened. Multiple times. Start with Cameron Todd Willingham and Google around. It will happen again too, because we have an imperfect judicial system.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •