In article ,
says...

On 9/21/11 9:08 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:10:06 -0400, wrote:

This is one slightly right of center, politically Independent who is 100
percent *against* the death penalty.

We need to find a way to deal with capital crimes in a different way.

Eisboch

Hear, hear!!!


Dealing with capital punishment is easy: outlaw it.

Uh, he said "find a way to deal with capital CRIMES", dip**** coward.

On 9/22/2011 7:35 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/21/11 10:45 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:44 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:12 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:10:06 -0400, wrote:

This is one slightly right of center, politically Independent who is
100
percent *against* the death penalty.

We need to find a way to deal with capital crimes in a different way.

Eisboch

Send the all the death row inmates to Europe and see how long it
takes them to reinstate hanging,firing squads and the guillotine

How about if "we" find an *effective* way to deal with capital crimes in
a different way *THEN* Get rid of the death penalty.

I'm all ears???


We'll come up with something *after* you lose your temper yet again, act
out one of your violent fantasies, get convicted, get strapped to a
gurney, and so forth and so on.


No you won't. Why? Because you are a dumb liberal who thinks he can
legislate away all problems. "Ban capital punishment" you say. Brilliant
Idea. Is that what you call critical thinking?

On 9/21/2011 11:00 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 21/09/2011 7:44 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:12 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:10:06 -0400, wrote:

This is one slightly right of center, politically Independent who is
100
percent *against* the death penalty.

We need to find a way to deal with capital crimes in a different way.

Eisboch

Send the all the death row inmates to Europe and see how long it
takes them to reinstate hanging,firing squads and the guillotine

How about if "we" find an *effective* way to deal with capital crimes in
a different way *THEN* Get rid of the death penalty.

Just call it euthanasia, problem solved.

I like it.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On 9/21/11 9:08 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:10:06 -0400, wrote:

This is one slightly right of center, politically Independent who is
100
percent *against* the death penalty.

We need to find a way to deal with capital crimes in a different way.

Eisboch

Hear, hear!!!


Dealing with capital punishment is easy: outlaw it.

Uh, he said "find a way to deal with capital CRIMES", (snipped)
---------------------------------------------------

Correct.

I have no problem with imprisonment for life with hard labor ... having to
earn every penny for whatever privileges or perks
available in a convicted murder's cell like TV, books whatever. Develop
work programs in the prisons that help pay for their incarceration.

Hard work never killed anyone.

I am just totally against the "eye for an eye" punishment mentality. We
consider chopping off of a hand for thievery or stoning to death for
adultery to be barbaric in other cultures. What is "un-barbaric" about a
life for a life especially when the potential exists that some are wrongly
accused and sentenced? "Oooops. Sorry about that" is a little late.

I think in many cases a tough, work laden life existence in prison with
minimal privileges could be more of a persuasive influence to prevent a
premeditated murder than a death sentence. Many are prone to committing
suicide anyway.

On 9/22/2011 8:09 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/21/11 7:10 PM, Eisboch wrote:
This is one slightly right of center, politically Independent who is 100
percent *against* the death penalty.

We need to find a way to deal with capital crimes in a different way.

Eisboch

Don't elect presidents who are so gung ho about the death penalty.
President who do not favor the death penalty will nominate prospective
Associate Justices to the Supreme Court who do not favor the death
penalty and as soon as a 6-3 majority is achieved, will determine the
death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" and thereby outlaw it.


Brilliant answer you dumb ****. Do you suppose that president will
oppose abortion with the same vigor. And then there's the small problem
of propagation of criminal minds. Might be too late to stop that though.
It's already crept into our executive legislative and justice system.

May your lovely wife run away and find happiness with a brick mason.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:34:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On 9/21/11 9:08 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:10:06 -0400, wrote:

This is one slightly right of center, politically Independent who is
100
percent *against* the death penalty.

We need to find a way to deal with capital crimes in a different way.

Eisboch

Hear, hear!!!


Dealing with capital punishment is easy: outlaw it.

Uh, he said "find a way to deal with capital CRIMES", (snipped)
---------------------------------------------------

Correct.

I have no problem with imprisonment for life with hard labor ... having to
earn every penny for whatever privileges or perks
available in a convicted murder's cell like TV, books whatever. Develop
work programs in the prisons that help pay for their incarceration.

Hard work never killed anyone.

I am just totally against the "eye for an eye" punishment mentality. We
consider chopping off of a hand for thievery or stoning to death for
adultery to be barbaric in other cultures. What is "un-barbaric" about a
life for a life especially when the potential exists that some are wrongly
accused and sentenced? "Oooops. Sorry about that" is a little late.

I think in many cases a tough, work laden life existence in prison with
minimal privileges could be more of a persuasive influence to prevent a
premeditated murder than a death sentence. Many are prone to committing
suicide anyway.


Have you ever wondered why the same folks who hate the death penalty seem to have no problem with
Muslims stoning women to death for 'adultery'?

Making murderers work would be 'cruel and unusual' punishment. No liberal would buy it.

On 9/22/11 10:23 AM, John H wrote:

Have you ever wondered why the same folks who hate the death penalty seem to have no problem with
Muslims stoning women to death for 'adultery'?


On what do you base that moronic statement, Herring?

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

In article ,
says...


I have no problem with imprisonment for life with hard labor ... having to
earn every penny for whatever privileges or perks
available in a convicted murder's cell like TV, books whatever. Develop
work programs in the prisons that help pay for their incarceration.

Hard work never killed anyone.

I am just totally against the "eye for an eye" punishment mentality. We
consider chopping off of a hand for thievery or stoning to death for
adultery to be barbaric in other cultures. What is "un-barbaric" about a
life for a life especially when the potential exists that some are wrongly
accused and sentenced? "Oooops. Sorry about that" is a little late.

I think in many cases a tough, work laden life existence in prison with
minimal privileges could be more of a persuasive influence to prevent a
premeditated murder than a death sentence. Many are prone to committing
suicide anyway.

It's a simple fact that most of us don't want certain killers breathing
the same air as us, or society's money feeding them.
'Certain killers" means certain.
There can be no question of guilt.
And there are plenty of them.
This guy in Georgia doesn't qualify.
Peterson in California doesn't qualify.
Incontrovertible guilt isn't determined by a jury.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" isn't good enough.
A "confession" isn't good enough
Everybody knows the innocent are convicted, and falsely confess.
Use the death penalty for the John Wayne Gacys.
Use it for the 2 lowlifes who killed a man's wife and daughters up your
way.
Do you have a problem executing people like these?
Caught in the act, or by incontrovertible evidence.
The problem is that you and I know what is incontrovertible evidence.
You and I would spare a life if there was even a shadow of doubt.
You and I would never take the slightest chance of an innocent being
executed.
Prosecutors aren't you or I. They go for the death penalty too often.
If the death penalty is outlawed, it will be because the prosecutors
have with their zeal sowed the seeds of doubt.
There can be no doubt of absolute guilt when executing people.
Only fools protect evil killers from execution.
And only fools don't see the evil in executing the possibly innocent.
So it's all up to the prosecutors which way it goes.
Prosecutors are politicians.
We're ****ed.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:48:20 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


I have no problem with imprisonment for life with hard labor ... having to
earn every penny for whatever privileges or perks
available in a convicted murder's cell like TV, books whatever. Develop
work programs in the prisons that help pay for their incarceration.

Hard work never killed anyone.

I am just totally against the "eye for an eye" punishment mentality. We
consider chopping off of a hand for thievery or stoning to death for
adultery to be barbaric in other cultures. What is "un-barbaric" about a
life for a life especially when the potential exists that some are wrongly
accused and sentenced? "Oooops. Sorry about that" is a little late.

I think in many cases a tough, work laden life existence in prison with
minimal privileges could be more of a persuasive influence to prevent a
premeditated murder than a death sentence. Many are prone to committing
suicide anyway.

It's a simple fact that most of us don't want certain killers breathing
the same air as us, or society's money feeding them.
'Certain killers" means certain.
There can be no question of guilt.
And there are plenty of them.
This guy in Georgia doesn't qualify.
Peterson in California doesn't qualify.
Incontrovertible guilt isn't determined by a jury.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" isn't good enough.
A "confession" isn't good enough
Everybody knows the innocent are convicted, and falsely confess.
Use the death penalty for the John Wayne Gacys.
Use it for the 2 lowlifes who killed a man's wife and daughters up your
way.
Do you have a problem executing people like these?
Caught in the act, or by incontrovertible evidence.
The problem is that you and I know what is incontrovertible evidence.
You and I would spare a life if there was even a shadow of doubt.
You and I would never take the slightest chance of an innocent being
executed.
Prosecutors aren't you or I. They go for the death penalty too often.
If the death penalty is outlawed, it will be because the prosecutors
have with their zeal sowed the seeds of doubt.
There can be no doubt of absolute guilt when executing people.
Only fools protect evil killers from execution.
And only fools don't see the evil in executing the possibly innocent.
So it's all up to the prosecutors which way it goes.
Prosecutors are politicians.
We're ****ed.





No 'we're' not. Those deserving the death penalty are, as they should be.

On 9/22/2011 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:34:34 -0400, wrote:

I have no problem with imprisonment for life with hard labor ..

The problem is, that doesn't happen either. "Hard labor" has been seen
as cruel and unusual.
If this is truly a "bad" man, the security problems of having this guy
out of the cage makes this a very expensive program. That is why
"supermax" prisoners only get an hour a day out of the box, alone in a
slightly bigger box. They also cost $100,000 per inmate year, just for
the incarceration expenses.
The real expense issue with "lifers" is the last 10 years of the life.
They end up costing us hundreds of thousands in medical care and
people will insist that they get the finest medical care the country
has to offer. At what point can you withhold medical care?
You end up with questions like "should Ted Kaczynski get an organ
transplant"?

I am still waiting for the "proportionality" answer.

If you are throwing people in federal prison for life for being pot
farmers and stock scammers what can you do to show mass murder is a
worse crime?
What do you do when a "lifer" kills again in prison?
Are all subsequent murders "free"?
That sure makes corrections officer a tougher job.
It also tends to reinforce the old practice of "Cop killers never make
it to the station alive"

I don't like the death penalty either and I have a lot of doubts about
the guy they just killed. I think the best form of "proportionality" is
12 jurors... If a jury of your peers feels you deserve it, and their
decision is formed within the guidelines of the law, you die...