Women want to be treated equally.....

[Conservative65]

I know for sure that Susan Smith did what she was convicted of doing. Since you stated that unless you know for sure, it's a different matter. It became a different matter with her since we know based on your words. You and I both oppose the death penalty for those for whom we don't know. Difference is you still oppose it even when we do. Susan Smith is one example and all it takes is one refuting your statement to prove you aren't against the death penalty just in cases we aren't sure but in all cases even those where we are.

And her mental health was a mitigating factor. That is part of the law. The fact that you label all attempts to discuss mental health as "bleeding heart excuses" does not change that.

What I said about he mental health claim is that is the typical go to argument used by bleeding hearts. Since you jumped straight to it, more proof that you're a bleeding heart.

It proves nothing. You brought up a specific case. And in that case, the murderer's mental health was an issue. I didn't invent that opr bring it up except as a fact about the case you introduced into the discussion.

That example proves two things: 1) You really don't mean unless we know for sure and 2) You're a bleeding heart that jumped straight to the bleeding heart line of excuses.

LMAO!! It really is important to you that I am a bleeding heart, isn't it?

You were there for her trial. Was her mental health brought up as a mitigating factor???

It's important that you realize it.

I don't remember specific testimony as it's been 20 years. I'm sure it was and suspect it was in the sense of being an EXCUSE.

 

[Conservative65]

You're labeled a bleeding heart because like many bleeding hearts you jumped straight to one of the typical excuses in defending why she shouldn't have received it. When this happened, there were those who, like you, argued mental illness. There were those who argued that because she was abused as a child, it affected her. I figured you would take that avenue I just didn't know which specific road.

If they get a different sentence for doing the same thing as someone not deemed to have a mental illness, they get away with it. If their sentence is less due to it, that's called getting away with it.

Ok, you can label me however you like. It doesn't change the reality one iota.

And life in General Population is far worse than life on Death Row. Which is where you want to put her. Sure, you say you want her in gen pop until she is executed, but that isn't what actually happens.

I see the problems with our justice system. But I prefer it to making it about revenge and the ridiculous notion that the victims are somehow helped by killing someone else.

I've already said put people like her in general population with a sign saying what she did. I know what happens. I said what I thought should happen.

Yes, you have stated you want all murderers executed. But since you cannot be sure that only those who are guilty will BE executed, you advocate for killing the innocent too.

I advocate for those we know are guilty being executed. You said unless we know . . That's a false statement because I've provided an example of where we both know she did it and you still oppose her being executed. You then jump to the mental health thing which is what bleeding hearts do.

Speaking in generalities is great. But demanding that those same generalities fit each and every situation is ridiculous.

You brought up a specific case. I brought up a factor that was discussed in her trial. I didn't even actually say whether I thought she should be executed or not. I simply offered what may have swayed the judge & jury.

Mitigating circumstances will be a factor in many case. That is just reality.

Let's get to it. Should she have been executed?

 

[Meathead]

The death penalty is indeed a deterrent. It is the only way possible to ensure that they well not kill again.

Seriously, I don't know how anyone can argue against that.

The same people who argue that executing one won't deter another have yet to provide proof how giving someone a life sentence has decreased the amount of murders by other killers. If they argue that the death penalty isn't a deterrent for others, the only other option is that a life sentence is a deterrent.

As for what you said, I agree. It deters that person and since that person is the only one on trial, that's all that matters.

When discussing whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, most people understand that it means whether or not the fear of it deters people from committing a murder. Life in solitary confinement is a deterrent just as much as the death penatly.

There are limits to solitary confinement. By law prisoners are entitled to at least an hour of rec time a few days a week when they have to escorted by guards. They are furthermore entitled to medical treatment which is not done in their cells. Take the case of this lovely person, Thomas Knight. He shall kill no more:

July 17, 1974 – Thomas Knight kidnaps and murders Sydney and Lillian Gans of Bay Harbor Islands. He is immediately arrested.

September 1974 – Knight and 10 other inmates escape from Dade County jail. He is placed on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List.

October 1974 – Police believe Knight and another man fatally shoot a liquor store clerk during a robbery for $641 in Crisp County, GA. He is not charged.

December 1974 – FBI agents capture Knight in New Smyrna Beach. He is found with a shotgun and two pistols, all stolen.

April 1976 – A Miami-Dade jury convicts Knight of murdering the couple. He is sentenced to death.

October 1980 – Using a sharpened spoon, Knight stabs and kills corrections Officer Richard Burke at the Florida State Prison in Starke.

March 1981 – Knight is scheduled to be executed after Gov. Lawton Chiles signs his death warrant. A federal judge stays his execution pending more appeals.

January 1983 – Knight is convicted and sentenced to death for the Burke murder.

January 1996 – A federal appeals court overturns his death sentence in the Gans case, ordering a new penalty phase trial.

February 1996 – After a new sentencing phase, Knight is again sentenced to death. He is repeatedly banned from the courtroom because of his disruptive behavior.

March 2006 – With state courts repeatedly affirming his conviction and sentence, Knight’s lawyers appeal to a Miami federal judge.

November 2012 – Six years after the appeal was first filed, Miami U.S. Judge Adalberto Jordan reverses Knight’s death sentence. He orders a new sentencing hearing or life sentences for the convict.

September 2013 – A federal appeals court reverses Judge Jordan, reinstating the death penalty for Knight. “To learn about the gridlock and inefficiency of death penalty litigation, look no further than this appeal,” the court writes.

October 2013 – Gov. Rick Scott signs death warrant for Knight, not for the Miami-Dade murders but for the slaying of Burke. The execution is scheduled for Dec. 3.

November 2013 – The Florida Supreme Court delays the execution, ordering a Bradford judge to hold a hearing to consider whether a new drug used in the lethal injection procedure constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

December 2013 – The state’s high court lifts the stay of execution after ruling Knight has failed to prove the drug is unsafe. Gov. Rick Scott re-schedules the execution for Jan. 7.

Don't be a dupe.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since the actual topic, before being derailled, was about equality and not the death penalty, here is a simple reply to using Susan Smith as a singular example. David Berkowitz murdered 6 people (more than Susan Smith) and was not given the death penalty. So equality does not seem to be the issue.

The OP seemed sure that the protests of the execution of the woman in GA was because she was a woman. But when it was pointed out that every execution in the US is protested, he tried to derail his own thread.

 

[WinterBorn]

And her mental health was a mitigating factor. That is part of the law. The fact that you label all attempts to discuss mental health as "bleeding heart excuses" does not change that.

What I said about he mental health claim is that is the typical go to argument used by bleeding hearts. Since you jumped straight to it, more proof that you're a bleeding heart.

It proves nothing. You brought up a specific case. And in that case, the murderer's mental health was an issue. I didn't invent that opr bring it up except as a fact about the case you introduced into the discussion.

That example proves two things: 1) You really don't mean unless we know for sure and 2) You're a bleeding heart that jumped straight to the bleeding heart line of excuses.

LMAO!! It really is important to you that I am a bleeding heart, isn't it?

You were there for her trial. Was her mental health brought up as a mitigating factor???

It's important that you realize it.

I don't remember specific testimony as it's been 20 years. I'm sure it was and suspect it was in the sense of being an EXCUSE.

So your suspicions should outweigh what the judge and the jury heard and thought? Interesting concept there.

 

[Meathead]

Since the actual topic, before being derailled, was about equality and not the death penalty, here is a simple reply to using Susan Smith as a singular example. David Berkowitz murdered 6 people (more than Susan Smith) and was not given the death penalty. So equality does not seem to be the issue.

The OP seemed sure that the protests of the execution of the woman in GA was because she was a woman. But when it was pointed out that every execution in the US is protested, he tried to derail his own thread.

That's a bit cowardly, especially since you said the death penalty wasn't a deterrent. You brought that up, and now you want to stick to the topic.

Prison guards should not die because you are self-righteous or a coward.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since the actual topic, before being derailled, was about equality and not the death penalty, here is a simple reply to using Susan Smith as a singular example. David Berkowitz murdered 6 people (more than Susan Smith) and was not given the death penalty. So equality does not seem to be the issue.

The OP seemed sure that the protests of the execution of the woman in GA was because she was a woman. But when it was pointed out that every execution in the US is protested, he tried to derail his own thread.

That's a bit cowardly, especially since you said the death penalty wasn't a deterrent. You brought that up, and now you want to stick to the topic.

Prison guards should not die because you are self-righteous or a coward.

The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder, in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment.

And yes, I was part of the derailment of the thread. Now I am trying to get back to the original topic. If you want to call this "cowardly", I would simply laugh at your definition of bravery.

 

[Meathead]

Since the actual topic, before being derailled, was about equality and not the death penalty, here is a simple reply to using Susan Smith as a singular example. David Berkowitz murdered 6 people (more than Susan Smith) and was not given the death penalty. So equality does not seem to be the issue.

The OP seemed sure that the protests of the execution of the woman in GA was because she was a woman. But when it was pointed out that every execution in the US is protested, he tried to derail his own thread.

That's a bit cowardly, especially since you said the death penalty wasn't a deterrent. You brought that up, and now you want to stick to the topic.

Prison guards should not die because you are self-righteous or a coward.

The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder, in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment.

And yes, I was part of the derailment of the thread. Now I am trying to get back to the original topic. If you want to call this "cowardly", I would simply laugh at your definition of bravery.

Definately cowardice, and no one should die because you are a coward. A dead person cannot kill. It really is that simple and trying to obfuscate that fact with some gobbledygook which is abjectly absurd as in, "The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder.in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment."

People with far more courage than you or I protect society from low life scumbags. and while we do not have the courage or inclination to do so ourselves, I am not a hypocrite. At least I value then lives of those who do more than your self-righteousness, and frankly stupidity in arguing the point.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since the actual topic, before being derailled, was about equality and not the death penalty, here is a simple reply to using Susan Smith as a singular example. David Berkowitz murdered 6 people (more than Susan Smith) and was not given the death penalty. So equality does not seem to be the issue.

The OP seemed sure that the protests of the execution of the woman in GA was because she was a woman. But when it was pointed out that every execution in the US is protested, he tried to derail his own thread.

That's a bit cowardly, especially since you said the death penalty wasn't a deterrent. You brought that up, and now you want to stick to the topic.

Prison guards should not die because you are self-righteous or a coward.

The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder, in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment.

And yes, I was part of the derailment of the thread. Now I am trying to get back to the original topic. If you want to call this "cowardly", I would simply laugh at your definition of bravery.

Definately cowardice, and no one should die because you are a coward. A dead person cannot kill. It really is that simple and trying to obfuscate that fact with some gobbledygook which is abjectly absurd as in, "The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder.in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment."

People with far more courage than you or I protect society from low life scumbags. and while we do not have the courage or inclination to do so ourselves, I am not a hypocrite. At least I value then lives of those more than I do your self-righteousness, and frankly stupidity in arguing the point.

Oh please. Spare me your attempts at the moral high ground.

When discussing whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, the usual meaning is whether or not it deters others from committing murders. Of course, one the execution takes place the person will not commit any more murders.

But the average length of time an inmate spend on death row is just over 15 years. That is ample time for more murders, and the sentence is obviously not going to deter them.

Death Row Inmates, 1953-2013 - Death Penalty - ProCon.org

That web site's info shows that just under 25% of the inmates placed on death row between 1973 and 2013 were actually executed.

But 58.2% had their sentence or conviction overturned. So in twice as many case there was enough doubt or extenuating circumstances to remove them from death row.

 

[danielpalos]

i won't believe wo-men really want equality until they come up to us and insist it is our turn to use them.

and claim,

even nice girls do, in modern times.

So unless women ask to be used, they aren't really wanting equality? lmao That is hilarious. Demented and sick, but hilarious that you think this.

so, you believe bearing True Witness and not letting us miss our turn is demented and sick?

What about politics: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.--Otto von Bismarck

Yes, I believe that your standard for accepting that women actually WANT equality being that they come up to you and request to be used is demented and sick. That your standards are based on someone requesting that you get what you want and they don't is the antithesis of equality. Please don't mistake your sexual fantasies for reality where equality and women are concerned.

dear, appealing to emotion instead of reason is still a fallacy. And, you seem to be missing the point about morals and morality; are you implying bearing True Witness instead of false witness is of no capital or social value?

Junior, I am not appealing to emotion instead of reason. The fact that you want women to offer themselves up for being used, just to prove they are serious about wanting equality, is not about emotion. It is about your fantasy of women wanting to be used. It is a ridiculous notion.

But please feel free to share why you think that is "bearing True Witness".

no dear; it is about not being a shill for poon; and expecting the same from women.

 

[danielpalos]

i won't believe wo-men really want equality until they come up to us and insist it is our turn to use them.

and claim,

even nice girls do, in modern times.

So unless women ask to be used, they aren't really wanting equality? lmao That is hilarious. Demented and sick, but hilarious that you think this.

so, you believe bearing True Witness and not letting us miss our turn is demented and sick?

What about politics: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.--Otto von Bismarck

Oh, and you don't get a "turn". You get whatever a woman chooses to share with you. And she gets the same.

it is about honesty and equality, dear.

Indeed it is. It is about you being honest that you want women to offer themselves up for being used. And that has nothing to do with equality.

And it is not about you getting your "turn".

dear, it is a figure of speech. why appeal to emotion instead of reason?

 

[danielpalos]

so, you believe bearing True Witness and not letting us miss our turn is demented and sick?

What about politics: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.--Otto von Bismarck

Yes, I believe that your standard for accepting that women actually WANT equality being that they come up to you and request to be used is demented and sick. That your standards are based on someone requesting that you get what you want and they don't is the antithesis of equality. Please don't mistake your sexual fantasies for reality where equality and women are concerned.

dear, appealing to emotion instead of reason is still a fallacy. And, you seem to be missing the point about morals and morality; are you implying bearing True Witness instead of false witness is of no capital or social value?

Junior, I am not appealing to emotion instead of reason. The fact that you want women to offer themselves up for being used, just to prove they are serious about wanting equality, is not about emotion. It is about your fantasy of women wanting to be used. It is a ridiculous notion.

But please feel free to share why you think that is "bearing True Witness".

yes, dear; you are merely appealing to emotion instead of reason. It is about honesty.

No, I am not appealing to emotion. I am simply ridiculing your desire for women to offer themselves up to be used in order to "prove" they want equality. That is not an emotional appeal. I am stating that women should be treated as equals because they ARE equal. There is no legitimate, logical reason for them not to be treated as equals.

still don't get it, do you; it is about honesty.

 

[WinterBorn]

So unless women ask to be used, they aren't really wanting equality? lmao That is hilarious. Demented and sick, but hilarious that you think this.

so, you believe bearing True Witness and not letting us miss our turn is demented and sick?

What about politics: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.--Otto von Bismarck

Yes, I believe that your standard for accepting that women actually WANT equality being that they come up to you and request to be used is demented and sick. That your standards are based on someone requesting that you get what you want and they don't is the antithesis of equality. Please don't mistake your sexual fantasies for reality where equality and women are concerned.

dear, appealing to emotion instead of reason is still a fallacy. And, you seem to be missing the point about morals and morality; are you implying bearing True Witness instead of false witness is of no capital or social value?

Junior, I am not appealing to emotion instead of reason. The fact that you want women to offer themselves up for being used, just to prove they are serious about wanting equality, is not about emotion. It is about your fantasy of women wanting to be used. It is a ridiculous notion.

But please feel free to share why you think that is "bearing True Witness".

no dear; it is about not being a shill for poon; and expecting the same from women.

LOL! It is not being a shill for poon. It is about doing what you can to be what a woman wants to have sex with.

 

[WinterBorn]

So unless women ask to be used, they aren't really wanting equality? lmao That is hilarious. Demented and sick, but hilarious that you think this.

so, you believe bearing True Witness and not letting us miss our turn is demented and sick?

What about politics: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.--Otto von Bismarck

Oh, and you don't get a "turn". You get whatever a woman chooses to share with you. And she gets the same.

it is about honesty and equality, dear.

Indeed it is. It is about you being honest that you want women to offer themselves up for being used. And that has nothing to do with equality.

And it is not about you getting your "turn".

dear, it is a figure of speech. why appeal to emotion instead of reason?

My argument is not about emotion, but about logic.

 

[Meathead]

Since the actual topic, before being derailled, was about equality and not the death penalty, here is a simple reply to using Susan Smith as a singular example. David Berkowitz murdered 6 people (more than Susan Smith) and was not given the death penalty. So equality does not seem to be the issue.

The OP seemed sure that the protests of the execution of the woman in GA was because she was a woman. But when it was pointed out that every execution in the US is protested, he tried to derail his own thread.

That's a bit cowardly, especially since you said the death penalty wasn't a deterrent. You brought that up, and now you want to stick to the topic.

Prison guards should not die because you are self-righteous or a coward.

The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder, in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment.

And yes, I was part of the derailment of the thread. Now I am trying to get back to the original topic. If you want to call this "cowardly", I would simply laugh at your definition of bravery.

Definately cowardice, and no one should die because you are a coward. A dead person cannot kill. It really is that simple and trying to obfuscate that fact with some gobbledygook which is abjectly absurd as in, "The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder.in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment."

People with far more courage than you or I protect society from low life scumbags. and while we do not have the courage or inclination to do so ourselves, I am not a hypocrite. At least I value then lives of those more than I do your self-righteousness, and frankly stupidity in arguing the point.

Oh please. Spare me your attempts at the moral high ground.

When discussing whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, the usual meaning is whether or not it deters others from committing murders. Of course, one the execution takes place the person will not commit any more murders.

But the average length of time an inmate spend on death row is just over 15 years. That is ample time for more murders, and the sentence is obviously not going to deter them.

Death Row Inmates, 1953-2013 - Death Penalty - ProCon.org

That web site's info shows that just under 25% of the inmates placed on death row between 1973 and 2013 were actually executed.

But 58.2% had their sentence or conviction overturned. So in twice as many case there was enough doubt or extenuating circumstances to remove them from death row.

You are adding insult to injury to yourself, oddly enough. Why are these assholes living for decades after they've been convicted since 1953?

One of the main reason was that SCOTUS halted executions for a decade as many of these bastards died of natural causes, and state like California, with about 700 on death row haven't executed anyone in ages. ***** whipped states with ***** whipped courts allowed them to live and gave them the opportunity to kill more people like Thomas Knight:

Thomas Knight #1360

You are a coward and people should not die because of it.

 

[ChrisL]

Since the actual topic, before being derailled, was about equality and not the death penalty, here is a simple reply to using Susan Smith as a singular example. David Berkowitz murdered 6 people (more than Susan Smith) and was not given the death penalty. So equality does not seem to be the issue.

The OP seemed sure that the protests of the execution of the woman in GA was because she was a woman. But when it was pointed out that every execution in the US is protested, he tried to derail his own thread.

That's a bit cowardly, especially since you said the death penalty wasn't a deterrent. You brought that up, and now you want to stick to the topic.

Prison guards should not die because you are self-righteous or a coward.

The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder, in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment.

And yes, I was part of the derailment of the thread. Now I am trying to get back to the original topic. If you want to call this "cowardly", I would simply laugh at your definition of bravery.

Definately cowardice, and no one should die because you are a coward. A dead person cannot kill. It really is that simple and trying to obfuscate that fact with some gobbledygook which is abjectly absurd as in, "The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing a murder.in the normal use of this term as it relates to criminal punishment."

People with far more courage than you or I protect society from low life scumbags. and while we do not have the courage or inclination to do so ourselves, I am not a hypocrite. At least I value then lives of those more than I do your self-righteousness, and frankly stupidity in arguing the point.

Oh please. Spare me your attempts at the moral high ground.

When discussing whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent, the usual meaning is whether or not it deters others from committing murders. Of course, one the execution takes place the person will not commit any more murders.

But the average length of time an inmate spend on death row is just over 15 years. That is ample time for more murders, and the sentence is obviously not going to deter them.

Death Row Inmates, 1953-2013 - Death Penalty - ProCon.org

That web site's info shows that just under 25% of the inmates placed on death row between 1973 and 2013 were actually executed.

But 58.2% had their sentence or conviction overturned. So in twice as many case there was enough doubt or extenuating circumstances to remove them from death row.

You are adding insult to injury to yourself, oddly enough. Why are these assholes living for decades after they've been convicted since 1953?

One of the main reason was that SCOTUS halted executions for a decade as many of these bastards died of natural causes, and state like California, with about 700 on death row haven't executed anyone in ages. ***** whipped states with ***** whipped courts allowed them to live and gave them the opportunity to kill more people like Thomas Knight:

Thomas Knight #1360

You are a coward and people should not die because of it.

Life in prison is a much worse punishment than death! Once your dead, you're dead! That's it!

 

[danielpalos]

so, you believe bearing True Witness and not letting us miss our turn is demented and sick?

What about politics: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.--Otto von Bismarck

Yes, I believe that your standard for accepting that women actually WANT equality being that they come up to you and request to be used is demented and sick. That your standards are based on someone requesting that you get what you want and they don't is the antithesis of equality. Please don't mistake your sexual fantasies for reality where equality and women are concerned.

dear, appealing to emotion instead of reason is still a fallacy. And, you seem to be missing the point about morals and morality; are you implying bearing True Witness instead of false witness is of no capital or social value?

Junior, I am not appealing to emotion instead of reason. The fact that you want women to offer themselves up for being used, just to prove they are serious about wanting equality, is not about emotion. It is about your fantasy of women wanting to be used. It is a ridiculous notion.

But please feel free to share why you think that is "bearing True Witness".

no dear; it is about not being a shill for poon; and expecting the same from women.

LOL! It is not being a shill for poon. It is about doing what you can to be what a woman wants to have sex with.

dear; some on the left don't feel the need to bear false witness to a god, merely prove our loyalty to the Animal Kingdom.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, I believe that your standard for accepting that women actually WANT equality being that they come up to you and request to be used is demented and sick. That your standards are based on someone requesting that you get what you want and they don't is the antithesis of equality. Please don't mistake your sexual fantasies for reality where equality and women are concerned.

dear, appealing to emotion instead of reason is still a fallacy. And, you seem to be missing the point about morals and morality; are you implying bearing True Witness instead of false witness is of no capital or social value?

Junior, I am not appealing to emotion instead of reason. The fact that you want women to offer themselves up for being used, just to prove they are serious about wanting equality, is not about emotion. It is about your fantasy of women wanting to be used. It is a ridiculous notion.

But please feel free to share why you think that is "bearing True Witness".

no dear; it is about not being a shill for poon; and expecting the same from women.

LOL! It is not being a shill for poon. It is about doing what you can to be what a woman wants to have sex with.

dear; some on the left don't feel the need to bear false witness to a god, merely prove our loyalty to the Animal Kingdom.

OMG. Shut up, will you?

 

[Meathead]

Life in prison is a much worse punishment than death! Once your dead, you're dead! That's it!

We had an absurd exchange about Syrian refugees and so I know you're a dingbat, but could you try to explain why the condemned fight tooth and nail to stay alive?

 

[danielpalos]

dear, appealing to emotion instead of reason is still a fallacy. And, you seem to be missing the point about morals and morality; are you implying bearing True Witness instead of false witness is of no capital or social value?

Junior, I am not appealing to emotion instead of reason. The fact that you want women to offer themselves up for being used, just to prove they are serious about wanting equality, is not about emotion. It is about your fantasy of women wanting to be used. It is a ridiculous notion.

But please feel free to share why you think that is "bearing True Witness".

no dear; it is about not being a shill for poon; and expecting the same from women.

LOL! It is not being a shill for poon. It is about doing what you can to be what a woman wants to have sex with.

dear; some on the left don't feel the need to bear false witness to a god, merely prove our loyalty to the Animal Kingdom.

OMG. Shut up, will you?

dear, there is a reason women are only worth more in the porn sector.