Perfect reason why the death penalty exists

[Zoom-boing]

I've already stated that I'm only human and would probably want vengeance on behalf of my child, but that doesn't mean it's right.

You didn't answer my question. You'd be ok with someone who murdered your child to be out of prison 15 years after their crime? You'd believe that 'justice' had been served?

I did answer the question. I said I would probably want vengeance, while I also acknowledged that it would still be wrong.

I didn't ask if you would want vengeance, I asked if you thought that a 15 year prison sentence was justice for the murder of a child.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So what you're saying, in your charmingly mangled and inept way, is that justice is defined by not dying? That's it? We could torture them to within an inch of their lives, and as long as they lived through it, it would be justice, but if they die, it becomes vengeance?

I'm amazed. I wouldn't have thought you could sound like a bigger imbecile, but I stand corrected.

Where did I say that I support torture?

Perhaps if you just stopped being such an utter dolt and poltroon and told us your definitions of vengeance and justice instead of dancing around them like a chicken on a hot stove, I wouldn't have to guess. You said justice involved remaining alive, and vengeance was dying. NOW you want to slide the scale. Make up your mind (and I use that term loosely).

I did not specifically say that vengeance was dying, I simply said that being murdered by the state would be vengeance.

 

[elvis]

I don't support cruel and unusual punishments.

what they did to those children wasn't cruel and unusual? how is letting them sitting in prison unviolated punishment when compared to this crime?

I say again that those that don't believe prison is a severe punishment have never been to prison.

hard for me to imagine it would be as bad as the trauma the children and parents especially will live with the rest of their lives.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You didn't answer my question. You'd be ok with someone who murdered your child to be out of prison 15 years after their crime? You'd believe that 'justice' had been served?

I did answer the question. I said I would probably want vengeance, while I also acknowledged that it would still be wrong.

I didn't ask if you would want vengeance, I asked if you thought that a 15 year prison sentence was justice for the murder of a child.

You asked if I'd be ok with someone who murdered my child getting out of prison 15 years after their crime, and I think my responses made it clear that I would not.

 

[elvis]

I think the parents deserve the right to take vengeance in this case.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

what they did to those children wasn't cruel and unusual? how is letting them sitting in prison unviolated punishment when compared to this crime?

I say again that those that don't believe prison is a severe punishment have never been to prison.

And I say again, what is YOUR experience of prison that you presume to know better? And I have no doubt that you will duck the question yet again.

I have no doubt that the answer to the question remains none of your business.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

what they did to those children wasn't cruel and unusual? how is letting them sitting in prison unviolated punishment when compared to this crime?

I say again that those that don't believe prison is a severe punishment have never been to prison.

hard for me to imagine it would be as bad as the trauma the children and parents especially will live with the rest of their lives.

Perhaps it's not, but murdering them is certainly not a good substitute for imprisonment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where did I say that I support torture?

Perhaps if you just stopped being such an utter dolt and poltroon and told us your definitions of vengeance and justice instead of dancing around them like a chicken on a hot stove, I wouldn't have to guess. You said justice involved remaining alive, and vengeance was dying. NOW you want to slide the scale. Make up your mind (and I use that term loosely).

I did not specifically say that vengeance was dying, I simply said that being murdered by the state would be vengeance.

Yes, I heard your moronic and pigheaded clinging to a blatant misuse of the word "murder", presumably because you still think that it's going to produce the same mindless reaction in everyone else that it does in you. I should point out, however, that when one has had it explained to him clearly three or four times that he is completely wrong about something, continuing to do it either denotes insanity or idiocy bordering on retardation. In short, all you're accomplishing at this point is to make a laughingstock of yourself. I'd say one more time constitutes an unconditional admission that you have no defensible argument, and therefore unilaterally surrender.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Perhaps if you just stopped being such an utter dolt and poltroon and told us your definitions of vengeance and justice instead of dancing around them like a chicken on a hot stove, I wouldn't have to guess. You said justice involved remaining alive, and vengeance was dying. NOW you want to slide the scale. Make up your mind (and I use that term loosely).

I did not specifically say that vengeance was dying, I simply said that being murdered by the state would be vengeance.

Yes, I heard your moronic and pigheaded clinging to a blatant misuse of the word "murder", presumably because you still think that it's going to produce the same mindless reaction in everyone else that it does in you. I should point out, however, that when one has had it explained to him clearly three or four times that he is completely wrong about something, continuing to do it either denotes insanity or idiocy bordering on retardation. In short, all you're accomplishing at this point is to make a laughingstock of yourself. I'd say one more time constitutes an unconditional admission that you have no defensible argument, and therefore unilaterally surrender.

The fact that I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the state to kill people makes it murder, and the fact that I continue to use the term murder even after your wonderful explanations of your definition of the term means that I simply do not accept your opinion that the state can legitimately kill people. I'm not sure that I'm able to "surrender" when my opinion remains the same now as it did when we first began this discussion.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I did answer the question. I said I would probably want vengeance, while I also acknowledged that it would still be wrong.

I didn't ask if you would want vengeance, I asked if you thought that a 15 year prison sentence was justice for the murder of a child.

You asked if I'd be ok with someone who murdered my child getting out of prison 15 years after their crime, and I think my responses made it clear that I would not.

Um, no your responses didn't make that clear which is why I kept asking.

If they got out of prison and murdered again, would you support the death penalty in that case? Or in any case? If taking the life of someone who took the life of another prevents them from killing more people, you still wouldn't support the death penalty? Can you elaborate and give more than just a one or two sentence answer?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I didn't ask if you would want vengeance, I asked if you thought that a 15 year prison sentence was justice for the murder of a child.

You asked if I'd be ok with someone who murdered my child getting out of prison 15 years after their crime, and I think my responses made it clear that I would not.

Um, no your responses didn't make that clear which is why I kept asking.

If they got out of prison and murdered again, would you support the death penalty in that case? Or in any case? If taking the life of someone who took the life of another prevents them from killing more people, you still wouldn't support the death penalty? Can you elaborate and give more than just a one or two sentence answer?

The fact that a person takes a life or many doesn't change my view that it's wrong to kill them. Killing people for what they might do in the future is wrong because you're still killing that person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I say again that those that don't believe prison is a severe punishment have never been to prison.

And I say again, what is YOUR experience of prison that you presume to know better? And I have no doubt that you will duck the question yet again.

I have no doubt that the answer to the question remains none of your business.

Incorrect. If you presume to pronounce upon the experience of others and set yourself up as a superior expert on the subject, then you open yourself to the same speculation about YOUR experience and make it our business. Since you refuse to man up, I can only assume that you know nothing about prisons from personal experience, have only seen them in movies, and know perfectly well that if you told the truth, you would be an even bigger object of ridicule than you already are.

For the record, my husband and brother were both correctional officers, and a number of my family members and friends are in law enforcement. I have been on tours of both the regular state prison facility in my area, and the maximum security prison, including the death row and death house facilities, in addition to having attended an execution at the death house. So I think I'm not only qualified to speak to conditions in prison life with some veracity, but to tell you to put up or shut up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And I say again, what is YOUR experience of prison that you presume to know better? And I have no doubt that you will duck the question yet again.

I have no doubt that the answer to the question remains none of your business.

Incorrect. If you presume to pronounce upon the experience of others and set yourself up as a superior expert on the subject, then you open yourself to the same speculation about YOUR experience and make it our business. Since you refuse to man up, I can only assume that you know nothing about prisons from personal experience, have only seen them in movies, and know perfectly well that if you told the truth, you would be an even bigger object of ridicule than you already are.

For the record, my husband and brother were both correctional officers, and a number of my family members and friends are in law enforcement. I have been on tours of both the regular state prison facility in my area, and the maximum security prison, including the death row and death house facilities, in addition to having attended an execution at the death house. So I think I'm not only qualified to speak to conditions in prison life with some veracity, but to tell you to put up or shut up.

You may certainly tell me to put up or shut up, but your level of abrasiveness in this thread doesn't make me feel the need to do either on the off chance that it will annoy you even if only slightly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I did not specifically say that vengeance was dying, I simply said that being murdered by the state would be vengeance.

Yes, I heard your moronic and pigheaded clinging to a blatant misuse of the word "murder", presumably because you still think that it's going to produce the same mindless reaction in everyone else that it does in you. I should point out, however, that when one has had it explained to him clearly three or four times that he is completely wrong about something, continuing to do it either denotes insanity or idiocy bordering on retardation. In short, all you're accomplishing at this point is to make a laughingstock of yourself. I'd say one more time constitutes an unconditional admission that you have no defensible argument, and therefore unilaterally surrender.

The fact that I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the state to kill people makes it murder, and the fact that I continue to use the term murder even after your wonderful explanations of your definition of the term means that I simply do not accept your opinion that the state can legitimately kill people. I'm not sure that I'm able to "surrender" when my opinion remains the same now as it did when we first began this discussion.

Oh, okay. YOUR personal opinion not only trumps the law and millennia of human history, but ALSO the basics of the English language, one presumes based on nothing but your own towering moral superiority. You feel that it is murder, thus it becomes murder, despite the logical impossibility of that.

It doesn't matter if your ignorant opinion remains ignorant. The surrender isn't based on you changing your "mind". It's based on you admitting that you couldn't make a valid argument, let alone substantiate it or even answer a straight question, if your life depends on it. Your only argument is that you are more moral and right than everyone else, thus your opinion trumps everything else, and should be accepted just because you say so.

In other words, you lose. If you have accomplished anything here by your defense of the right of heinous bastards to live, it has been to convince people even more firmly that they should all be shot like rabid animals.

I accept your surrender. Begone, lackwit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, I heard your moronic and pigheaded clinging to a blatant misuse of the word "murder", presumably because you still think that it's going to produce the same mindless reaction in everyone else that it does in you. I should point out, however, that when one has had it explained to him clearly three or four times that he is completely wrong about something, continuing to do it either denotes insanity or idiocy bordering on retardation. In short, all you're accomplishing at this point is to make a laughingstock of yourself. I'd say one more time constitutes an unconditional admission that you have no defensible argument, and therefore unilaterally surrender.

The fact that I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the state to kill people makes it murder, and the fact that I continue to use the term murder even after your wonderful explanations of your definition of the term means that I simply do not accept your opinion that the state can legitimately kill people. I'm not sure that I'm able to "surrender" when my opinion remains the same now as it did when we first began this discussion.

Oh, okay. YOUR personal opinion not only trumps the law and millennia of human history, but ALSO the basics of the English language, one presumes based on nothing but your own towering moral superiority. You feel that it is murder, thus it becomes murder, despite the logical impossibility of that.

It doesn't matter if your ignorant opinion remains ignorant. The surrender isn't based on you changing your "mind". It's based on you admitting that you couldn't make a valid argument, let alone substantiate it or even answer a straight question, if your life depends on it. Your only argument is that you are more moral and right than everyone else, thus your opinion trumps everything else, and should be accepted just because you say so.

In other words, you lose. If you have accomplished anything here by your defense of the right of heinous bastards to live, it has been to convince people even more firmly that they should all be shot like rabid animals.

I accept your surrender. Begone, lackwit.

You may accept whatever you want, but I think I'll let others decide whether I've made a valid argument considering you may be slightly biased.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You asked if I'd be ok with someone who murdered my child getting out of prison 15 years after their crime, and I think my responses made it clear that I would not.

Um, no your responses didn't make that clear which is why I kept asking.

If they got out of prison and murdered again, would you support the death penalty in that case? Or in any case? If taking the life of someone who took the life of another prevents them from killing more people, you still wouldn't support the death penalty? Can you elaborate and give more than just a one or two sentence answer?

The fact that a person takes a life or many doesn't change my view that it's wrong to kill them.

Killing people for what they might do in the future is wrong because you're still killing that person.

You're right killing a murderer for crimes they might commit is wrong, no one can predict the future. Killing one who has murdered is justice, imo.

Why does it say 'Enemy of the State' under your user name? Are you? Just curious.

 

[Burp]

Instead of the death penalty, how about blinding them?

They would still be alive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Um, no your responses didn't make that clear which is why I kept asking.

If they got out of prison and murdered again, would you support the death penalty in that case? Or in any case? If taking the life of someone who took the life of another prevents them from killing more people, you still wouldn't support the death penalty? Can you elaborate and give more than just a one or two sentence answer?

The fact that a person takes a life or many doesn't change my view that it's wrong to kill them.

Killing people for what they might do in the future is wrong because you're still killing that person.

You're right killing a murderer for crimes they might commit is wrong, no one can predict the future. Killing one who has murdered is justice, imo.

Why does it say 'Enemy of the State' under your user name? Are you? Just curious.

Then our opinions differ.

I put "Enemy of the State" as my title in an attempt to show that I'm no fan of the state.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The fact that a person takes a life or many doesn't change my view that it's wrong to kill them.

Killing people for what they might do in the future is wrong because you're still killing that person.

You're right killing a murderer for crimes they might commit is wrong, no one can predict the future. Killing one who has murdered is justice, imo.

Why does it say 'Enemy of the State' under your user name? Are you? Just curious.

Then our opinions differ.

I put "Enemy of the State" as my title in an attempt to show that I'm no fan of the state.

Indeed they do on this Kevin. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Jail would accomplish that as well.

yes it would....as long as they are put in to the general population......do you think they will?

Child molesters do survive general population, despite popular notions to the contrary. Oh, sure, they're everybody's bitch because they're perceived as weaklings who have to choose helpless victims, but most of them do live through it.

not in the prison my brother in law was in( Solano)......he has served 3 times,next time he is gone.........child molesters are segregated there....i know this cause i asked him...