CDZ Read this article and tell us we don't need the death penalty...

[2aguy]

I SUPPORT the death penalty on moral grounds, but our insane "justice" system makes it less costly to imprison someone for life. I would just as soon throw them down a rat hole and let them putrefy.

You support the death penalty on moral grounds??

Yes...moral grounds....allowing a murderer to stay alive is immoral...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I SUPPORT the death penalty on moral grounds, but our insane "justice" system makes it less costly to imprison someone for life. I would just as soon throw them down a rat hole and let them putrefy.

You support the death penalty on moral grounds??

Yes...moral grounds....allowing a murderer to stay alive is immoral...

Killing is immoral, and counter productive as I explained .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

I SUPPORT the death penalty on moral grounds, but our insane "justice" system makes it less costly to imprison someone for life. I would just as soon throw them down a rat hole and let them putrefy.

You support the death penalty on moral grounds??

Yes...moral grounds....allowing a murderer to stay alive is immoral...

Killing is immoral, and counter productive as I explained .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No...murder is immoral, killing is sometimes the only moral option.

 

[2aguy]

I SUPPORT the death penalty on moral grounds, but our insane "justice" system makes it less costly to imprison someone for life. I would just as soon throw them down a rat hole and let them putrefy.

You support the death penalty on moral grounds??

Yes...moral grounds....allowing a murderer to stay alive is immoral...

Killing is immoral, and counter productive as I explained .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let Dennis explain it to you....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I SUPPORT the death penalty on moral grounds, but our insane "justice" system makes it less costly to imprison someone for life. I would just as soon throw them down a rat hole and let them putrefy.

You support the death penalty on moral grounds??

Yes...moral grounds....allowing a murderer to stay alive is immoral...

Killing is immoral, and counter productive as I explained .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No...murder is immoral, killing is sometimes the only moral option.

That is just sick! It accomplishes nothing . It makes us savages


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

I SUPPORT the death penalty on moral grounds, but our insane "justice" system makes it less costly to imprison someone for life. I would just as soon throw them down a rat hole and let them putrefy.

You support the death penalty on moral grounds??

Yes...moral grounds....allowing a murderer to stay alive is immoral...

Killing is immoral, and counter productive as I explained .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No...murder is immoral, killing is sometimes the only moral option.

That is just sick! It accomplishes nothing . It makes us savages


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No....

1) it gaurantees they will not be let out at a later date by foolish bureaucrats and they won't escape....and while free rape and murder again.

2) It is justice for their crimes....they do not get to enjoy their lives, even in prison.

 

[Toronado3800]

I just found this article on criminals who were spared the death penalty, who then went on to rape and murder again and again...

This is why I support the death penalty.....it makes sure that no other innocent victims are created by foolish mercy of unaffected bureaucrats...

Mcduff is just one of the monsters covered in the story, and the victims seem endless...

Of Junkie Justices and Evolving Indecency - American Greatness

Fort Worth, Texas, 1966: Teenagers Mark Dunnam, Robert Brand, and Edna Sullivan were hanging out one evening at a neighborhood ballfield when Kenneth McDuff approached them with gun drawn. He robbed them, then forced them into the trunk of their car. “They got a good look at my face. I’ll have to kill them,” he told Roy Dale Green, a friend who was tagging along with him. He drove his victims out into the country, killed the boys by shooting them in the face, then raped the girl, had his buddy rape her, raped her again, and finally threw her down and pressed a broomstick against her throat until her neck broke. His accomplice, horrified and remorseful, walked into a police station and ratted him out the next day..............

Austin, Texas, 1991: Colleen Reed, a young accountant, was hosing down her car one night at a self-service car wash when Kenneth McDuff lunged into her wash bay and dragged her to his car in the next bay over . . .


Wait a minute! Is that the same Kenneth McDuff who killed those kids in 1966?
------

“Don’t Be Like Pontius Pilate”

We now rejoin Kenneth McDuff and Colleen Reed. Saved from the electric chair by the Supreme Court, and granted parole because of a federal judge’s order to ease prison crowding, McDuff killed Reed five days after Christmas 1991. Her bones weren’t found until 1998; McDuff was convicted of her murder on the testimony of Alva Hank Worley, like Roy Green in 1966 a compliant accomplice, who was out cruising Austin with McDuff that night.

Worley had a child of his own, a girl of 14, and when detectives looking for McDuff questioned him and appealed to his paternal feelings, Worley broke down. He actually started screaming. The distraught man unburdened himself, telling how Reed cried, “Please, not me,” when McDuff grabbed her, how they took turns raping her on the way out of town, and how McDuff asked to borrow a shovel as he dropped Worley off at his house, saying, “I’m going to use her up.”

A few weeks after that, McDuff abducted Melissa Ann Northrup, a 22-year-old pregnant mother of two, from the Waco convenience store where they both worked. Her body was found two months later in a gravel pit near Dallas. This case got McDuff on “America’s Most Wanted,” which led to his arrest and trial in both the Northrup and Reed deaths.

During his trial in Waco, McDuff’s defense attorneys urged jurors not to be like Pontius Pilate, who “caved in to public demand” and sent Jesus to the cross. The jury, unimpressed, returned McDuff to Death Row. In 1998, he finally paid the price, more than 30 years after he first shed innocent blood. His execution closed the books on more than a dozen rape-murders committed while he was on parole.

Read the article.
We don't need the death penalty.
Republicans love killing and brown people.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

I don't know about need, but to each their own. Folks who commit murder obviously don't have a problem with the death penalty so lets give it to them!

Drive your car home drunk from the bar, you obviously don't have the same value on the lives of your fellow motorists so if you wreck, you're eligible for the death penalty in my book.

The goal of ant criminal justice system is first and foremost to keep the public safe and maintain order. The death penalty does neither. Many who kill cnt stop themselves- either because of a mental defect or out of passion. Often, they do not believe that they will be caught , or have so little regard for their own life that they do not care. In some cases, they are-either consciously or not-suicidal and want to be ritualistically killed by an authority figure. For that reason, the murder rate may actually go up where the death penalty is in effect.

In addition, the death penalty only adds to the sum total of violence in society, delays closure for the families of the victims, and costs a hell of a lot more then life in prison. You say that you want revenge? Think about what your life would be like in a maxi- max with no chance of ever getting out? I for one would rather be dead.

I'll split the difference and say the death penalty doesn't do a lot as it is currently applied.

Make it a bit more random and we might be in business, or at least be a bit more fair.

Plus, I'm not kinder and gentler. Executing ppl 5 years in as I would has to save us money over housing them for several decades.

 

[Toronado3800]

I SUPPORT the death penalty on moral grounds, but our insane "justice" system makes it less costly to imprison someone for life. I would just as soon throw them down a rat hole and let them putrefy.

You support the death penalty on moral grounds??

Yes...moral grounds....allowing a murderer to stay alive is immoral...

Killing is immoral, and counter productive as I explained .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No...murder is immoral, killing is sometimes the only moral option.

Morality is in the eye of the judge. You and I may agree but someone who worships Jesus, Allah, or Pixie Faires, Budda, the Old Testament or whatevers has their own ideas on morality.

Now once someone commits murder obviously they, well heck, they committed murder. So so be it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I just found this article on criminals who were spared the death penalty, who then went on to rape and murder again and again...

This is why I support the death penalty.....it makes sure that no other innocent victims are created by foolish mercy of unaffected bureaucrats...

Mcduff is just one of the monsters covered in the story, and the victims seem endless...

Of Junkie Justices and Evolving Indecency - American Greatness

Fort Worth, Texas, 1966: Teenagers Mark Dunnam, Robert Brand, and Edna Sullivan were hanging out one evening at a neighborhood ballfield when Kenneth McDuff approached them with gun drawn. He robbed them, then forced them into the trunk of their car. “They got a good look at my face. I’ll have to kill them,” he told Roy Dale Green, a friend who was tagging along with him. He drove his victims out into the country, killed the boys by shooting them in the face, then raped the girl, had his buddy rape her, raped her again, and finally threw her down and pressed a broomstick against her throat until her neck broke. His accomplice, horrified and remorseful, walked into a police station and ratted him out the next day..............

Austin, Texas, 1991: Colleen Reed, a young accountant, was hosing down her car one night at a self-service car wash when Kenneth McDuff lunged into her wash bay and dragged her to his car in the next bay over . . .


Wait a minute! Is that the same Kenneth McDuff who killed those kids in 1966?
------

“Don’t Be Like Pontius Pilate”

We now rejoin Kenneth McDuff and Colleen Reed. Saved from the electric chair by the Supreme Court, and granted parole because of a federal judge’s order to ease prison crowding, McDuff killed Reed five days after Christmas 1991. Her bones weren’t found until 1998; McDuff was convicted of her murder on the testimony of Alva Hank Worley, like Roy Green in 1966 a compliant accomplice, who was out cruising Austin with McDuff that night.

Worley had a child of his own, a girl of 14, and when detectives looking for McDuff questioned him and appealed to his paternal feelings, Worley broke down. He actually started screaming. The distraught man unburdened himself, telling how Reed cried, “Please, not me,” when McDuff grabbed her, how they took turns raping her on the way out of town, and how McDuff asked to borrow a shovel as he dropped Worley off at his house, saying, “I’m going to use her up.”

A few weeks after that, McDuff abducted Melissa Ann Northrup, a 22-year-old pregnant mother of two, from the Waco convenience store where they both worked. Her body was found two months later in a gravel pit near Dallas. This case got McDuff on “America’s Most Wanted,” which led to his arrest and trial in both the Northrup and Reed deaths.

During his trial in Waco, McDuff’s defense attorneys urged jurors not to be like Pontius Pilate, who “caved in to public demand” and sent Jesus to the cross. The jury, unimpressed, returned McDuff to Death Row. In 1998, he finally paid the price, more than 30 years after he first shed innocent blood. His execution closed the books on more than a dozen rape-murders committed while he was on parole.

Read the article.
We don't need the death penalty.
Republicans love killing and brown people.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

I don't know about need, but to each their own. Folks who commit murder obviously don't have a problem with the death penalty so lets give it to them!

Drive your car home drunk from the bar, you obviously don't have the same value on the lives of your fellow motorists so if you wreck, you're eligible for the death penalty in my book.

The goal of ant criminal justice system is first and foremost to keep the public safe and maintain order. The death penalty does neither. Many who kill cnt stop themselves- either because of a mental defect or out of passion. Often, they do not believe that they will be caught , or have so little regard for their own life that they do not care. In some cases, they are-either consciously or not-suicidal and want to be ritualistically killed by an authority figure. For that reason, the murder rate may actually go up where the death penalty is in effect.

In addition, the death penalty only adds to the sum total of violence in society, delays closure for the families of the victims, and costs a hell of a lot more then life in prison. You say that you want revenge? Think about what your life would be like in a maxi- max with no chance of ever getting out? I for one would rather be dead.

I'll split the difference and say the death penalty doesn't do a lot as it is currently applied.

Make it a bit more random and we might be in business, or at least be a bit more fair.

Plus, I'm not kinder and gentler. Executing ppl 5 years in as I would has to save us money over housing them for several decades.

A bit more random? You mean like a lottery? It's good to see that there is so much really deep thinking going on here .

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I SUPPORT the death penalty on moral grounds, but our insane "justice" system makes it less costly to imprison someone for life. I would just as soon throw them down a rat hole and let them putrefy.

You support the death penalty on moral grounds??

Yes...moral grounds....allowing a murderer to stay alive is immoral...

Killing is immoral, and counter productive as I explained .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No...murder is immoral, killing is sometimes the only moral option.

There is no difference between killing and murder

 

[Circe]

I am wildly in favor of bringing back the death penalty, and much as Britain had in the 1920s --- quick arrest, quick trial, quick hanging. There are hundreds of Classic Murder Mysteries based on just that.

Most murders and other atrocities are no mysteries, as the perpetrator is caught at the scene holding a smoking gun, and confesses. I'd like to see a quick trial and execution, the sooner the better, in those cases. If the murderer or rapist is not known, that would have to take much longer to sort out, and if doubt continues, that could be a reason for prison. But most murders are real well understood at once.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no difference between killing and murder

Correction -- you lack the cognitive ability to understand the difference.


If there were no difference between killing and murder, the penalties for being in a traffic accident resulting in death would be the same as those meted out for premeditated murder.

Thankfully, it is those capable of moral reasoning who have set up our legal system rather than simpletons.

Yourchildish taunting by referring to my cognitive ability does not make you sound smart. Quite the contrary

Let me put it differently. Premeditated murder is-morally speaking -the same as a planned execution killing. Got it?

 

[jwoodie]

Morally, our concept of justice is based on "an eye for an eye," which means that a criminal will not be left better off than his victim. Modernly, we have developed a system of equivalent punishments (incarceration and fines) towards this end. The only problem with this system is that no amount of these punishments is equivalent to the damage caused by certain crimes (e.g., premeditated murder) unless they include a death penalty.

On the other hand, the prosecutorial costs of imposing a death penalty have become so great that this morally just punishment may simply be too expensive. In addition, advances in forensic technology (e.g., DNA testing) sometimes exonerate people who have otherwise been found "beyond a reasonable doubt" to have committed a crime warranting the death penalty.

I wonder if some higher standard of proof (e.g., conclusive certainty) could be developed to deal with these issues?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Morally, our concept of justice is based on "an eye for an eye," which means that a criminal will not be left better off than his victim. Modernly, we have developed a system of equivalent punishments (incarceration and fines) towards this end. The only problem with this system is that no amount of these punishments is equivalent to the damage caused by certain crimes (e.g., premeditated murder) unless they include a death penalty.

Morally, YOUR concept of justice is based on "an eye for an eye," which means that a criminal will not be left better off than his victim .

Not everyone believes that. I don't believe that. WE have to end the cycle of violence, and the death penalty is part of that cycle. We have to be better than the murderer.

In addition, I question whether life in prison under austere conditions with no chance of ever walking free is " leaving the criminal better off.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

On the other hand, the prosecutorial costs of imposing a death penalty have become so great that this morally just punishment may simply be too expensive. In addition, advances in forensic technology (e.g., DNA testing) sometimes exonerate people who have otherwise been found "beyond a reasonable doubt" to have committed a crime warranting the death penalty.

I wonder if some higher standard of proof (e.g., conclusive certainty) could be developed to deal with these issues?

I doubt if any system or advanced science could ensure that no one is ever wrongfully sentenced to death. The systems and the science are only as good as the human beings who employ then and all humans are fallible, potentially incompetent or corrupt.

What useful purpose the death penalty serve other than for revenge ? There are higher level of being that we should strive for.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Let me put it differently. Premeditated murder is-morally speaking -the same as a planned execution killing. Got it?

I wasn't taunting, just telling it like it is.


Even though you phrased it more adroitly this time, you are still indulging in a false moral equivalence, thus proving my point.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I wasn't taunting, just telling it like it is.

Holy shit! Telling it like it is ? You doing the same juvenile shit again right now and you can't even see that!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Even though you phrased it more adroitly this time, you are still indulging in a false moral equivalence, thus proving my point.

Oh, you are going to invoke fallacy? How about your appeal to ignorance fallacy? I said it so it is true...no need to explain or qualify it. Just accept it. What horseshit!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I wasn't taunting, just telling it like it is.

Holy shit! Telling it like it is ? You doing the same juvenile shit again right now and you can't even see that!

You seem agitated.

Can I offer you a safe space?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

[
Oh, you are going to invoke fallacy? How about your appeal to ignorance fallacy? I said it so it is true...no need to explain or qualify it. Just accept it. What horseshit!

I am not appealing to ignorance.

Premeditated murder takes an innocent life. The state imposing the death penalty takes one that is not innocent, and is only applied to those whose crimes have taken innocent lives.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference.