the death penalty

[Primate]

I'm inclined to think that if the nature and scope of the crime suggests they would likely do it again if ever free then they should get the death penalty. Any argument that they'll be locked up for life is invalid because no one can guarantee that some accident or circumstance may occur that would put lives at risk.

Of course if some one wants to step forward and guarantee they’ll never commit another crime, they can take on the responsibility of incarcerating these criminals at their own expense as long as they’ll be willing to share the fate of the scum bags if they kill again.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Winger site references, opinion pieces, and general bullshit by Mr. Shithead... how typical

Too-many big words, for ya', huh???

Typical.

​

 

[Sallow]

It's interesting to note that there STILL is no agreement as to whether the death penality reduces the level of violent crime in society, except for agreement that people who are executed are not likely to commit any further murders.

Actually..in probably most of the cases, the death penalty has little deterrence. And again, I think it should be very rarely used. But in cases like serial murder, torture/murder, rape/torture/murder, murder for hire, and gross corporate negligence that results in the mass death (think oil rigs, or Bhopal India) and I think you get the drift.

That Mass. case certainly qualifies. Those men beat their victims, tied them to beds, raped them, and then set them on fire.

I can't think of any more deserving indivduals.

 

[DiamondDave]

Winger site references, opinion pieces, and general bullshit by Mr. Shithead... how typical

Too-many big words, for ya', huh???

Typical.

​

No... and just like your follow up post... a bunch of unreliable sources, opinion pieces stated as fact by you, and a bunch of bullshit by you.... as stated, very typical for you

 

[DiamondDave]

It's interesting to note that there STILL is no agreement as to whether the death penality reduces the level of violent crime in society, except for agreement that people who are executed are not likely to commit any further murders.

Actually..in probably most of the cases, the death penalty has little deterrence. And again, I think it should be very rarely used. But in cases like serial murder, torture/murder, rape/torture/murder, murder for hire, and gross corporate negligence that results in the mass death (think oil rigs, or Bhopal India) and I think you get the drift.

That Mass. case certainly qualifies. Those men beat their victims, tied them to beds, raped them, and then set them on fire.

I can't think of any more deserving indivduals.

Deters a maniacal murder from doing it again... because that murderer can't hurt anyone else when they're dead and gone....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I believe strongly in the death penalty and feel it should be used more often in this country when it is warranted. However, I do feel that before a person is put to death that it should be absolutely certain that the person being put to death committed the crime. If there is the slightest amount of doubt, the person should get life in prison without parole while awaiting a new trial to obtain all of the facts and determine actual quilt. Once found guilty, and there is no doubt of that guilt, then the person should be put to death within 3 months. Hanging around for years before being put to death is a needless expense.

.....Especially when there's a dire need, for the entertainment-value of MORE executions in the Future!!!

​

There should be less executions in the future. But that does not preclude the fact that there are indivduals, so damaged, that they should not ever have the chance to do harm again.

Fine!!!

Wouldn't you ALSO like to avoid MORE murders....by OTHERS....in the Future???

As-long-as we keep executing these examples/symptoms of the much-larger-issue of mental-illness....the murders will just (simply) keep comin'.​

That said, the prison system needs a complete and total overhaul. What we have in place now, basically takes criminals and makes them hardened criminals.

....And, you really believe that's a message you can (successfully) sell to U.S.-taxpayers???

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Winger site references, opinion pieces, and general bullshit by Mr. Shithead... how typical

Too-many big words, for ya', huh???

Typical.

​

No... and just like your follow up post... a bunch of unreliable sources, opinion pieces stated as fact by you, and a bunch of bullshit by you.... as stated, very typical for you

So, it's the volume, huh.....too-much reading makes your head hurt?

Sounds like the 'Bagger Syndrome: Too-Much Thinking Is A Bad Thing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's interesting to note that there STILL is no agreement as to whether the death penality reduces the level of violent crime in society, except for agreement that people who are executed are not likely to commit any further murders.

Actually..in probably most of the cases, the death penalty has little deterrence. And again, I think it should be very rarely used. But in cases like serial murder, torture/murder, rape/torture/murder, murder for hire, and gross corporate negligence that results in the mass death (think oil rigs, or Bhopal India) and I think you get the drift.

That Mass. case certainly qualifies. Those men beat their victims, tied them to beds, raped them, and then set them on fire.

I can't think of any more deserving indivduals.

Deters a maniacal murder from doing it again... because that murderer can't hurt anyone else when they're dead and gone....

....Until the next-one comes-along, and (possibly) gets you....or, one o' yours.

Great long-term strategy, there.