'Megan's Law' killer escapes death under N.J. execution ban

[Larkinn]

Sounds good to me.

Biased asinine overgeneralizations sound good to you? What cunning reasoning skills you have.

Lefties also forget that government is GOVERNMENT, not our mommies.

Err because we don't want the government to kill people? What?

Governments historically have the right and obligation to protect the people...up to and including killing of our enemies. Whether those enemies are threatening us from beyond our borders; or from within them.

They also historically have the right to suprress dissent, arbitrarily execute people, and do all sorts of nasty shit. You want a government by "historical standards" go move to a shitty dictatorship.

I have no problem with a state choosing to do without the death penalty. I think that's a state's choice, and they should have the right to make it. But this claptrap about "government shouldn't be in the business of killing" is unrealistic and irrelevant. In every sense.

Well unrealistic and irrelevant. I'll counter that by saying its realistic and relevant! Try saying something worthwhile next time.

 

[AllieBaba]

Those aren't overgeneralizations. They're solutions.

Whether you want the government to kill people or not, it's going to happen. You can piss and moan all you like, that's the way the cookie crumbles. If the government loses the ability to do that, it ceases to be a government.

Our government doesn't have the right to suppress dissent. There are certain parties who attempt to, every now and then (Clinton admin...cough cough) but in general it doesn't work out too well for them, and in general, it's not well tolerated.

And as for the rest of your mindless tripe, let's just say it's mindless tripe, and my post was a thousand times more relevant and realistic than anything else you've ever written on here.

 

[Larkinn]

Those aren't overgeneralizations. They're solutions.

Right.

Whether you want the government to kill people or not, it's going to happen. You can piss and moan all you like, that's the way the cookie crumbles. If the government loses the ability to do that, it ceases to be a government.

So all the governments around the world that have banned the death penalty are...what exactly?

Oh, and by the way, the trend is going away from the death penalty. So you ghouls will have less deaths to gloat over soon.

Our government doesn't have the right to suppress dissent. There are certain parties who attempt to, every now and then (Clinton admin...cough cough) but in general it doesn't work out too well for them, and in general, it's not well tolerated.

You were talking about governments historically, not our government. Stick to one set of guidelines you are talking about.

And as for the rest of your mindless tripe, let's just say it's mindless tripe, and my post was a thousand times more relevant and realistic than anything else you've ever written on here.

Wow...you really are delusional, aren't you?

 

[AllieBaba]

The other countries which don't have the death penalty are other countries, and not relevant to the argument about the US and the death penalty.

And one eastern state does not a trend make. But that "trend" goes back and forth. New Jersey can release all the child rapists and murderers, for all I care. If they come to my state and get caught, they'll be executed.

When I spoke about our government not having the right to suppress dissent, that's what I meant to say. Psst...I get to refine on the topic. So do you, except of course, you are incapable of doing so. It requires a little more effort than you're used to. That's okay. Just pretend you understand.

 

[Larkinn]

The other countries which don't have the death penalty are other countries, and not relevant to the argument about the US and the death penalty.

Sure they are. You said they weren't governments, I'm wondering what you would call them.

And one eastern state does not a trend make. But that "trend" goes back and forth. New Jersey can release all the child rapists and murderers, for all I care. If they come to my state and get caught, they'll be executed.

Its more than just "one eastern state". Its USSC court decisions, NJ, Illinois, NY put them on hold after 2004, and 11 states have basically barred the death penalty over concerns about lethal injection. Not all "Eastern" states which you seem to dismiss for unknown reasons.

By the way, what makes you think NJ will release them? Oh wait, your playing the fear game because you don't have an actual argument. I see.

When I spoke about our government not having the right to suppress dissent, that's what I meant to say.

I'm aware thats what you meant to say. It was stupid and irrelevant since you already set the standard as multiple governments.

Psst...I get to refine on the topic. So do you, except of course, you are incapable of doing so. It requires a little more effort than you're used to. That's okay. Just pretend you understand.

Feel free to refine the topic as ONE thing. However don't in one sentence claim that we get to do it because historically thats what governments do, and then say that what other governments do is irrelevant. What other governments do IS relevant, but your argument is so shoddy I'm willing to stick with whatever arbitrary guidelines you want as long as you pick them and stick to them.

 

[AllieBaba]

I said to believe that governments don't deal in death is escapist. I didn't say that a government without the death penalty isn't a government. Nimrod.

I'm not going to have a ridiculous argument with you over what you think I mean and the way you think I should say it. Take a pill, you need one.

 

[Larkinn]

I said to believe that governments don't deal in death is escapist. I didn't say that a government without the death penalty isn't a government. Nimrod.

If the government loses the ability to do that, it ceases to be a government.

So when you said "ceases to be a government" you meant "escapist"? Care to provide a translation for those of us who prefer to use the standard definitions for things and not your cracked out ones?

I'm not going to have a ridiculous argument with you over what you think I mean and the way you think I should say it. Take a pill, you need one.

Arguing that "ceases to be a government" means "escapist" is rather ridiculous. I can see why you wouldn't want to argue that moronic point of view. And if you take pills to escape life, i think that might explain some of your problems.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's see that in context:

"Whether you want the government to kill people or not, it's going to happen. You can piss and moan all you like, that's the way the cookie crumbles. If the government loses the ability to do that, it ceases to be a government."


That's what I said. Obviously, I was talking about governments dealing in death, period. Not just the death penalty. You knew that, and chose to be deceitful, or you're just too stupid to understand what's in black and white. The jury's still out on that one.

Nice try on taking what's said and making it into something completely different, in order to suit your own left-field comments. It doesn't work with me I'm aware of the tacky little tricks that losers pull when they can't back up what they say, or are too lazy to do their own homework.

And I didn't argue that "ceases to be a government" is escapist...and hence my hint that you may need medication. I argued that the belief that governments can operate without at some point dealing in death is escapist.

No wonder it's so mind numbing dealing with you. Everything has to be explained over and over. YOu take information that's perfectly succinct, and push it through that rusty strainer that is your mind, and end up with absolute garbage. It's a shame, because that's what you really believe is being said. You need to concentrate on listening, and paying attention to what the words really mean, instead of instilling your own understanding into everything, and turning perfectly good information into garbage.

 

[Larkinn]

Let's see that in context:

"Whether you want the government to kill people or not, it's going to happen. You can piss and moan all you like, that's the way the cookie crumbles. If the government loses the ability to do that, it ceases to be a government."


That's what I said. Obviously, I was talking about governments dealing in death, period. Not just the death penalty. You knew that, and chose to be deceitful, or you're just too stupid to understand what's in black and white. The jury's still out on that one.

Ah well then it was irrelevant. Either it was stupid, or irrelevant. We are talking about the death penalty, not death in general. So either one you come out looking like an idiot, but I guess you are used to that by now, hey?

Nice try on taking what's said and making it into something completely different, in order to suit your own left-field comments. It doesn't work with me I'm aware of the tacky little tricks that losers pull when they can't back up what they say, or are too lazy to do their own homework.

Don't gloat too much kid, the other interpretation isn't much better.

And I didn't argue that "ceases to be a government" is escapist...and hence my hint that you may need medication. I argued that the belief that governments can operate without at some point dealing in death is escapist.

Considering the first time you said escapist is when you were describing your previous arguments, no thats not really what you argued.

No wonder it's so mind numbing dealing with you. Everything has to be explained over and over. YOu take information that's perfectly succinct, and push it through that rusty strainer that is your mind, and end up with absolute garbage. It's a shame, because that's what you really believe is being said. You need to concentrate on listening, and paying attention to what the words really mean, instead of instilling your own understanding into everything, and turning perfectly good information into garbage.

Your right...I really shouldn't be charitable to you. See I thought of that but then I figured, naah even Allie wouldn't be so stupid as to lose track of the fact that we were talking about the death penalty and not killing in general. You know, the main point of the argument. I figured you made a lesser mistake of not thinking through your point quick enough as opposed to being too stupid to comprehend what we were talking about. I guess I shouldn't assume you have even a minimum amount of reading and arguing skills...my bad.

 

[AllieBaba]

We were talking about the death penalty...and you brought up the fact that governments shouldn't be dealing in death.

So actually, I think it was you who broadened the topic.

And it's allowed. Your rigidity negatively influences your ability to make an argument. You're going to have to loosen up a little, or you will continue to look a dunce.

 

[Larkinn]

We were talking about the death penalty...and you brought up the fact that governments shouldn't be dealing in death.

No, actually I didn't bring that up.

So actually, I think it was you who broadened the topic.

Think more, because your wrong.

And it's allowed. Your rigidity negatively influences your ability to make an argument. You're going to have to loosen up a little, or you will continue to look a dunce.

Yes it is allowed, however pick how broad you want it to be and stick to that. I already said this and you didn't respond then because you knew you kept switching it up. Your argument is shit and I don't care how broad it is, you will get your ass kicked either way, but at least pretend to have a bit of honesty and keep it at one size.

 

[Gunny]

Tell you what, if you can find me a study that says there's a deterrant effect, I will stand down. But I've never heard of any study that says anything but that there's a specific deterrant. Never.

I thought you guys gave up the eye for an eye thing.

I believe I already stated there could be no accurate study, for EITHER side. Both require guessing what people *might* do. I would no more accept one study than the other.

I also have already addressed the difference between "an eye for an eye" and punishment commensurate with the crime. "An eye for an eye" is literally punsihment identical to the crime.

Punishment befitting the crime does not equate to being literally identical.

 

[watermark]

He raped and murdered a child. No way he deserves to live. Period.

Will murdering him bring back the child? No. If it would, I'd be 100% with you. As it is, the death penalty is unnecessary.

 

[Shattered]

Will murdering him bring back the child? No. If it would, I'd be 100% with you. As it is, the death penalty is unnecessary.

The death penalty is 100% necessary. It guarantees he won't strike again.

 

[watermark]

The death penalty is 100% necessary. It guarantees he won't strike again.

This is RIDICULOUS fearmongering. I can't think of a single murderer ever who has escaped from prison and gone on to "kill again". Life in prison without parole is just as it sounds, and America is one of two nations in the world with it. In almost every state it's mandatory that a 1st degree murderer be given that penalty.

Fear, fear, fear. It can never improve the world to kill an incapacitated person who is harmless, no matter what they did in their life.

 

[watermark]

The death penalty is 100% necessary. It guarantees he won't strike again.

BTW, your message is non-sequitor. Stringing two statements together with "is" doesn't make them true.

 

[Shattered]

This is RIDICULOUS fearmongering. I can't think of a single murderer ever who has escaped from prison and gone on to "kill again". Life in prison without parole is just as it sounds, and America is one of two nations in the world with it. In almost every state it's mandatory that a 1st degree murderer be given that penalty.

Fear, fear, fear. It can never improve the world to kill an incapacitated person who is harmless, no matter what they did in their life.

Sure it can.. The money being wasted to keep such a scumbag alive can certainly be used for better things, dontcha think?

Methinks you'd be singing quite the different tune if it were your own daughter being discussed, and I certainly doubt you'd sit around waiting for some court of law to flip the switch.

 

[watermark]

Sure it can.. The money being wasted to keep such a scumbag alive can certainly be used for better things, dontcha think?

Methinks you'd be singing quite the different tune if it were your own daughter being discussed, and I certainly doubt you'd sit around waiting for some court of law to flip the switch.

It costs more money to go through a death penalty trial than to lock someone up for life. The problem here is that whenever someone is in prison for life, you simply wait for evidence to accrue overtime. You don't have that kind of luxury in a capital case, so there is an automatic appeal. You can remove their right to appeal, but be prepared to execute innocent people. The actual execution, also, is always expensive, no matter what method used.

And thanks for making this personal. It's not called for, and to be honest, it's a scumbaggy thing to do. But if it were my own daughter, no, I still wouldn't support the death penalty. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'll stand by that conviction until I die.

 

[Shattered]

It costs more money to go through a death penalty trial than to lock someone up for life. The problem here is that whenever someone is in prison for life, you simply wait for evidence to accrue overtime. You don't have that kind of luxury in a capital case, so there is an automatic appeal. You can remove their right to appeal, but be prepared to execute innocent people. The actual execution, also, is always expensive, no matter what method used.

And thanks for making this personal. It's not called for, and to be honest, it's a scumbaggy thing to do. But if it were my own daughter, no, I still wouldn't support the death penalty. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'll stand by that conviction until I die.

I haven't made it the least bit personal.. People tend to change their tune awfully quick when the tables are *actually* turned on them.

Bullets are cheap.

 

[watermark]

I haven't made it the least bit personal.. People tend to change their tune awfully quick when the tables are *actually* turned on them.

Bullets are cheap.

Shatter, I honestly wouldn't change my conviction. If the prosecutor asked me what sentence I would like him to pursue, I would tell him, life in prison without parole. I do not believe in the death penalty. Under any circumstances. That is simply my conviction.