|
Consider the Death Penalty... | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| NOTHING "deserves" death. If you are for it as a |
by adiplomat |
2004-01-15 09:00:24 |
punishment, I don't think I want to know you.
As a prevention of further crimes, and removing the extreme cruelty of "life without parole", it is valid. One escape of a vicious murderer, to continue his/her crimes, is one too many. mistakes are inevitable, but that should not deter us from removing threats to society.
For those who say that penning them up is enough, even if there weren't fairly recent proff that you are wrong (The escapes from Huntsville, Texas a few years ago.), what about the other prisoners?
Believe it or not, if facing a mistaken death penalty I'd fight for my life with all my will, but PUBLICLY announce my support for the penalty as a whole. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Boy! work really messes up proofreading! | by adiplomat | 2004-01-15 09:08:27 |
|
I don't quite get you here ... | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 09:12:39 |
|
If you are a murderer judged incapable of reform, | by adiplomat | 2004-01-15 09:29:40 |
|
It's right to kill a dog just because of hunger... (n/t) | by delcted | 2004-01-15 09:33:59 |
|
Depending on the circumstances, yes! (n/t) | by DesertRat66 | 2004-01-15 09:48:30 |
|
I can't think of any circumstances when it would | by delcted | 2004-01-15 09:57:18 |
|
I can think of one and it's extreme | by DesertRat66 | 2004-01-15 10:10:19 |
|
Yeah, my sailor says we'll eat the neighbors, | by NOLAWitch | 2004-01-15 10:12:54 |
|
I have no problem with that but, | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 10:19:01 |
|
Dude, "Not Guilty" != "Innocent" | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 12:18:46 |
|
In the USA it does! | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:47:26 |
|
That'd be nice. | by subbywan | 2004-01-15 12:49:58 |
|
The old one is just fine | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:50:43 |
|
No, we need a new one | by subbywan | 2004-01-15 12:53:44 |
|
Do you really know | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:56:02 |
|
Yep (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-15 13:00:13 |
|
Presumed != Proved | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 12:51:27 |
|
"Treated as if" innocent? | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:54:07 |
|
Where did I say "treated as if" anything? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:15:33 |
|
Defined: "Innocent" | by corsicagt | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
What's your point? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 14:19:49 |
|
Let me back up and do this right | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 13:09:44 |
|
Correction: | by Naruki | 2004-01-15 13:20:07 |
|
Your last para was correct | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 13:32:59 |
|
It seems more ludicrous to me | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:52:07 |
|
Yes, and why is that? | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:03:40 |
|
And just how did he manage that? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 15:29:51 |
|
at the risk of revealing my ignorance :) | by gibuu | 2004-01-15 15:35:45 |
|
hehe | by gibuu | 2004-01-15 15:40:59 |
|
The test is "reasonable doubt" | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:42:27 |
|
Yeah and we all saw Cochran get plenty of that | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:48:23 |
|
All of that is irrelevant to the point. | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:41:14 |
|
and the civil case should not be allowed | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:49:51 |
|
Why not? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:07:31 |
|
Try perjury, for one. | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 13:12:29 |
|
O.K. calm down | by DesertRat66 | 2004-01-15 09:52:52 |
|
Depends on how you define "deserve", I think. | by Naruki | 2004-01-15 09:59:03 |
|
Self defence for society | by JPaganel | 2004-01-15 10:35:48 |
